Greater man: Cicero or Julius Caesar

[Ironduke]

So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not dedicated to the idea of Liberty? Afterall they both held slaves and never "did anything about it" at least until they died.

They were dedicated to the liberty of those they felt deserved it. If I had lived back then, it would have been illegal for me to vote.

Say someone shoots one of my family members do I not have the right to kill him without sending him to trial?

If it is wrong, then why?

Cicero's actions were unconstitional. Under no system do you have the right to engage in vigilante killing, if you do, you would go to prison. You are comparing apples and oranges anyways.

Just because he wasn't a philosopher doesn't mean you can ignore his philosophical beliefs. Which as you said stem from Greece. Caeser destroyed the last peices of the Republic, he and the future emporers destroyed everything Rome stood for.

No, he didn't destroy the republic. The republic had already been destroyed before he was appointed dictator, when it expanded from a city-state into an empire two centuries before, and during the power politics of the 1st century B.C. The Roman Senate was little more than a city-council, and Rome had been an empire for quite some time before the rise of Julius Caesar.

But the Emporer held the actual power. Also keep in mind that voting is not a right, it is a practicle measure to check the Governments power.

Who's talking about emperors?

So pointing a gun at someones head and demanding money is only extortion "some of the time"?

I've never had a gun held to my head at the checkout aisle at Target when they calculated sales tax, so I must never have been extorted.

What is the moral difference between the Government extorting money and an individual?

You're changing the subject. I'm not debating about taxes.

Oh what a rediculus statement, Caeser never had a plan to seriously restore the Republic. Any progress Caeser made was built on a pyramid of quicksand, namely imperial tyranny.

Caesar was neither harsh or cruel in his governing. He was not an oppressor, he was not totalitarian. He did not seek to set up a hereditary monarchy either. All of these things took form after his assassination.

You have always proclaimed how Western civilization is supreme, you know what I've noticed? We are using the Roman alphabet, we use a slightly modified version of the Julian calendar, hundreds of words derived from Latin have been used in this thread. Everyday I see technology such as arches, concrete, and even domes used. All part of the legacy handed down to us from the Romans, the most pivotal of who was none other than Julius Caesar.

[Praxus]

We seem to be getting off topic significantly here. So I will put forth my points in a clear concise way about Cicero being a greater champion of liberty then Caeser.

1.) Given there were slave revolts in the ancient world, but no one viewed slavery as wrong, not even the slaves. The slaves simply wished the roles to be reversed or for them to simply not be slaves. There was no abolitionist movement or principled stand against the institution of slavery. So comparing Caeser and Cicero on this issue is completly rediculus as neither believed it to be wrong.

2.) I am not putting an argument in defense of the decaying republic at the time of Cicero(which as you rightly stated was corrupt and no longer a republic) but of true republican principles.

3.) Anything positive that Julius Caeser had done was built on quicksand. The destruction of the last vestages of Republicanism doomed Rome to inevitable death.

4.) Cicero's work shows Ciceros philosophical dedication to the system of rights and the Republican form of Government. It may not have been rights for everyone, but a system of rights and "natural law" none the less. The same can not be said about Caeser.

All of this being said, it is very complicated to make a proper moral evaluation of historical figures as there is many things we do not know and there are so many factors to take into account.

So for now we can agree to disagree.

[Ironduke]

We seem to be getting off topic significantly here. So I will put forth my points in a clear concise way about Cicero being a greater champion of liberty then Caeser.

If I remember correctly, and I believe I do, the debate isn't about who was a greater champion of liberty, Cicero or Caesar, it was who was a greater man, Cicero or Caesar. Your rationale for selecting Cicero was because you believe he was great champion of liberty.

1.) Given there were slave revolts in the ancient world, but no one viewed slavery as wrong, not even the slaves. The slaves simply wished the roles to be reversed or for them to simply not be slaves. There was no abolitionist movement or principled stand against the institution of slavery. So comparing Caeser and Cicero on this issue is completly rediculus as neither believed it to be wrong.

Slavery is the most extreme violation of individual liberty, it's no wonder they desired not to be slaves. They had no rights. Their status was no better than that of animals, they couldn't own anything, they were completely at the mercy of their owners.

I wasn't comparing Caesar to Cicero on the subject, other than I mentioned the fact that Caesar forced large landowners to hire one-third of their labor from freemen. I was pointing out that Cicero's championing of liberty was limited to a select part of the population, and that he was a hypocrite.

2.) I am not putting an argument in defense of the decaying republic at the time of Cicero(which as you rightly stated was corrupt and no longer a republic) but of true republican principles.

Ok.

3.) Anything positive that Julius Caeser had done was built on quicksand. The destruction of the last vestages of Republicanism doomed Rome to inevitable death.

Rome had had dictators before, Caesar was certainly not the first. Such a position was even provided for in the Roman constitution. The "destruction of the last vestiges of republicanism" occurred after the assassination of Caesar.

Caesar's positive accomplishments, as I have already stated, resonate to this day. Rome was falling apart at the seams, and Caesar was the glue that held it together for that precarious decade. The Empire that arose out of the ashes of the second civil war in 27 B.C. was a direct consequence of his assassination, and it was not part of his grand design. That being said, the Empire preserved Rome's legacy and institutions that we take for granted today.

4.) Cicero's work shows Ciceros philosophical dedication to the system of rights and the Republican form of Government. It may not have been rights for everyone, but a system of rights and "natural law" none the less. The same can not be said about Caeser.

Caesar was a very prolific writer and speaker, unfortunately, almost none of his political writings or speeches have survived to this date, with the exception of his commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars. Cicero had the good fortune of having his works survive to this date, something that is more happenstance than anything else.

Caesar may have replaced an inefficient oligarchy with an autocracy, but he was not totalitarian or tyrannical in his method of governance. He did not trample on individual liberties as Hitler or Stalin did. He even extended protections to Romans against such violations. He was merciful to those he defeated, which ultimately proved to be his undoing.

The problem with comparing Caesar and Cicero is that they fall into different paradigms. They were contemporaries, but not peers. A far more valid comparison could be made of Caesar and Pompey, or Cato and Cicero.

[Praxus]

If I remember correctly, and I believe I do, the debate isn't about who was a greater champion of liberty, Cicero or Caesar, it was who was a greater man, Cicero or Caesar. Your rationale for selecting Cicero was because you believe he was great champion of liberty.

I also believe that people who support liberty are greater men then thoose who don't.

Slavery is the most extreme violation of individual liberty, it's no wonder they desired not to be slaves. They had no rights. Their status was no better than that of animals, they couldn't own anything, they were completely at the mercy of their owners.

I agree.

But if two people support slavery and one of them supports liberty for at least a segment of the population would it not be a logical thing to call the person who supports liberty for at least a segment of the populatuon a greater champion of liberty?

Caesar was a very prolific writer and speaker, unfortunately, almost none of his political writings or speeches have survived to this date, with the exception of his commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars. Cicero had the good fortune of having his works survive to this date, something that is more happenstance than anything else.

Note my last statement in my previous post.

[ZFBoxcar]

I could be wrong and this might be from the play Julius Caesar rather than historical fact, but didn't Caesar turn down the crown 3 times so as to avoid changing from from being officially republican to officially monarchy (keeping in mind it was no longer really a republic in fact, but only in name). His assasins feared his arrogance would lead to him forming a dynasty, but they killed him (leading to the formation of his dynasty) before he had a chance to prove them right or wrong.

[Praxus]

I wouldn't doubt it. The Romans hated the idea of Rome as a Kingdom (remember they had several kings before the Republic). So Caeser of course did not want to label himself King. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong on this.

[Ironduke]

I also believe that people who support liberty are greater men then thoose who don't.

Well, again, Caesar was not a detractor of individual liberties.

I wouldn't doubt it. The Romans hated the idea of Rome as a Kingdom (remember they had several kings before the Republic). So Caeser of course did not want to label himself King. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong on this.

Caesar himself said "Caesarem se, non regem esse" (My name is Caesar, not king)

[prima_phalanx]

Difficult question !..

Both Cicero and Ceasar have favourable aspects towards each other. While Ceasar was in the exertion to widen the representation of the senate and make the senate a political institution representing all social classes' interests, Cicero aimed at establishing the order of equestrian-patrician unification. However, Ceasar was also in the purpose of making himself the perpetual dictator and this target of him led to his death. Whereas, Cicero tried to turn back to real republican institutions, but not through the way of giving the sovereignty to the public. All things considered, I think that Cicero is more preferable than Ceasar. According to me, Gaius Gracchius is the best in Roman history!..

Thanks for your attention,
Çağrı Savcı

[Hawk_eye]

Cicero was always shadowed by Ceaser, and i am suprised besides his Law Maiking skills he didnt not do much else, and his death was equally unpleasant... Although he too was a great man, i will have to give my vote to Ceasar!

Hail the King!

[Veni Vidi Vici]

Caeser was also a looter, murderer, and plunderer. He may have walked the walk but in by book it should be right to the Gallows.

Caesar set the standard for the next few thousand years of French military history... how can you hate him.

[Praxus]

LOL I've changed my opinion of Caeser since then. Still don't think he's as great as people make him out to be.

[Broken]

Cicero ignored the rule of law, having men executed without even a trial. Cicero championed a farcical, ineffectual, incompetent, corrupt, obsolete aristocrat-controlled republic. He was shrill, elitist, Ivy League, draft dodging, and was self-ingratiating. His philosophy was stale and unoriginal. He was a 1st century B.C. John Kerry.

John Kerry was not a draft dodger nor did he use his position to avoid combat. You are confusing him with someone else. I will agree with your other points on Cicero, better as an orator than a doer. Caeser was a doer of the highest order. None the less, the Roman republic died under Caeser. Not entirely his fault.

Dictatorships can, on occasion, do well under an enlightened dictator, The trouble is, they are inevitably followed sooner or later by some complete fool.

[Ambiorix]

The Roman Empire was at it's best moments under Julius Caeser.

No, the Roman empire was at its greatest under Augustus.

I voted for Cicero though. Julius Caesar ironically enough -and in part- destroyed Rome's future by setting all the tables for an empire. (other's like Marius and Sulla proceeded him by making the army a mercenary army, but Caesar was started the era of emperors). Empires are great during the life of a great emperor, but they usually crumble and fall under weaker successors.

[Trajan]

The better man? Quite a difference for them to be compared in that way. Cicero was the great orator, while Ceaser was the better general and populist among the people. So...its not much more than that. Comparing long dead men by their life-styles is useless and does not give justice to either men since neither is here to defend his actions.

Have to remember that we have the advantage of hindsight. Not to mention that things like slavery were common-place for them, and not a horrid thing nor unnatural to them. You need to "slip into their shoes" so to speak, if you plan on trying to judge them.

[Ironduke]

No, the Roman empire was at its greatest under Augustus.

I voted for Cicero though. Julius Caesar ironically enough -and in part- destroyed Rome's future by setting all the tables for an empire. (other's like Marius and Sulla proceeded him by making the army a mercenary army, but Caesar was started the era of emperors). Empires are great during the life of a great emperor, but they usually crumble and fall under weaker successors.

Most nations that have existed have fallen. It's just the course of history. The Empire, however, lasted until 1453.