For my whole life, I've always had a deep admiration for figures such as Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Sulla, etc. for being able to march with their armies and forcibly take power for the greater good of the nation.
However, I'm finding this difficult to logically explain why they were in the right. If they had failed to seize power in the capital, wouldn't they just go down as failed terrorists and enemies of the State? Furthermore, if they had a moral right to violate the law and seize power, wouldn't this mean that anyone willing to attack the government with the 'greater good' in mind is also right?
Kinda a newfag in philosophical thought though, so apologies
pic unrelated
Michael Fisher
You like mussolinis march on rome too?
Ethan Robinson
>greater good
Carter Collins
It takes balls to challenge the status quo, and it takes strength of character to get people to go along with that challenge. These are things which can be admired separate from the end results of those challenges.
Austin Wood
Not bait. Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar achieved far more and united the people, rather than the faggots in the Senate who just bickered among themselves.
Sebastian White
>Was Caesar wrong to march on Rome? Define wrong. Caesar could certainly claim to have grievances with the senate, but legally speaking he had no right to do what he did.
Matthew Price
The Senate was killing people like Caesar left and right. Caesar had the people on his side. Not everyone who siezes power is good, but Caesar did good things for the people.
The Senate and pretty much everything was super corrupt at the time.
Owen Edwards
>The Senate was killing people like Caesar left and right. Like who? If anything the opposite. The senate was held by the balls by Pompey after Crassus died, and the picentine asshole was trying to shut down Caesar politically. Pompey was the same exact type of politician as Caesar, if nowhere near as good. That civil war was a power spat between faction leaders more than something ideological. The populares vs optimates ideological conflict ended with the first triumvirate.
Colton Nelson
>Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar achieved far more and united the people, rather than the faggots in the Senate who just bickered among themselves.
Of course you can only say that with all the wisdom of hind legs...
James James
>It takes balls to challenge the status quo
Great arrogance could easily be substituted there.
>and it takes strength of character to get people to go along with that
Manipulative rhetoric and a masses of people who are complete idiots could also be substituted in there.
