Caesar did nothing wrong...right?

The only thing Caesar did wrong was let his enemies live. He knew he would look like a tyrant if he killed off his enemies in the Senate outright.

He didn't do anything wrong. The citizens of Rome were out of work. Rome's recent successes around the Mediterranean brought in a ton of slaves who took all the work. The only ones rich enough to own slaves were Senators, and thus were getting all the work orders and commissions.

They wouldn't allow another large-scale war, so Caesar funded it himself. He marched into Gaul, got rich as fuck doing it, and came back a hero, promising to use his wealth to make a massive series of public works that would employ veterans and citizens.

There was nothing he did that wasn't for the people. Whether he was a tyrant or not isn't important-- the fact that he was respected by his friends and enemies shows that he was in the right.

This, Caesar was on the side of the people and not the few. He was on the right side of history, like Lenin or Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders.

It's typical of right wing capitalists who want to preserve the status quo to assassinate popular left wing leaders.

He did enslave lots of people and nowadays that tends to be frowned upon.

Caesar instigated a war with the Gauls just to increase his personal holdings and prestige. He crossed the channel and invaded Britain just to do it, risking legions on his adventurism and for very little gain. He's not a hero, but he's not really a villain either. The Senate and in fact the entire structure of the Republic was unsustainable, and everyone had known it since the Gracchi. Rome was going to have more civil wars and it was only a matter of time before someone less noble than Cincinnatus or less autistic than Sulla was going to put themselves in charge and just stay there.

Depends too hugely on how you define "doing something wrong."

The entire Roman system was set up to limit the power of any one man over the rest, with all levels of magistrate have annual terms and co-equals who could veto them, with the Tribunes of the people able to veto with abandon or call assemblies to pass laws (into which patricians could not even enter)

There was one office that had no co-equal, had to be obeyed and could not be held to account in court afterward -- the Dictator. Bu the Dictatorship was severally limited in time, the term of a Dictator was supposed to be only 6 months.

Sulla fucked that up, by accepting a Dictatorship that was open-ended -- he'd step down when he thought the job was done. He got away with it because he was more than happy to slaughter as many opponents as it took to keep things under control. And then he surprised everybody by declaring, "That's it, jobs done, I've restored the state, hooray for me, I am now retiring to fuck girls, boys, wildebeests, aurochs and anything else my old-man dick can fit into until I die."

This set a precedent for a longer dictatorship, but ...

Continues below

Continuing...

also set more firmly into the law that doing what Sulla did was wrong that power should be limited, that the traditional ways in which the Roman state worked were to be respected.

Now Caesar's provocations were great. The Optimates were, in his case, obstructive for the sake of obstruction. They did not so much object to any specific thing he wanted done as object to him personally.

Having won his civil war with the Optimates (including a very short stint as Dictator to preside over elections at a time when no magistrates were in the city to do so) he tried to step back into a semi-normal civilian structure. His policy of mercy to defeated foes meant he still ahad a number of political enemies in Rome, who now also resented him for the perceived snootiness of "I am more important than you, I can grant pardons on my own to political enemies as if they were criminals."

He also was somewhat low on good administrators he could leave in charge of Rome while he went east to fight one more glorious war against a foreign foe.

And there sat Sulla's precedent, just hanging there begging to be considered.

Caesar's huge mistake was accepting the Dictatorship, to allow him to technically be over any fools the voters might pick as Consuls while he was gone) -- he accepted it being made for life, even worse than Sulla's innovation and particularly dangerous in a climate where he was being accused of wanting to be a king. He accepted it when the state was crawling with people who had been willing to fight a civil war against him very recently. And he accepted it to no purpose, since though he'd TECHNICALLY outrank any Consuls at home, he'd be too far from home for this to make any practical difference.

So what Caesar did wrong was -- he made a mockery of one of the oldest and most sacred traditions of the Roman state, for little real gain and in an atmosphere where it was unlikely to be accepted.

It was part of his plan all along, he even had Marc Antony offer to put a crown on his head to see how the public would react. Only when they went dead silent (the Roman equvilant of booing) did he refuse the crown and claim that only Jupiter was king in Rome (playing the religious card, typical right winger).

>Lenin or Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders.
Comparing Caesar to those three limp wristed commie faggots.

Suck a dick you leftist shill. Go back and shit up /pol/

Fuck off to Kekistan /pol/tard and never come back to Veeky Forums. You are not welcome here.

>He knew he would look like a tyrant if he killed off his enemies in the Senate outright.

He looked like one anyway when he accepted a life Dictatorship.

>The citizens of Rome were out of work.
Rome's recent successes around the Mediterranean brought in a ton of slaves who took all the work.

Source for this in Caesar's time?

>The only ones rich enough to own slaves were Senators, and thus were getting all the work orders and commissions.

This is nonsense. The definition of being abjectly poor in Rome was to be unable to afford a slave. Most people had at least one slave -- female preferred, since not only could you get your cooking and cleaning done, but... ahem. Senators could not engage in commerce, so could not be directly renting out their slaves to "do all the work."


>There was nothing he did that wasn't for the people.

Well...
He was a Popularis by nature, politically, Do not conflate that with similar modern political terms. He recognized that the populace as a whole was a potent force in Roman politics, and a source of power for a politician.

To what extent, if any, he wanted to put a chicken in every pot and a new chariot in every garage is not really knowable any more.

>Whether he was a tyrant or not isn't important--

Not any more, I guess.

>the fact that he was respected by his friends and enemies shows that he was in the right.
That respect did not stop 30 of them from sticking a knife in him.

>This, Caesar was on the side of the people and not the few. He was on the right side of history, like Lenin or Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders.

Caesar (or any Roman politician, really) can't be compared to modern politicians and assumed to have shared ideologies. Their political world was just too different, and they lived within a very different society.
>It's typical of right wing capitalists who want to preserve the status quo to assassinate popular left wing leaders.

Caesar was a Roman politician (which includes concepts not necessarily part of our modern concept of politicians, such as "Military General and "Priest of Religion," among others.) He was a Patrician who knew he was descended from the Goddess Venus, last in the line of a family who had been important in Rome since the beginning. He had duties to his family,, to his clients, to his soldiers, to his society that did not often line up well with those a modern politician recognizes.

Caesar was what and who he was, don;t underestimate that trying to make him fit into some inappropriate modern shoe box.

I am not a kekifuck or poltard, I am brown and hate communism. You are just lame leftist whitey trying to suck on brown dick to be an 'ally'

Caesar was a man of the people who the Senate murdered due to theri loss of prestige and power after Caesers Gaul Campaign. He was planning on marching on the Parthians when he was murdered. Those are not actions of limp wristed commie faggots, but of a manly man who is in charge, neither of which you know much about being a leftist shill for commie cunts.

>nowadays that tends to be frowned upon.

Thenadays, though, not so much.

The "chop the hands off of everybody in this tribe and send them away as an example because I have had e-fucking-nough of these fucking Gauls pretending to submit then rebelling again the next fucking day, I am pissed and not putting up with this shit any more and I do not care who knows it!" moment also would not fly these days. Raised a few eyebrows even then.

>typical right winger
Oh shut up.

>I am not a kekifuck or poltard, I am brown and hate communism. You are just lame leftist whitey trying to suck on brown dick to be an 'ally'

You are a fucking idiot and have no grasp or understanding of history. Go read a book before posting here again. Start with Plutarch, or even the Gallic Wars.

>He was planning on marching on the Parthians when he was murdered.

No he wasn't. He saw what a fiasco that was for Crassus and had no plans for losing anymore blood or treasure in that fight.

>Those are not actions of limp wristed commie faggots, but of a manly man who is in charge, neither of which you know much about being a leftist shill for commie cunts.

It's too poetic that a right-wing kekistani would call the Queen of Bithynia manly man.

Not that guy, but you are equating some literal nobodies who never worked in their lives to one of the most brilliant military commanders of the antiquity.

>brilliant military commanders of the antiquity
Is this pleb serious?

>It was part of his plan all along, he even had Marc Antony offer to put a crown on his head to see how the public would react. Only when they went dead silent (the Roman equvilant of booing) did he refuse the crown and claim that only Jupiter was king in Rome


That is one interpretation. Another is that Antonius cooked this shit up on his on because he was a loose fucking cannon and had nary a brain in his punkin heid when he was drunk, and that an embarrassed Caesar thought fast and sent that shit off to Jupiter's temple.

An interesting third possibility is that Antonius was already sufficiently in contact with the conspirators to act as their agent in setting a trap, which Caesar was either too smart to fall into or just didn't want to be king.

Finnally, it is possible that Caesar asked Antonius to try to tie the Diabem around his head specifically so that he, Caesar< could get pissed off and refuse it in a very public place and pput a stop to the lie that he wanted to be king once and for all -- if that's the case, it didn't work.

Figuring out the secret motives of people who lived 2000+ years ago, most of whom did not leave us their day-journals, is a bit tricky.

>Figuring out the secret motives of people who lived 2000+ years ago, most of whom did not leave us their day-journals, is a bit tricky.

But isn't that why we're here?

>Caesar was not a brilliant commander

If you keep feeding him, it makes him stay around longer.

>Caesar a better military commander than Marius or Sulla

Caesar being one of the brilliant commanders does not mean that Marius was not another one.

Fun Fact: Marius married Caesar's Aunt Julia. There is no surviving evidence that I know of, but I do like to picture the young Caesar listening to war stories from the Old Master, and quietly filing it all away for the future...

Have I ever said he was better than them?

Sure -- but stating so definitively that THIS is why Caesar did something" is not usually possible. Looking at options, weighting evidence, comparing what he (or others) did at either times, that's fun.

So I tossed some other options out there that fit the facts as we know them.

That would be pretty great, considering how Marius himself was basically a fanboy of Scipio Africanus, who supposedly chose Marius as his 'heir' in generalship, maybe Marius choose Caesar as his heir to get revenge against Sulla and his lackey Pompey.

Well, Plutarch pretty much agrees with the original interpretation casting Caesar as a opportunist looking to get a crown and hoping for popular acclaim but demurring when he didn't get it.

Paging Dr. Illuminati!

No, I kid.

It's interesting that it worked out that way, though. I wonder if Caesar was planning on training Gaius Octavius in the same way, and if so at whom he intended to aim him?

"I see many a Marius in him." - Sulla in regards to Caesar

Honestly? I'd say Antoninus, which is exactly what happened in the end.

Yes, and Plutarch was writing about 150 years later, and was writing history with a theme -- which means that he'd happily record what could be shown to really have happened if it didn't conflict with his theme, and would happily improve the story to make the theme more strongly supported.

He did not know Caesar, or Antonius, and was in no real position to know what they had or had not secretly planned.

So he guessed, without going to look I'd be willing to bet he followed Cicero on this -- Cicero had his good points, but being aware of what Caesar's actual plans and strategies were and being impartial in recording them would not be among them.

Which is not to say this interpretation must be wrong -- just saying I don't find Plutarch's say-so a compelling piece of evidence.

Which is funny, in light of what happened -- shoulda seen many Sullas in him.

Antonius? Or I missed your point.

All sort of moot, the ol' boy died before he could really begin the political or military training of Octavius. Who did astonishingly well for himself...

Do we even have any contemporary sources whatsoever about this? I mean people shit on Suetonius and Plutarch but they're all we have.

>The only thing Caesar did wrong was let his enemies live

or you know, genociding a whole culture of people literally just fishing for their independence, leaving millions dead I'm such a brutal way that even other ancient Romans were disgusted by it

Caesar was Populare scum.

Yeah he means Marc Antony. I know on Veeky Forums we hate to use the Shakespeare version of his name because of autism but it's really just easier and it always leads you directly to the right historical figure.

Though really, Octavius knew his skills lie in civil administration rather than generalship and it's a testament to his own intelligence that rather than indulge in the usual Roman ego trip of being the head of state and head of the army he just put the whole thing in the hands of more competent commanders like Agrippa.

We have Cicero for a lot of what happened in this time -- contemporary, but biased, as he was an active participant and anti-Caesar. I do not recall off the top of my head if he referred to the diadem incident in any surviving writing.

We have Caesar in his Gallic Wars (which would precede the diadem offer) and his lieutenants who wrote or finished his accounts of the Civil Wars.

We have more primary sources with first hand knowledge for this general era than for most. But way fewer than what I suspect most non-historians assume we have.

>it's really just easier and it always leads you directly to the right historical figure.


I'm thinking of a "Caesar" between 1 and 10...

>rather than indulge in the usual Roman ego trip of being the head of state and head of the army he just put the whole thing in the hands of more competent commanders like Agrippa.


Yes and no -- he did keep doing things like commanding a Nazy (that was wrecked) and such. Being a successful military man was soemthing he needed for his resume as Leader, it was a bit ore than just an ego trip.

But yeah, he was smart enough to leave most of the fighting to the guy he could trust who was good at it.

I wish we had more Juvenal.

I mean in the sense that being able to get elected Consul was not a sign of military acumen. I guess maybe Hannibal finally taught the lesson that being good at politics meant jack shit on the battlefield after he killed like, four?

>You are a fucking idiot and have no grasp or understanding of history. Go read a book before posting here again. Start with Plutarch, or even the Gallic Wars.
Hahaha leftist kike is mad that he got blown the fuck out!
>he reads plutarch
Try Livy you cuck.

>No he wasn't. He saw what a fiasco that was for Crassus and had no plans for losing anymore blood or treasure in that fight.
AHAHAHAHAH! Go read some Suetonius
"that inasmuch as it was written in the books of fate that the Parthians could be conquered only by a king, Caesar should be given that title."

>It's too poetic that a right-wing kekistani would call the Queen of Bithynia manly man.
In Rome that was about the impression of manly man, just like in Greece the Theban sacred band thought fucking each other in the ass made them divinely bonded and had their ass handed to them in Chaeronia by Phillip.

Wow, you really are rectally devastated that I called you out on not knowing shit?

>Try Livy you cuck
I've read all of Livy, I can guarantee you've read none.

>AHAHAHAHAH! Go read some Suetonius
At what point are you going to cite some evidence that Caesar had any actual plans for doing this? You haven't yet, oh that's right there isn't any.

>In Rome that was about the impression of manly man
No, being a sub like you and taking it in the ass was the exact opposite of being a manly man in Roman society. I know you like to justify being an MRA while Tyrone is plowing your ass but it's just not backed up by history.

>Wow, you really are rectally devastated that I called you out on not knowing shit?
Leftist cuck is ducking and dodging.
>I've read all of Livy
They dont teach livy in 6th grade you cuck you probably read footnotes on a wikipedia page.

>At what point are you going to cite some evidence that Caesar had any actual plans for doing this? You haven't yet, oh that's right there isn't any.

He had made his plans and preparations for an expedition against the Parthians; after conquering them he proposed to march round the Black Sea by way of Hyrcania, the Caspian Sea, and the Caucasus; he would then invade Scythia,- Life of Julius Caesar c[58.6]

Such a fucking lying cuck you are.

>No, being a sub like you and taking it in the ass was the exact opposite of being a manly man in Roman society. I know you like to justify being an MRA while Tyrone is plowing your ass but it's just not backed up by history.
You can try and sound like any more of a bitch you jumped up shit. Ahahaha cant believe how mad you are about someone not believing your lies.

You sound so mad right now, it's pathetic.

>They dont teach livy in 6th grade you cuck you probably read footnotes on a wikipedia page.

I've read all of Livy, your entire understanding of Roman history no doubt comes from /pol/ infographics or, at best, Gibbon. That's why you need to go back to your containment board and stay there.

>Such a fucking lying cuck you are.
I said evidence, no hearsay.

>You can try and sound like any more of a bitch you jumped up shit.
Are you denying that being the submissive was a sign of femininity in Roman sexuality? I noticed you didn't deny you take in the ass, which makes sense considering your politics.

Serious question, what's wrong with Gibbon?

He tries to inject too much of his personal politics against Jews and Christians into discussion of history.

>I've read all of Livy, your entire understanding of Roman history no doubt comes from /pol/ infographics or, at best, Gibbon. That's why you need to go back to your containment board and stay there.
Yes grasp at more straws and assumption you cuckold.
>You sound so mad right now, it's pathetic.
Now look into a mirror and repeat those words, you will have a self realisation.

>I said evidence, no hearsay.
Life of Julius Caesar c[58.6] I already said it
>provide evidence
>ignores it like a cuck because he wants to be right not truthful
>typical cuck behaviour

>Are you denying that being the submissive was a sign of femininity in Roman sexuality?
Are you?
>I noticed you didn't deny you take in the ass, which makes sense considering your politics.
Because me denying something at this stage of the conversation is somehow going to set a precedent that you would willingly accept? I have never taken it up the pooper if you are that keen on my sex life.

If you dont believe it you are just a fag wanting to peg a strange guy on the internet but cant.

You truly are the greatest cuckold, even beating out old ceaser

>Are you?
No, moron, I'm the one who brought it up after your limp wristed attempt at defending Caesar being a fuckboi. Clearly, you're admitting you were wrong and now just dodging it. Typical of a right-wing liar and semen-slurper.

>I have never taken it up the pooper
Calling you out on yet another lie.

>You truly are the greatest cuckhold
Now you're the one clearly looking in a mirror, which makes sense, you want to be able to see the bull's face but you're too demure to turn and watch.

>Calling you out on yet another lie.
Why are you imagining yourself fucking me like the fag you are?

>Now you're the one clearly looking in a mirror, which makes sense, you want to be able to see the bull's face but you're too demure to turn and watch.
Sounds like you are speaking from experience of getting plowed by some 'bull'. Wouldnt you rather just call him your dad though?

>No, moron, I'm the one who brought it up after your limp wristed attempt at defending Caesar being a fuckboi. Clearly, you're admitting you were wrong and now just dodging it. Typical of a right-wing liar and semen-slurper.
Try harder, sounds like you are pretty desperate since you have been proven wrong, grasp at more straws and prove yourself more desperate, that is the leftwing way right? Dont forget to complain like the bitch you are.

Just admit that you dont know shit about caeser or that he wanted to invade Parthia.

I guarantee I know more about Caesar than you who google'd one source to fit with what /pol/ told you. You're the one who tried to pretend he was a 'manly man' and didn't even know what I was talking about when I mentioned the Queen of Bithynia. You're just so pathetically unlettered it's sad. You should just stop, go back into hiding or even better go back to your containment board.

>I guarantee I know more about Caesar than you who google'd one source to fit with what /pol/ told you. You're the one who tried to pretend he was a 'manly man' and didn't even know what I was talking about when I mentioned the Queen of Bithynia. You're just so pathetically unlettered it's sad. You should just stop, go back into hiding or even better go back to your containment board.

Complain more leftist cuck, you have nothing of value to say anymore, that creeping realization and the heavy heart you feel is defeat, you maybe used to it, so you are projecting words like pathetic and sad without a hint of irony and this whole "who google'd one source to fit with what /pol/ told you" conspiracy theory which you ascribe to because you think you are the only one with all knowledge of Rome.

You are just as reliant on 'primary sources' as everyone else, including me, discounting it because it makes you feel better is the typical leftist douchebag tactics because you dont understand any proper context of an argument let along a discussion, this really lets me know who you are, which you yourself are confused about because your soft head is filled with lies of commonality and false community because it sounds good, so you get mad and all this hubris and commit mental gymnatsics the moment that view is questioned leading you to desperately prove someone wrong on a mongolian sockpuppet forum. How sad and depressed are you really?

Stop posturing and be honest.

>conspiracy theory which you ascribe to because you think you are the only one with all knowledge of Rome.
I don't think I alone have all knowledge or Rome, I just know unequivocally that you do not. You kept saying 'manly man' and then trailed off on some ridiculous tangent about the Thebans when we never even mentioned Greece once here. You did this because you had no understanding of Roman views of sexuality, so you made up for it by talking about Greek sexuality. Look, it's okay that you don't know and you're obviously insecure because you're a right-winger so you know you're already viewed as anti-intellectual for good reason. Just admit you were wrong and try to do better. That's all you need to do is show some humility, don't be like your moronic leader Donald Trump and keep doubling down on being stupid.

Fuck off Commie

Kill yourself.

>don't be like your moronic leader Donald Trump and keep doubling down on being stupid.
What the fuck does that even mean? I dont even live in US and having a different opinion to you is not congregated on the precedence of a monolith. Its like me accusing you of being a puppet of Stalin and the NKVD, it would make no sense.

>Look, it's okay that you don't know and you're obviously insecure because you're a right-winger so you know you're already viewed as anti-intellectual for good reason.
As opposed to your being epitome of intellectual might. The left is just as anti-intellectual as the right when inconvenienced by facts. I am neither a faggy liberal or some retard conservacuck.

>Just admit you were wrong and try to do better.
If only you could follow what you are spouting you wouldn't find yourself in this ridiculous conversation.

>He was on the right side of history, like Lenin or Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders.

It was a lesson that had to be relearned at least through the several Consular armies lost before Marius was elected to his second Consulship, specifically on his strengths as a general, and sent north to fight the various tribes pressing Italy from the North at that time.

Still, in spite of some general/consuls-proconsuls being military morons, the system worked pretty well. AT least, by the time a man was elected Consul, he would have had SOME military experience, and he would have known from childhood that he'd likely general a battle some day, and been surrounded by older men who had done so.

Go away, both of you. Unless you're the same guy, the writing style is about the same, in which case go away, the one of you.

He is very out of date -- new archeological and written evidence has been found, since his day, for one.

He also tends to write like a historian of Roman days, writing to a theme that over-rides his dedication to facts some times.

>Go away, both of you. Unless you're the same guy, the writing style is about the same, in which case go away, the one of you.
SOMEONE ELSE DISAGREES WITH ME!
IMPOSSIBRU!
ITS THE SAME PERSON!

Go get a check on your inflated ego you vapid cunt.

Was the fucboi of king of bithynia