Did caesar deserve this?

>go into debt
>go to war and commit genocide in order to pay back your lenders
>pander to plebs to they love you
>try to take over the republic

Sic semper tyrannis.

>tyranny of the few is a-okay
>""""tyranny"""" of one man is bad!

Look at me mom, I'm liberating Rome! :DDDD

Eh. He made a few moves towards crowning himself.

>Did caesar deserve this?
No, it was just jealous buttmad conservatives who hated a populist for pulling the same shit they had pulled a generation earlier to permanently entrench themselves in power.

By the time Julius Caesar rose to prominence the "Republic" was a dessicated corpse, a farcical charade of a democracy which in practice was being ruled by a shadow cabal of wealthy individuals who had thoroughly rigged the economy to favor them over everyone else.

The military basically staged a hostile takeover of the government because the government had more or less completely destroyed any legitimacy that it might have had with the Roman public. All of the conservatives got their just rewards for their perfidy, being hunted down and slaughtered like mad dogs.

Cato died in a hole, a broken man beset by despair, his armies beaten, his country taken from him, all the fault of his own ideological rigidity and undogged pursuit of a more perfect oligarchy.

Nah, I would only stab him eight or nine times max.

are you saying we're about to go empire again?

He deserved so much worse for ending the Republic

...

but he didnt

it was a fucking oligarchy

That depends if we go the route of the Romans and accept the worst of all possible worlds compromise: the uber-wealthy get to keep their landed estates, the uber-poor get to keep their cradle-to-grave welfare state, all the real work is done by second class citizens, democracy is maintained as an outward facade to mask an authoritarian state where citizenship loses all meaning and the only real way for the average shlub to get ahead in life was by betting at the public games: sports which have all been gladiatorialized into a garish spectacle which rewards the lucky few while punishing the rest.

No, but neither did all the people he killed.

So? Oligarchies can be good.

You mean the entire culture he shamelessly genocided for fun and profit? They weren't exactly angels, either.

That's life in the iron ages for you

But by virtually any measurable metric the best ruler Rome ever had was Caesar Augustus, who was also its first despot since Tarquin the Proud. Reigning for an unmatched 40 years, he virtually transformed the city of Rome and presided over an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity.

Even tyrannies can be "good", as long as they haven't run out of other people's money. The problem is in how brittle and resistant to change these societies become over time.

>entire culture he shamelessly genocided
Celts were never genocided.
The only recorded mention of Caesar completely wiping out entire tribe in an act of absolutely retarded unjustifiable overreaction, were Veneti, and even they were most likely just sold to slavery, not actually killed off to the last leg.
But that's life in iron ages for you.

>Celts were never genocided.
He killed virtually the entire Gallic male population of fighting age. If that's not genocide it's darn close.

And his strategy was not outright extermination, it was divide and conquer for glory and profit. He literally wrote the book on divide and conquer. He got really good at playing unorganized Gallic tribes against one another and by the time they had realized what was happening and united under Vercingetorix it was far too late.

>not Cato the Elder
plebe

>He killed virtually the entire Gallic male population of fighting age.

First off, bullshit. He never even came close to making a dent on Gallic male population. Fuck he got 150,000 Gauls on his platter in Alesia, literally last big battle of the Bellum Gallicum, and by all accounts didn't kill a third of them there.
>If that's not genocide it's darn close.
It isn't. It completely evades the definition of a genocide.
Genocide is made with intent to wipe specific people out.
Celts were never genocided and that stupid fucking word only continues to be mentioned for shock value.

>people surely began to hate him
Well, by people you basically mean wealthy aristocrats

yeah, the people who matter

>that stupid fucking word only continues to be mentioned for shock value.

Talk shit, get hit

>. He never even came close to making a dent on Gallic male population.
As many as a million people (probably 1 in 5 of the Gauls) died, another million were enslaved, 300 clans were subjugated and 800 cities were destroyed during the Gallic Wars. The entire population of the city of Avaricum (Bourges) (40,000 in all) were slaughtered. Before Julius Caesar's campaign against the Helvetii (present-day Switzerland), the Helvetians had numbered 263,000, but afterwards only 100,000 remained, most of whom Caesar took as slaves.

This is all documented by Plutarch in the Life of Caesar.

I'll concede that calling it genocide is a stretch but Caesar royally fucked the Gauls, killing a huge number of them and making himself astronomically wealthy in the process. 1 out of 5 is like, all the able bodied men between the ages of 15 and 45.

No. Especially not without being declared a tyrant first.
His sacrifice though, enabled Octavian to rise; that man ensured a further 4 centuries of Roman hegemony in its part of the world.
Caesar was truly a man whose like is rarely seen and which we shall likely never see in our lifetimes.

Are there any projections on how successful his invasion of the Parthian empire would have been if he was able to carry it out? And even if he was successful would they just let the conquered territory go like after trajans invasion?

yes look at him, the fucking neo-nazi

Obama

Even after all that Gaul was still very populous and had around several million people still living within it at around Caesars death.

His brilliance was entirely pacifying the region. The Gallic people's never rebelled against Rome even when their religion was being snuffed out. Caesar merely wiped out the resisting elements quite well.

wrong

He wanted to become a god, but there is no god but allah, so he did deserve it

Does he really?

>what is tribune of the plebs

>He wanted to become a god, but there is no god but allah, so he did deserve it

He was a god - but other people were jealous of that and decided to blaspheme the gods so they could gain worldly power.

youtube.com/watch?v=oNK655iUtr0

I blame the Grachii.

>what is the entire history leading to the tribute of the plebs
Rome was fucked by that point, the plebs had legitimate problems and the senate did everything they could to ignore the problems.
One city council ruling an entire country was not a good idea.

By the time of Julius Caesar the Tribune of the Plebs had been virtually stripped of their power and authority. The entire reason why a Caesar was inevitable was because of how toothless the plebs had become in public affairs

A lion surrounded by wolves.
What did he expect?

No one is qualified to decide who deserves what.

Some however are privileged to decide.

Some are even obeyed, and their opinion becomes consensus.

Never

No he didn't. Even Augustus wasn't crowned emperor.

Of course he deserved it. Your actions have consequences and failing to defend yourself is just folly.