In what way was Caeser a tyrant?

[Mega Fauna Blitzkrieg]

So, I am not sure if this is the right place for this, everything in this forum seems to be current events, but I didn't see a posted rule about that. Sorry if this is the wrong place.

So, anyone big on Roman history want to explain this to me? I'm reading about him since I got a bunch of Roman history books for my birthday the other day and, so far the only evil dictator type things he did were using cheap crowd pleasing tactics to win the support of...the crowd, and bribery to win elections. Which from what it sounds like, everyone in power in Rome except Cato was doing, Caeser just did it better?

The other thing was declaring himself dictator in perpetuity. But as for the other things he did, it sounds like he mostly supported the common people and passed laws/did acts that were for the betterment of Rome? I mean, certainly the Gauls and Brits wouldn't like him, but...

And he was also a nobleman who supported the peons? Even if he only did it to gain and keep power, he still did it. Other jerks in Roman power were just douching them around.

In particular Cato is cited as being like the antithesis to Caeser, an avatar of incorruptibility and goodness etc etc, but apparently he was entirely about retaining the rights of the noble class and effing the commoners.

Now also, apparently none of this is news to anyone. So how does Cato come off as a hero and Caeser a villain?

Caeser even pardoned almost all of his enemies, which again, could be cheap placation tactics, but it is more than the others did, they just had their enemies executed or assassinated.

Really the only bad thing i'm seeing is making himself dictator for life, but if Rome was THAT corrupt at the time, and he was trying to fix it for the common good, not for continued exploitation by the noble class, then extreme measures like that would be necessary?

As soon as he HAD that for life position, he didn't go mad with power and start executing everyone who looked at him cross ways...

So yes, history folks help me out here. I'm not claiming to know everything about either Cato or Caeser, but what I do know certainly seems like an exact opposite villification. Like the phrase "Indian giver" which really should be "American giver".

[[Syl]]

Moved from the Tank.

[SerScot]

Caesar wasn't given the chance to abuse the power he had as "Imperator". He was assasinated before he could abuse his power. While he had support of the people what many feared was any one man possessing the power Caesar had accumulated. Hence, the assasination. It wasn't that Caesar abused his power it was that anyone man had such power.

Any person who attempted to declare themselves "President of the US for life" would be a danger whether they abused the power they assumed or not... whether they were popular or not. Do you understand?

[I'm Murrin]

The natural reaction of the ruling class to the concentration of power into a single figure at their expense, I expect. The common people liking him meant little if the Senate doesn't.

Republican Rome was never meant to be a dictatorship, and the collection of titles by Caesar was unprecedented. It's likely it was seen as a possible first step down the road back to the old Kings of Rome, that the Republic replaced.

Of course it was all for naught, as his assassination led to reprisal and the establishment of a true dictatorship...

[SerScot]

Murrin,

Call me crazy but I think the intense concentration of power into the hands of one person was very dangerous regardless of the intentions or purposes of that individual. Hell, look at the abuses and extravegences of the later "imperators" for evidence. Sometimes you go a "Marcus Arelius" sometimes you got a "Nero". It was a dice roll.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Caesar collected both military and political power in his hands, that's how. The Legion wasn't loyal to Rome but they were loyal to Caesar. Once he also had political power he could use the military to take down his political opponents and thus be a tyrant.

Although this would require a Constitutional Amendment, it would probably be a good idea to divorce the powers of Commander-in-Chief from the office of the Presidency but then we would have to elect two different people rather than only one. *shrug* It isn't worth the effort to pursue.

[I'm Murrin]

Murrin,

Call me crazy but I think the intense concentration of power into the hands of one person was very dangerous regardless of the intentions or purposes of that individual. Hell, look at the abuses and extravegences of the later "imperators" for evidence. Sometimes you go a "Marcus Arelius" sometimes you got a "Nero". It was a dice roll.

Did I contradict this? I said why the Senate struck against him, not whether it was good or bad for him to have the power.

[Mega Fauna Blitzkrieg]

Oh, I wasn't asking why they killed him. The senate/aristocracy/ruling class/alien overlords/what have you, would of course see him as a threat and take him out.

I am asking, why do we collectively believe it? I mean, whether he was doing humanitarian things because he loved Rome, saw the terrible and corrupt state it was in and wanted to fix it, or because getting the crowd to love you is a good way to take power, we can't really say since he didn't have a chance to abuse or not abuse his power.

They pre-emptively killed him because of a potential threat, which is a tactic we still follow today. By the same token I would not be surprised to know that present day monarchs view him as a tyrant.

But why do the rest of us, without power, believe that? His main political enemies were all about the noble class having godlike unquestionable power, and fuck the common people.

Cato is remembered as some kind of saint because he was uncorruptable in a corrupt system, but everything else about him, especially his policies and beliefs, sure seem to be fucking terrible, from what i've seen.

Where as Caeser, whatever his reasons were, actually was helping the common people.

The senate/ruling class/government has to call him a tyrant to justify killing him. Why aren't we calling them fucking lying murdering pieces of shit? I mean, other than the fact that presumably none of us is 2,080 years old.

This is like the biggest travesty of justice of the ancient world. Even the murder of Socrates isn't as bad, since he didn't even attempt to defend himself and he did technically break their crazy laws.

[Damelon]

You might want to consider Vercingetorix and the Gauls before you state that Caesar was a good guy. He basically started the Gallic wars to increase his prestige back in Rome.

[Mega Fauna Blitzkrieg]

Oh no, I mentioned them earlier, somewhere in my first txtwall.

Besides, that is what all wars are for, power, money, or land. At least he was honest about it and didn't concoct some fake villain =p

Also ALSO, my instinct is to zig when you say zag, so. I am actually not trying to defend Ceaser, yet, it sure seems like someone should, but I was actually wondering if anyone who knows more of that time can say wether he was a cheap manipulator who used crowd pleasing tactics, and Brutus 'n co. were right to take him out. Or if it was a case of the people in power wanting to stay in power and Dante was right to land 2 of them in the 3 spots Lucifer has available for being chewed in his mouth.

[Damelon]

As I'd been out of town and away from desktop for a few days, I'd not been able to answer more fully. I'm home now. my I'm neither for nor against Caesar. That was too long ago to matter much.

Caesar threatened the existing way things had been done in Rome. He never called himself Imperator in the sense that we have of it now. Augustus would be the first Imperator by that understanding. What riled the conspirators was that he had himself appointed Dictator for life in the months prior to his assassination. The title of Dictator was a temporary one previously, usually lasting for no more than 6 months. But it carried the powers of a king. What that meant for the others was that they would never have their own chance to make a name for themselves. That was very important motivation for senators. Caesar, by disregarding that, made a lot of enemies.

I won't disagree with the assessment of Cato. He was too stubborn for his own, or his allies, good.

His adopted son, Octavian, turned out to be much more savvy than Caesar. By the time Octavian had defeated Antony and Cleopatra, Rome was tired of war, which had been more or less continuous for the past thirty years. Augustus sought to lead more by persuasion than force. He persuaded the senate to grant him the title of Princeps, the first to speak in a debate. There would always be Consuls and Praetors and the like. That was important for the Senatorial families to be able to achieve those titles, but Augustus would always speak his mind first. He was commander of all the armies, and as such was granted the title of Imperator, which was a title that army commanders had to win by being successful in battle. Most later Emperors took the title as a matter of right though I believe that Claudius only took the title after his armies had invaded Britain.

I saw a reference to Dante. Dante put Cassius and Brutus in Satan's mouth in the Inferno because in his own life Dante was a monarchist as regards the politics of the day. For the same reason you'll find the Emperor Trajan in the Paridiso residing in the sixth sphere of heaven. That the emperor was an unbaptised pagan didn't matter.

[Billy G.]

History buffs and internet search experts: I'm lazy. I know he was killed on March 15th. But, how long before that did he become dictator?

[Mega Fauna Blitzkrieg]

I think he was elected dictator for life around 1-3 months before his assassination? He was appointed dictator several other times prior, it is just a political office. It was the addition of 'for life' that freaked everyone out.

I felt...the opposite of good, about bringing up Dante, as he is very notorious for placing people in hell based on his opinions of them. It's been a while but, isn't one of the circles essentially just contemporary critics and rival poets of Dante himself? :p

But he seems to be the only person in history, other than Augustus, who is calling Ceaser's death murder, and unjust. And Augustus' motivations can't particularly be trusted in that regard i'd imagine.

Actually, i'd imagine he was able to put personal feelings aside, and his opinions on it could be trusted, but who else would believe he didn't do it for love of his uncle, or political gain, or solidify his own standing?

So in this case it seems like I agree with Dante, Brutus and Cassius deserve their chompin'.

I mean Caeser could have abused power, and started some sort of EMPIRE or maybe he would have taken his absolute power and cleaned up the absolute corruption of his nation, like the similarly seemingly unjustly vilified Vlad Tepes, did for his nation.

Also, I love the irony, I really do. can anyone think of an earlier case of poetic justice than the conversion of Rome to an empire, started with Caeser's death? There is probably some Greek example, but still.