Opinion of Julius Caesar

[TNF]

Definite freedom fighter who has been unfairly maligned for the past two millenia.

[ElectionsGuy]

HP.

[Nhoj]

I wouldnt go so far as to call him a FF, but certainly he was better than the senate.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Rome, much like many of your lesser nations, couldn't handle democracy at the time and needed a strongman. FF

[Lief 🗽]

Huge FF.

[Lumine]

By modern standards, his illegal war in Gaul (which caused, what, a couple million deaths?), his support of extremely dangerous individuals like Catiline, Clodius and Curio (which created unprecedented anarchy in Rome) and the fact that he marched on his own country to preserve his personal dignitas definetly doesn't make him look good. Now, by the standards of the Late Roman Republic, he is actually very decent when compared to other Roman generals and politicians (Unlike Octavius and Pompeius, he was merciful to his opponents, unlike Antonius, he actually cared about the well being of his country, and unlike Cato, he could compromise on some issues), and if I had lived on the time, I would have probably supported Caesar after the Battle of Munda.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A progressive reformer who fought a corrupt oligarchy and championed redistribution of wealth, but at the same time was a bit of a megalomaniac autocrat. Kind of the Hugo Chavez of his time.

Still FF on balance.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

FF (normal).

[Cassius]

I prefer Sulla. However, Caesar certainly is a highly complex and morally grey character (much like Sulla in fact, or Pompey or Marius for that matter). It's true that he was a populare, however, that doesn't neccessarily mean that he was that interested in 'social justice' or political reform; indeed, it's arguable that he was just another (albeit extremely successful) politician who used the people to achieve his own ends (advancing himself and his gens, the Julii). I would say, in response to the comment about him fighting a 'corrupt oligarchy', that he, like the majority of Roman politicians, was certainly quite corrupt (at least, in the sense of how we would use the term), whilst many of the supporters of said oligarchy (Cato the younger, Marcus Junius Brutus, Cicero etc) were well-known for their personal probity and integrity (not that there weren't a fair share of 'corrupt' optimates). Furthermore, many populares who aligned themselves against the optimates, men like Catiline and Clodius, were notoriously corrupt even by Roman standards. I think that Caesar's reforms when it came to matters of provincial governance, the taxation system and crime-fighting can be praised to some extent. Nonetheless, at the time, I would probably have backed his opponents.

[Incipimus iterum]

FF

[Lumine]

I prefer Sulla. However, Caesar certainly is a highly complex and morally grey character (much like Sulla in fact, or Pompey or Marius for that matter). It's true that he was a populare, however, that doesn't neccessarily mean that he was that interested in 'social justice' or political reform; indeed, it's arguable that he was just another (albeit extremely successful) politician who used the people to achieve his own ends (advancing himself and his gens, the Julii). I would say, in response to the comment about him fighting a 'corrupt oligarchy', that he, like the majority of Roman politicians, was certainly quite corrupt (at least, in the sense of how we would use the term), whilst many of the supporters of said oligarchy (Cato the younger, Marcus Junius Brutus, Cicero etc) were well-known for their personal probity and integrity (not that there weren't a fair share of 'corrupt' optimates). Furthermore, many populares who aligned themselves against the optimates, men like Catiline and Clodius, were notoriously corrupt even by Roman standards. I think that Caesar's reforms when it came to matters of provincial governance, the taxation system and crime-fighting can be praised to some extent. Nonetheless, at the time, I would probably have backed his opponents.

Sulla probably deserves higher recognition and reputation than the one he actually has (as he was far superior to Marius, and along with Charles V one of the few historical figures that chose to retire from power in a voluntary way). I'm actually curious here, Cassius, what would you have done as a Senator after the battle of Thapsus and Cato's suicide? The remaining Republicans are pardoned and in Italy (like Cicero) and the ones who are still fighting are actually the Pompeians (Labienus, Attius Varus). Without the hindsight of Caesar's murder, what would you do?