Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Caesar was a tyrant, and his fate was sealed long before his death. In case anyone did not notice, today is the Ides of March, March 15, the day on which in 44 BC he was killed.
Caesar was a tyrant, and his fate was sealed long before his death. .
Describing Caesar as a tyrant is hardly a complete portrait of the man, nor does it truly describe the conditions under which he came to power and consolidated it.
The Republic never recovered from Sula's stint as dictator, and had Caesar been defeated in the Civil War, Rome would have wound up with Pompey as their dictator rather than Caesar.
As far as tyrants go, Caesar was a rather benevolent one, it is difficult to find anyone in that age who was as forgiving of his former enemies. In fact, had Caesar been more ruthless in exterminating opposition members, he might have avoided assassination. Brutus had fought for the Pompey side in the Civil War and after Pompey's defeat at Pharsalus , Caesar not only forgave his nephew, he restored him to the Senate and appointed him praetor for a year. and later Governor of Gaul.
The Republic was pretty much finished before Caesar put it out of operation permanently.
Caesar was a tyrant, and his fate was sealed long before his death. In case anyone did not notice, today is the Ides of March, March 15, the day on which in 44 BC he was killed.
Describing Caesar as a tyrant is hardly a complete portrait of the man, nor does it truly describe the conditions under which he came to power and consolidated it.
Quite so, the last hundred years of the Republic were often ones of turmoil and civil war.
Quote:
The Republic never recovered from Sula's stint as dictator, and had Caesar been defeated in the Civil War, Rome would have wound up with Pompey as their dictator rather than Caesar.
Any member of the First Triumvirate would have been a tyrant. Had Crassus not gone adventuring into Parthia, he might have become dictator.
Quote:
The Republic was pretty much finished before Caesar put it out of operation permanently.
The Second Triumvirate ended the Republic in 43 BC. Between Sulla and then, many men had favored restoring the Republic and worked toward that end. Noteworthy among these men was Cicero, who earlier had supported Caesar and later opposed him. The proscriptions enacted by the 2nd Triumvirate cost Cicero and many others their lives, and pretty much ended any hope of the Republic.
Do you think he would have been an effective ruler?
One thing that may have been a big difference had Caesar not been assassinated is how would he have dealt with rome's greatest enemy the parthian empire to the east as Augustus made peace with them to where as Caesar may have been embolden to attack them after his conquering most of western europe and if he had lost the war to them then he could have lost the entire eastern provinces which may had affected future roman rulers and military campaigns etc.
Last edited by Six Foot Three; 03-19-2011 at 01:23 PM..
Reason: Spelling
I'm interested in knowing what would have happened to Cleopatra (Queen Cleopatra VII Thea Philopater) if Caesar was not assassinated.
I think there was no possibility they would have ever legally married ... Roman law would not permit it ... Julius honored her by scandalously erecting an opulent golden statue of her right inside the Temple of Venus Genetrix, whom he claimed to be descended from.
In any case, I think he would have sent her (and their son Ptolemy Caesar "Caesarion") back to Alexandria; and she would have been admonished not to keep poisonous snakes around the palace as pets.
As for Cleopatra and Caesar, if not the 'Ides of March' then i assume he would have still been murdered as the thought of an egyptian as a ''queen'' consort or co-regent most likely was inconceivable to any roman senator or citizen back during the 40's B.C. and even possibly a powerful general e.g. Cicero (staunch republican) may have tried to overthrow him (Coup d'etat) if that ceremony had ever taken place.
I thnik someone else soon would have murdered him basically.Its not like he was unique in losing his positon by murder. Perhaps we woud be deabte if he was poisoned like so many others then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remembering Dame Elizabeth Taylor ...
