Do you think Julius Caesar was a bad person?

[KenFresno]

He went on a campaign of violent conquest, filled with genocide, war, slavery and cultural destruction all for the glorification of himself. How is this even a topic of debate?

[msgsing]

Could we just say he was ambitious perhaps?

[bcgr]

Ugh this thread again?

Caesar sold about a million people into slavery, and his legions killed several hundred thousand people.

So he was bad because he was a highly successful general?

He went on a campaign of violent conquest

For understandable reasons.

filled with genocide

Dubious claim.

war,

Standard fare in conquest.

slavery

Standard fare especially in ancient times.

and cultural destruction

Standard fare in conquest.

all for the glorification of himself.

Well someone had to save Roman society from the Senate and its deadlock with the plebs.

How is this even a topic of debate?

Because, what were the alternatives? Letting the aristocratic Senate rule and drive Roman society to the grave? In my opinion, all of Roman society had to be heeled for it to survive, otherwise be overrun by barbarians. It had to be Caesar or someone else. Actually Julius was remarked for his clemency; actually that was probably his undoing, he let 30-some too many Senators live. Compared to some of the other players around, Julius may have been one of the better ones; I mean Caesar's old buddy Crassus had some 6,000 slaves crucified and went to go rob the Parthians. Julius looks like an upstanding fellow next to him or Cicero; even Brutus was a scoundrel.

[KenFresno]

Originally Posted by bcgr

Ugh this thread again?
So he was bad because he was a highly successful general?

Tamerlane was a highly successful general, yet his conquest lead to unmatched cultural destruction that set the world back by centuries. Liberaries full of ancient wisdom and history lost forever.

Originally Posted by bcgr

For understandable reasons.
Dubious claim.
Standard fare in conquest.
Standard fare especially in ancient times.
Standard fare in conquest.

Its stand fare in modern war for armies to carpet bomb cities , drop chemical weapons on civilians, engage in brutal and inhumane forms of genocide, etc. Just because something occurs frequently doesn't make it morally acceptable. Caesar may have acted in the manner which was common for conquers of his day that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Stalin acted in a manner that was common for dictators of his day, do you think it was morally acceptable for him to send million of people to die in gulags for opposing his rule?

Originally Posted by bcgr

Because, what were the alternatives? Letting the aristocratic Senate rule and drive Roman society to the grave? In my opinion, all of Roman society had to be heeled for it to survive, otherwise be overrun by barbarians. It had to be Caesar or someone else. Actually Julius was remarked for his clemency; actually that was probably his undoing, he let 30-some too many Senators live. Compared to some of the other players around, Julius may have been one of the better ones; I mean Caesar's old buddy Crassus had some 6,000 slaves crucified and went to go rob the Parthians. Julius looks like an upstanding fellow next to him or Cicero; even Brutus was a scoundrel.

Conquering Gaul was a massive waste of time. Gaul along with Britain basically had no economy and would be a massive economic net drain on the empire. Look at his map below and ask yourself if the death, resources, man power, etc was worth it for place that didn't offer much to the stability of Rome.

[bcgr]

Its stand fare in modern war for armies to carpet bomb cities , drop chemical weapons on civilians, engage in brutal and inhumane forms of genocide, etc.

Then Caesar looks pretty good, no?

Just because something occurs frequently doesn't make it morally acceptable. Caesar may have acted in the manner which was common for conquers of his day that doesn't make it morally acceptable.

So what, we should judge every historical person by pacifist standards? Then half of history would just be disappointing immorality.

Conquering Gaul was a massive waste of time.

Was it? The Gaulish people were rather expansionistic and periodically invading the Mediterranean, even sacked Rome; only fifty years before the Gallic wars, they invaded Italy and created a crisis which introduced the Marian reforms. Seems right the Romans feared them and wanted to pacify them.

Gaul ... basically had no economy and would be a massive economic net drain on the empire.

Was it? Slaves and land weren't valuable?

Look at his map below and ask yourself if the death, resources, man power, etc was worth it for place that didn't offer much to the stability of Rome.

How can one even calculate economic benefits in the ancient world based on what someone guesses is "per capita income?" Caesar pacified the Gauls, and later the Senate which set the path towards the Roman Empire which lasted for another 500-1500 years (depending on your viewpoint). Ended up pretty stable I'd say, much more than letting the Gauls constantly threaten Italy, and civil wars upset the Roman state.

[KenFresno]

Originally Posted by bcgr

Then Caesar looks pretty good, no?

Hard to look good when you brag about butchering women and children like he did with the Tencteri and Usipetes.

Originally Posted by bcgr

So what, we should judge every historical person by pacifist standards? Then half of history would just be disappointing immorality.

Yeah most of humanity has been pretty dire, which is why people have strived for centuries to make life better. The entire machine of human progress has been to avoid the pitfalls of he past. We have checks and balances in government so that we can stop the Caesars of the world from coming into power.

Originally Posted by bcgr

Was it? The Gaulish people were rather expansionistic and periodically invading the Mediterranean, even sacked Rome; only fifty years before the Gallic wars, they invaded Italy and created a crisis which introduced the Marian reforms. Seems right the Romans feared them and wanted to pacify them. Was it? Slaves and land weren't valuable?

So the Roman war machine was not strong enough to fend off a few Gallic tribes? Doesn't say much for the might of Rome. If the Gallic tribes were such a threat from the onset why was Caesars original target for expansion Rumania and Gaul? Caesar knew that the Roman people loved a war hero and it was his intention to create a persona for himself as a great conquer. All of the violence and sacrifice just for the political aspirations of one man.

Originally Posted by bcgr

How can one even calculate economic benefits in the ancient world based on what someone guesses is "per capita income?" Caesar pacified the Gauls, and later the Senate which set the path towards the Roman Empire which lasted for another 500-1500 years (depending on your viewpoint). Ended up pretty stable I'd say, much more than letting the Gauls constantly threaten Italy, and civil wars upset the Roman state.

What kept Rome stable was the wealth and power of the Eastern half of the empire not Gaul. Egypt alone was more valuable to Rome economically then the entire Western half of the empire combined. Look at how long and stable the Eastern half of the Roman Empire did in contrast to the Western half. Arguably all of the resources need to maintain such a region like Gaul and Britannia did more to destabilize Rome then help it.

[bcgr]

Hard to look good when you brag about butchering women and children like he did with the Tencteri and Usipetes.

Where does he "brag?"

We have checks and balances in government so that we can stop the Caesars of the world from coming into power.

Granted Roman society would have been healthier if this were the case, but the necessity of Caesarism is because "checks and balances" within the Roman state could not sufficiently check the domination of the aristocracy, which ruled through the Senate. After the Punic Wars the Roman aristocracy were greatly enriched since the wars ruined the peasantry, brought in massive amounts of cheap slaves, and lots of foreign lands to tax. The attempted "checks" on the aristocracy that the Gracchi introduced led to their murders, by then it is pretty clear that the Roman governing institutions were unable to balance internally. The Marian reforms gave another avenue: the army.

So the Roman war machine was not strong enough to fend off a few Gallic tribes?

Do you think the Romans were invincible and the Gauls were a ragtag bunch? The Gauls were a formidable force, tough not united, which Caesar took full advantage of.

Doesn't say much for the might of Rome.

While the amount of area and people under the Roman fold in the late Republican era was immense, it was in danger of unravelling through its social disintegration. Actually post-Punic wars the Romans were having a hard time finding enough quality soldiers: the peasantry were largely ruined and their remnants fled to the cities to live on margins and the dole and could no longer equip themselves, what remained in the country were chiefly slaves. After the the armies started recruiting from property-less residents and became professional, dependent on the generals, you get guys like Marius, Sulla, and Caesar. No wonder the late Republic was filled with slave rebellions and civil wars.

If the Gallic tribes were such a threat from the onset why was Caesars original target for expansion Rumania and Gaul?

Dacia was a growing kingdom close to the Roman frontier and was quite rich from mining. But some Gallic tribes started migrating around, and it probably became more expedient to target them instead.

Caesar knew that the Roman people loved a war hero and it was his intention to create a persona for himself as a great conquer.

If the Gauls were so weak and innocuous, then what glory would there be in vanquishing them?

All of the violence and sacrifice just for the political aspirations of one man.

Yes, Caesar was an opportunistic adventurer, but what of it? Would he be better if it were for some grand lofty goals? He still set the necessary stage for Octavian to found the Empire by eliminating the Senatorial independence and ending the aristocratic power-monopoly.

What kept Rome stable was the wealth and power of the Eastern half of the empire not Gaul.

So since the eastern Mediterranean was richer than the western, it was not worth it? Rome is located in Italy, how many Gallic incursions occurred after Caesar subdued them? He moved the Roman frontier away from Italy and the Mediterranean. Nor was Gaul probably so poor as you think. Caesar and his armies became quite rich after looting Gaul, and the country is rather fertile.

Egypt alone was more valuable to Rome economically then the entire Western half of the empire combined.

Granted that Egypt may have been richer than the whole Western half and was indeed the Roman breadbasket for some time, Rome was located well in the western Mediterranean and Egypt was during Caesar's time a semi(?)-independent state, it was not subject to Roman rule. Actually Caesar helped solve their dynastic conflict and ensured a stable unified Egypt for Octavian to get.

Arguably all of the resources need to maintain such a region like Gaul and Britannia did more to destabilize Rome then help it.

And it is arguable that the Gallic conquest and moving the Roman frontier did help keep incursions away from the richer Mediterranean. I'll grant that Brittania was likely not worth occupying, but that was not Caesar's doing.