Caesar: Hero or Tyrant?

[Gandalf13]

What do you think? I've heard many people say that Caesar was an evil tyrant. Others say he was a great leader.

I think that Caesar was a great leader. He did not repress the people or slay his political enemies. He helped the people in many of his great reforms, including the Agrarian Reforms, the solution to the debt problem, and his contruction of many colonies. The Lex Agraria gave land to the poor in Rome, removing a huge load from the treasury by removing many of the poor from the Corn List. He was almost always very forgiving to his enemies, particularly during the Civil War. He granted pardons to Brutus, Cassius, and many other conspirators in his assasination.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

He was a product of his times and shld be judged accordingly. I too think he's a great leader of the Romans. The Romans would undoubtedly have developed somewhat differently w/o his impact and contribution.

 

[stalin006]

hero to the people of rome! pax romana came short after him.

 

[Titan2018]

The problem was that he was TOO much of a hero to the people. The senate thought he would becaome a king so they killed him. Appearently their fears were not unfounded. Julius Ceasar was an excellent leader (not to mention general). He does seem to be the best example histroty has to offer of a "benevolent dictator".

 

[Gandalf13]

The problem with rome at the end of the republic was that the republic had been set up to run a city state, not an empire. The senate was unable to deal with the problems of Rome.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Neither.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The two are not by any means mutually exclusive.

 

[SKILORD]

He was both, but in my sight more a hero.

 

[RNolan]

Both, but he should be remembered as a hero.

Yours

Ross

 

[AnarchyBoy]

Juslius Caesar recognized two facts about the Romans:
1. That as Rome grew in size, it had a greater need for strong central government.
2. That the republic was most beneficial to the extremely wealthy and that the Senate was ineffective because of bureaucracy and corruption.
While overthrowing the incumbent government and declaring oneself "lifetime ruler" isn't something we generally approve of in democratic modern societies, a strong leader was called for at the time. It's unlikely that Rome would have risen to prominence without him. Since three of the five emperors after him (Caligula, Claudius and Nero) were weak rulers but the Empire survived, he must have done something right.

 

[Gandalf13]

I completely agree with you, anarchy boy, except on one point. By the time Caesar came to power, Rome was already ruler of the Mediteranian, so I don't think he actually helped them rise to prominence. What he did was save the Rome from falling apart from the inside by around 400 years.

 

[Hitro]

Definately a tyrant.
The hero thing depends on what you think that is.

 

[Gandalf13]

How was he a tyrant?

 

[LionQ]

He was a great leader ánd a hero and he wasn't a tyrant.

 

[Parmenion]

Slightly off the current topic, but this is a question to AnarchyBoy;
what makes you say that Claudius was a bad emperor? All that I have learned about him shows that he was an ardent Republican who couldn't bear to give up his position for fear of another despot taking over and ruling his beloved Rome. He did lots of things for Rome too, including building more aquaducts and improving the port at Ostia so the city didn't starve during the winter without bread from Egypt. Okay he was a little bit '****oo' and there are plenty of bad things written about him, but I feel that these are outweighed by the good points.

 

[gugalpm]

Neither. You can't divide history between good and evil, tyrant and hero... You have to analize history in neutral terms...

 

[LionQ]

Originally posted by AnarchyBoy
...Since three of the five emperors after him (Caligula, Claudius and Nero) were weak rulers but the Empire survived,...

Why do you think Claudius was a weak ruler. He was a bit stupid with is head, but, according to me, his reign was powerfull. He conquered Brittania, remember? And he did also what Parmenion said, so I don't think Claudius should be called a "weak ruler".

Originally posted by gugalpm
Neither. You can't divide history between good and evil, tyrant and hero... You have to analize history in neutral terms...

You're making a excellent point there, gugalpm!

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by gugalpm
Neither. You can't divide history between good and evil, tyrant and hero... You have to analize history in neutral terms...

Very true, the first mistake of many amuteur is laying bias to one side. History can't be divided into "Good" and "Evil". However, tyrant and hero's would be accurate as

Hero=Helped His/Her Nation/Cause/Etc.
Tyrant= Did more harm then good.

On-topic
Certainity more of a hero. He was the cause of Rome having as much historical influence as it did. Of course, his rise to power was pave by the work of Sulla. So, you could say he wasn't that original.

 

[amadeus]

If a hero helps his people, and a tyrant does more harm...what was Stalin? He defeated the Germans, but killed 20M of his people.

 

[Richard III]

Hero