"If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:"

[Murky]

The populares weren't a coherent political faction, it just meant a member of the senatorial class who appealed to the plebeians. It was a matter of political strategy, not of principle, and plenty of senators moved back and forth between each camp at will. You really can't paint them as some sort of Classical equivalent to the Jacobins.

It's more complicated than that. Julius Caesar was not the equivalent of a modern leftist. He was elitist, but at the same time he was on the side of egalitarianism. His reforms helped the plebeians at the expense of the rich.

Brutus wasn't some heroic defender of the Republic. He was out to protect his own wealth and status in the Roman oligarchy.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's more complicated than that. Julius Caesar was not the equivalent of a modern leftist. He was elitist, but at the same time he was on the side of egalitarianism. His reforms helped the plebeians at the expense of the rich.

Brutus wasn't some heroic defender of the Republic. He was out to protect his own wealth and status in the Roman oligarchy.

I'm sorry, but simply parroting Parenti's line doesn't constitute a defence of it. There's no reason for us to believe that Caesar gave a damn about the plebeians beyond that which was necessary to win their support. It's not as if plenty of later emperors didn't make similar appeals- the phrase "bread and circuses" is presumably familiar to you- but nobody would suggest that they were possessed of the slightest egalitarian inclination. He helped the plebeians, sure, but Bismarck helped the working classes. When you strip it of context like this, it doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Murky]

I'm sorry, but simply parroting Parenti's line doesn't constitute a defence of it. There's no reason for us to believe that Caesar gave a damn about the plebeians beyond that which was necessary to win their support. It's not as if plenty of later emperors didn't make similar appeals- the phrase "bread and circuses" is presumably familiar to you- but nobody would suggest that they were possessed of the slightest egalitarian inclination. He helped the plebeians, sure, but Bismarck helped the working classes. When you strip it of context like this, it doesn't mean a thing.

I think you misunderstand my point. His motives for supporting the plebs were probably political but in the context of his assassination it was the primary motive of the conspiracy. The conspirators probably would've tolerated a dictator so long as that dictator supported their oligarchy instead of instituting reforms that benefited the masses at their expense.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think you misunderstand my point. His motives for supporting the plebs were probably political but in the context of his assassination it was the primary motive of the conspiracy. The conspirators probably would've tolerated a dictator so long as that dictator supported their oligarchy instead of instituting reforms that benefited the masses at their expense.

You don't think that the fact that Caesar was a political rival wielding near-absolute power may have had something to do with it? Political violence certainly wasn't unique to the optimates, nor, for that matter, did it always occur between populares and optimates. You'll presumably be aware that Crassus and Pompey were both populares who fought against Caesar and for the optimas Sulla?

(At the very least, the butchery of Spartacus' rebels by Crassus should dispel any "egalitarian" illusions we may have of the populares.)

 

[Murky]

You don't think that the fact that Caesar was a political rival wielding near-absolute power may have had something to do with it? Political violence certainly wasn't unique to the optimates, nor, for that matter, did it always occur between populares and optimates. You'll presumably be aware that Crassus and Pompey were both populares who fought against Caesar and for the optimas Sulla?

The reason he was considered a big threat to the optimates was not that he had near-absolute power, but the way he intended to use it. Pompey turned against Caesar following the death of Julia.

(At the very least, the butchery of Spartacus' rebels by Crassus should dispel any "egalitarian" illusions we may have of the populares.)

Crassus was an optimate in practice. He used the same sort of get filthy rich off the masses business pursuits as Brutus and Cato.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It seems plebeian = poor which is wrong. In fact some of the wealthier romans were plebeians. Also at the time of Caesar there were not political privilegees left for patricians over plebeians, in fact as has already been stated, many consuls were plebeians, even many emperors like Nero.

 

[Traitorfish]

The reason he was considered a big threat to the optimates was not that he had near-absolute power, but the way he intended to use it. Pompey turned against Caesar following the death of Julia.

What makes you so certain? Political violence, as I said, was not a novelty in the Late Republic- there had been multiple civil wars within Caesar's lifetime!- so what makes you think that this was, fundamentally, anything more than the usual factional violence?

Crassus was an optimate in practice. He used the same sort of get filthy rich off the masses business pursuits as Brutus and Cato.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It seems plebeian = poor which is wrong. In fact some of the wealthier romans were plebeians. Also at the time of Caesar there were not political privilegees left for patricians over plebeians, in fact as has already been stated, many consuls were plebeians, even many emperors like Nero.

That's very important, yeah. The plebeians were not in any sense equivalent to the proletarii, no Classical sancullotes, but simply every free citizen outside of the senatorial class. It included many wealthy equites, and it was these individuals, in their capacity as what we might today call "community leaders", that the populares actually tended to deal with.

 

[Murky]

What makes you so certain? Political violence, as I said, was not a novelty in the Late Republic- there had been multiple civil wars within Caesar's lifetime!- so what makes you think that this was, fundamentally, anything more than the usual factional violence?

That's just my take on it. Caesar was assassinated because of his support for the common citizens rather than the ruling oligarchy. The Oligarchs wanted to continue with the business of them being super rich, not paying taxes and having their way in the Senate. I'm not trying to make him out to be some sort of a Saint. He wasn't, but at least his policies were geared towards the masses rather than the elites. Maybe he just realized that a regressive tax system that took away from the average Roman was not sustainable for the long-term.

My recommendation (if it interests you) is to research it and make up your own mind.

 

[NetGear]

In hindsight, republic met its end regardless so it would be pointless to murder a man if its nit gonna change what you wanted.

 

[Leoreth]

Crassus was an optimate in practice. He used the same sort of get filthy rich off the masses business pursuits as Brutus and Cato.

Doesn't that rather prove Traitorfish's characterization of the populares?

My recommendation (if it interests you) is to research it and make up your own mind.

That's a pretty arrogant recommendation to someone who has obviously already done so, imo.

 

[Miles Teg]

You know, there is good reason to believe that Brutus was actually Julius Caesar's biological son. Caesar is well known to have had a long term affair with Brutus's mother. When killed he did not say "et tu Brute" as Shakespeare portrayed him, but may have said "καὶ σὺ τέκνον" ("You too, my child?") as Suetonius claimed.

It's a cute theory, but there's no evidence to suggest that Caeasar started sleeping with Servilla until long after Brutus was born.

 

[luiz]

That's just my take on it. Caesar was assassinated because of his support for the common citizens rather than the ruling oligarchy. The Oligarchs wanted to continue with the business of them being super rich, not paying taxes and having their way in the Senate. I'm not trying to make him out to be some sort of a Saint. He wasn't, but at least his policies were geared towards the masses rather than the elites. Maybe he just realized that a regressive tax system that took away from the average Roman was not sustainable for the long-term.

My recommendation (if it interests you) is to research it and make up your own mind.

What Parenti did, and you apparently bought, was to characterize Caeser as a modern left-wing hero living 2 thousand years ago. But it's bad history, things just were not like that. It was a raw struggle for power, not a defense of the common man from greedy elites. Caeser himself was elite, a slave-owner and a particularly ambitious man.

There's much to be admired about Caeser, but Parenti's version of the man is fiction (or rather propaganda).

 

[innonimatu]

I think that if Brutus' faction had won the civil war Caesar would today be as well known as Marius. An important figure known among historians but about whom your average person has never heard anything about. And it was a close thing, from the failure to kill also Anthony (who must have looked likely to become another Pompey) to the battle of Philippi.

As a Patricide, under Roman law Brutus ought to have been tied up in a bag filled with rats and thrown into the Tiber river to drown as the creatures gnawed away his flesh.

That's one I hadn't heard yet. I never cease to be amazed at the inventiveness of ancient people regarding the death penalty!

Many historians have class bias so you have to take what they say about Caeasar with a grain of salt.

Julius Caesar was a reformer and he was assassinated because he wanted to undo the ruling class. He posed a great threat to the oligarchs of the time. He wanted to create an egalitarian society, not necessarily a crown for himself as some would have you believe.

See Michael Parenti - The Assassination of Julius Caesar

Link to video.

I haven't yet read his book, but while I like the idea of alternative views I will also take Parenti with a grain on salt. He has an interpretative agenda, which is entirely legitimate and to his credit he's pitching it against others who also have it but won't admit to it. But I can't help being reminded of the old histories of the roman empire by soviet authors who lionized the Gracchi as some kind of ancient communists (I still have one of those books around), for example. Personally I think that it is impossible to prove anything about whether the motivation of these past individuals (the Gracchi, Marius, Brutus, Ceasar, etc) was to strengthen the roman state, favor the people against the aristocrats, or use the distribution of land just as a tool to gain influence and power for themselves. But I do agree that there were class politics at play there.

a defense of the common man from greedy elites.

But even an unintended defense remains a defense. I just wouldn't proclaim Caesar as some kind of hero or martyr over it.

 

[Murky]

Doesn't that rather prove Traitorfish's characterization of the populares?

There are lots of different theories on why people acted they way they did. I think Crassus was a greedy man. Before his demise, he had accumulated a lot of wealth, much of which was obtain through some unethical means. It just goes to show that nobody is beyond corruption or temptation. There are corrupt Democrats as well as Republicans in modern society.

That's a pretty arrogant recommendation to someone who has obviously already done so, imo.

I think Traitorfish has a fairly good understanding of the history. My comment was directed any others who might read the thread.

 

[luiz]

The funny thing about distant historic figures is that they can mean whetever the hell people want them to mean. For Parenti Caeser was some sort of roman Chávez (most offensive comparisson ever, sorry Gaius). And yet when I read "De Bello Gallico" there was an introduction praising Caeser in the most exalted terms by Thomas de Quincey, a 19th Century British Tory.

 

[sophie]

Better question: Is Hamlet a little [female dog]? Y/Y

 

[Agent327]

Was Brutus an honorable, well-intentioned individual who sacrificed everything for the good of his nation and people? Or, instead, was he a naive murderer, one who let patriotic delusions of grandeur cloud his moral judgement?

What would you do, if you were in Brutus's place?

(This is more a moral discussion than a historic one.)

Indeed it is... not. In Brutus´s place I´d do nothing. Why? Because the Roman republic was dead long before Caesar. Political assassination was practiced since the days of the Gracchi.

Many historians have class bias so you have to take what they say about Caeasar with a grain of salt.

That would include Caesar himself. All historical texts have bias; this is is a basic concept when reading any such text.

Julius Caesar was a reformer and he was assassinated because he wanted to undo the ruling class. He posed a great threat to the oligarchs of the time. He wanted to create an egalitarian society, not necessarily a crown for himself as some would have you believe.

I´m sorry, this sounds quite anachronistic: the idea of an egalitarian society was quite unknown in Western antiquity; it is a thoroughly modern in concept.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's just my take on it. Caesar was assassinated because of his support for the common citizens rather than the ruling oligarchy. The Oligarchs wanted to continue with the business of them being super rich, not paying taxes and having their way in the Senate. I'm not trying to make him out to be some sort of a Saint. He wasn't, but at least his policies were geared towards the masses rather than the elites. Maybe he just realized that a regressive tax system that took away from the average Roman was not sustainable for the long-term.

My recommendation (if it interests you) is to research it and make up your own mind.

But here's the thing: that isn't true. Caesar appealed to the plebeians for political support, and they in return adopted populist policies in their economic interest. (And, it must be remembered, these were as diverse a set of interests as the plebeians were a demographic.) It's possible to debate the extent to which this was cynical political manoeuvring and to what extent it was a sincere preference for the masses over the elite, but it was in no meaningful sense an egalitarian position, no real attempt to shift political power from the senatorial class to the masses.

 

[Ramius75]

he will be the HERO that everybody remember if he won the war...

too bad he failed....

 

[Murky]

Indeed it is... not. In Brutus´s place I´d do nothing. Why? Because the Roman republic was dead long before Caesar. Political assassination was practiced since the days of the Gracchi.

I agree with this. The Republic died long before the civil war.

That would include Caesar himself. All historical texts have bias; this is is a basic concept when reading any such text.

Of course it does. Much of Roman history was written by historians who were typically well-off financially. They often looked down on the common citizen with disdain.

I´m sorry, this sounds quite anachronistic: the idea of an egalitarian society was quite unknown in Western antiquity; it is a thoroughly modern in concept.

No need to apologize. I guess I didn't make it clear enough. Caesar was only egalitarian in the context of Ancient Rome, not modern day politics. His reforms mainly was about a fairer distribution of land among Roman citizens. He was no Marxist since that hadn't come about yet. He was a Populares which was for the fairer distribution of wealth than what the Opitmates were offering.

If you look at the distrbution of wealth under the oligarchy, Caesar was opposing, it would make even someone like Ayn Rand blush. The ruling class in ancient Rome owned the majority of everything (land, slaves, money, etc.) and the trend was only going to make them ever richer and poor ever poorer.

But here's the thing: that isn't true. Caesar appealed to the plebeians for political support, and they in return adopted populist policies in their economic interest. (And, it must be remembered, these were as diverse a set of interests as the plebeians were a demographic.) It's possible to debate the extent to which this was cynical political manoeuvring and to what extent it was a sincere preference for the masses over the elite, but it was in no meaningful sense an egalitarian position, no real attempt to shift political power from the senatorial class to the masses.

I meant egalitarian in the context of Ancient Rome. See above.