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

[Traitorfish]

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

So you just mean "less inegalitarian"? That's not very helpful; you may as well say that Cromwell was an "egalitarian in the context of mid-17th century England", because he was less of an inegalitarian than the king. It doesn't really mean very much.

 

[Murky]

So you just mean "less inegalitarian"? That's not very helpful; you may as well say that Cromwell was an "egalitarian in the context of mid-17th century England", because he was less of an inegalitarian than the king. It doesn't really mean very much.

No. I mean in the context of the time he lived, he was a progressive reformer. And is that is the primary reason why the conspiracy to assassinate him was carried out.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Caesar was an opportunist, but it's not as if the government of Rome was a respectable institution. Highly corrupt and oligarchic; the only liberty the senators wanted to preserve was that which Bertrand Russell refers to in my signature.

 

[Traitorfish]

No. I mean in the context of the time he lived, he was a progressive reformer. And is that is the primary reason why the conspiracy to assassinate him was carried out.

Well, if all you're saying is that his populism made enemies among the Roman elite, then what's all that "supporter of the common citizen" stuff about? It's possible to be a populist with actually being a "man of the people".

 

[jtb1127]

I don't understand why "guilty" is on the poll. He's obviously guilty and this option is merely substituting as an option for reaching a verdict about the man's nobility.

 

[Masada]

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

I don't see how that claim can be made? The Republic was never anything more than an oligarchical government. Sometimes it functioned, most of the time it lurched from political crisis to crisis some of which involved murder which was what pre-modern states did. But if we take the rise of political murder as a determinant of the point at which the Republic died... we might as well kill the thing with the first Consul Lucius Junius Brutus who, if we believe Livy, executed his own sons, Titus and Tiberius for conspiring with the Tarquinii.

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.

Hah. Caesar wasn't even a bad Gracchi, he was a political operator who used the land issue as a means of dolling out patronage to his troops and punish his enemies. Frankly, the same could be said of the Populares generally who looked at the land issue and saw a wedge that could be exploited to get the plebs onside. That it tended to fail, should be no surprise; Plebs the world over have never been good at fighting armies. But turn Plebs into soldiers, season them in a Gallic campaign, use them to topple the government and then rob it blind for land for the troops and things are different.

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.

You don't get the pre-modern world. That was the norm. Republican Rome isn't even an extreme example.

Caesar was an opportunist, but it's not as if the government of Rome was a respectable institution. Highly corrupt and oligarchic; the only liberty the senators wanted to preserve was that which Bertrand Russell refers to in my signature.

I don't get why people are concerned about corruption? There was nothing exceptional about Rome in that respect. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There's a reason Brutus is chewed in one of Satan's three mouths: he betrayed his benefactor, and more importantly, his friend. In my opinion, there is no greater sin against God or man than to betray the trust of a friend in such a fantastic fashion.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't understand why "guilty" is on the poll. He's obviously guilty and this option is merely substituting as an option for reaching a verdict about the man's nobility.

I think this is 'guilty' a la Scots Law, which returns verdicts of 'not proven' (we don't know that he did it) 'not guilty' (we believe that what he did was not wrong) and 'guilty' (he should be punished for what he did). 'Guilty' is subtly different from 'proven'.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Not proven" being colloquially known as "Not guilty, and don't do it again".