10-20-2006, 05:15 PM
I’m a little rusty on this, so take this with a grain of salt.
It depends on your outlook on Rome itself at the time. Rome was built on the few wealthy who did put their interest first. At the beginning, there were a few times when the non-wealthy were so upset against the rules of the governing body, the wealthy, that during an impending battles, they walked off and refused to fight until certain laws were created.
After that the first laws were created. The common people still didn’t have any real say so, other then walking away from battles. The rich, the ones that put up the money for the defense or into the city as a whole, felt that since they were the ones doing it, that they should have the say so (Makes sense)
As Rome grew, the common people still didn’t have much say so. Caesar wanting to get into politics but not having much luck, took a different avenue to reach his ends, he went with the people. He gained their favor, he had their support and his political career took off. Some may argue that he didn’t care for the people other then to use them as stepping stone to get where he wanted to go, other say that he did have a genuine concern.
When Caesar became governor of Gaul, it was still the belief of Rome to keep a buffer between themselves and potential enemies, the buffer being people that weren’t considered a threat. So as governor, some would argue, that in keeping with that philosophy, it was necessary to pacify Gaul, other (like me) believe that a lot of it was due in part to the riches and glory he would receive.
Now after Gaul when Caesars time as governor was up and with the senate against him, even Pompeii, he had only two choices:
One - come back with all hopes of his political ambitions gone and retire someplace quite or
Two - since he and a lot of people, the common people, the majority of Rome, felt that the senate had only their own interest at heart, which they did, that was the way it was and always had been, then he could come back with an army and insist on what he thought was due to him.
Now at this point, some would argue that he was going against the Republic, some would say that the senate, which was only suppose to be an influence, had gained to much power and Caesar came back to put an end to it.
So I think it comes down to how you look at the Republic, yes Caesar did destroy the Republic but others would say it was already spiraling down and was doomed to fall anyway, Caesar was just the one to do it. Don’t forget that Sulla was one of the first major sign of the great republic cracking.
I believe Caesar was a hero, not to the Republic, but to the people of Rome and Rome as a whole. Its interesting to note, that during his last six months before his assassination, after becoming dictator, how most of his projects he had in place were geared to making Rome a better place for the common people.
There’s my opinion.
It depends on your outlook on Rome itself at the time. Rome was built on the few wealthy who did put their interest first. At the beginning, there were a few times when the non-wealthy were so upset against the rules of the governing body, the wealthy, that during an impending battles, they walked off and refused to fight until certain laws were created.
After that the first laws were created. The common people still didn’t have any real say so, other then walking away from battles. The rich, the ones that put up the money for the defense or into the city as a whole, felt that since they were the ones doing it, that they should have the say so (Makes sense)
As Rome grew, the common people still didn’t have much say so. Caesar wanting to get into politics but not having much luck, took a different avenue to reach his ends, he went with the people. He gained their favor, he had their support and his political career took off. Some may argue that he didn’t care for the people other then to use them as stepping stone to get where he wanted to go, other say that he did have a genuine concern.
When Caesar became governor of Gaul, it was still the belief of Rome to keep a buffer between themselves and potential enemies, the buffer being people that weren’t considered a threat. So as governor, some would argue, that in keeping with that philosophy, it was necessary to pacify Gaul, other (like me) believe that a lot of it was due in part to the riches and glory he would receive.
Now after Gaul when Caesars time as governor was up and with the senate against him, even Pompeii, he had only two choices:
One - come back with all hopes of his political ambitions gone and retire someplace quite or
Two - since he and a lot of people, the common people, the majority of Rome, felt that the senate had only their own interest at heart, which they did, that was the way it was and always had been, then he could come back with an army and insist on what he thought was due to him.
Now at this point, some would argue that he was going against the Republic, some would say that the senate, which was only suppose to be an influence, had gained to much power and Caesar came back to put an end to it.
So I think it comes down to how you look at the Republic, yes Caesar did destroy the Republic but others would say it was already spiraling down and was doomed to fall anyway, Caesar was just the one to do it. Don’t forget that Sulla was one of the first major sign of the great republic cracking.
I believe Caesar was a hero, not to the Republic, but to the people of Rome and Rome as a whole. Its interesting to note, that during his last six months before his assassination, after becoming dictator, how most of his projects he had in place were geared to making Rome a better place for the common people.
There’s my opinion.
Steve
