Julius Caesar: Hero or Villain?

[IMP GALLIENVS AVG]

Hello all, so an interesting question was brought up in class today. The question was: Was Julius Caesar a hero or a "villain?" which basically means was he a hero or an enemy ("bad guy") of Rome. I personally said hero, and here is why:

Caesar conquered Gaul and a piece of Britain, and used some of the riches from this for building projects in Rome for support.

Caesar sort of set the standard for having an Emperor, and Rome lasted about another 500 years with this, so it couldn't have been that bad. I honestly don't know if Rome would have had as much of an impact on the world if it stayed a republic.

Caesar created job opportunities, and the gap between rich and poor starting to decrease a bit.

Caesar also gave legionaries better pay and benefits.


I would like to hear your opinions and reasons...

Thanks,
Andrew

[TraderTrey9785]

Honestly, I think it is a more complicated answer than yes, he was a hero, or yes, he was an enemy. Personally, I admire Caesar, and I think he set the standard for what a proconsul should be, and also what a military commander should be. I agree the world would be much different had Caesar not accomplished all that he did. However, with that said, he did bring about the end of the Republic and he did pave the way for some horrible emperors such as Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero.

I honestly think the fall of the Roman Republic was inevitable. Some would say, and I would agree, that if Sulla hadn't willingly given up supreme power, the Republic would have ended with him. It is tough to say. I do think if Caesar hadn't marched on Rome and defeated Pompey then another over-mighty general would have done so, perhaps with more sever consequences.

I find Caesar to be an intriguing character. I think it is hard for anyone to say that he isn't a smart, inspiring individual, regardless of ones' personal feelings toward the man. I'm not sure if I agree with his decision to start the Civil War, but I do know that I appreciate his qualities as a military leader, an orator, and a politician. He is a great example of a Roman citizen. He was a self-made man, and he furthered his status with every military victory. He was capable, fierce, assertive, resourceful, and bold. I admire those qualities and I find it hard to condemn him, regardless of his actions. I think Caesar is a hero because til this day he inspires all who read about him, and he left behind so much written history for everyone to enjoy.

Additionally, I think it would have been hard for the Roman Army to establish its fierce reputation had it not been for great leaders like Caesar and the many campaigns he fault in Gaul. Also, Pharsalus is still considered one of the greatest tactical masterpieces in all of military history and I think that speaks fairly high of the victorious general. Alesia is another great example of the sheer audacity that Caesar commonly displayed.

Just a thought!

[floofthegoof]

Villain, villain, villain. Rome was not made a great city by people putting their own interests first. Romans knew well the excesses of kings, and were proud to have been one of the few states to rid themselves of them. I'm not saying that Pompeius was any better, but the motivations of Caesar were thoroughly corrupt. The fact that he was able to cow the Romans like he did showed that the number of Romans willing to die to save Rome was not what it once was. It is fair to say that Caesar was a product of his time, but so were Hitler and Stalin, and we don't excuse their megalomania. That he made some remarkable achievements is completely nullified by the fact that those achievements were born from naked ambition, and since the interests of Caesar were in such drastic conflict with the interests of Rome, it's quite impossible to say that he served the state in some way.

Rome became great because, due to the selflessness of many true Roman heroes, it was able to provide an excellent service to it's people. When Caesar declared himself dictator for life, and the people did not universally revolt against him, it was the beginning of the end of that good service. When people think of only themselves, the state cannot but slowly disintegrate until it is of no use.

Whenever the discussion comes up regarding the end of the republic, I like to post the following link. To me it shows that these powerful men were cognizant the great harm they would be doing against the state of Rome, but that was acceptable to them in light of the expedient.

Unfortunately, this link cannot be made clickable due to the asterisk(*), so you have to copy and paste

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... o/52*.html

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Always beloved.

[stevesarak]

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.