Julius Caesar [Cliff notes to correcting common pop culture misconceptions]

Caesar was:

  • A great leader, the embodiment of what Rome wanted their politicians to be

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • A flawed but justified leader

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • I didn't read the thread, he was a power mad dictator right?

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Status
Closed

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
As I explained, this requires wilful blindness to believe. She was in Cato’s authority, not her fathers, while she was his wife. This 60 yr old comes up and says “hey, how bout I marry into your family? This match is no good? Ok, how about I take your wife?”, and you divorce her for that purpose, then the moral responsibility is yours; you can’t absolve him of the agency in the decision because he divorced her, he divorced her to ensure that outcome. He basically told her “I want you to be this guy’s wife, and once he’s dead I’ll take you back I guess”.
You. Cannot. Whore. Your. Wife. If. She. Is. Not. Your. Wife.

Do I need to write that out in another language for you to better understand it?
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,572
Australia
You. Cannot. Whore. Your. Wife. If. She. Is. Not. Your. Wife.

Do I need to write that out in another language for you to better understand it?
We're talking about moral equivalence, not legalistic comparisons.

Going to reply to the substantive part of my post too? Dying to hear your rationale for how physically ejecting the tribunes and ignoring their vetoes was legal.
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,572
Australia
Wow, you're rude. But this isn't new, you've always been rude. And full of falsehoods. You dare accuse me of not knowing what a patrician is?

I remember debating you years ago about something relating to patricians, so I searched Historum for it, and found quite a few old discussions you and I have participated in.

Link to Source

In the thread when you ranted that Philip II was raised to be a king, and then proved you didn't know what "noble" meant in the context of Rome. Wow...

Link to other source

I then found another thread where you didn't know quaestor had lictors. That's not that impressive...

and another source

Here is where you told Historum about how Marius invented a "breaks on impact spear" (it was a pilum, not a hasta), and was the first to start "mass recruiting among the lowest classes", which is off by a century because Polybius and Livy both state it happened extensively during the 2nd Punic War, with the poor, and even including an entire legion of slaves, to be given their freedom AFTER they proved themselves in battle.

"I haven't been wrong about a single thing I've said." - Caesarmagnus, Dec 30, 2016, upon declaring something wrong

You sure about this quote? And have you been wrong about anything since then?

Its okay to say yes, especially since anyone with half a knowledge of this subject knows the answer to that already.
I don't know why I'm indulging you, but no. I wasn't wrong about any of those things. You simply read them erroneously (e.g. me using spear as a shorthand for pilum, because I like to write so laymen can understand what we're discussing, must mean I don't know the difference, etc), like you've been doing for much of this thread (eg. "you said whoring, so you must have meant the legalistic sense of that term, because no other interpretation can possibly exist! So speaks the guy who didn't know what being a Patrician was!"). Quaestors didn't usually have lictors, though they could be assigned them I suppose (usually from someone else's supply), and the Phillip heir thing was semantics. I have no interest in re-hashing semantic discussions vaguely related to a tangent in this thread. Conversely, your error about Patricians was not capable of being interpreted correctly; you were not even on the same planet as being right.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,036
Italy, Lago Maggiore
MOD NOTE
------------------
This debate is interesting and well alive. Academic disputes can become well stormy and on the message board of a history forum this can happen as well. What I suggest you is to avoid to transform this into a personal confrontation with comments related to the posters [you should know this, anyway I remind you that exaggerating with this means to commit an infraction]. Consider and reason about the hypothesis and the arguments, post yout counterarguments and debate about the sources and this thread will keep on being an informative discussion.
 
Aug 2019
218
North
I like the story that he was a weakling, and in order to strengthen his physique slept outdoors even in winter :)
 

Asherman

Forum Staff
May 2013
3,405
Albuquerque, NM
I'm closing this thread primarily because it has degenerated into pages of two veteran members sniping at one another. For a thread that began with an Poll that was terribly constructed coupled with a very biased OP, degeneration was almost inevitable. Both of these two members have in the past demonstrated better than minimal knowledge and understanding of the topic, and both are quick to aggressively argue their POV. Time to move on, folks. Mod Team is currently reviewing complaint reports, and will presently come to some decision on whether both, or either of the members need some time out.
 
Status
Closed