39 ms·

"...deputies ought to be sent to Pompey, to propose a reconciliation; as he [Caesar] did not regard what Pompey had lately asserted in the senate, that authorit

by staunch 12y ago

"...deputies ought to be sent to Pompey, to propose a reconciliation; as he [Caesar] did not regard what Pompey had lately asserted in the senate, that authority was acknowledged to be vested in those persons to whom ambassadors were sent, and fear implied in those that sent them. That these were the sentiments of low, weak minds: that for his part, as he had made it his study to surpass others in glory, so he was desirous of excelling them in justice and equity." http://sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/civ1.htm http://sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/civ1.htm Supreme self confidence and magnanimity were some of his good traits.

mercurial 12y ago
Yes, indeed: Caesar paid no further attention to him. He went to Pergamon, took the pirates out of prison and crucified the lot of them, just as he had often told them he would do when he was on the island and they imagined that he was joking. And that's nothing compared to the way he behaved in Gaul. What you call magnanimity is pragmatism: he had learned from Sulla, and wanted to avoid massive purges, so he treated his Roman opponents much better than they would have if the situation had been reverted. His successor, in turn, learned the lessons of Caesar's assassination and went back to the time-proven method of slaughtering the political opposition on a large scale.
- staunch 12y ago
  That's a bad interpretation IMHO. He wanted to be loved and respected by his fellow Romans. He knew what people thought of Sulla for what he did. He knew personally what it was like to live in fear of a purging regime. It was not merely pragmatism, it was his personal nature based on his life experience. He may have very well have preferred to die like he did rather than to kill his enemies like Augustus did. He knew the people he spared were the most likely to kill him. He just arrogantly believed no one would dare or succeed.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Clearly, we have a different view of the man. I see him as a ruthlessly ambitious politician, who managed through a combination of intelligence, skill and luck to ascend to the position of most powerful man in the Republic. In my opinion, his reluctance to kill fellow Romans has more to do with long-term political aims in terms of political stability, cultivation of his public image and sheer arrogance than any sort of reluctance to shed blood.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

by staunch 12y ago

mercurial 12y ago

Yes, indeed: Caesar paid no further attention to him. He went to Pergamon, took the pirates out of prison and crucified the lot of them, just as he had often told them he would do when he was on the island and they imagined that he was joking. And that's nothing compared to the way he behaved in Gaul. What you call magnanimity is pragmatism: he had learned from Sulla, and wanted to avoid massive purges, so he treated his Roman opponents much better than they would have if the situation had been reverted. His successor, in turn, learned the lessons of Caesar's assassination and went back to the time-proven method of slaughtering the political opposition on a large scale.

staunch 12y ago
That's a bad interpretation IMHO. He wanted to be loved and respected by his fellow Romans. He knew what people thought of Sulla for what he did. He knew personally what it was like to live in fear of a purging regime. It was not merely pragmatism, it was his personal nature based on his life experience. He may have very well have preferred to die like he did rather than to kill his enemies like Augustus did. He knew the people he spared were the most likely to kill him. He just arrogantly believed no one would dare or succeed.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Clearly, we have a different view of the man. I see him as a ruthlessly ambitious politician, who managed through a combination of intelligence, skill and luck to ascend to the position of most powerful man in the Republic. In my opinion, his reluctance to kill fellow Romans has more to do with long-term political aims in terms of political stability, cultivation of his public image and sheer arrogance than any sort of reluctance to shed blood.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]