Login

10-29-2003, 11:15 PM

Could anyone share with me who they think was the most compassionate Caesar and why. I think the most ruthless Caesar was Galigula. I think the most compassionate Roman Emperor was Julius Caesar, because from what I read about him, he believed in the loyalty of friends, and yet his own friends whom he trusted murdered him in the Senate. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=lovelydonna>lovelydonna</A> at: 10/30/03 12:44 am

Goffredo · 10-30-2003, 07:25 AM

hi 
I looked thru a dictionary for definition of compassionate and strangely I did not find amoung the listed ones "believing in loyalty of friends" nor "trusting" to the point of being murdered by them. 
 
Julius Ceasar compassionate?

Jeroen Pelgrom · 10-30-2003, 01:12 PM

hmmm, 
 
I also have difficulty of regarding Julius Caesar as being compassionate. Caesar could be very ruthless. He also rewarded political friends with important jobs etc. Not very compassionate. 
 
But then again, if you want to survive as an emperor in ancient Rome, then sometimes you must be compassionate and sometimes ruthless. 
 
Marcus Aurelius has the image of being very compassionate, but iÃ‚Â´m not certain if this image is entirely correct. 
 
most ruthless... very difficult. Gaius (=Caligula) is indeed a good candidate, but persons like Carracalla, Elagabalus, Nero, Domitian are also good choices. Volo anaticulam cumminosam meam!

10-30-2003, 02:52 PM

Lovely Donna, 
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Compassion was not exactly appropriate in refering to any CÃƒÂ¦sar, especially Gaius Julius. Compassion is really a more modern concept that is a part of Judeo-Christian tradition and is always tricky when dealing with power politics. This explanation is so general as to be misleading, but to address it adequately would take a book-length essay. 
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp As to Gaius Julius CÃƒÂ¦sar, he was a calculating politician. A more accurate translation of his actions after the Civil War might be "generosity." He was operating in the context of fairly recent proscriptions and executions of political enemies by the persons and factions of Gaius Marius and Sulla, where blood ran literally through the streets of Rome; CÃƒÂ¦sar was likely appealing to a fear of the Optimates that his rise to power would lead to the bloodshed so horrifying to the city. In any case, the very enemies whom he "forgave" were the ones who conspired against him, Brutus, Cassius and others. 
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp This is the very indication of why in ancient virtues, letting an enemy live was an invitation to vengeance down the road. They tended to distrust compassion as weakness and an opening for treachery. They had plenty of evidence to that. Some anthropological study of the differences in an "honor/shame" culture and a "guilt/innocence" culture might clarify the differences. 
 
Wade Heaton 
Lucius Cornelius Libo 
[email protected] www.togaman.com

10-30-2003, 07:39 PM

Some further thoughts: The Romans themselves had a way of indicating which "CÃƒÂ¦sar" was worthy of admiration and which not. The Senate could confer the title of Divus (the Deified) after death to those who were to be remembered as more good than bad. Suetonius' titles to his "Twelve CÃƒÂ¦sar's" collection says it all: 
Gaius Julius, Augustus, Tiberius(!?), Claudius, Vespanian, and Titus bear the title. Gaius (Caligula), Nero, Galba, Otho, Vittelius, and Domitian do not. 
 
WH 
LCL 
[email protected] 
www.togaman.com

10-30-2003, 10:47 PM

Not to be pedantic but Julius Caeasar is not numbered among the emperors. He was a Dictator by unconstitutional fiat. 
We've discussed Roman "ruthlessness" in other threads, but it bears pointing out that in most monarchies the bad rulers weren't the cruel ones, but the weak, ineffectual ones. When a king, emperor, Tsar or whatever could not control his nobles, anarchy reigned and everyone suffered. 
We remember Caligula and Nero as cruel, but their oppressions extended only to the Senatorial class and the very richest Romans. Did the average Roman care about those people? 
Caesar's generosity was not an example of "Compassion" much less "mercy,": attributes despised by Romans. He was showing clemency, which was a princely virtue. He showed confidence in his own strength by sparing his enemies and recalling them from exile. 
It turned out to be a mistake, and it was one the future Augustus did not make: as soon as he seized power, he killed all his enemies without compunction, thus freeing himself to reign for decades as the good-guy emperor everybody remembers.

10-31-2003, 12:19 PM

"We remember Caligula and Nero as cruel, but their oppressions extended only to the Senatorial class and the very richest Romans. Did the average Roman care about those people?" 
 
It is said (in Suetonius?) that long after his death, common folks would still put flowers on Nero's tomb.. 
..And I've seen photographs showing that today, common folks still put flowers on the spot of Caesar's funeral pyre..

10-31-2003, 02:32 PM

Being very aware that Gaius Julius was not an emperor, I couched my response to Lovely Donna in quotation marks. He was the first of Suetonius' "Twelve;" but her original question focused on him; therefore, so did the response. 
 
Wade Heaton 
Lucius Cornelius Libo 
[email protected] 
www.togaman.com

10-31-2003, 04:48 PM

Thank you for informing me that Caesar was a dictator instead of an emperor. I do love Roman history. I love the very intelligent responses I have been recieving.

10-31-2003, 04:56 PM

Has anyone seen the 'Masterpiece Theatre' film of 'I Claudius,' and if so, what did you think of it? It was on television awhile back and you can rent it in Video. Also during the Roman Empire, Jesus Christ called Herod 'The Fox.' I'd love to know what others think Jesus Christ meant by calling Herod 'The Fox.' I personally think He meant that Herod was very clever and a manipulator. Because foxes are clever animals.

10-31-2003, 07:03 PM

Lovelydonna: 
"I Claudius" was beautiful drama, and one of my favorites, but Robert Graves took some liberties with history, naturally. He probably overemphasized Livia's manipulation of Augustus because Graves believed that women really ran everything anyway. If you've never read the books, do so. You won't regret it. 
I don't know the reference for Jesus calling Herod "the fox," and to which Herod did he refer? To Herod the Great, king of Judea at his birth, or Herod Antipas, ruler at the time of the crucifixion? If the former, none deserved the epithet better. He rose to prominence as a friend of Marc Antony (though he hated Cleopatra) and after Actium ingratiated himself with Octavian through his great boldness, then went on to be a firm ally of Rome and had a long and prosperous reign and died in bed. If that isn't foxy, I don't know what is. By the way, the Herod in "I Claudius" was yet another Herod, Herod Agrippa. He was the last of the line.

10-31-2003, 07:35 PM

The Herod I was referring to I think was Herod Antipas. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=lovelydonna>lovelydonna</A> at: 10/31/03 8:45 pm

10-31-2003, 07:37 PM

The Herod I was referring to was the last Herod. He was also eaten by worms, because the judgement of God fell upon him when he claimed to be God himself. This is told about in the New Testament. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=lovelydonna>lovelydonna</A> at: 10/31/03 8:44 pm

11-02-2003, 07:56 PM

Lovelydonna, 
 
I might strongly suggest you would do well to look at some studies of the Roman province of Judea for detailed answers. There is some conscious effort to avoid religious controversies in these threads. Sometimes topics like this one lead far afield of Roman Military studies. However, what is germane to these fora are the successive uprisings and revolts against Roman client-kings and their bureaucracies. I might suggest an ancient source like Flavius Josephus and his commentaries on the Jewish wars: one major caveat is his is not an unbiased chronicle, but it does give accounts from a knowledgeable observer who was there, if furthering his own agenda. 
 
As to which Herod, earlier posts outlined there are four "Herods": 1-"the Great" who died in 4 BCE, the one who according to the Gospels commanded the Slaughter of the Innocents in the last year of his life; 2. Antipas who is the Herod in the story of Jesus and John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate; and 3. Marcus Julius Agrippa, who is called Herod in the Acts of the Apostles. Your 'eaten by worms' reference suggests his dramatic and legendary death in the amphitheatre in CÃƒÂ¦sarea, while attempting to present himself as the true Messiah; and 4. Marcus Julius Agrippa (2) who sided with Rome during the revolt, who supplied cavalry and archers to Titus and accompanied him in the latter stages of the war, and who helped Josephus with information for his commentary on the Jewish wars. 
 
Wade Heaton 
Lucius Cornelius Libo 
[email protected] 
www.togaman.com Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=togaman>Togaman</A> at: 11/3/03 10:21 pm

11-02-2003, 08:26 PM

Thanks, Wade, I'd forgotten about that later Agrippa. Was he officially a Herod? The earlier Agrippa, as you note, is only called Herod in the NT. Maybe people had just gotten used to calling the king Herod by that time. Some scholars speculate that the eaten-by-worms thing was a form of cancer, possibly accompanied by a parasitic infestation. Either way, it was a rough way to check out.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me