04-12-2012, 12:15 PM
Both yes and no, it depends on who you ask.
Caesar was indeed guilty of several crimes against several laws, but then again he was also defending himself against political opponents who (mis)used these laws to persecute caesar. Self-defense, then?
On the other hand it's difficult to see the republic as anything like a state with coherent laws that were to be observed, when in fact it was an oligarchy of he super-rich, who supported a few 'able' men from their ranks that actuallt dared fighting it out between them. With a banker (Crassus) supporting a successful general (Pompey) it's not even fair to see Caesar as the first one using his army to bolster an illegal bid for power - he just used his men better than Pompey did. That was (of course) the reason for his opponents (the rich men in the Senate) to demand the disbanding of his troops, which would have left him helples.
The following civil war was not new, nor was his dictatorship and sole rule. From his opponents' point of view, it was legal to end that, but these same men had brought about the circumstances for that very situation. Any claims of Caesar wanting to become a king smell of a very weak case of his murder though - they fully well knew that Caesar was not guilty of extraordinary crimes.
Caesar was indeed guilty of several crimes against several laws, but then again he was also defending himself against political opponents who (mis)used these laws to persecute caesar. Self-defense, then?
On the other hand it's difficult to see the republic as anything like a state with coherent laws that were to be observed, when in fact it was an oligarchy of he super-rich, who supported a few 'able' men from their ranks that actuallt dared fighting it out between them. With a banker (Crassus) supporting a successful general (Pompey) it's not even fair to see Caesar as the first one using his army to bolster an illegal bid for power - he just used his men better than Pompey did. That was (of course) the reason for his opponents (the rich men in the Senate) to demand the disbanding of his troops, which would have left him helples.
The following civil war was not new, nor was his dictatorship and sole rule. From his opponents' point of view, it was legal to end that, but these same men had brought about the circumstances for that very situation. Any claims of Caesar wanting to become a king smell of a very weak case of his murder though - they fully well knew that Caesar was not guilty of extraordinary crimes.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
