So Caesar proceeds to go on a ten-year rampage of blood in Gaul, attacking the Helvetii, who were friendly and pointedly had avoided entering Roman territory. Caesar's action appears utterly unprovoked, though he does his best to disguise this in his Comentarii. 12/xx
-
-
What he most certainly didn't do was put Rome on a firm foundation. Upon his assassination in 44, his lieutenants, pardoned foes, former friends and his own adopted son Octavian promptly set in to murdering each other in a 14-year-long bloodbath. 23/xx
Näytä tämä ketju -
It's hard to really describe in brief just how traumatic this all was to the Romans, but you get a sense of it by the way the people of Rome absolutely *panic* whenever they think Octavian might die or give up power. The fear of the bad old days of civil war was intense. 24/xx
Näytä tämä ketju -
So there it is, Julius Caesar - bloody and lawless, an almost entirely negative presence in Roman history. It would be up to his nephew to try to put Rome back together after Caesar's pride and ego shoved it into the abyss. 25/xx
Näytä tämä ketju -
At some point if I can get a moment to myself, I might write all of this up in a more coherent form and pitch it somewhere. But in any event, wishing for an 'American Caesar' would be embarrassingly and laughably sophomoric if it wasn't so damned dangerous. end/26
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I remember the one thing he seems to get praise for from both Suetonius and Plutarch was fixing the calendar. But even Cato would've agreed on that point.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.