Julius Caesar Greatest man in history.

This is my opinion as to why Julius Caesar is the greatest and most important person in history. His actions lead directly to the next fifteen hundred years of European and world culture. This directly effected all of the modern world. Through his actions to march on Pompei and Rome and his establishing himself as Dictator for life lead directly to the Establishment of the Roman empire. His very death itself lead to this happening. So through his actions in life and the style of his death I feel lead directly to the next 2000 years of history. Not only extremely important to the then political situation Rome but all of Romes conquered territories and Rome's neighboring countries. After Octavian took power and established the Roman empire. It was Caesar's family who continued to rule and establish the imperial powerhouse that was to rise. The Rise of Christianity in Rome albeit not apart of the Roman culture and not a "Caesar" creation but its the reason most people who are Christians today are Christians.

The Fall of the Roman empire lead directly to the dark ages and the continue of the byzantine empire and the next 1000 years of History even if "Rome" was gone so to speak. The culture effected all of modern society. I mean we all speak variants and combos from then languages mostly deriving from Latin. Look at all of the Americas and Europe. Even today the past the Rhine the language barreir is so vastly different. I mean spanish and english translate out perfectly but with German and other languages the words are mixed up and sometimes there isn't even a direct translation like the word "Kremlin" in russian has no real direct translation into an english or spanish word.

This isn't exactly explained correctly but I feel Ceasar was the greatest and most macro historically influential person in history. I feel his status as simply one of the great "generals" is abhorrent and diminishes the mans historical importance. Even if it was inadvertent or he was cruel towards the Gaulic tribes. Does anybody agree or think somebody else might be more important like Octavian or Constantine or maybe the norman king who invaded england? though that it inself happened cause Caesar happened.

Its funny how simple things or battles that occured in the Roman age effect us so much today like the battle of teutoberg forest had so much unforeseeable effects to the Germans and Romans who took part it in that its not even funny. I mean yeah it crippled Roman power there for a while and the Romans did go back with Germanicus but still thats not even its real historical importance.

gcle2003 wrote: Everything happens because something else happens.   Without Catiline, no Caesar? Even with Caesar, what happens without Octavian becoming Augustus?   And for that matter how much influence did Caesar have on China or India?

I understand he didn't have direct influence on those parts of the world but they were eventually conquered by europeans so i guess you could say he had direct influence on the fifteen hundred years of Roman rule and influence and indirect influence on everything else. I don't know I just feel he was like the greatest person ever in history and his life is possibly the most macro historically people in the entire scheme of people.


Edited by Joe - 02 Feb 2011 at 03:09

pinguin wrote: Julius Caesar, the greatest? Because he destroyed the Republic?

Basically.

gcle wrote: Without Catiline, no Caesar?

Why would you suppose that? Caesar's career was already well developed and he was always on the trajectory to claim a special personal place for himself above the Republic. The Catilinarian episode didn't alienate him from his peers anymore than he already was, though it was the point at which the cordial dialogue between Caesar and Cato broke down.

Caesar would have carried on doing just what he did, Catiline or not.

Regarding Caesar in general, the man is often held up as the epitome of greatness. And in many ways he was, he excelled all others in virtually every field. I have always wondered how his Parthian campaign would have gone had he been left alive to wage it.

But he wasn't perfect, the was a reason he stabbed to death afterall.

As I said. Julius Caesar was the more important politician of Rome. Isn't that great?

Constantine XI wrote: pinguin wrote: As I said. Julius Caesar was the more important politician of Rome. Isn't that great? I see Caesar as much greater than Columbus. Columbus was a good sailor and leader of men, but Caesar was a consummate intellectual, politician, economist, soldier, commander, writer etc etc etc. Casesar to me appears more intelligent, driven and energetic than either Columbus or Jesus.

As I said, Caesar was a superb Roman politician, but Columbus and Jesus achieved a lot more than him. While Caesar  destroyed the Republic and started the dynasties of Emperors, Columbus helped into the discovery of 40% of the world surface. Jesus, on the other hand, it is a central figure in history since two thousand years ago, that still moves people of all conditions, and that started a religion followed by 1/6 of the human race.

With respect to intellectual skills, I bet Jefferson was smarter than Caesar. At least, the American was a mathematician

Edited by pinguin - 02 Feb 2011 at 11:38

Whatever, if you like Caesar, your choice. I believe Ptolmey I contributed a lot more to human development than him. Anyways, each one with its own prefferences.

That is true he can't or anybody can't get "all" credit especially as thats unfair. I believe though that with Caesar's events if someone else had done what he'd done or he was stopped somehow the events of world history would be unforseeable. Like in greece when pompei almost defeated him. He got through on sheer luck alone.

pinguin wrote: Because you love Caesar, obviously. Everybody has its own totems to venerate.

Better than Jesus.

pinguin wrote: In your oppinion, of course.

Jesus was a cult leader who said self absorbed things and said that he is the son of god and there is no possible way but to absolutely believe in him and believe he is apart of God. He was a trouble maker who was executed. Thats not special and he his "followers" which really just was a patchwork of then religions and seemed more like judaism than modern christianity with hail mary prayers. Jesus was a cult leader and every thing he says and does in the bible proves this. He said he had a special link to "God" said you have to absolutely believe in him and him alone or you go to hell and in many chapters he even incites violence but hes conveniently left out. He was a failed savior who said bs things and his followers held people back a thousand years. If i remember correctly the world was more advanced in Roman times as they actually had running water. The Romans might have conquered but their culture and influence permeates today; all the catholic church and Christianity did was hold us back.

Jesus was nothing better than a cult leader whislt caesar as said before was a politician, a intellectual, a leader of men and hero of his time and will be remembered for ever as who he was. Not a hypothetical person who if he did exist was nothing better than a cult leader. Similar to Jim Jones or David Koresh. I'd give Caesar veneration and admiration for historical role on humanity before i gave jesus anything other than hes a ______(word edited due to offensive content - Seko) like jim jones.


Edited by Seko - 03 Feb 2011 at 01:58

I don't think it's possible to establish the greatest man of history on any factual basis. It has to come down to personal preference. Surely Caesar was among the most influential men, both contemporarily and in posterity, but the same is true for many others and there is no measuring stick that is precise enough to rank them with any fairness. It's also a bit eurocentric; for most of human history China has been the most advanced and stable civilization, but they hadn't even heard of Caesar until recently and were doing just fine.

Constantine XI wrote: While Caesar  destroyed the Republic and started the dynasties of Emperors, The Republic was already on its last legs. Caesar transformed it into something more powerful and better suited to the running of an empire.

Constantine XI wrote: gcle wrote: On the supposition that Caesar copied Catilinian populism (and admittedly made a greater success of it). I don't see it that way. Caesar's populist tendencies pre-date Catiline by a long way. That he continued this stance after Catiline is incidental. Caesar, as an enemy of Sulla, adopted populist tendencies as early as his teens and never abandoned them. More generally I was trying succinictly to point out that Caesar was the last on a series of Roman figures that used (or tried to use) populist appeal against the Senate, thereby leading to the imperialisation of Rome. Not the last, surely. Nero did very much the same thing, which is part of the reason we have such a negative press of him (the senatorial class afterall are the ones who wrote the histories, not the plebs).

Joe wrote: The Fall of the Roman empire lead directly to the dark ages and the continue of the byzantine empire and the next 1000 years of History even if "Rome" was gone so to speak. The culture effected all of modern society. I mean we all speak variants and combos from then languages mostly deriving from Latin. Look at all of the Americas and Europe. Even today the past the Rhine the language barreir is so vastly different. I mean spanish and english translate out perfectly but with German and other languages the words are mixed up and sometimes there isn't even a direct translation like the word "Kremlin" in russian has no real direct translation into an english or spanish word.

While English contains many words derived from Latin (and Greek), the language itself is Germanic, belonging to the West-Germanic family of languages, which also includes German and Dutch. The reason modern English seems so different from these others is the uniqueness of the linguistic development on the island due to the influence of the French-speaking Normans and the separation from continental consonant shifts and the like.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/640154/West-Germanic-languages#



Edited by Ziegenbartami - 03 Feb 2011 at 01:41

Ziegenbartami wrote: Joe wrote: The Fall of the Roman empire lead directly to the dark ages and the continue of the byzantine empire and the next 1000 years of History even if "Rome" was gone so to speak. The culture effected all of modern society. I mean we all speak variants and combos from then languages mostly deriving from Latin. Look at all of the Americas and Europe. Even today the past the Rhine the language barreir is so vastly different. I mean spanish and english translate out perfectly but with German and other languages the words are mixed up and sometimes there isn't even a direct translation like the word "Kremlin" in russian has no real direct translation into an english or spanish word. While English contains many words derived from Latin (and Greek), the language itself is Germanic, belonging to the West-Germanic family of languages, which also includes German and Dutch. The reason modern English seems so different from these others is the uniqueness of the linguistic development on the island due to the influence of the French-speaking Normans and the separation from continental consonant shifts and the like. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/640154/West-Germanic-languages#