Can Gaius Julius Caesar be considered a tyrant?

Question

He is responsable for killing millions of gauls ( innocent ones, not soldiers; like the inhabitants of Avaricum), as Hitler is responsable for killing milions of jews.

The same as Hitler, Caesar was an advocate of totalitarism. He wanted to abolish the Republic.

Because Caesar's assassins were eliminated, history was written in his favour. The same thing would have happened if Hitler had won WWII.

Manipulation through history is a very powerful weapon. And your answers illustrate this theory in the best way possible.

If, for example, Junius Brutus and Cassius Longinus, would have won the struggle for power after Caesar's assassination, roman history would of course hail the two as heroes of Rome. And Caesar...nothing more than a coldhearted tyrant, a man who's desire for power had brought him to a just death.
And his great deeds (so carefully noted in his "De bello Gallico" and "De bello Civili", two subjective war jurnals, taken as objective historical accounts), probably erased fron history.

Oh, and stop telling me that he didn't kill his own people. He even killed his own soldiers (which adored him so much).

HAVE YOU EVER HEARED OF DECIMATION? A terrible military punishment~~~A cohort selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group cast lots, and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing~~~romans killing romans, brothers killing brothers. And Caesar of course used this punishment (at Bibracte when one entire legion fled the battlefield).

In my opinion, Caesar was far from being a patriot. He was nothing else but a keen politician and a cunning commander.

I see you don't agree with my comparison between Caesar and Hitler.
Than take Catilina (an infamous character, who's conspiracy was exposed by Marcus Tullius Cicero in the Senate) and Caesar. Both planned to wage war against the Republic. So what's the difference then?

Only one triumvirate followed him.

Marcus Antonius---Gaius Octavianus---Marcus Aemillus Lepidus

And if the Gauls were a warlike race, then what about the Roman Army?

Nothing else but a killing machine. And you say that there is no resemblance with the Nazis. The Wermacht was a perfect copy of the Roman Army. They even used the same emblem (the Aquila-an eagle)

Answer 1

The important thing to do when looking at someone in antiquity is to attempt to view them as their contempories would have done rather than view them from a modern perspective.

Historians are well trained in their field and they are aware of any bias that could be contained in ancient documentation. Just because Caeser's assassins came to a sticky end, does not mean that there is not evidence of Caesar's less attractive nature. There is documentary evidence for instance during his time as co-consul with Bibalus, who he despised, that people in the know were very aware that Julius was getting a lot of his own way and ruling the senate by corruption and intimidation. This time was documented as the consul, not of Bibalus and Caesar, but of Julius and Caesar!

Now when it comes to Caesar's exploits in Gaul we have to be very careful. His boast of slaying millions of them, is to our modern ears, awful. But we should not judge him from our point of view it would be wrong in the historical context. Think about it from the Roman point of view. You have a huge army and they need food and drink. Do you capture hundreds of thousands of prisoners, feed them and let the men you have fought with starve? Absolutely not. Do you put them in prison? No, because the Romans didn't have prisons of any great sunstance. Do you offer them a chance of joining the Roman Emipre? Yes, because you believe that Rome is the centre of the known world. If they refuse you what do you do? You teach them and the rest of the known world a lesson, you slaughter them en masse. I know this sounds terrible but I'm thinking like Roman and you were either with Rome of against it, there was no in between. Yes today we would call slaughter on this scale Genocide and Caesar a tyrant but as a waring nation dependent on the bounty of other countries, Caesar and those that preceded him and followed him knew of the importance of not only having power but of showing it.

Answer 2

The difference between Julius and Hitler. Julius rose through the ranks by the will of his people. He defeated the enemy bringing glory to Rome. There were no concentration camps, it was military campaigns of the old fashion.

Julius Caesar was a benolvant ruler, raised by the Senate. He has more claim to power than both of the Triumitaves that followed him.

Julius Caesar didn't kill his own populace, also remember the gauls were fierce. Read up about Wickermen, and druidic rituals. I'm not talking the paranormal, I mean the hard gritty facts. The gauls were a warlike race.

As for innocents, they always die in war. No-one has a higher collateral damage than the United States bloody history.

Answer 3

I do agree with you, despite the mistake you make in saying that he advocated totalitarianism and wanted to abolish the Republic (he professed, publicly at least, to fight FOR the Republic).
He did destroy a democracy, although a far from perfect one, and turned it for the coming five centuries into a totalitarian state. Whatever his merits, such things are not to be forgotten or forgiven.

Answer 4

Caesar was a much more benevolent ruler than Hitler (the first post sums it up). He merely accumulated his power through numerous military theaters and such. He would never abuse his people the way Hitler did.

Again, read the first post....her explanation is better than mine.