Now, onto a different political discussion:
Was Brutus merely saving the Roman Republican representative system from a power-grabbing tyrant, or did his assassination of Julius Ceasar further threaten the Roman government?
Shakespeare viewed Brutus as the former, and Dante the later, reserving the lowest level of Hell for Brutus.
What do you think?
A 2004 National Geographic story can be found here.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I can’t help but view Brutus as a metaophor for the modern Democratic party. Popeye had it right.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I can imagine that many in the American Democratic party, especially [but some others as well], would like to see themselves as saving the Republic and just generally being noble and doing the “right” things. The reality may be quite different, however.
Et tu, Nancy?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I will take the opposite point of view on this. From all accounts, Brutus was extremely conflicted concerning the assassination of Caeser. He was a tyrant who essentially ended the Republic of Rome.
In many ways, Caeser’s reign was the beginning of the end for the Rome dynasty. It would take a long time for the end to finally come but it really started with Julius.
Still, Rome gave us so much that is still in use today including the basics of being governed partially by a legislative branch, advancements in plumbing and of course orgies!
March 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
BTW – McCain knows my last name. It does not take a genius to figure out that my ancestors were Roman. I have studied Roman society and the reigns of Julius Caeser and Augustus Caeser.
2000 years from now, our society will be studied by scholars, not that I count myself as one by any means. I wonder if our society and social norms will seem as confusing to them as some aspects of Roman politics and law seem to me?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Caesar’s warmongering was bitterly criticized in his own time. Before his time, Rome had prided itself on making war only to repell attacks and to defend friends and allies, not to make unprovoked wars of conquest. Caesar is a metaphor for the Bush/Cheney wing of the Republican party.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
“Before his time [Julius Caesar], Rome had prided itself on making war only to repell attacks and to defend friends and allies, not to make unprovoked wars of conquest.”
Really? This is from an article about Rome’s wars as a Republic [you know, before Caesar]. http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/punicwars/a/aa012798.htm
“In 509 B.C. [say, wasn't that before Caesar?] Carthage and Rome signed a friendship treaty. In 306, by which time the Romans had conquered almost the entire Italian peninsula, the two powers reciprocally recognized a Roman sphere of influence over Italy and a Carthaginian one over Sicily. But Italy was determined to secure dominance over all of Magna Grecia (the areas settled by Greeks in and around Italy), even if it meant interfering with the dominance of Carthage in Sicily”
“Caesar is a metaphor for the Bush/Cheney wing of the Republican party.”
I’m impressed with how some can connect Bush/Cheney to just about anything. That’s very creative. What in the world will some people do when Bush is not the President anymore ['cause, you know, unlike some places he is not, and isn't trying to be, El Presidente for life or anything]? What will they focus thier hatred on?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
IM1, I was conscious of the Punic wars and carefully chose my language to refer to Rome’s self-image, and contemporaneous criticisms of Caesar’s warmongering. Even Caesar recognized that he had to create an excuse for the conquest that comported with Rome’s traditions, so he doctored the intelligence to portray the war as a defensive pre-emptive action to defend an ally. The comparison with the Bush/Cheney/McCain war party gets more apt the more you look at it.