History Discussion Post & 3 Replies | Homework Writings Help
I need support with this History question so I can learn better.
I need an original post that is at least 200 words responding to Part A. Then I need three student responses to post, at least 100 words, that can be found in Part B. Please respond to student response like you are talking to them directly. Do not say I agree with this student .this students use of ..etc Chicago Style Format
PART A
After more than two thousand years, Gaius Julius Caesar remains a controversial figure. Was he a hero or a villain? Did he save the Republic, or did he destroy it? Is his legacy something to admire and aspire to, or is it a salutary lesson about the ways governments destroy themselves? Read the linked article in this week’s content, “Gaius Julius Caesar: Assessment”, and then for the Week Eight discussion weigh in with your own assessment of Caesar. Provide specific details and examples.
PART B
1
“In my honest opinion, Caesar was a very complicated man. Whether or not he was a hero or a villain is very subjective. What is true is that he was loved by his people. Three years ago I was able to visit Rome for the first time and on this trip, I visited the location of Caesar’s cremation. The guide went at great length describing how multitudes were in attendance at his funeral and how they were even bringing their furniture to add to the pyre. It is hard to call someone like that a villain. I believe in a sense that he did save the empire. He was an extremely successful general and dictator and Rome loved their superstars. While yes, the Republic didn’t quite last after his reign, I believe that it was the vanity of those who came after him that led to the Empire and not directly his fault.“
2
“I think Gaius Julius Caesar was a hero who saved the Republic, even as it changed form. I think his legacy is something to admire. He adapted to the times he lived in, even if they might not have been the time he would have chosen to live in. He might have preferred to live in a time where the traditional Roman virtues would have served him in his life, but that is not the time he was born in. I agree with Matthias Gelzer, that Caesar was not able to do anything he wanted, but instead was constrained and influenced by the “social revolution” going on around him.
I think that it doesn’t really matter whether he increased popular representation because of his personal values and willingness to stand up for the common man, or whether this was just a cold-blooded means to an end of expanding his base. The end result is the same either way. He did it, and he lived in a time when this was the most successful way to go about ruling.
I think that it is a very valid critique in the Livius.org article, that today, and especially in the years right after World War II, we do not care for one-person rule. One-person rule is associated with leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-un. These are bywords for madness, associated with Hitler’s desire to exterminate the Jews, Stalin purging his military leaders, Mao leading his country into famine with the Great Leap Forward and chaos with the Cultural Revolution, and Kim Jong-un letting his citizens starve while he pursues nuclear ICBMs.
However, I don’t think that Caesar was doing things like this. Instead he expanded citizenship, and made outlying provinces more equal with Rome. This helped a lot of people. With the reign of Augustus, instead of civil war, there was peace. So, I think Caesar gets a raw deal when he is associated with people like Hitler, as someone who did not have significant legislative checks and balances.
I think it’s also fair to say that the Republic system was broken, and that stakeholders in the Senate would not allow for reform. It might be better if they had allowed reform, but they were unwilling. I think if the Senate had chosen to expand benefits to more citizens (or vassals), that could have been a good solution too, but it didn’t happen.
Right now when I read about Brexit, it seems like many British people do not feel like their will, as expressed in a referendum, is being carried out. At the same time, others feel like the referendum should never have been held. So in this way, just having a representative government does not guarantee that citizens will feel like they are being represented.
Overall, I think Caesar was a hero in the time that he lived, and that he brought peace and stability to Rome. “
3
“I am going to do a different take on Julius Caesar’s contribution to Roman society. Caesar did accomplish a lot of thing while he was dictator of Rome but I feel like he did not save Rome. I will say he laid the foundation for the saving of Rome. Caesar was a beloved figure in Roman society but he had to do bad things to achieve that power which all rulers have done. Caesars arrogance did not allow Rome to grow. What Caesar did do his is teach his adopted son Augustus on how to rule. Augustus watched from a far analyzing what Caesar did right and what he did wrong. After Caesars murder a chain of events happened that led to Augustus rule. Augustus applied what he learned and what Caesar should of done. The biggest thing was to share power with the senate, which was the downfall of Caesar. Augustus rule help bring prosperity and peace to the Roman Empire. One would say without Caesar’s guidance, Augustus wouldn’t had became what he was and Rome would not have thrived.
“Gaius Julius Caesar: Assessment.” Livius. Accessed May 06, 2019. https://www.livius.org/articles/person/caesar/caesar-10/.“
