Historical Role Models

[Fragony]

Marquis de Sade, his books are funny as hell and he didn't give a crap about the authorities. Often misunderstood he was no sadist, he was horrified by the slaughters. Bit of a French Oscar Wilde, he also didn't give a crap.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Hmmm..role models from history. King Ashoka rings out large, for coming to understand the suffering his own self-exhaltation as King could cause, and his utter distaste for it. Caesar, for his obvious intellect and for managing to pass on down, through the centuries, something of what it was to be of the Roman nobility of his era, something of how they thought of themselves. On top of that, his moral and physical courage has to be admired.

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus as an example of someone who saw what was coming, and for encapsulating what might have been good about the original 'dream' that was Rome, and his younger brother Gaius who - from the accounts that we have - was an intellect to match Caesar and is an early voice of those who lose out in (pseudo) Capitalist systems.

[Arjos]

On top of that, his moral ... has to be admired.

Caesar? Moral? I mean I understand military enthusiasts loving his campaigns, but a man facing rightful criminal charges, which at worst would've sentenced him to an exile for few years, in accomodations fitting his status; instead sent thousands to their deaths is anything, but moral...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Caesar? Moral? I mean I understand military enthusiasts loving his campaigns, but a man facing rightful criminal charges, which at worst would've sentenced him to an exile for few years, in accomodations fitting his status; instead sent thousands to their deaths is anything, but moral...

You misunderstand me, which is not surprising given the brevity of my post. I spoke of what it meant to be a Roman noble at this time, and in terms of that morality he had the courage of his convictions. I'm talking about the moral proclivities within the context of the late Roman Republic (where such concepts as Gravitas, Auctoritas, Veritas, Dignitas and Humanitas have to be seen within context, a context that I think Caesar managed to convey in some of his writings and that are somewhat outside of our modern perceptions of their derivatives).

I'm not suggesting that I agree with his morality (in terms of what he did in Gaul..... mass enslavement, slaughter, mutilation...I certainly do not ), but rather that, in terms of his own moral compass he did not back down from what he felt was the right thing. An example would be his refusal to divorce his first wife as part of a deal with Sulla. Ancient morality may not be what we expect today. His pondering over crossing the Rubicon expresses his ruminations on the value of Caesar's Dignitas. A counter example would be, I would suggest, Cicero. Someone who certainly made very contradictory statements with regards to his morality.

As for what are "rightful criminal charges", that is questionable. Charges were often brought against political opponents. The charges were not brought against him rightfully (as in, for the purpose of the crimes themselves) but rather because they feared his power and conspired against him. Such were the politics of the Roman Republic.

[Arjos]

No, I didn't misunderstand you, I wasn't even speaking of his wars in Gallia.

He brought civil war on his nation, to avoid the consequences of his crimes (doesn't matter one bit, their opponents' motive. He did committ them).
To believe to be in the right, has nothing to do with being right. (And Caesar, was never even close to being oppressed) He went through anything, to get what he wanted: public beatings, corruption and other illegalities. He was an ambitious man, morality was in his way to power...
Anyway follow whatever cult of personality, you care to believe in...

Plus to speak of late roman republic values is just laughable, all these men did whatever aided them, not even thinking about the sacrality of those institutions or places...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

No, I didn't misunderstand you, I wasn't even speaking of his wars in Gallia.

He brought civil war on his nation, to avoid the consequences of his crimes (doesn't matter one bit, their opponents' motive. He did committ them).
To believe to be in the right, has nothing to do with being right. (And Caesar, was never even close to being oppressed) He went through anything, to get what he wanted: public beatings, corruption and other illegalities. He was an ambitious man, morality was in his way to power...
Anyway follow whatever cult of personality, you care to believe in...

You have misunderstood me. Completely. Morality is not a constant, unchanging facet of humanity. I am not even talking of agreeing with, or sharing his morality. I am talking of him having the courage of his convictions. That my first 'role model' was Ashoka (and the reasons given) ought to have given you pause for thought. I was simply pointing out that one has to admire his courage, and that courage comes in many forms.

Let me be categorical. I do not share Caesar's moral values.

As for "he brought civil war to his nation"...really? The other participants had nothing to do with it? They weren't ambitious men? They were the ones who talked of raising an army against Caesar prior to any invasion. This seems such a shallow reading of the civil war.

But, if you want to make personal attacks veiled as reasoned responses; if you want to make pjudgements about my beliefs without taking into account what I am actually saying, and my reasoned attempts to do so, be my guest.

[Arjos]

lol where did I write that you share his morality?

As you said again, you appreciate his conviction. I said, anyone can like of dislike, whatever cult of personality (in this case Caesar's), leaving open to question, how much of it could be true, how much embelished and so forth. I just pointed out, his it's no morality (again Caesar's), at least in my opinion.
The only personal "attack" to you (if we have to call it that), was to disagree on calling Caesar moral.

To the other point, I didn't say anything about any side being "right". They were all doing their bidding. I just tried to make clear, how self-centered Caesar's decision was: a moral man at the end of his legal and military term, might've resolved to face prosecution.
And to your particular example, considering whether to raise force against an unlawful general, who could disrupt the nation's stability seems hardly something any body of state wouldn't do.