tværpostet fra: https://feddit.dk/post/21496516
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
84 points (97.7% liked)
History
6794 readers
16 users here now
Welcome to History!
A community dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.
Rules:
-
Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Discussion is encouraged.
-
No memes. No ads. No promos. No politics. No spam.
-
No porn.
-
We like facts and reliable sources here. While sources like Quora/Reddit/Wikipedia can be great tools for quick searches, we do not allow such user-generated content as primary source. What’s wrong with Wikipedia?
NOTE: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
wtf did he do to you?
He murdered up to 60% of Gaul's total population
Yeah but if he hadn't there would be more French people
I would argue that without Caesar, there wouldn't be any French people.
Yeah, but like, OP wasn't there for that.
Brought about dictatorship in Rome
The Republic's government was failing for a long time. The generals in the republic simply had too much power. When rebels rose in the Sertorian War the senate couldn't do anything for years until Pompey finally ended it, had highlighting the power of the generals over the senate. This wasn't unknown in the republic. It's the reason why the first triumvirate was able to form. The republic had too little checks and balances.
There were 85 dictators before him. I'm not kidding.
Dictatorship was a tool of the republic. It's where the term came from. In Rome you have to differentiate a tyrant from a dictator. Just look at Cincinnatus.
How is it better to have just one?
He also managed to strip the power from wealthy senators in Rome to give the common people better representation; even if it was only in principal rather than installed/formalized in a new system of government. He was a misguided man by the time he was murdered, but still a popular man of the people for this reason. His disposition with the corrupt, self-serving senators legitimized his right to rule for the plebeians that were ignored by the senate for so long.
Worth remembering that most of what we know of Caesar comes directly from Caesar. He is the man that destroyed and ended the republic for no real reason other than power.
Imo Pompeii is far more deserving of the praise that Caesar receives.
This statement is not true.
Cicero and Cato the Younger lived during Caesar's time. Cicero's speeches and texts are very well known and telling on Caesar.
I said 'most' as Caesar created a shitload of propaganda about himself. Obviously, an adept student would look deeper than that, as you have.
Did all of his successors give the common people better representation? Because it seems to me he destroyed a Republic for a little temporary representation of the common people (if you buy that) in exchange for 500+ years of dictatorship.
Sure didn't, but I'm sure he didn't really plan on getting murdered either. Maybe he had a plan to reinstall a democracy after his rule. Though I doubt it.
Why are you dick riding a guy who died more than ten years ago
Why can't you just admit that Rome is stronger than ever thanks to Caesar? You have Caesar Derangement Syndrome.
The same the Democrats do in the US. Half measures for the people at home and warcrimes for the imperium abroad.
salad is gross