Caesar: Hero Or Villain

[guidoLaMoto]

"Epilepsy" or Grand Mal Seizures, sometimes referred to as the falling sickness, are either primary (idiopathic) or secondary to some cerebral injury or disease (strokes, tumors, trauma, abcesses, etc)....Caesar appently never suffered generalized seizures until after visiting Egypt where pork was a more common food source than in Rome...He probably picked up cycsticercosis from the pork (tapeworms that can encyst in the brain).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cysticercosis

"Mini-strokes" (TIAs) are most often caused by severe carotid arteriosclerosis and CAD- very unusual in non-smokers, non-diabetics under the age of 70 or so and show only temporary, transitory neurological deficits. There is no mention of Caesar having any symptoms of paresis or aphasia, so seizures secondary to full strokes are unlikely. Primary seizure disorders usually appear early in life-- childhood- early adulthood.

In regards the original question about Caesar- hero or villian?-- the only obviously correct answer is "maybe." We should never make the mistake of judging aother society by our own modern standards-- that might lead us to think Indigneous Americans were bad people because they ate their own pet dogs when the occasion arose. ....Whether you liked Caesar's influence in bringing "civilization" to western Europe would depend on whether you liked living dressed scantilly in animal furs, bathing in icy cold rivers and starving when game was scarce or not....One cannot read the Commentaries without seeing the obvious parallels in the way of life of the Germanic tribes and the indigenous Americans....If you want to make an omellette, you've got to break a few eggs

[Danielerefs]

Has anyone encountered any ethical concerns or legal issues surrounding the sale and trade of authentic Roman armor, considering the potential for cultural appropriation and the preservation of historical artifacts?

[caldrail]

Was Caesar a military general who had no equal other than Alexander?

He was a capable popular leader yet it has been noticed that for all his success on the battlefield, his strategies were often clumsy and ill-considered. It's true that Caesar added a considerable expanse of territory to Roman control, but he did so for booty and politics, not the benefit of the empire.

Was the collapse of the Republic solely Caesar's fault or did he have help in that?

What collapse are you talking about? There's no such event in the Roman sources. The 'Roman Empire' remained SPQR, Senate and People of Rome, to the end in the West. Neither Caesar nor Augustus created a new regime. Caesar merely placed himself in charge of Roman government and Augustus reformed the Republic.

This is why I say the word 'emperor' is so damaging to the study of Roman history. It creates a false impression of Roman politics and the word we derive 'emperor' from is imperator, which according to Dio and Varro, meant 'Victorious General', nothing more. From ad69 the words begins to become exclusive but always remained an honour, a marker of status, yet never referred to a civil or military office. After all, Nero had been running the state for eleven years before he received the honour of 'victorious general'.