Julius Caesar was a Roman general, statesman, Consul and author. He was born in 100 BC and died on The Ides Of March in 44 BC. He is often credited of bringing the direct demise to the Roman Republic. Caesar conquered Gaul and a piece of Britain, and used some of the riches from this for building projects in Rome for support. Caesar also gave legionaries better pay and benefits. Many say he is greedy for marching on Rome, but in reality this was inevitable.Romes senate was dying, and they knew it. They were no longer powerful in the ancient world, the generals and governors were. It is often avoided on discussions that the senate was threatening Julius Caesar. Let me create the situation, you are governor of Gaul (modern day France) and are commanded by a senate who claims to rule an empire but has no real power anymore. They begin to fear you and demand you come back to Rome unarmed to face trial for treason, which you did not commit. You are hugely loved by the people and have a great number of troops at your disposal. Are you going to return alone, and face your trial which will almost certainly result in your death. Or go back to Rome with your men, ready to fight for your life. Caesar had a clear choice and took the right one. So why is he always treated like a villain?
I agree with my opponent that Caesar's actions were justified when marching on Rome. However that doesn't make him a hero. Caesar might not have been as bad a tyrant as Nero but he was a tyrant never the less. We can see proof of that from the fact that he was murdered by his own senators of whom some were his friends. It makes one wonder why some of them did it. Caesar was also a dictator and well those are almost never good in the long run. He was also the first of a line of brutal rulers who caused Rome's demise.
Caesar is praised for his tactical genius on the battlefield. However all his heroic victories happened after he had made a major tactical error and had to dig himself out of a hole of his own making.
My opponent states the fact that Caesar was a dictator, but that does not justify his murder. In times of peril in Rome a dictator was commonly appointed by the senate, of course the senate no longer were in power when Caesar took control so he appointed himself the dictator. Although I cant justify his actions, the common people loved Caesar. It wasn't really a problem for them that Caesar was in control of Rome. But the people who did have a problem with him and murdered him for there own nefarious purposes, the senate and the patricians.
In my previous argument I never stated The march on Rome made Caesar a hero, I said it did not make him a tyrant. I did state his generosity and dedication to Rome made him a hero. May I also state Caesar was not the first in a line of tyrant rulers, in fact that is quite the opposite. Caesar was the first in a line of glorious leaders who made Rome an empire. I don't know if my opponent is familiar with 'Pax Romana' but that's what 200 year period of prosperity for Rome is what Caesar set the foundation for.