Name the three worst traitors in history

[RegBarc]

Brought on by my love for the classics, Rome's second season premiering tonight, and a Jesuit high school "experience", this may seem like quite the odd task.

But I'm curious...who would you call the three worst traitors in the history of mankind? They could be based somewhat in fiction, or be totally historical. Who would you choose for the three mouths of Satan to chew on for all eternity? My three are:

1.) Brutus (obviously)
2.) Jefferson Davis
3.) Lee Harvey Oswald

The third one may be perplexing. As far as I'm concerned, considering he wore the Marine uniform then decided Communism was totally awesome, him assassinating the Commander-in-Chief was an act of treachery, as well as an assassination.

[Pablo]

Brought on by my love for the classics, Rome's second season premiering tonight, and a Jesuit high school "experience", this may seem like quite the odd task.

But I'm curious...who would you call the three worst traitors in the history of mankind? They could be based somewhat in fiction, or be totally historical. Who would you choose for the three mouths of Satan to chew on for all eternity? My three are:

1.) Brutus (obviously)
2.) Jefferson Davis
3.) Lee Harvey Oswald

The third one may be perplexing. As far as I'm concerned, considering he wore the Marine uniform then decided Communism was totally awesome, him assassinating the Commander-in-Chief was an act of treachery, as well as an assassination.
Number 2 is perplexing. Is this just a case of the winners writing the history? After all, the American revolution was a civil war. Why not list the likes of Ben Franklin or George Washington?

[RegBarc]

Number 2 is perplexing. Is this just a case of the winners writing the history? After all, the American revolution was a civil war. Why not list the likes of Ben Franklin or George Washington?
Yes, I would classify Jefferson Davis (and only Jefferson Davis) as the traitor of the civil war. I despised him the most for reasons too numerous for the text limit of this box. ;)

Succinctly, his own personal cowardice burned me royally. There's not one part of what he did I would consider honorable. Lee fought for Virginia, so on and do forth. Davis just burns me.

[pseudonym]

Brutus killed a man who was turning Rome from a republic into a monarchy, with the support of the masses who considered him to be literally a god.

Brutus was an assassin, but it could be argued that Caesar was the real traitor.

[JustAllie]

Yes, I would classify Jefferson Davis (and only Jefferson Davis) as the traitor of the civil war. I despised him the most for reasons too numerous for the text limit of this box. ;)

Succinctly, his own personal cowardice burned me royally. There's not one part of what he did I would consider honorable. Lee fought for Virginia, so on and do forth. Davis just burns me.
You can imagine my surprise when I first moved to Virginia years ago and discovered that I had moved onto a highway named after him. :huh:

I guess my Yankee roots are showing.

I don't really have a submission for this thread topic. It is really hard to put thousands of years of human treachery into a nutshell. :p

[RegBarc]

Brutus killed a man who was turning Rome from a republic into a monarchy, with the support of the masses who considered him to be literally a god.

Brutus was an assassin, but it could be argued that Caesar was the real traitor.
It's not so much whether we agree or disagree with Caesar's intent. Reading his conquest of the Gauls (perhaps the most clear and beautiful example of Latin prose that ever existed) he wasn't evil at all.

But what is important to focus on is that Brutus was forgiven for betraying Caesar before with Pompey. Caesar accepted Brutus back with open arms and elevated him, much to the surprise and thankfulness of Brutus. But the Roman Senate, while Republican in its nature, was just as power hungry as Caesar and would do anything to keep that power. Sure, Caesar was a friend of the plebs of Rome, but he was still a friend of the plebs, and a merciful man. Brutus, literally, back-stabbed him.

[RegBarc]

You can imagine my surprise when I first moved to Virginia years ago and discovered that I had moved onto a highway named after him. :huh:

I guess my Yankee roots are showing.

I don't really have a submission for this thread topic. It is really hard to put thousands of years of human treachery into a nutshell. :p
The high school down in Virginia that I am familiar with is the Robert E. Lee High School. It's quite the culture shock seeing that for the first time.

[InigoMontoya]

So what did Davis do that was so terrible? When one keeps in mind that at the time one would identify himself as a "Virginian" or "New Yorker" or whatever long before an "American" I don't see what he did as any more treacherous than if say Bush decided to pull the US out of NATO.

[trainman]

The high school down in Virginia that I am familiar with is the Robert E. Lee High School. It's quite the culture shock seeing that for the first time.

In my radio station jingle collection, I have some from a radio station in Richmond called WLEE. I wonder how they came up with those call letters...

[RegBarc]

So what did Davis do that was so terrible? When one keeps in mind that at the time one would identify himself as a "Virginian" or "New Yorker" or whatever long before an "American" I don't see what he did as any more treacherous than if say Bush decided to pull the US out of NATO.
He rose above each individual state declaring a separation from the Union and became the president of the Confederacy.

I don't know if Davis is the best example, but someone had to replace Judas among the triumvirate of traitors.

[Martin Tupper]

Is Johnny Damon on the list?

[pseudonym]

Is Johnny Damon on the list?
Number six, right below Benedict Arnold and Cindy Sheehan.

[heySkippy]

I don't know if Davis is the best example, but someone had to replace Judas among the triumvirate of traitors.
So, why isn't Judas on your list?

[pseudonym]

It's not so much whether we agree or disagree with Caesar's intent. Reading his conquest of the Gauls (perhaps the most clear and beautiful example of Latin prose that ever existed) he wasn't evil at all.

But what is important to focus on is that Brutus was forgiven for betraying Caesar before with Pompey. Caesar accepted Brutus back with open arms and elevated him, much to the surprise and thankfulness of Brutus. But the Roman Senate, while Republican in its nature, was just as power hungry as Caesar and would do anything to keep that power. Sure, Caesar was a friend of the plebs of Rome, but he was still a friend of the plebs, and a merciful man. Brutus, literally, back-stabbed him.
So you're willing to overlook a blatent power grab that will permanently compromise republican ideals, as long as the person doing it has, in your opinion, good intentions about what to do with that power?

That actually explains alot about your attitude toward the current administration.

[mbklein]

In my radio station jingle collection, I have some from a radio station in Richmond called WLEE. I wonder how they came up with those call letters...

The Lees have been around Virginia since long before Robert E. took up arms. In fact, Richard Henry Lee was the first delegate formally authorized by his state's legislature to bring up a resolution on independence to the Continental Congress in 1776.

I had a Korean friend from Arlington who used to joke about being one of the Lees of Old Virginia, when in fact he was a Lee of Old Incheon.

[RegBarc]

So you're willing to overlook a blatent power grab that will permanently compromise republican ideals, as long as the person doing it has, in your opinion, good intentions about what to do with that power?

That actually explains alot about your attitude toward the current administration.
Absolutely not, and please don't put words in my mouth.

The attitude towards tyrants (as the word itself meant something different to the people of the time) back at the Roman empires height was different. Being a traitor to someone or something isn't measured by the overall goodness of the people involved, but by the level of treachery to one person or one group.

In this case, while Caesar liked consolidated power, the personal betrayal of Brutus outweighed any of his personal desires for a more republican government. That is what I am measuring it by, the amount of treachery needed to do what he did to Caesar.

And Caesar, despite what you may or may not think, was generally a good man. He wasn't evil, and the things he did for the growth of the empire and acceptance of other ethnicities in government was more than the Senate ever dreamed of.

Read his memoirs, they're quite good and shed a lot of light on him.

[RegBarc]

So, why isn't Judas on your list?
Because Jesus needed someone to betray him in order for everything to work out. I don't think Judas was 100% fictional, but on the same token, the whole pre-destiny of the Passion involved someone betraying him.

[RegBarc]

Is Johnny Damon on the list?I'm not a big follower of baseball...

[pseudonym]

Absolutely not, and please don't put words in my mouth.

The attitude towards tyrants (as the word itself meant something different to the people of the time) back at the Roman empires height was different. Being a traitor to someone or something isn't measured by the overall goodness of the people involved, but by the level of treachery to one person or one group.

In this case, while Caesar liked consolidated power, the personal betrayal of Brutus outweighed any of his personal desires for a more republican government. That is what I am measuring it by, the amount of treachery needed to do what he did to Caesar.

And Caesar, despite what you may or may not think, was generally a good man. He wasn't evil, and the things he did for the growth of the empire and acceptance of other ethnicities in government was more than the Senate ever dreamed of.

Read his memoirs, they're quite good and shed a lot of light on him.

This isn't about whether or not Caesar was a good man.

I'm not defending assassination as a means of political change. Brutus was treacherous, although his "personal desires for a more republican government" are irrelevant; Rome was a republic, and Caesar was dismantling it. Caesar's betrayal was the larger one. However, you're continuing to defend the abandonment of republican principles based on what a great guy Caesar was and how terrible the Senate was, and the idea that tyranny was better tolerated back then. All of this may be true, but it misses the point. The parallels to modern politics are obvious. For the most part, those most comfortable with Bush's "consolidation of power" (as you've euphemised it) are the ones who feel he's an honorable man doing what is right to protect the country.

And as for putting words in your mouth, explain how I've mischaracterized your position. You haven't done so yet.

[pseudonym]

Because Jesus needed someone to betray him in order for everything to work out. I don't think Judas was 100% fictional, but on the same token, the whole pre-destiny of the Passion involved someone betraying him.
Unless we actually have free will, in which case Judas was a guy who turned in his friend to the Roman executioners for the reward money.

[RegBarc]

This isn't about whether or not Caesar was a good man.

I'm not defending assassination as a means of political change. Brutus was treacherous, although his "personal desires for a more republican government" are irrelevant; Rome was a republic, and Caesar was dismantling it. Caesar's betrayal was the larger one. However, you're continuing to defend the abandonment of republican principles based on what a great guy Caesar was and how terrible the Senate was, and the idea that tyranny was better tolerated back then. All of this may be true, but it misses the point. The parallels to modern politics are obvious. For the most part, those most comfortable with Bush's "consolidation of power" (as you've euphemised it) are the ones who feel he's an honorable man doing what is right to protect the country.

Before the civil war, Caesar wrote to the Senate as stated he would voluntarily give up his army if his main competetor Pompey would do the same. The Senate then illegally ordered Caesar to give it up anyway. They wern't allowed to do it, but they didn't want him around. Caesar wanted it to end without a civil war, but the Senate forced his hand. The Senate themselves were just as power-hungry as Caesar anyway, but were willing to dismantle Caesar and his army no matter the cost.

As for me "abandoning" republican principals, mind you, what is right and wrong is different for each society and culture in a historical context. Caesar was a hero of the populice; they adored him. The armies generally adored him, and not unlike the Roman military of the time, the legions were fiercely devoted to their commanders. Times change, and so does the concept of right and wrong. We can't possibly use our values to judge his governance from over 2,000 years ago. But the betrayal of Brutus was infamous from the moment it happened. Brutus never became the hero of Rome that the Senate and his family thought would happen. Ever since the assassination, Brutus has been regarded as a traitor. And despite your personal feelings of Caesar, he is still to this day regarded historically as one of the greatest military commanders and greatest leaders of a given empire.

The Christians, not known for their liking of Polytheism, still regard Brutus as a traitor and hence he is written as eternally being chewed on by one of three mouths of Satan, for betraying another Polytheist.

Brutus stabbed one of his most forgiving and best friends in the back, for a variety of reasons. And it's not like the Senate was known in 44 B.C. for being of the highest moral platitude. It was one side vs. another. And Brutus, after being forgiven and accepted lovingly as a brother by Caesar and elevated in government by Caesar, stabbed him.

Brutus went down in history, as a fact, as someone who is an archetypal example of a traitor.

And as for putting words in your mouth, explain how I've mischaracterized your position. You haven't done so yet.

You stated that I was willing to look over a power grab and it explained my current attitude towards the administration.

First, there's absolutely no need to get personal like that. We're talking about traitors, not whether or not I "overlook" power grabs by the Bush administration. There's much better ways to make your point, than to make a mention how it "explains" why I would give a pass to the current Presidential administration. Let us stick to the point, not any past history of the person posting.

Second, I didn't state that I agreed, or wanted to overlook, Caesar's civil war. What I stated (and clarified in this post) was that it was a corrupt Senate vs. Caesar. It's not like the poor, defenseless Senate was being overrun by a power-hungry dictator. Caesar looked to the Senate to end any civil war before it happened, and tried to do so by a lawful way, but the Senate promptly spit in his face when he tried.

Honestly, read Caesar's accounts of the Gallic war. It gives great insight into who he is as a man, and it's frankly amazing a historical work like that is not only preserved, but also so clear and unambiguous more than 2,000 years later.

[RegBarc]

Unless we actually have free will, in which case Judas was a guy who turned in his friend to the Roman executioners for the reward money.
Judas needed to betray Jesus; Jesus knew the betrayal was going to happen, yet still did nothing to stop it. It's one of those tragedies that needed to occur.

[pgogborn]

Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine and George Washington ;)

[Philosofy]

Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine and George Washington ;)


Lincoln??? Surely you mean Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, you limey bastard. ;)

[RegBarc]

Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine and George Washington ;)
Wonder why Jefferson Davis isn't on that list...

(cough) secret trade negotions with the south (cough)

;)

[pseudonym]

In all honesty, Reg, I don't need you to tell me how I can most effectively make my points. The only reason that I can see for you to characterize my linking your stated positions on two separate but (I think) related subjects as "getting personal" is as a prelude to some sort of moderating activity. I trust you won't resort to that, and you'll save the "don't get personal" ammo for a situation that truly merits it. If I see a link between what you've said about the administration to your views on history, I'm going to point it out. The parallels between the two situations are obvious.

[pseudonym]

Judas needed to betray Jesus; Jesus knew the betrayal was going to happen, yet still did nothing to stop it. It's one of those tragedies that needed to occur.
My point was that if you believe this, the larger implication is that Judas, and by extention any of us, don't have the final say in our own actions. The only reason Judas would have "needed" to betray Jesus is if God willed it, right?

[pgogborn]

Lincoln??? Surely you mean Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, you limey bastard. ;)
Them too, but not only did Lincoln use an army and navy to attack his own countrymen, his navy attacked British merchant shipping and after he had beaten his fellow country men into submission he whinged on that Britain had built ships for the South and demanded either $2 billion or Canada as compensation. ;)

(as an aside last month the UK paid the final installment of the money that it owed the USA for help we received during World War II - we are free of debt to the US at last :p )

[RegBarc]

In all honesty, Reg, I don't need you to tell me how I can most effectively make my points. The only reason that I can see for you to characterize my linking your stated positions on two separate but (I think) related subjects as "getting personal" is as a prelude to some sort of moderating activity.

It's not a prelude to moderating activity. I don't really mind if you make that connection. It's totally unnecessary and a little cheap, but it's not against forum rules. The quality of the statement is what I have an issue with, but it doesn't break the rules as far as I'm concerned.

I trust you won't resort to that, and you'll save the "don't get personal" ammo for a situation that truly merits it.

Like now.

If I see a link between what you've said about the administration to your views on history, I'm going to point it out. The parallels between the two situations are obvious.
2,000 years and 5,000 miles apart...so no, I do not agree that the parallels are "obvious". Maybe to you, but I'm separating historical and political ramifications. Historically, Julius Caesar was one of the greatest leaders in history. There are good and bad people that occupy that category; but Caesar wasn't the Stalin-like dictator you're making him out to be. He did a lot of good for Rome, and the Roman citizens loved him for it. Sure, he vied for power, but everyone did in that time whenever they got the taste.

The end result with Caesar was that he left Rome XX% better off than when he came into power to begin with. If you don't agree with this, then you can point to specifics in history about why you think Caesar was a truly bad man and had it coming. But what you don't need to do go personal and say (paraphrasing) that you'd expect me to like a tyrant. It's a low blow.

[RegBarc]

My point was that if you believe this, the larger implication is that Judas, and by extention any of us, don't have the final say in our own actions. The only reason Judas would have "needed" to betray Jesus is if God willed it, right?
In the OP I pointed out how it could be based somewhat in fiction. I believe the Bible to be a good source of parables, but not 100% exactly what happened. The story of Judas and Jesus' relationship is meant to convey a point and I don't take it literal. Hence, while Judas did indeed betray Jesus and Judas as indeed a traitor, I give him a little leeway because that was what was supposed to happen.

After all, if you want to get into free will, Genesis and Exodus, just the first two books of the KJV of the Bible, are filled with examples of God commanding X to do something, when God knows full well what will happen anyway. Moses going before Pharaoh, for example.

[JPriller]

The end result with Caesar was that he left Rome XX% better off than when he came into power to begin with. I'd have to question that. He did great things for Rome as a general, and as a historian, much less so as an absolute ruler.

His rule did bring about some lasting years of relative peace after decades of internal unrest (going back to Sulla in the 80's BCE), but he also spelt the end of the Roman Republic and gave us such leading lights among Roman dictators as his relatives Caligula and Nero, as well as the chaos and unrest which accompanied every change in ruling Roman family dynasty afterwards.

They had something like 4 emperors in one year after Nero was assassinated in 68/69CE, with the followers of politically ascendant factions taking revenge on their political enemies by renouncing them as traitors to the State (for a profitable percentage of the value of the estates the State seized).

[RegBarc]

Another point on Julius Caesar's legacy. Neither in his life, nor in death, was he declared a tyrant (something that could easily have negated any benefit of his spoils). He remained a hero of Rome until the collapse of Roman civilization itself.

[RegBarc]

I'd have to question that. He did great things for Rome as a general, and as a historian, much less so as an absolute ruler.

His rule did bring about some lasting years of relative peace after decades of internal unrest (going back to Sulla in the 80's BCE), but he also spelt the end of the Roman Republic and gave us such leading lights among Roman dictators as his relatives Caligula and Nero, as well as the chaos and unrest which accompanied every change in ruling Roman family dynasty afterwards.

I'm not so sure of that JP; after Nero's little spaz-out session (to put it mildly), the reign of the Five Good Emperors proved another explosion in Roman culture and rule. Nerva, Tragan, Hadrian (the most recognizable one), Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. They started out about over 100 years after Caesar's assassination, but from Nerva, the Roman empire saw the height of the Pax Romanae among other things.

I also think the treatment of conquered people under Caesar was greater than the treatment under the Five Good Emperors.

Additionally, Octavian's rule was marked with an aggregate good and his rule was almost directly after Caesar's.

[JPriller]

Another point on Julius Caesar's legacy. Neither in his life, nor in death, was he declared a tyrant (something that could easily have negated any benefit of his spoils). He remained a hero of Rome until the collapse of Roman civilization itself.For nearly 100 years after his death Rome was ruled by his family (with a 17-year gap for some civil war until Augustus seized power), it would NOT have been a good idea to publicly denounce him. After that Roman emperors drew their popular authority (and in fact their title, "Caeser") from the precedent he set. Ditto it being a bad idea to publicly denounce him.

[RegBarc]

For nearly 100 years after his death Rome was ruled by his family (with a 17-year gap for some civil war until Augustus seized power), it would NOT have been a good idea to publicly denounce him. After that Roman emperors drew their popular authority (and in fact their title, "Caeser") from the precedent he set. Ditto it being a bad idea to publicly denounce him.
But it's also important to keep in mind that the slaves (sort of irrelevant) and the plebs (much more relevant) adored Caesar. The upper class generally despised him (though there were notable exceptions like our advantangeous friend Marc Antony). Because the public overwhelmingly supported the Caesars, the Senate usurping that would have spelled it's own institutional doom.

[JPriller]

I'm not so sure of that JP; after Nero's little spaz-out session (to put it mildly), the reign of the Five Good Emperors proved another explosion in Roman culture and rule. Nerva, Tragan, Hadrian (the most recognizable one), Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. They started out about over 100 years after Caesar's assassination, but from Nerva, the Roman empire saw the height of the Pax Romanae among other things.The "five good emperors" began 30 years after Nero's assassination.

And you DO know what "Pax Romana" means, don't you? Literally it means "The Peace of Rome", but what it popularly means is "the peace of the sword". Inconvenient political uprisings were squashed mercilessly.

I also think the treatment of conquered people under Caesar was greater than the treatment under the Five Good Emperors.Disregarding the fact that you and your entire town could be wiped out for opposing Rome, Roman rule WAS better than what you could get under other dictators. Rome liked turning a profit, and peace is profitable. And it had no problem with other religions, as long as you stuck a statue of Jupiter up somewhere they were happy. That was how early Christians got in trouble with Rome, they were impolite enough as to suggest only their one god be worshipped.

Additionally, Octavian's rule was marked with an aggregate good and his rule was almost directly after Caesar's.Barring that intervening 17 years of civil war, true.

[JPriller]

But it's also important to keep in mind that the slaves (sort of irrelevant) and the plebs (much more relevant) adored Caesar. Of course they did. He bought their support the way the wealthy politicos of Rome had done before him and did long after him - by giving them "bread and circuses" (a grain dole, and lots of public spectacles the populace was given the day off to enjoy).

[RegBarc]

The "five good emperors" began 30 years after Nero's assassination.

And you DO know what "Pax Romana" means, don't you? Literally it means "The Peace of Rome", but what it popularly means is "the peace of the sword". Inconvenient political uprisings were squashed mercilessly.

I'm familiar with that; as I see it, Pax Romana has come to mean not peace itself, but stability.

Disregarding the fact that you and your entire town could be wiped out for opposing Rome, Roman rule WAS better than what you could get under other dictators. Rome liked turning a profit, and peace is profitable. And it had no problem with other religions, as long as you stuck a statue of Jupiter up somewhere they were happy. That was how early Christians got in trouble with Rome, they were impolite enough as to suggest only their one god be worshipped.

I think that taken all of that into account, you and I would agree that Roman rule was generally something more desireable than, say, Mongolian Horde rule.

Barring that intervening 17 years of civil war, true.
I wouldn't say it was 17 years of continuous fighting. It was on and off, with a significant portion of the unrest revolving around who Octavian borked (Cleopatra, who seemed to just love the Caesars).

[RegBarc]

Of course they did. He bought their support the way the wealthy politicos of Rome had done before him and did long after him - by giving them "bread and circuses" (a grain dole, and lots of public spectacles the populace was given the day off to enjoy).
The plebeians seemed to also despise Caesar's enemies, which was sort of inflamed after Caesar's assassination. There's also an argument that Caesar's image became much more powerful in death than in life.

[JPriller]

I'm familiar with that; as I see it, Pax Romana has come to mean not peace itself, but stability.That would appear to make you a fan of Saddam Hussein. Not a pleasant person, certainly, but one thing he without doubt brought to Iraq was stability. Worth the trade, in your opinion? I would guess not.

I think that taken all of that into account, you and I would agree that Roman rule was generally something more desireable than, say, Mongolian Horde rule.Oh yes, definitely. Rome didn't care what you ate or who or what you worshiped (again, so long as you paid lip-service to the State religion, including venerated dead rulers). As long as you paid taxes and didn't get uppity they'd wail militarily on anyone who threatened your tax payments not reaching Rome.

But that didn't make Brutus a traitor. He believed in the Republic, and Caesar meant the end of the Republic.

I wouldn't say it was 17 years of continuous fighting. It was on and off, with a significant portion of the unrest revolving around who Octavian borked (Cleopatra, who seemed to just love the Caesars).All the Ptolemys loved the Caesars - they loved power and the Caesars WERE power.

[RegBarc]

That would appear to make you a fan of Saddam Hussein. Not a pleasant person, certainly, but one thing he without doubt brought to Iraq was stability. Worth the trade, in your opinion? I would guess not.

The Roman Peace, so to speak, was in a time when the world was in chaos and things that were acceptable then are clearly not acceptable now (the use in the Roman Empire of slavery, for example). Just before I find a dead civilization fascinating does not mean I find their practices in the modern world as acceptable.

Oh yes, definitely. Rome didn't care what you ate or who or what you worshiped (again, so long as you paid lip-service to the State religion, including venerated dead rulers). As long as you paid taxes and didn't get uppity they'd wail militarily on anyone who threatened your tax payments not reaching Rome.

But that didn't make Brutus a traitor. He believed in the Republic, and Caesar meant the end of the Republic.

I'm not so sure Brutus' motives were for the empire. His own personal life was in turmoil and was easy to manipulate.

[RegBarc]

Oh, another side note. The Roman Empire's inevitable downfall wasn't necessarily because of overexpansion (though that definitively contributed to it). It was also the use of metals in their everyday tableware. Cups, utensils, and plates of the highest quality also contained lead (or a metal similar to that) that made men impotent.

[mbklein]

After that Roman emperors drew their popular authority (and in fact their title, "Caeser") from the precedent he set.

The title didn't die with Rome; cf. "Czar" and "Kaiser" for some actual 20th century uses. :)

[aindik]

But it's also important to keep in mind that the slaves (sort of irrelevant) and the plebs (much more relevant) adored Caesar. The upper class generally despised him (though there were notable exceptions like our advantangeous friend Marc Antony). Because the public overwhelmingly supported the Caesars, the Senate usurping that would have spelled it's own institutional doom.

See, e.g., Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Evo Morales.

[RegBarc]

See, e.g., Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Evo Morales.
What those 4 chaps did in modern times is not nearly as universally acceptable if they did the same thing 2,000 years ago.

[aindik]

What those 4 chaps did in modern times is not nearly as universally acceptable if they did the same thing 2,000 years ago.

Just pointing out that "the rich hated him and the poor loved him" isn't necessarily a great argument that a guy is a good leader or good for the country.

[RegBarc]

Just pointing out that "the rich hated him and the poor loved him" isn't necessarily a great argument that a guy is a good leader or good for the country.
Back then? Considering the power consolodated to the Roman upper class (who brought about their own eventual downfall), I'd mark it as an accomplishment during that specific period in time.

But heaven help me for saying it, it's my moral relativism kicking in. I hope you'll be able to forgive me for bringing up those cursewords. ;)