i am sorry, but i thing that your point of view is to emotional and not anought impartial and intellectially Critical about the history of the
I am sorry you think that way, but I judge the man in the chair by his actions, not by his rhetoric. It sounds to me that you have read what is
reffered to as "Gentilemens History" Which is a version of history written by the ruling class oligarchs, and accepted by classic and modern
academics worldwide. It is a version of history written for the benefit of the elitist class, using terms like "the mob", "the rabble", "the
parasitic poor" etc, to describe the common citizen of times past. What these descrption do is paint the average joe as a bumbling idiot with no
attention to social issues, and no attention to class politics. This, especially in the case of Rome, is not the case.
I cannot go through, point by point, on why this is true at this time. Unfortuantely, I am at work, have none of my books or resources with me, and
my PC at home is short a Power Supply (soon to be remedied)
I will say this, Cesear was one of the best leaders the roman people had since the Gracci brothers. He was more of a democrat than the ruling senate.
In fact, I will go as far to say that the senate was a board of oligarchs, embroiled in a repressive class war. They're policies were regressive
and put the poor and common folk in dire straights. Seeing this, Cesear made egalitarian reforms in order to help them (cutting interest payments,
redistributing wealth, etc etc etc.)
What does this have to do with this thread? This PDF operates on the assumption that that Cesear set up his death in order to pave the way for the
empire (and the soon to be emperor Augustus Ceaser). This cant be further from the truth. JC was murdered by those that were protecting their class
perogitives; when JC was murdered, the democracy which flourished under him was murdered aswell.
I understand there is a bit of a language barrier between the two of us, but I believe you are the one that needs to take a critical look at history,
and a critical look at what this document is suggesting. If one of the main points in this document is wrong, could it not stand to reason, the rest
of the document is flawed aswell?