Grrraggghh!!!

[Anonymous No.3351341]

So I was in class on Thursday. My teacher asked the class to name a few persons, or "dictator's whom the 'people' actually liked". I piped up and said Julius Caesar.

The girl next to me was quick to say, "No, you big dummie," and my teacher shunned my opinion. I acknowledged that even though it was Brutus and the rich-elite (senators) who all took part in Julius Caesar's assassination, that the working and middle classes loved him. My teacher replied "no, let's move on."

I do realize that on Thursday, my understanding of Julius Caesar's life could have been more complete. I am currently doing research on this, and I am only finding information that backs up my opinion (maybe it's just me). Julius Caesar was loved by his people for doing amazing things. As I do more research I find that greed was an all pervasive concept in Rome, and by using the ideals of "democracy and equality" the republic had successfully drained the poor of all their wealth, meaning that the roman empire had to pillage elsewhere, and thus seize control of Gaul. When he seized power, Julius Caesar payed off the national debt, revamped the calendar, and gave much needed opportunity to the proletariat.

First off, am I right? Am I looking at the whole picture? If I am wrong, what evidence is there against Julius Caesar's popularity? Lastly, if my professor is flat out wrong, how can I inform him in a respectful manner? Should I allow him, a political science teacher at the college level, to maintain wrong ideas about Julius Caesar?

[Anonymous No.3351356]

>>3351341
You're an asperger who can't move on with being called out in a class by a teacher. I remember being like you when I was like 16, you learn not to care once you get out of high school.

[Anonymous No.3351370]

>>3351356

Well, duh. But once you start taking your advanced courses, it becomes appalling when even the professor doesn't know even the elementary.

If you make fun of someone before you make your point, they will be less likely to listen to you. So make fun of them once you have made your point. Or don't make fun of them at all so you come off as more reasonable/mature.

[Anonymous No.3351374]

>>3351370
> But once you start taking your advanced courses, it becomes appalling when even the professor doesn't know even the elementary.
If you don't go to a shit-tier university your courses are usually printed and handed to you before they even start, you can then safely skip the classes and read your stuff at home if you don't like being called out.

[Anonymous No.3351390]

I say fight on, OP. Caesar was the tits, and your school sounds like it's full of man-hating twats. Did that bimbo say anything beyond what you quoted?

[Anonymous No.3351391]

itt confirmation bias

[Sad Doctor !7w8a5jwSBg No.3351403]

You're correct OP. Caesar was born with a high-class name but his family was actually poor, and he grew up in low-class apartments instead of up on the Palatine hill like most patrician families. He only got rich finally through his conquests in Gaul, and once he became boss he enacted a lot of laws that were unpopular with the rich elite but popular with the people. The Patricians essentially viewed him as a traitor to his class.

Later on he lost some of his popularity, but that was because people were afraid he was going to name himself as king, not really problems with his policymaking itself.

If you want a good source for roman history, check out the History of Rome Podcast, it's pretty amazing. Here's what we know about Caesar's early life:

http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2009/01/39-the-young-julius-caesar-chronicles-the-history-of-rome.html

[Anonymous No.3351455]

Caesar was a patrician but was a populares, who were patricians who championed causes of the plebeians. They were opposed by the optimates, who opposed land reform, etc. The optimates included Pompey, Cato and before them Sulla.
Which dictators did the professor suggest were popular?

[A Huge Faggot No.3351472]

>>3351341
> by using the ideals of "democracy and equality" the republic had succesfully drained the poor of all their wealth, ...

I'm a little confused... Why do you put democracy and equality between quotes? What is "democracy and equality" supposed to stand for in that context, if not democracy and equality?
Also, it doesnt seem to me as if these were really held high as ideals. Surely no optimate would hold these values in high regard or even pretend to do so. Even among populares sentiments on this point varied enormously. Their only common denominator was, after all, that a popularis was someone who gained popular support among the underclass for being perceived to help them out. Indeed Caesar himself was a popularis and he himself wasnt all that egalitarian or democratic.
In fact, wasn't democracy especially severely frowned upon in those days? Wasn't the concept of democracy, deserving of the name (which can legitimately be opposed to a whole gamut of other forms of government appointed by election) associated with mob rule?

Also, how exactly do you suppose "democracy and equality" (whatever you suppose to be the actual referent of the phrase) caused all the problems? Wasn't the unique republican spirit of Roman politics up to that point undenyably on of the things that made Rome great in the first place?

Then, wasn't Caesar simply very popular because he was such a succesful general and because he doled out food? He later on forced a decrease in food doles btw.

[Anonymous No.3351486]

Was the chick hot?
Professor might've wanted that stupid bimbo's gash.

[Cammy !!50j7tuCXdh0 No.3351510]

>>3351370

how old are you or have we already established you're 16