Why was Cato such a cunt to Caesar?

Why was Cato such a cunt to Caesar?

I'm using your thread to test how my post reads. Don't mind me.

>And I present to you, A Shakespearean version of the BANEPOSTING plane scene, but with Alfred and the vileblood queen instead of Bane and CIA.

Alfred has audience with Queen. Alfred enter stage right.

ALFRED: Disclose to me the nature of the woman
Who does conceal her image 'hind vizard.
[spoiler]tell me about bane, why does he wear the mask[spoiler]
Queen does not speak, and Alfred unsheaths his wheel.

ALFRED: Of your force of will I have to critique.
No ruler has served with such beastly idiocy!
[spoiler]lotta loyalty for a hired gun[spoiler]

QUEEN: ...Her shuttered tongue hides wonder, not virtue.
To crush your charges mind with wheel
Then pray that her remains do not stir
Shows cunning brilliant in its absence.
[spoiler]perhaps he wonders why you would shoot a man before throwing him out of a plane[spoiler]

ALFRED: But hark! The silent sister may speak yet.
Maybe your tongue of lead hides a heard of gold.
Lets hear you speak your last so that I may
finally, canonize my master.
[spoiler]at least you can talk[spoiler]

QUEEN: I am but a Queen masked, and no more.
Though our plan is to move heaven and earth.
[spoiler]I't doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan[spoiler]

Lo! To hear such troubles made of myself
Afore this biting brace was placed upon me
Would be absurdity in its purest form
[spoiler]No one cared who I was 'till I put on the mask[spoiler]

ALFRED: That mask's loss would be thine great undoing.
I may grasp it and pull. What then of you?

QUEEN: Purest agony would surely follow.

ALFRED: I must admit that your physique is grand.

QUEEN: For yourself.

Degenerates like you belong on a cross.

...

...

well i won't lie. i didn't expect to come back to my thread to find this...

...

Cato was a Noble Roman of the old school.
Any such Roman could see that Gaius Julius, though a monster of talent, had an even bigger ego.
Rome as a Republic could not survive such a thirst for power, and indeed, it didn't.

rome, under the leadership of the conservatives, was fundamentally broken which is why a populist like caesar was able to gain prominence in the first place. rome was already headed down a dark path before the civil war.

Because Caesar was Populare which means he sided with plebs, while Cato came from old noble family and was Optimate.

Both of these are correct. My answer is fear.

Gaius Julius gained prominence through his political cunning and brilliant generalship... he was creative and dauntless in casting Rome's enemies, and, in Civil War, other Roman Legions to their graves.

As Caeser, his reign was short...a measure of his LACK of popularity.

Did the people in the street love him... I guess that would support your 'populist' notion. They, however did not vote, and could not save him from himself, and Rome's better judgment.

Unfortunatately, Octavian had no love for the Republic either...who would give up the Power that Gaius Julius unleashed ? ... had he lived and conquered, Marc Antony would have.

Rome's True and Noble Hero of those times perished after defeat at Actium.

He chose to be a Populare because among the Optimates he had no leverage. Not sincere love of the people, crass, and brilliant love of power.

Am I wrong to see the similarities of these comments to Trump in the US?
I'm ignorant to Caesar and roman history, but on the surface (to a pleb like me), it sounds like the population got sick of a noble out of touch upperclass and wanted someone who was a bit of an outsider.

Not trying to start a libtard "fuck drumpf FDT" conversation. I'm genuinely wanting to know more about the history surrounding Caesar and not some half baked critique of why Trump is the worst president and a racist.

>757080203
he also knew that while the plebs didn't vote, they were still the true power of rome, the power of the mob.

in addition to what the gentlemen in this thread have written, i'm pretty sure Caesar was a huge fucking cunt - a megalomaniac, narcissist and a manipulative fucker (not repaying debts, playing people against eachother etc etc). I believe Cato hated him because he was everything that Cato saw as wrong with the world.

Monstrous ambition yields the same results, whether brilliant or simply fortunate.

Envy most likely.

no you aren't wrong. i've been contemplating the similarities between the current political climate and that of rome during the time of caesar.

caesar used his power to disrupt the status quo of rome. while the roman conservatives like cato desperately tried to stop him at every turn he was simply more cunning than his political enemies. that probably had something to do with allying himself with pompey and crassus. pompey was a conservative and crassus was the bank role. pompey and caesar made a deal to help each other get their agendas into law. one hand washes the other so to speak.

wait... did we just help OP with his essay? fuck.

Gaius Julius knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He was Magnificent as a general for many years before he 'Cracked Rome like an Egg' and brought a Roman Legion into the Roman Capital - a huge taboo.

Trump has been able to sell turn failure into success by bullying and pompous lying and fakery.

It is very simple, collect all the adjectives used by a person to describe others, and they are describing themselves. In extreme cases, the positive adjectives when applied to self are hyperbole.

there are similarities in the fact that trump is a populist like caesar. that's pretty much where the similarities end. caesar was an unbridled genius of both warfare and politics. trump not so much as he basically relies on the fact that every time he does something that violates the decorum of the presidency his fan base cheers.

Somebody has to get good things, sometimes.

Welp, there goes a genuinely interesting thread because somebody had to push modern politics into it.

>unbridled genius

He probably was. But he also had a lot of luck. In any form of statistics you're gonna have an outlier. Caesar was that outlier. Remember: history is written by the victor. In this case by Caesar.
inb4 hurr durr other sources. They survived for a reason.

The sad truth is, if Rome could tolerate an Emperor, then Gaius Julius would have been that man.

Octavian, and later Marcus Aurelius were also pretty decent....

But the whole thing was doomed to devolve and destroy Rome. Emperors must he Exceptional Leaders who know their own limits and keep within them. Not scumbuckets like Caligula and several dozen others.

>Believing false propaganda about greatest Roman Emperor, Caligula
Loser

Gaius Julius didn't write the history. What remains is accurate. He lost. He achieved his aim and was Assassinated.

Perhaps it was Octavian/Augustus who could have re-written history, but Rome hadn't slipped that far.

I believe what we know of Gaius Julius is true, amazing, and tragic.

smoothly trolled

ya i'm not so sure you're right. luck doesn't win countless military victories, many against odds and situations that would have made other armies turn and run. no other general would have won the battle of alesia.

>no Trajan
>no Hadrian

wow you mentioned the only ones that are in movies and tv shows. You must really know what you're talking about.

what destroyed rome was the violation of the cities sanctity. when caesar showed rome that he could march an army into the city it showed every citizen that rome was not untouchable and in fact could be concurred.

Even if he was a tactical genius there still was the odd chance of him actually losing a battle. Often he won battles counting on an outnumbered flank to hold the line. That's just luck, no matter what preparation he had beforehand in choosing terrain etc.

Like i said, genius, but also lucky.

no no no stop it. caesar had battle hardened heavy infantry. his soldiers far outclassed most of his opponents and that's why he knew he could get away with a "weak" flank therefor allowing him to apply more soldiers in key tactical positions.

i won't stop it. I believe that no matter how much of a genius you are there's always the chance of ill fate that can fuck your shit up. War isn't chess my friend, no matter how much you try to make it so. Even if he had a 90% chance of holding the flank, doing so more than ten times should statistically result in failing once.
As fate saw it, he never failed his roll. He played his cards right and got rewarded. Still, there's luck involved, no matter how small you make the number.

there is no such thing as luck user.

what destroyed rome was the proffessionalization of the army and the final blow was letting 100k+ gauls move onto roman territory and not have them be portioned out throughout the empire (which was praxis and law before that exemption).

I believe luck is the unforseen advantages that you come across, aswell as the unforseen disadvantages that don't occur for reasons that are beyond your knowledge and control.

In the case that quantum particles are really "moving" randomly, then there is indeed real luck, as in there is no fate.

see i'll take the bait on anything my brother. hit me with more!

that was much later. the death blow had been struck long before that. rome died a very slow death.

... and why did a rich guy like him take a job driving for the Green Hornet?

because he wanted to be proconsul of three roman territories simultaneously.

>letting 100k+ gauls move onto roman territory
I'm a student of history.
And the gauls are niggers. They did so much fucking in Rome, that blue eyes and blond hair became brown eyes and black hair.

I have waited many many days for a chance to post this.

god help any student that comes to Sup Forums for help with homework.

>be educated stoic
>legally fight against the big three's monopoly on power
>argue against corruption
>expect educated leaders to act with integrity
>big three fight, bringing civil war
>corrupt leaders choose sides
>some faggot in 2018 A.D. calls you a cunt on a niche porn board
Wew lad

>expect educated leaders to act with integrity
Don't read The Republic.

>what destroyed rome
>lists one thing

>what destroyed rome ... was praxis

I dunno about Rome, but those micropayments certainly killed the shit out of the Deus Ex franchise.

Amiright? Who's with me, bros?
Up top!

uh caesar formed the triumvirate in order to politically combat the likes of cato and other conservatives that wanted rome to remain broken and in a state of near political chaos.

the other major similarity is the rise of the SJW left and anitfa. during this time of roman history there were literally armed mobs unleashed on crowds of romans to stop the public voting processes.

...it did not end well.

i'm fucking dying!