Umm, no. Caesar was told to withdraw from Gaul and disband his troops. His refusal was breaking the law. He used his legions to attack migrating civilians and enslaved them to sell them for profit. And while Sulla marched on Rome before him, that action was also considered horrific and anti-Republican to Roman historians.
They were already getting tribute from Gaul. He didn't have to slaughter them, he did it because he was tired of dealing with small insurrections in an area he viewed well below him. He was a man of ambition who didn't want to be stuck in Gaul having to babysit the area all the time.
He was told to do so by a corrupt senate that just needed him to leave his post of governor so he could lose his immunity so they could put him on trial and destroy everything he did. The corruption of the late Roman republic makes our shit show look like a joke.
And while Sulla marched on Rome before him, that action was also considered horrific and anti-Republican to Roman historians.
Sulla's rival, Marius, created the anti-Republic power struggle that would follow with Caesar. Sulla won a civil war and returned the senate. He isn't considered anti-Republic at all. In fact, he marched on Rome TWICE because the other political party couldn't stop (and never really did) trying to completely take over the republic.
Umm, no. Caesar was told to withdraw from Gaul and disband his troops. His refusal was breaking the law. He used his legions to attack migrating civilians and enslaved them to sell them for profit. And while Sulla marched on Rome before him, that action was also considered horrific and anti-Republican to Roman historians.
I said Caesar wasn’t perfect. Moral standards then were different then now. You don’t think Pompey and others did fucked up shit too?
And I really don’t give a shit if Caesar was breaking the “law” set in place by Roman bureaucrats. He did what was necessary.
They were already getting tribute from Gaul. He didn't have to slaughter them, he did it because he was tired of dealing with small insurrections in an area he viewed well below him. He was a man of ambition who didn't want to be stuck in Gaul having to babysit the area all the time.
He was told to do so by a corrupt senate that just needed him to leave his post of governor so he could lose his immunity so they could put him on trial and destroy everything he did. The corruption of the late Roman republic makes our shit show look like a joke.
Sulla's rival, Marius, created the anti-Republic power struggle that would follow with Caesar. Sulla won a civil war and returned the senate. He isn't considered anti-Republic at all. In fact, he marched on Rome TWICE because the other political party couldn't stop (and never really did) trying to completely take over the republic.