Julius Caesar as Psychopath?

[+Marius+]

Yes, he killed approximately 80,000,000,000 Gauls personally and enslaved another 75,000,000,000.

Why have billions when we can have...trillions; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfUM5xHUY4M

And that answers the point of pseudo-democracy in the early Rome .
Since the Romans came from Dardanean tribes in Anatolia , which is described in their epics(Aeneid) and can be farther proved by similar traits
with Troyans and early Romans : theft of women (Rape of the Sabine women) .
The Dacians as the Romans had Wolf as totem beast ,the Dacians migrated to Getae also from Anatolia ,where their distinctive sign - wolf pelts (as those in Roman culture) has been the sigh of tribal bandits , using the wolf pack tactics to raid Anatolian villages . The Greeks got enough of women-stealing bandits from Anatolia and wiped them out in the Troyan war , leaving Roman ancestors no choice , but flee for their lives (The prince Aeneas ) .
.The Greeks called them for barbarians ,but being themselves mostly civilized and democratic they haven't organised the full genoside as the Romans would in their place (The Fall of Corinth and Achaean league - the Romans besieged and captured Corinth; when they entered the city, they put all the men to the sword and sold the women and children into slavery before torching the city). While Romans came from bandit tribes their ideal been a strong pack leader bringing them gold , lands through excessive blodshed . They shed some barbarosity by beeing forced to accept some of Etruskan,Greek culture but inside they remained bloodthirsty mob up to the fall of Rome . So forget some Greek type wise leaders and reformers liek Solon , Demostenes etc
Roman ethnos required very different heroes . Some Romans understood ,of course, thet the Greeks regarded them as barbarians and with vehemence tried to include themselves into Greek world and call everyone outside that , including civilized Egyptians and Babylonian for barbarians too . And so- how could the leaders of ethnos ,based on bandit tribalism to be sane persons, when the environment they originate from has psychopatic traits - no empathy ,remorse , or certain regulations concerning the rest of humanity ? The psychopatic lack of human empathy has been the direct cause of the Romans fall - the Goths grow righteoulsy angered by the Roman demands to sell the Goths children into sexual slavery and wiped the Romans for good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_...3382)#Outbreak
The early Romans have been defetead once by the Latin League and forced to get latinised , but even the Latin League has not been so genosidal
as the Romans ,The Greeks were not so deaf to the world so they cooperated with the Gauls in Massila . Speaking of which its independence been ended by Caesar for supporting Pompei an evidence that Caesar been not only forced by 'barbarians' to commit the bad deeds .

Holy Christ you really hate the Romans don't you?

Little butthurt that your pagan Celtic bros were on the wrong side of history?



...and no, Caesar was neither a psychopath nor a sociopath.
His decision making in both warfare and political life were completely logical and expected considering the gravity of the situations that those decisions where spawned from.
Especially when one considers that slavery was an absolutely common thing back then and that the Celts were the ones who started the constant conflicts with Rome.
Do not be persuaded by these modern victim lovers, the pagan Celts and others like them were barbarians who participated in regular massacres, raids, horrific crimes of war and constant warfare both between each other as well as constant brutality against any more civilized nation that was unfortunate enough to share a border with them.

The ones who the more civilized people called barbarians were definitely not some nature loving hippie peaceful "kumbaya" treehuggers, nobody was at the time...nobody is nowadays either.


Let us not forget that, after the Roman conquest, the citizens of Gaul enjoyed a state of peace that lasted for centuries, which actually replaced the constant brutal infighting among the Gauls themselves.

Pax Romana ftw.

[Spartan JKM]

Well stated, Marius Marich! I agree.

Well, it was an age of tyranny and treachery amid the circles of leadership in Rome, and Julius Caesar singularly rose to the fore of this austere backdrop, under which he could not be 'good' without being 'bad' to gain his colossal goals, in which he prodigiously exploited to extremes feat of arms for his political ends. In the end, he was simply too good for his own good. Along with his military accomplishments (the Roman realm was increased in territory and purses enormously with the conquest of Gaul), his capacity for prose writing, oratory and a focused view and what would constitutionally make the Republic better were reflective of a ruthlessly determined and varied genius devoid of any mental disorder.

Roma_Victrix and Garbarsardar are spot on, IMHO, in that imputing a modern, forensic notion of psychopathy to the giant of ancient Roman history is flagrant. In analyzing the dynamics of ancient warfare, we must even be wary of applying terms such as 'war staff', 'reconnaissance corps', 'intelligence officer', 'administrative staff', 'commando force', 'shock troops', etc., even though using neutrally descriptive terms can be commensurate to apply to like but cruder ancient methods for the modern reader to discern lucidly. When posed with the question as to whether Julius Caesar was a 'psychopath', we must arbitrarily decide what that means to a supreme historical figure who shared the characteristics of a harsh time where moral judgments surely were placed with less censure (at least with the higher social classes), and I think a consensus would reveal that the question denotes a critical assessment of his character with the purpose of finding indications of a man possessed of a 'mental disorder' constituting 'antisocial behavior' (whatever the ancient animadversions would equate). The record appears to indicate nothing, IMHO.

The ambitions of leading men in Rome at this time is what fueled the state; rising powerful men like Caesar fully understood what a powerful incentive individual achievement and reward would result in, which the state encouraged - giving men like Caesar the incentive to achieve great deeds for the advancement of what was essentially, though not yet nominally, an empire. The risk was, of course, that one man may become too powerful, a position unacceptable in Rome at this time. This was a balancing act which worked for centuries, but in the first few decades of the 1st century BCE, the actions of men like Sulla and Cinna, etc., caused it to become dangerously more unstable. This is the hostile climate in which Julius Caesar grew up. Whether we find it admirable or counter-productive, Caesar's incredible career saw him pushing all the ideals which the Republic encouraged to unprecedented extremes. Was he a man of the people whose changes wrought a better Rome? Was he a tyrant whose actions destroyed the Republic? Both?

In terms of a modern gauge of 'sociopathy', suggested by Roma, I find that not straining credibility - viz. a lack of empathy and social conscience, etc. (there was certainly an ancient mindset of 'sympathy' and 'empathy', as some actions and reactions seem to illustrate) on the part of Caesar. But as a young man he was on his way to Rhodes to study under Apollonius Molon, but was captured by pirates off the island of Pharmacussa (modern Farmakonisi, in the Aegean Sea). Piracy was flourishing, interestingly, largely because of the decay of naval power of the Hellenistic powers caused by the Roman conquests. Julius, a young patrician, was held captive for over a month, whereby many of the pirates were actually ingratiated with him (allocating for Plutarch's inclination for hyperbole; cf. The Life of Julius Caesar, Ch. 2). Anyway, the possible gist of this event is that Julius was offended that the pirates demanded a ransom far less than what he thought he was worth, and after being held against his will by 'barbarians' for 38 days, the ransom was paid, after which the young patrician - who had never yet held public office - successfully persuaded and coaxed the provincials of Miletus to provide and crew some warships for his immediate reprisal on the pirates, all of whom he had threatened to crucify amid his charmingly delivered 'idle threats' (the pirates apparently loved his 'boldness of speech'), I would assume, while under their custody. Exhibiting speed and surprise which would be a forte throughout his famous campaigns to come, he took them all prisoner with his makeshift squadron (not to mention re-capturing his own ransom!), after which they were sent to Pergamum for execution. The Roman governor here wasn't interested in sanctioning this, however, and Julius hurriedly ordered the crucifixion of the pirates, an act he had no legal authority to undertake. However, the execution took place (the pirates were hardly the sort whose execution was going to be seriously questioned) in the promised form of crucifixion - but now the young Julius displayed behavior hardly in sync with a psychopath and/or sociopath (again, however we may append a modern definition to the conduct of an ancient figure we would judge as being a 'psychopath' or 'sociopath'): throughout his time as their hostage and his subsequent resolve for retribution, he developed some form of regard for them, as he 'mercifully' had each of their throats cut before they were raised up on crosses, thus sparing them from lingeringly horrid death. This somewhat forebearing act is no one of an austerely cold-blooded man. Not to whitewash a brutal act, but in this story (not apocryphal, almost surely, but doubtless 'angled' to encapsulate the legend of Caesar, something fully embedded by Plutarch's time, who didn't exactly gain enemies by writing well of the most famous of Romans; but his essay on Caesar carries few differences with Suetonius' important work of Caesar) we see an amalgam of poise, charm, intrepidness, self-confidence, guile and determination - attributes of any great Captain-General. Indicative of a nascent 'psychopath'? I opine not at all.

Moreover, the amputation of certain Gauls' hands, mentioned by Roma, was not, IMHO, a bout of gratuitous cruelty, albeit minimal punishment to set order was not a Roman trait. This was in reprisal to those who undertook the revolt of the oppidum of Uxellodunum (near modern Vayrac, SW France), the last campaign in Gaul for Caesar, in 51 BCE. Caesar seemingly showed no scruples in breaking from standard practice (eg., simply selling those who surrendered into slavery) when he inflicted this apparent inhumane act per se; but what he did specifically was cut the male defenders' hands off who bore arms against his authority, at a time when Gaul needed to be 'pacified' to suit his political ends in Rome. Caesar put down the rebellion (he utilized his soldiers' engineering skill, whereby he simply cut of the defenders' water-supply after surrounding them) and inflicted a degree of punishment - in which the punished with severed hands were to be a display of admonishment - which proved very efficient to culminate his impacting conquest (amorally stating, of course). But there's more to a larger context: the 8th Book of The Gallic War was written by the contemporary officer Aulus Hirtius, who sided with Octavian (smart move, in hindsight!) in 43 BCE. Hirtius provides examples in his work that Caesar had displayed clemency to surrendering tribes, and that his policy was "... the way for a return to his friendship, and that neighbouring states, without punishment of any kind, had given hostages and had been readmitted to protection; and the chance of such terms induced them to do likewise..." (cf. Hirtius, The Gallic War, Book 8.3, when the Bituriges of central Gaul submitted, right before the capitulation of Uxellodunum).

I may be cherry-picking, as plenty of examples of Caesar's conduct reflected utter ruthlessness (but usually only undertaken with an advantageous situation to be gained in the context of attaining his political success in the face of Rome), and his furious temper was more coldly displayed than the fiery Alexander. But it can be argued he was never cruel for the sake of wanton cruelty (but indeed, Oliver Cromwell justifies his brutal campaign in Ireland as one against only "men in arms" who opposed him) which can be attributed to modern psychopathic and sociopathic criminals, and he certainly doesn't belong in the same breath with Stalin when determining a 'psychopath', if a very general universal line of human judgment can be proposed, with 'standards of their time' adjusted (if possible). If it is ever discovered that Caesar privately engaged in what, say, Gilles de Rais perpetuated, well, sure, that would personify a mentally disturbed individual. Caesar's severe punishment of the Veneti council (a tribe in southern Brittany) in 56 BCE (he beheaded the ruling council, perhaps numbering a few hundred men!) came in the wake of his Roman officers, dispatched to procure grain for his army, being seized as hostages, surely some executed. The audacity to take as hostage his officers, some of equestrian rank no less, was probably deemed by Caesar an event which, if not responded to with extreme measures, would gain a feeling amongst many of the proximate natives - not to mention his political rivals back in Rome, once they got wind of this - that he wasn't so indomitable. From his viewpoint, this was unacceptable. Warfare in the ancient world was an extremely cruel business, and his soldiers did some horrible things constituting, perhaps, unnecessary slaughter (particularly at Avaricum), if we exclude terror as an exclusive tool of gaining submission. But plenty of other ancient armies perpetrated similar atrocities before and after Caesar. I agree with Adrian Goldsworthy's apt remark in his concluding chapter on the Gallic Wars that "...Caesar was entirely pragmatic - effectively amoral - in his use of clemency or massacre and atrocity..." (cf. Goldsworthy, Caesar: Life of a Colossus, p. 355)

Regarding this homosexuality of Caesar's - that was one scandal (no 'relations') which percolated throughout his career in shame, and of course his enemies spoke of it as if it were true; he was sent to the court of Nicomenes of Bithynia prior to the storming of Mytilene, to arrange for support of the Roman campaign. If it were true that the young Julius sexually consorted with the king of Bithynia, 'experimenting' would probably be a modern euphemism. Whatever the details and veracity, it was isolated and had no impact on precluding the course for his meteoric career (his own soldiers affectionately made fun of him over this - would one with tendencies involving 'chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior' not punish them severely for such 'insolence'? They loved him!). As Mangalore noted, Caesar seems to be guilty of being a womanizing rake, but the connotation he welcomed sodomy with males is untenable. But Roma made an astute point - how is that attribute, intrinsically, determinate with a diagnosis of 'psychopathy'? Actually, I believe neither 'psycopathy' nor 'sociopathy' are formally sanctioned in the respective field as diagnoses.

I think KEA appended one to many zeros on the quantitative claim of those killed by Caesar. But the Conquest of Gaul may have resulted in the deaths of one in four of the aggregate Gallic population. While not attempted genocide, this caused social dislocations on large proportions. Caesar probably lived fine with this, and his success singularly boosted his political standing while paying off his debts completely. The nature of the campaign (to beat down Gaul to ensure it as a Roman province, and the added yet unpredictable result that the Gallic tribes were incapable of mounting any pressure when Rome soon descended into civil war) and stiff resistance of the Gallic tribes caused such a high rate of kills. But it took Caesar time and prolonged success to win over his men to the point that, under him, they were instilled with the confidence that they would always win in the end.

Food for thought.

James

[Roma_Victrix]

Why have billions when we can have...trillions; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfUM5xHUY4M



Holy Christ you really hate the Romans don't you?

Little butthurt that your pagan Celtic bros were on the wrong side of history?



...and no, Caesar was neither a psychopath nor a sociopath.
His decision making in both warfare and political life were completely logical and expected considering the gravity of the situations that those decisions where spawned from.
Especially when one considers that slavery was an absolutely common thing back then and that the Celts were the ones who started the constant conflicts with Rome.
Do not be persuaded by these modern victim lovers, the pagan Celts and others like them were barbarians who participated in regular massacres, raids, horrific crimes of war and constant warfare both between each other as well as constant brutality against any more civilized nation that was unfortunate enough to share a border with them.

The ones who the more civilized people called barbarians were definitely not some nature loving hippie peaceful "kumbaya" treehuggers, nobody was at the time...nobody is nowadays either.


Let us not forget that, after the Roman conquest, the citizens of Gaul enjoyed a state of peace that lasted for centuries, which actually replaced the constant brutal infighting among the Gauls themselves.

Pax Romana ftw.

This is a great rebuttal. Also, you get extra points for invoking Dr. Evil's demands for money to prove your point.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Has anyone considered that Vercingetorix probably killed almost as many Gauls when he 1) punished those that did not join him and 2) used scorched earth tactics which affected Gallic civilians equally and destroyed entire cities just so the Romans couldn't garrison them. Vercingetorix wasn't exactly universally loved by the Gauls.

But as for Caesar being homosexual what is the proof for this? Other than the personal attacks he received in the Senate.

Now my biggest Caesar wtf moment was when he did decimation on his own army during the Civil War.

[Edelfred]

Not only it is profoundly moronic to apply psychopathological concepts of 1940 to the 1st century BC, even if we attempt to, for reasons beyond logic and understanding, it would be a stretch to fit Caesar in the current diagnostic model or imagine his responses to rating scales such as this.

Cue, "were elephants ancient panzers, and how SS Das Reich would fare against Parthian cataphracts?" thread.

Nero and Caligula still are considered psychopats and this opposes such opinion ;
about logic you mix up different categories here ,which is an invalid move in logic :
human mental disorder is not
time cultural advances .
This is why people died from bad liver and heart attacks before Christ and long after him .
Not to mix up categories of human health and cultural advances we do not compare a drinker's cyrrotic liver ,has he been from ancient Egypt or modern NY, with cataphracts , PZKPFW 4 or 5 or whatever .
I don't know mayhap you meant something else , but take my word as it is : human brain hasn't mutated for the last 2 thousands years, the disorders stay same .

This is a great rebuttal. Also, you get extra points for invoking Dr. Evil's demands for money to prove your point.

In fact not I even did not bother to answer allowing you to sink into the bad karma for lazy minds :
The Gauls did not genoside the Romans ,when they could . Given that - they were lesser barbarians then the Romans and less psychopatic since the lack of human empathy is the main trait of psychopaths . Ha-ha-ha .
Though it is not of concern to me I am working trough the passionated fan-resistance trying to get to the true face of Caesar that one behind the propaganda .

[+Marius+]

Now my biggest Caesar wtf moment was when he did decimation on his own army during the Civil War.

Caesar only threatened to decimate the 9th legion, but he actually never did.
The task was never done, there was a mutiny within the 9th legion and only 12 ringleaders of the mutiny were punished.
Even the sporadic troublemakers who joined in were spared.

The reason people today seem to believe that he did is that there is a staggeringly large amount of "works" and "documentaries" which told the viewers otherwise because of the sheer spectacularity of it, and of course, to gain ratings and viewership. They just straight out lied.

Nero and Caligula still are considered psychopats and this opposes such opinion ;

Actually there is very little evidence for the accusations for these chaps also.
Most of what we know about them was written by men who absolutely hated them.

In fact not I even did not bother to answer allowing you to sink in the bad karma for lazy-working minds -

My eyes started rolling and ended up in a different time zone.
I am now blind *shakes fist*

The Gauls did not genoside the Romans ,when they could .

Um, yes they did...constantly.
They sacked Rome before the Romans even left the Italian peninsula and kept raiding Italic cities non stop.
The unprovoked invasion of the Cimbri burned down nearly every populated settlement that was on their way.

What kind of romantic gibberish are you reading?

Given that - they were lesser barbarians then the Romans and less psychopatic since the lack of human empathy is the main trait of psychopaths .
Though it is not of concern to me I am working trough the passionated fan resistance trying to get to the true face of Caesar that one behind the propaganda .

Guess that's why certain tribes of Celts begged the Romans to protect them from certain other "less psychopatic" Celtic tribes...
But I guess in your mind massacring and murdering people that are similar to your own culture is not as vivid as a foreign culture invading...

I also suggest you read about the completely unprovoked Celtic invasion and complete pillage of ancient Greece, then come back and talk about the supposed nobility and innocence of northern barbarians.

[Edelfred]

....

I also suggest you read about the completely unprovoked Celtic invasion and complete pillage of ancient Greece, then come back and talk about the supposed nobility and innocence of northern barbarians.

Don't insert into my mouth words unsaid . Were I used words - noble ? I said they were less psychotic and more human then the Romans .
Those invasions were still not so bad as Roman genoside of Corinth .
Though I should not bother to answer your made up opinion that I am Celtic fan I will inform you they were moving to make Galatia , by Bythinians invite .

My eyes started rolling and ended up in a different time zone.
I am now blind *shakes fist*

....

[+Marius+]

Though I should not bother to answer your made up opinion that I am Celtic fan I will inform you they were moving to make Galatia , by Bythinians invite .

Guess when someone invites me to a barbecue beside your house I get the right to burn your house to the ground since it's on my way?

You still could not refute the main argument of Rome;

Pax Romana

After the brutal conquests of Rome, the areas they conquered spent large amounts of time in complete peace and stable state of law during an age where peace was not even in the vocabulary of most cultures and civilizations on Earth.

The offspring of the Celts that survived surely would prefer to live under Roman Law than to worry about being murdered in their sleep because the neighboring village had a bad harvest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Curse those Romans and their...roads and...safe/clean water supply, sewage systems and...heated floors.

Damn those heated floors, heresy I say!

[Edelfred]

Guess when someone invites me to a barbecue beside your house I get the right to burn your house to the ground since it's on my way?

You still could not refute the main argument of Rome;

Pax Romana

After the brutal conquests of Rome, the areas they conquered spent large amounts of time in complete peace and stable state of law during an age where peace was not even in the vocabulary of most cultures and civilizations on Earth.

The offspring of the Celts that survived surely would prefer to live under Roman Law than to worry about being murdered in their sleep because the neighboring village had a bad harvest;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Curse those Romans and their...roads and...safe/clean water supply, sewage systems and...heated floors.

Your words show you haven't understood it yet what we discuss here I will explain you :
We talk here about Caesar having or not having mental disorders .

[+Marius+]

Your words show you haven't understood it yet what we discuss here I will explain you :
We talk here about Caesar having or not having mental disorders .

I think it is safe to say I understood the topic since I gave my answer in my initial post on this thread.

[Edelfred]

The passive homosexuality ,while not illegal in ancient Rome has been a legal obstacle for a Roman citizen to be elected .
Given this we might consider Caesar being not supid enough denying his homosexual contacts - he just did not want to be closed from politics .
From the other side denying himself his true sexuality he could has grown psycho with the passing time .
Are there cases of people ,who were forced to deny their true sexuality and grew non-empathic , psychotic etc ?

[Roma_Victrix]

Guess that's why certain tribes of Celts begged the Romans to protect them from certain other "less psychopatic" Celtic tribes...
But I guess in your mind massacring and murdering people that are similar to your own culture is not as vivid as a foreign culture invading...

I also suggest you read about the completely unprovoked Celtic invasion and complete pillage of ancient Greece, then come back and talk about the supposed nobility and innocence of northern barbarians.

I actually don't fault the Celts or any other ancient civilization for this behavior that seems absolutely wanton and barbaric to our modern eyes. In ancient times there were very few stable societies (mostly in civilized parts). Recurrent famine due to crop failures led to desperation and mob violence, banditry, in worst cases cannibalism, etc. Plunder of an enemy's resources was one of many ways to ensure that your people were content and paid enough that they didn't rebel and cause even worse problems. The Celts, like any other people, were basically just fighting for survival while fighting with each other as you allude. Society was also far more militarized since the "rules of the jungle," so to speak, applied to all international relations, the strong dominating the weak and exacting tribute. Although the strong still dominate the weak to some extent in the world today, we've dropped the whole homage thing, lol. There was no international law, a nice little luxury we enjoy today. Yes, the Romans were just as brutal as everyone else around them in their treatment of enemies and captives of war. They were also wise enough to develop their conquered territories and bring peace, law and stability as you mention.

I'll stop here since this thread is about Julius Caesar and his alleged personality disorder.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

To expand on my previous point:
So the Gauls rebel cause they have a bad crop season and don't want to give it to the Romans. Then Vercingetorix starts an armed uprising and then starts burning the crops. There is much fail with this one. I mean clearly it was necessary to defeat the Romans but I doubt most Gauls could relate with his glorious struggle against Rome. The Romans can be tolerated so long as they don't run around burning cities and crops for no reason. In fact Vercingetorix did not burn one specific city because those Gauls might outright declare against them if he did. He literally had to kill his opposition himself (especially at the start of his revolt when his supporters were limited). If anything Vercingetorix made the situation worse for occupied Gaul.

Now I'm not saying that Caesar didn't cold heartedly kill, enslave, punish and loot many Gauls but this behavior of Vercingetorix doesn't make him look much better. You might be able to point out how Vercingetorix threw all the women and children out of Alesia and tried giving them to the Romans (presumably so that they would be fed by the Romans) and Caesar did not accept them and left them to die in no man's land. Likewise the army in Alesia did not accept the women and children back either; he would rather allow them to die than end his little revolution. But there is also the point of what the hell would the Romans feed them with? Caesar's legions had been fighting almost non-stop with Vercingetorix since the winter and Vercingetorix had devastated the landscape, the only reason the Romans were able to continue is because they managed to salvage the supplies in that city that he did not burn.

My question is how do you know that Caesar was homosexual? You insist that he is but based on what?

[Spartan JKM]

Lord Oda, the evidence one can use to 'charge' Caesar with homosexuality comes from Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' Life of Julius Caesar, and the alleged acts occurred only early on the young Julius' life, while apparently revelling in the royal luxuries at the court of Bithynia, after going on the run from Rome after defying Sulla (81-78 BCE): Suetonius, Ch.2, Ch. 49-52,

"...He served his first campaign in Asia on the personal staff of Marcus Thermus, governor of the province. Being sent by Thermus to Bithynia, to fetch a fleet, he dawdled so long at the court of Nicomedes that he was suspected of improper relations with the king; and he lent colour to this scandal by going back to Bithynia a few days after his return, with the alleged purpose of collecting a debt for a freedman, one of his dependents. During the rest of the campaign he enjoyed a better reputation, and at the storming of Mytilene Thermus awarded him the civic crown...

...There was no stain on his reputation for chastity except his intimacy with King Nicomedes, but that was a deep and lasting reproach, which laid him open to insults from every quarter. I say nothing of the notorious lines of Licinius Calvus:

"Whate'er Bithynia had, and Caesar's paramour."

I pass over, too, the invectives of Dolabella and the elder Curio, in which Dolabella calls him 'the queen's rival, the inner partner of the royal couch,' and Curio, 'the brothel of Nicomedes and the stew of Bithynia.' I take no account of the edicts of Bibulus, in which he posted his colleague as 'the queen of Bithynia,' saying that 'of yore he was enamoured of a king, but now of a king's estate.' At this same time, so Marcus Brutus declares, one Octavius, a man whose disordered mind made him somewhat free with his tongue, after saluting Pompey as 'king' in a crowded assembly, greeted Caesar as 'queen.' But Gaius Memmius makes the direct charge that he acted as cup-bearer to Nicomedes with the rest of his wantons at a large dinner-party, and that among the guests were some merchants from Rome, whose names Memmius gives. Cicero, indeed, is not content with having written in sundry letters that Caesar was led by the king's attendants to the royal apartments, that he lay on a golden couch arrayed in purple, and that the virginity of this son of Venus was lost in Bithynia; but when Caesar was once addressing the senate in defence of Nysa, daughter of Nicomedes, and was enumerating his obligations to the king, Cicero cried: 'No more of that, pray, for it is well known what he gave you, and what you gave him in turn.' Finally, in his Gallic triumph his soldiers, among the bantering songs which are usually sung by those who followed the chariot, shouted these lines, which became a by-word:

'All the Gauls did Caesar vanquish, Nicomedes vanquished him;
Lo! now Caesar rides in triumph, victor over all the Gauls,
Nicomedes does not triumph, who subdued the conqueror.'

That he was unbridled and extravagant in his intrigues is the general opinion, and that he seduced many illustrious women, among them Postumia, wife of Servius Sulpicius, Lollia, wife of Aulus Gabinius, Tertulla, wife of Marcus Crassus, and even Gnaeus Pompey's wife Mucia. At all events there is no doubt that Pompey was taken to task by the elder and the younger Curio, as well as by many others, because through a desire for power he had afterwards married the daughter of a man on whose account he divorced a wife who had borne him three children, and whom he had often referred to with a groan as an Aegisthus*. But beyond all others Caesar loved Servilia, the mother of Marcus Brutus, for whom in his first consulship he bought a pearl costing six million sesterces. During the civil war, too, besides other presents, he knocked down some fine estates to her in a public auction at a nominal price, and when some expressed their surprise at the low figure, Cicero wittily remarked: 'It's a better bargain than you think, for there is a third off.' And in fact it was thought that Servilia was prostituting her own daughter Tertia to Caesar.

That he did not refrain from intrigues in the provinces is shown in particular by this couplet, which was also shouted by the soldiers in his Gallic triumph:

'Men of Rome, keep close to your consorts, here's a bald adulterer.
Gold in Gaul you spent in dalliance, which you borrowed here in Rome.'

He had love affairs with queens too, including Eunoe the Moor, wife of Bogudes, on whom, as well as on her husband, he bestowed many splendid presents, as Naso writes; but above all with Cleopatra, with whom he often feasted until daybreak, and he would have gone through Egypt with her in her state-barge almost to Aethiopia, had not his soldiers refused to follow him. Finally he called her to Rome and did not let her leave until he had ladened her with high honours and rich gifts, and he allowed her to give his name to the child which she bore. In fact, according to certain Greek writers, this child was very like Caesar in looks and carriage. Mark Antony declared to the senate that Caesar had really acknowledged the boy, and that Gaius Matius, Gaius Oppius, and other friends of Caesar knew this. Of these Gaius Oppius, as if admitting that the situation required apology and defence, published a book, to prove that the child whom Cleopatra fathered on Caesar was not his. Helvius Cinna, tribune of the commons, admitted to several that he had a bill drawn up in due form, which Caesar had ordered him to propose to the people in his absence, making it lawful for Caesar to marry what wives he wished, and as many as he wished, 'for the purpose of begetting children.' But to remove all doubt that he had an evil reputation both for shameless vice and for adultery, I have only to add that the elder Curio in one of his speeches calls him 'every woman's man and every man's woman.'... "

*In the alluding connection to one Aegisthus, the footnote in the relevant Loeb Classical Library states,

"...An appalling thing to say of someone, and one wonders whether Pompey had any inside information. In the kinky and bloodthirsty legends of the Greeks, Aegisthus was the son of Thyestes sleeping with his own daughter: so that his mother was his half-sister, and his father was his grandfather. Abandoned as a baby, he was adopted by his uncle Atreus who had killed Thyestes' children and fed them to him as stew. Understandably, Aegisthus, the original angry young man, winds up killing his uncle then cuckolding his uncle's son Agamemnon as soon as the latter goes off to war.

Caesar did indeed cuckold a lot of people, including Pompey, who in tagging him as Aegisthus, was giving himself out as Agamemnon doing his warrior's duty overseas while this shiftless lecher was stealing his wife: but Pompey was also getting back at Caesar in a classic and very hostile piece of psychoanalysis..."

Take it how you will. Suetonius personally discarded a couple of the tales. I think it's good trivia, but certainly not paramount in assessing his historical greatness.

James

[+Marius+]

The passive homosexuality ,while not illegal in ancient Rome has been a legal obstacle for a Roman citizen to be elected .
Given this we might consider Caesar being not supid enough denying his homosexual contacts - he just did not want to be closed from politics .
From the other side denying himself his true sexuality he could has grown psycho with the passing time .
Are there cases of people ,who were forced to deny their true sexuality and grew non-empathic , psychotic etc ?

There is absolutely no proof or any indication that Ceasar had any homosexual tendencies or relations.
That was just a political rumor started during his early days as ambassador to Bithynia.

That was all, just rumors started by the enemies of his bloodline to diminish the future political career of a prominent male member of a prominent family that surely had political enemies.
Those same rumors Caesar denied under oath.
The actual controversies that Caesar was actually a part of were the numerous affairs with women.

[Roma_Victrix]

The actual controversies that Caesar was actually a part of were the numerous affairs with women.

But don't you see, Marius Marich? This was just the desperate attempt of a gay man to appear heterosexual...by nailing lots of women.

Honestly, though, I think we can drop the whole homosexual thing now. It's such an absurd, moot point.

[Edelfred]

Octavian ,who has been named as one of his lovers , surely 'convinced' mouthes in being kept shut .
Since Caesar has been noted by having such contacts such allegation will stay together with historic science .
Could he by repressing his sexuality turn into no emphatic psychopath ? Yes there are cases like that known .
This still legit scientific point , while opponents only have a fan's wish to keep 'hero' out of objective investigation .It is like someone is idolising
King Arthur and saying :
'-I don't want to even consider him possibly forcing or having sex with his half sister' - something . Bias in short .
In his book Caesar does not hate Gauls and even hints on possible connection of Gallic and Latin people . As trained being priest he recognises certain similar cultural traits . Now we can say yes those 2 language groups had originated from related common ansectors since Celtic and Latin
are most similar to each other language groups in IE family . It is also possible that Caesar has overdone his numbers to impress Roman plebeians .

[KEA]

Octavian ,who has been named as one of his lovers , surely 'convinced' mouthes in being kept shut .

Where is Octavian named as Caesar's lovers? He was 19 when Caesar died. Did we now move from passive homosexuality to pederasty? And which mouths did he keep shut? Nicomedes was by then 30 years dead.

Could he by repressing his sexuality turn into no emphatic psychopath ? Yes there are cases like that known .

By that logic, 95% (i.e. all straight) of the population would be potential psychos because they might as well be just homosexuals surpressing their true nature. *doh*

This still legit scientific point , while opponents only have a fan's wish to keep 'hero' out of objective investigation .

I wont go by lecturing you on how historical or any science works, but you need a bit more than a note from known enemies to make such an allegation a scientific fact.

It is like someone is idolizing King Arthur and saying : '-I don't want to even consider him possibly forcing or having sex with his half sister'

But you do know what is historical known about King Arthur?

Now we can say yes those 2 language groups had originated from related common ansectors since Celtic and Latin
are most similar to each other language groups in IE family .

Now, that would be a sensation: Caesar discovering the IE family group in the 1st Century BC.

[Edelfred]

Now, that would be a sensation: Caesar discovering the IE family group in the 1st Century BC.

Due to his early life priestly occupation he has noted those Druid practices he has found similar or alike to that of Latins . Which is possible because Latins and Celts by language stood nearest to each other amongst other known IE family's groups .

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Octavian was called Caesar's lover by Antony and other peoples in the Senate (not necessarily associated with Antony). It was a common slander to insult young men by saying they were an older man's lover (prison so to speak).
Homosexuality among the elite was enough to have your career destroyed by a Censor. Over two generations before that a Censor could discover a homosexual or a man that secretly had two wives and that would be enough to take away that person's entire wealth and rank as a noble.

But Caesar didn't actually decimate his legion? News to me.
As far as violent behavior goes there isn't that much we can nail on Caesar (or Pompey) other than Caesar's mass execution and mutilation of Gauls. He also had Vercingetorix executed (under somewhat unknown circumstances due to varying accounts of his death) despite Pompey not having his defeated enemies killed (one might argue it was because Pompey's enemies were Hellenized) although in Pompey's war against Piracy he had numerous of the higher ups killed and spared the foot soldiers (er sailors?) of Piracy and the civilian population they had taken control of. I'm sure there are a few other minor executions though but nothing as big as the sacking of Gaul (the numbers of the victims are clearly exaggerated however).