Give me one good reason why his cause wasn't justified.

>>79083902
He wants absolute control over Rome (for a life time). While this might not be a bad thing since he is a competent ruler. This give way to potential 'successor', that might not be as good as him taking control of said absolute power. Sure, Octavian is competent too, but those after him? Not so much.

>>79084008
The Imperator status would have diminished with him, either way.

The Republic was extremely corrupt and uncaring, so the moral high-ground was any internal rebellion, especially lead by anyone who believes in the customs of Rome.

>>79084008

A few things.

This had happened before, but usually by force.

Further, the Senate voluntarily gave him this power unlike with Sulla (and basically Marius despite it not being a life-time appointment).

Caesar wasn't killing Senators. He wasn't even ostracizing his political enemies. The man literally did nothing wrong, and was killed because of his autistic illegitimate son. While Cato smirked most Jewishly from beyond the grave.

>>79084008
It's too bad they didn't skip Tiberius and Caligula, and instead had Germanicus at the helm. Claudius would have been an even better successor.

The succession process is the real villain in the story. If the Senate compromised and allowed for lifetime emperors under the condition of an orderly succession process, the Empire would have been much more stable.

>>79084792
>If the Senate compromised and allowed for lifetime emperors under the condition of an orderly succession process, the Empire would have been much more stable

Isn't that going to lead to a potential civil war and most likely assassination of the good candidate because some autistic retard got jealous?

>>79084008
>Sure, Octavian is competent too, but those after him? Not so much.

Barring the short regin of Caligula and the Year of the Four Emperors, the position of Emperor remained pretty stable and competant until Commodus in 177AD, 236 years after Caesar come to power

>>79085048
But that's due more to the stable situation of the time. If Rome had faced the threats of the 2nd/3rd century during the reigns of Nero or Caligula it would have been in a lot of trouble.

>>79085048
I thought Nero is pretty bad too? Or is it just a meme?

>>79083902
I love Ciaran Hinds as Caesar, but its Purefoy as Mark Anthony that makes me stay all the way to the finale. The show is good, shame the cost to make it finally killing the show. Should at least be a three seasons show, second half of S2 is rushed too much.

>>79085641
The end of Nero's reign and his death is what led to the year of the four emperor's so his legacy carries that baggage but for most of Nero's rule he was fine

>>79085641
Nero was fine
Most of the bad stories about him are spread by Christians that hated him.
That's why later on they destroyed his tomb and replaced it with yet another church

>>79083902
Caesar had no cause beyond himself.

File: 792b8997970b433b06b10721bd89900e.jpg (73KB, 736x490px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x490px

Best character coming through.

>>79085808
Categorically false. Read a book.

>>79085888
>Hand signalling intensifies

>>79083902
Gond- Rome has no kings
Rome needs no kings

Is there nothing that can fill the void this show left?

>>79084008
Considering that the Empire lasted much longer than the Republic did I would have to disagree

>>79086736
yes