Julius Caesar vs George Washington. Who was the greater man?
Both of these men were hugely influential to the world.
On one hand, George Washington fought the British tyranny and freed the Americans and served the first two terms as President of the United States. He was loved by his soldiers, family, and pretty much everyone in the United States. No doubt the Americans would have lost the war without his perseverance, courage, and military prowess, completely altering the history of the United States.
On the other hand, Julius Caesar brought Roman order and technology all across Europe to the barbarians. He expanded the lands of an already glorious empire, uniting many peoples under one banner. He founded a line of Roman Emperors that would last hundreds of years, his nephew being the first of them. He was a master politician, competing with the whole Roman senate for control of Rome. Though there was something to be said about his security and trust issues, seeing how he was assassinated by a trusted friend.
As for what defines greatness in this debate, take into account everything about them, good or bad. Their political skills, military skills, manipulating skills, their morality, their religions/beliefs, etc.
Julius Caesar
Side Score: 10
|
 |
George Washington
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty obvious since my user name is Julius, and my profile picture is of the SPQR, an era of Rome. Julius Caesar himself did so much for Rome, he was intelligent, and he was ruthless. He seized power from the corrupt Augustus, destroyed the old German tribes, and even invaded Egypt, bring it under Rome's wing. Beside, define 'better'? Side: Julius Caesar
1
point
1
point
I highly doubt anyone on this website is an expert on either American or Roman history so it would be next to impossible to judge the greatness of both men, not knowing the full context surrounding these giants. However, for arguement's sake, Julius Caeser was the better man for the following reasons. (A) He came first. (B) His empire was bigger (C) He, as emperor, had bigger "shoes" to fill. He had more power and more responsibility (D) Largely because of changes he made in Roman government, Rome had the stability and strength it needed to endure longer (E) His empire expanded over many different cultures, religions, races and ethnicities (F) He looked way cooler Side: Julius Caesar
"(D) Largely because of changes he made in Roman government, Rome had the stability and strength it needed to endure longer" However, it stil fell. Could you argue that it also caused it's collapse? Also: (A) He came first. So Nero was better than Washington? Or really any president? Side: George Washington
1
point
We'll never know for sure what would have happened had the guy been stopped before he made it to the throne, but throughout the rest of Rome's history after Julius, we can see clear differences from the previous regime and obviously, the changes are rooted in what Julius did. You could argue that moldy bread caused Rome's collapse, I personally don't see any correlation between Julius's actions and the Fall. If anything, Julius prolonged the inevitable. Just being first doesn't make someone great, I just meant that as a world power, Julius and Rome had more obstacles to hurdle that Washington wouldn't have had. Side: Julius Caesar
|
1
point
|
