>

Renaissance 

The Renaissance (UK:  rin-AY-sənss, US:  (listen) REN-ə-sahnss) is a period in European history marking the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity and covering the 15th and 16th centuries, characterized by an effort to revive and surpass ideas and achievements of classical antiquity. It occurred after the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages and was associated with great social change. In addition to the standard periodization, proponents of a "long Renaissance" may put its beginning in the 14th century and its end in the 17th century.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
/u/The_Saracen_Slayer (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I'd probably caveat your statements by noting that Caesar was an avid self-promoter and built up a cult of personality around himself. Without a doubt, he was a brilliant, brilliant man ... but given that he was the first in a long line of dictators using his name for legitimacy, I think it's rational to bear that in mind when reading glowing Roman accounts of how brilliant he was.
Powerful men with a desire and incentive toward self-aggrandizing can often be successful in building a tremendous amount of personal mythology. e.g., a few years ago Elon Musk had millions of people willing to claim he was a genius, an accomplished engineer, a marvelous rhetorician, etc.
With all that said, some rebuttals for Caesar, specifically:

Engineering. Caesar's decision to build a bridge across the Rhine was certainly militarily intelligent, but his bridge wasn't novel; the design had existed for 500 years by this point, and was the same design as was employed for the Pons Sublicius, the oldest bridge in Rome. Additionally, it's worth noting that Caesar was accompanied on his Gallic campaigns by a quite famous chief engineer (praefector fabrum) named Lucius Balbus. Which of the two seems more likely to have come up with novel engineering concepts?
Literacy and Rhetoric. These weren't particularly different skills in ancient Rome. No disagreement that Caesar was a phenomenal communicator ... but then again, most truly memorable politicians are, aren't they? One note, though ... reading silently was an unusual way to read, and was more odd / impolite than a sign of genius. It indicated that you were concentrating on the message so hard you forgot to read it aloud.
Explorer. What you're highlighting is also an extension of literacy / rhetoric. Caesar didn't explore places other Romans had never been ... instead, he provided lots of gripping details about his campaigns to ensure Romans believed his (self aggrandising) accounts. That didn't require him to be particularly truthful about the people he encountered, and much of his writing is out of line with historians of the era (e.g., Livy disagrees with him about population counts, territorial dispositions, etc ... and is more in-line with archaeological evidence). Even Caesar's friends and subordinates questioned the accuracy of Commentarii de Bello Gallico.
Furthermore, in no circumstance did Caesar travel / explore farther than other Romans, and Romans themselves didn't explore so far as, say, the Phoenicians. We can certainly wonder if Caesar made it to Denmark in the 50s BCE... but we know the Phoenicians did, 800 years earlier.
The Caesar Cypher. This is named after Caesar because he's famous, not because he invented it. Suetonius (our source for him using it) didn't say he'd come up with it, either -- just that he used it. It'd have been odd if he invented it, because transposition ciphers were 1,500 years old by that point, and both the Hebrews (in around 500 BCE) and the Greeks (in around 300 BCE) were using similar, but more secure, cyphers.

To boil it down... what you've described is a man with an incredible military mind, extremely literate, and a consummate politician ... but not someone exceptional as a scientist, artist, musician, explorer, astronomer, philosopher, etc. ie, you've described someone who isn't really a polymath at all.
Compare Caesar to say, Benjamin Franklin. Ben certainly wasn't as skilled of a military strategist, but one could easily argue that he was:

Just as good a communicator and writer
Accomplished (in his own right, not for an employee's work) in engineering, practical philosophy (see: numerous list of inventions), mathematics, statistics, chemistry, business, and political philosophy.
A talented musician, a serviceable composer, and a habitual illustrator >

I agree with most things here. But come on… you can say Elon Musk is accomplished / intelligent while also disagreeing with him or thinking him the devil himself. Not everyone who is your ideological enemy has the capacity of a toad. >

That's not the point -- I think Musk is great at hiring intelligent people, had sound business sense for most of his career, and is an incredible promoter and salesman. What he isn't is an engineer or inventor... By inclination, education, or professional experience. 
And yet, you get articles like this from a few years ago, which work on the fallacy that being an accomplished executive in several fields requires you, yourself, to possess all the individual skills necessary to succeed in those fields.
You don't -- any more than Caesar needed to be an accomplished engineer to benefit from accomplished engineering. >

Yeah very true, I agree with this take. >

This certainly isn’t enough to change your view, but as something to consider, it shouldn’t be seen as impressive that Caesar could read silently. It was just as easy for ancient Romans to read as it would be for any of us. If people didn’t read silently, it was a matter of custom not ability. >


It was just as easy for ancient Romans to read as it would be for any of us

This isn't true. For two reasons. First have you ever actually tried to read Latin from the late Republic? Dear god is it bad. The punctuation was non existent, there weren't even clearly defined sentences and words allrantogetherlikethis.
​
The second reason is they were surrounded much less by the written word than we are today. Your average person is exposed to thousands of words a day and has to read constantly just to functionally operate in modern society. Even for Roman aristocrats they didn't have to read particularly often and literature was very expensive and hard to come by. >

That’s just wrong. Plenty of languages are written without spaces and punctuation Nan’s wealthy classes would be exposed enough to the written word to be passable readers >

sureplentyoflanguagesarewrittenwithneitherspacesnorpunctuationbutitshardtoargueitdoesntmakeiteasiertoreadwhenyouhavethemespeciallyinthelatinalphabet
​
And it's also seriously hard to argue that Romans would have been exposed to the written world as much as we are today. Most business was conducted in person, public announcements were spoken not written, books were incredibly expensive and few people could afford to own one. You're talking about a society where relatively large numbers of people could read but that reading was just inevitably going to be at a lower level. >

I personally consider the subjects of literacy and rhetoric to be heavily overlapping fields.
Basically the only two discrete fields you have here are engineering and literacy. Which hardly fits the definition of "many" required to be a renaissance man.

He once talked his way out of captivity from criminal pirates (who could have easily killed him) and defused an army about to rebel on him purely by his words and charisma

Minor correction - he didn't talk his way out of captivity. Caesar had a ransom paid. In fact, he told the pirates they were idiots for only asking for 20 talents instead of 50. Then once he was released he gathered a naval force, captured the men, and had them crucified like he promised.
Additionally, politically much of his influence came from the fact that he was a member of the Triumvirate that plundered Rome of its wealth and political stability along with Crassus and Pompey. >

What influence did he have after the Civil War started? He was seen as an enemy of Rome and was to stand trial for crimes. By the end of his life, only a handful of hundreds of senators betrayed him and all of them were swiftly executed afterwards. Caesar was at the bottom before he personally fought his way back to the top.
"literacy and rhetoric to be heavily overlapping fields" Thats up to you, but how often does it translate to real world applications? Being able to persuade, encourage, and change people to your favor in public orating seems like a different task than writing papers or reading books. >


He was seen as an enemy of Rome and was to stand trial for crimes

Only by the patricians. Caesar had the support of the plebians the entire time (which is the reason why Brutus was chased out of Rome after Caesar's assassination).
Not to mention that despite being seen as "an enemy of Rome" he had command of the massive army he used to conquer Gaul. It's not like he was ever really at the bottom.

Being able to persuade, encourage, and change people to your favor in public orating seems like a different task than writing papers or reading books.

Being an effective writer requires an understanding in and skill with rhetoric though. A huge part of rhetoric is communication - an essential skill for both persuading people in both written and spoken formats. >

Didn't the official designation of patricians and plebians end in the senate by that time? Brutus and the rest of the liberators were only a handful of men compared to the hundreds in the senate. They all were universally condemned. I don't think there was any significant opposition to Caesar by his death. However, if I'm correct he did lose a lot of support once Pompey ended their relations.
" writer requires an understanding in and skill with rhetoric though" Speaking it and writing it are a bit different if we talking actual use in public persuasion. Caesar's rhetoric extended to being a great orator, like Cicero. But is every noteworthy writer a great public speaker? >


Didn't the official designation of patricians and plebians end in the senate by that time?

Nope. Patrician designation continued until even after the fall of the West. It stopped being particularly relevant around the 8th century AD.

However, if I'm correct he did lose a lot of support once Pompey ended their relations.

Because Caesar and Pompey hated each others' guts and Crassus, who was mediating the two of them, died in the Classical period equivalent of "hold my beer and watch this".

Speaking it and writing it are a bit different if we talking actual use in public persuasion.

Personally I disagree. If you write your own speeches, delivering them is a matter of course (so long as you don't get stage fright), and if you don't - or you use a teleprompter, you aren't a good orator. >

Everything but the charisma gets an asterisk: he was powerful.  A truly talented writer is read by people who don't care about the subject.  Do people need to care about Danish history to read or watch Hamlet?  Nah.  But nobody who's uninterested in Roman history reads Caesar.
Was he a great orator?  Seneca saying so isn't like Mozart saying a professional musician was great, it's like him calling a wealthy Duke a great musician.  Maybe has more to do with his incentive structure than his judgment.
Did he do his own engineering?  Dunno, are there any blueprints in his own hand?  Was he jotting down ideas in his letters?  Did anyone hire him to do their engineering?  Seems to me he had officers to do that for him.
You don't give him credit for everything his men did. >

"A truly talented writer is read by people who don't care about the subject" Caesar is read alone due to his latin being arguably second only to Cicero. Yet you are here arguing people would read something because of talent alone?
Seneca wasn't even around during Caesar, Cicero (much better accomplished) was.
Do his own engineering? Probably yes. "..credit for everything his men did" His men were ready to bail out of Alexandria when their supply lines got cut. Caesar personally instructed the construction of near sea wells to find fresh water. Caesar won that siege, not his men who were ready to quit without his quick resourcefulness >


Caesar is read alone due to his latin being arguably second only to Cicero. Yet you are here arguing people would read something because of talent alone

When have you ever heard someone say "I read Caesar in translation, and his writing was so gripping I'm going to learn Latin just to better appreciate it"?  Never have, never will.

Do his own engineering? Probably yes. 

Why do you believe this?

"..credit for everything his men did" His men were ready to bail out of Alexandria when their supply lines got cut. Caesar personally instructed the construction of near sea wells to find fresh water

Yeah it's not like he was the only one who knew to do that,  he just had charisma and a different incentive structure than his men and the ability to motivate them.  Yeah that makes him a good leader not a great engineer of wells. >

Some of your points just fall flat, and not because we are 2000 years removed from Caesar's time.

He could read silently without pronouncing words (unusual for the time)

This claim is quite dubious. We all read silently without issue, and I see no reason the Romans were less capable of doing so.

Caesar was a master of public speaking.

Great skill, but I would not consider this in determining the worth of a polymath.

The Caesar cipher is an elementary encryption technique in Cryptography, named after Caesar himself. 

Did Caesar invent the cipher, or is it just named after him? One is more impressive than the other. A lot of things (and people) are named after Caesar because he was such a large figure, but that doesn't mean Julius should get credit for it.

He also contacted help of mathematician Sosigenes to create the Julian Calendar (which would be used for 1,600 years until the Gregorian Calendar). He started several big projects in Rome from buildings, roads, aqueducts, etc...

Perhaps we should just give credit to the inventors and engineers instead of the guy in charge. Unless Julius Caesar personally designed a calendar or personally designed the buildings and aqueducts, he's merely a master of task delegation. Which makes him a good leader, and perhaps a good visionary, but not a polymath. >

"We all read silently without issue," Because that is how you were taught, not because its natural. In ancient times (Roman) pretty much all reading was said out loud to correct any weakness in proper pronunciation. But the real detail was that Caesar typically multitasked while reading, he would hear news of his military situations while continuing to read. Showing his advanced literacy which was unusual enough to be noteworthy! No doubt this obviously mixed well with his writing skills.
Orating was one of the key pillars of ancient education, how is it not noteworthy? Not like painting, writing, music can be said to be any more useful...yet other polymaths are credited for these fields. Even to this day isn't public speaking considered to be one of the greatest phobias around? People alone crack under pressure when in front of others (no where to hide). And its considered a near irreplacable skill for any would be leader.
"Did Caesar invent the cipher, or is it just named after him?" Not many that we written about, its possible other types of shift ciphers had been used elsewhere. But whether they were exactly like Caesar's I don't know. What Caesar's was notable for was how widespread and practical he used it both in military, political and private discourse...and was followed by his successors. In terms of applicability, he his the best earliest example of cryptography. And in fact to this day my Introduction to Mathematical Cryptography textbook (Springer edition) literally starts with Caesar being historically the main first use application! In a class that is purely on math, even Caesar showed up...crazy.
"Perhaps we should just give credit to the inventors and engineers instead of the guy in charge" That's the thing, its possible he did in fact some part in the overall work! In some of his engineering feats, it was his initial plans/designs that were used. It seems unfair to not give credit because of the presumption that others were around (we don't know the exact history unfortunately). I could easily lay the same claim against Archimedes ( a well known Polymath) and his military devices (we don't know if he alone designed or they were simply modifications of already existing engineers). >


"We all read silently without issue," Because that is how you were taught, not because its natural. 

Can you cite some sources here? It seems to me that reading silently is the natural way of reading, as evidenced by the fact pretty much everyone does it. Do you mean to suggest that we've evolved so much from Roman times that we read silently, and that Caesar passed on the reading silently gene?

Orating was one of the key pillars of ancient education, how is it not noteworthy?

I'm sure it was noteworthy then. 

What Caesar's was notable for was how widespread and practical he used it both in military, political and private discourse...and was followed by his successors. In terms of applicability, he his the best earliest example of cryptography. And in fact to this day my Introduction to Mathematical Cryptography textbook (Springer edition) literally starts with Caesar being historically the main first use application! In a class that is purely on math, even Caesar showed up...crazy.

Caesar was the most famous person to have used the cipher in the time it was invented. This is perhaps noteworthy that he used it, but again, you are alleging that he invented cryptography and this is likely not the case.

That's the thing, its possible he did in fact some part in the overall work!

Did he or did he not?

It seems unfair to not give credit because of the presumption that others were around (we don't know the exact history unfortunately).

CEOs shouldn't get credit for inventions of the company workers. Yes, great things were achieved by the Romans during Caesar's time. This doesn't mean Caesar participated in them. For a more modern example: FDR didn't invent the atomic bomb, but its development was during his presidency and FDR likely had some level of say in greenlighting the project. We give credit to the Manhattan Project and its team of scientists instead of the president, because that's who achieved the feat.
You are hiding behind "this happened 2000 years ago so it's possible" as a cover here. It's simply unlikely that a dictator would have gotten his hands dirty. Give him credit for the leadership of the Romans, but he didn't physically build the aqueducts (and I doubt he designed them). >

At least something to keep in mind is that much of the alleged accomplishments of Caesar are only known through Caesar's self reporting of it. It doesn't take a genius to identify that Caesar would benefit greatly by attributing greater feats to himself and downplaying those of his subordinates (such as Titus Labienus). Many alleged speeches by Gallic leaders in De Bello Gallico are probably made up, numbers of Gauls defeated inflated and so on. 

Explorer: stuff

Britain was not considered mythical; the only instance I know where it is claimed Britain was fake was Plutarch alleging some other writers dismissed Britain as made up. Britain was an important source of tin in the ancient world and Greek geographers at least 4 Centuries earlier supposedly visited and wrote about it. Gauls also knew about it, considering Caesar asked them about what Britain was like. Caesar was one of the first notable interactions that we know of between Romans and Britons and he wrote a little bit about them, but he wasn't a sort of Columbus figure. 
In addition, several of the alleged feats you mention are not ones that Caesar personally did but stuff that just happened under his authority. Caesar didn't build buildings or even design them. Caesar claims he designed the bridges to cross the Rhine, but why would we take that at face value when he has good reason to lie about it? Other historical feats of military engineering brought up weren't exactly innovative for the time. The points on rhetoric and writing (functionally the same given the nature of the written word in Republican Rome) are true, but fall under the whole 'Caesar was a great statesman' thing 
Lastly, I don't know where you get some of your info from. I am not aware of any claims of Caesar being a painter, sculptor, or physician. I've never encountered a claim that Caesar went to modern Denmark, he wasn't in Germany for very long. >

I’ll put forth Thomas Jefferson. Politician, diplomat, lawyer, writer, philosopher, historian, architect, musician, inventor, planter, scientist, field naturalist, and fluent in five languages. >

Don't forget serial rapist. >

Yeah, also a pretty terrible guy in many respects. But the post did say “most accomplished” renaissance man, not “most morally upstanding.” >

True. I just wanted to add to his accomplishments. >

I think that you need to account for Caeser being an incredibly rich and influential person when you look at his accomplishments. Not to deny his talent or achievements, but he had every advantage in learning his skills. He had some of the greatest minds in Rome to help him at many points during his life, and also great influence over the history of his own life. 
For example, you list exploring as one of his skills. But he only explored with a bunch of Roman legions at his back, carrying him along the way. I find it hard to count that as a real achievement given that he almost certainly would never have accomplished it without so much help.
Additionally, while you make a good case for Caeser as a Renaissance man in general, what in this list makes him the greatest of all time? Obviously there are people who exceeded him in all these categories. Most of his lasting impact was from his political power and influence rather than any achievements of skill or great discoveries. What makes Caeser stand above Archimedes or Da Vinci? >

Δ
Okay so you do get a delta for pointing out that its hard to signify this as showing he was the "greatest". Indeed maybe there are other individuals who had superior qualities that you could argue are more noteworthy. And yes he did interact with some great minds along his life to succeed at somethings, he wasn't naturally a genius at birth (that we know of) like say Mozart was at music from such a young age.
However, I just think his accomplishments are so historically significant, in a wide range of fields, that to me its almost surreal. As politician Caesar is arguably top 5 of all time (Jefferson and Franklin as some have mentioned, don't even if they were presidents), he dominated Roman politics which was considered brutal even for ancient times. As general and strategist, he also is arguably greatest of all time. As an orator and public speaker, he could give any modern noteworthy politician's speech (Hitler, Churchhill, etc..) a run for their money...if not beat them. His engineering tasks (like crossing the Rhine) not only innovative and uprecedented (matches any polymaths "innovations") but also more immediately practical.
Yes I agree with you I can't prove he is greater than Da Vinci, but I counter I feel like doing the opposite would be an even harder task. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers (8∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Here's the dilemma...sometimes known as the 'Caesar Dilemma'.
What is the importance of insane ability in the pursuit of an evil cause?
Julius Caesar was given more natural ability than anyone else in history...
With it, he murdered a million Gauls...he enslaved another million Gauls...
With the money of the Gallic War, he went to war with Rome...
He came to power in Rome and ensured his Dictatorship for Life...
His legacy is to pivot Roman Republicanism to Roman Kingship [the Emperors]...
To your question, YES ... repeat, NO...NEVER. >

I would argue that Caesar was accomplished but not great. His campaigns into central and Northern Europe killed the majority of the population. Although it is not commonly said, some argue that Caesar committed genocide.