Sandefur takes issues with my views of Caesar and my dislike for Cato the Younger. In particular, I stated that Caesar did not want to be King of Rome. Sandefur says that I am blind to the reality. But I say to Sandefur, hold!

The story of Caesar refusing the crown of Rome is generally held to be true. Why? Because Rome, which was a politically aware nation, remembered the Tarquins, and knew the fate of Saturninus, the last man to claim to be King of Rome. Rome abhorred a king; everyone knew this.

Did Caesar desire complete executive power? Of course, and he got it too; he was elected dictator for life. But never King; the Kingship was not constitutional, unlike the dictatorship. Kings were due only one thing in the Roman Republic: a violent death. Caesar got that anyway, but not before he declined the crown. Of course, Cato was already dead by then; but this does not change the fact that Caesar did nothing unconstitutional prior to crossing the Rubicon, and his election to the dictatorship, while irregular (lasting for life) was not unconstitutional or unprecedented, considering the acts of Lucuis Cornelius Sulla, who was elected dicatator for an indefinite term.

Fundamentally, Cato the Younger was no Cato the Censor, who was a far greater defender of the Republic, even if he did foment the Third Punic War. There was a substantial difference between monarchy and dictatorship in Roman eyes and in the reality of Caesar's existence. Sandefur, like Saruman, should know better.