It's a simple question:

Who's death had the most impact on history, on the development of our cultures, languages and countries?

Julius Caesar, or Jesus Christ.

Discuss.

Jesus, hands down.

Yeah, there's really no competition here. Jesus.

--Jaylemurph

that can't be a serious question... our whole timeline is based on Jesus... A.D. and B.C... now they tried to change it... so it doesn't reflect Jesus...

one of the biggest religions in the world is based on Jesus...

there are more historical references to Jesus than to caesar or abraham lincoln... lol...

we have 2 holidays dedicated to Jesus (even though dec. 25 is a pagan holiday)

christmas
easter

all i can say is julius who?

I won't vote. But I don't know anything postive that Julius Casear gave us.

For now, Jesus Christ. :/

There's really no competition there, Jesus did.

Jinx! I just realized I posted the same thing Jay said LOL

Actually, the word Easter comes from Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of fertility. At roughly the same time as the celebration of Jesus' resurrection, the Saxons were celebrating the return of Spring and of rebirth.
Like they did with Christmas, the early church shifted the focus of a pre-existing holiday to make conversion easier for non-christians, but they apparently couldn't be bothered to change the name of the holiday.

Why do you think we celebrate Easter with Bunnies and Eggs?

--Jaylemurph

My research into ancient cultures has yeilded more information about Julius Caesar than Jesus Christ (I don't care for religious icon figures much), however Jesus Christ's death... if he was even real or a fabric of a people's imagination in wanting a saviour... Jesus Christ's death has had a more profound impact on the world.

The way I think of it is, with Caesars death, came the rise of the Roman Empire.....one of the most powerful and intellegent civilizations our planet has known. They conquered the known world, and have influenced everything from our beliefs, to our language.


If it wasn't for the Empire, Jesus wouldn't have been crucified

Kind of a goofy questions... of course it's Jesus...

I mean, you could ask the same question with Jesus and any other leader... "Whose death was more influential, JFK's or Jesus" You could go on and on, but I think Jesus will probably win every time because the impact was so great. We haven't seen anything like it since.

What tangible positives did Jesus give you?

i'm fully aware of what easter was... but i'm talking about what the holiday means now... by the way.. i don't celebrate easter or christmas and i'm not jehova witness... i just know the background of those holidays and made a personal decision at 13 to not participate in some ways... i still give presents at christmas... but no trees, wreaths, etc...

a well loaded question.
the obvious answer you expected everybody to give was Jesus.....then WHAMMY you hit them with the....if it wernt for jc (julius) the empire wouldnt have existed...and jesus would not have been crucified...no death to speak of .....
neat trick.

however it is clear that the Empire was already formed before julius. and that the romans controlled the med + 50miles inland around it before julius....that it was controlled by the senatus publius que romanus is not important.
the empire you speak of came into being with Augustus (prev.octavian) as im sure u know. Julius was a precursor which used Tribunician power to rival the senate in matters where they opposed him...octavian/Augustus retained this...and every Emperor...or more accurately 'princeps' ....that came after him measured their terms of office in years of tribunician power.
the control of the med+50 miles thing was awarded to Pompey it was an 'imperium maiestas'. it allowed him to overrule any governor. and to bully any non roman dependant. since most mediterranean settlements are within 50miles of the sea, it pretty much meant everywhere.
so the empire that was settled on with one guy in-charge of most things, and power of veto over the senates' decisions in everything else, would have come about anyway....there were loads of candidates for julius' part in the play.

Jesus, if he existed at all....well im not going to get into that...suffice it to say that his 'supposed' death influenced more people than did julius'. he wasnt executed by julius, and would have suffered the same fate in a province controlled by any roman governor under pompey or crassus or whoever got the job.

i dont believe, reading what i have already on this topic that the complexities of the question will be fully explored....even if it were it would go round and round and round and round and round and round and round.

But the Empire came into its full with the death of Caesar.........the irony is, he was killed to prevent tyranny, when, that is infact what came about from it.

Can we change the poll to "Who was the biggest tyrant"? Pretty please?

please explain....do you mean territorially???? because it got bigger with later rulers...
caesar was dictator for life, like sulla before him. people stabbed him because they thought he wanted to be king. he probably did.
Augustus became 'princeps' and famously 'restored the republic' although noone was under any illusions.

my point is, it would have come to the full as you say without caesar...or rather it already had, he just tried to take it and control it. any of the triumvirate could have become sole ruler...pompey was next favourate .... coz crassus had cash but not as much drive, and he wasnt much cop as a general.
the death of caesar sparked another few years of civil war for the republic, or empire....and any number of candidates could have got the job in the end...
Octavian got it because he was good....he was good because he operated not as an individual, but as an executive of a small board where tasks were delegated out.
If anyone, He is credited with the construction or organisation of the Empire, and its constitution (not in the sense of 'american' or written constitution- but the way it was constituted). you could argue that caesar's death put octavian in the picture, but u would be still missing the point. caesars death put anthony into the picture too; and sextus, and lepidus....
the romans went against anthony because they believed he would split the empire or move it to Alexandria.
octavian got it on his own merit. if he was one whit less capable he would have been chewed up and spat out by his many more experienced rivals.

you say that tyranny resulted from caesar's death, i also contest this view.
Augustus was no tyrant, he regularly deferred to the senate, and delegated offices, he consulted his closest....it was no tyranny in the modern sense.
He held tribunician power, and as such he was the people's representitive, with power of veto over the senate.....this is the closest his rule got to tyranny.
no doubt he issued proscriptions, just like others before and after him. He was quite a considerate man who operated within the model he had refined.
'princeps' (where we get the word prince from) meant first-citizen...he turned down the title Rex though it was offered to him. He wasnt much for airs and graces, he constantly wore the homemade clothes that his wife made for him, and was often ridiculed for doing so.


Tyranny came from dynasty. not the tv series.
augustus' choices for succession became limited...but instead of choosing the best man for the job he chose his son Tiberius, who didnt really want the job.
at first he was as accommodating as his dad, but later, and with successive dynastic rulers things got a bit...weird. though we can not always trust senatorial writers...often biassed against the emperors.

again to reiterate my point, even if caesar had died at caesarean birth the empire would have rolled on. His death just meant a decade or more of turmoil...

wooooovvv now this is what you call entirely STUPID question ....
if u make a POLL u MAKE SURE that u are doing poll on GENERALLY THE SAME THINGS/PEOPLE....

U cant use a "starter of a religion" and "general/leader"
they have almost NOTHING in common so poll has to be very stupid ....

if u asked who was better Napoleon, or hitler, or alexandar the great or many many many other country rulers the story would be diferent.... if u asked who was better Mohamed or Jesus or Buddha This would be another one of those guestions in the list of "Stupid" once because person would naturally always choose religion leader that person belongs to lol

Jesus's that's a easy one, Wars have been fought and countries brought to their knee's in the name of Jesus.

I really, really wanted to do a Homer Simpson....

" I choose to nominate myself"

now all i need to do is change my initials to JC

That is a tough call, like some said if Caesar hadn't been around would have Christ been noticed. Christ was rebelling against Rome and it was the empire that supposedly killed him. But then Christianity has had a huge impact on the modern world. I guess I would have to say Christ.

Lil Gremlin, you're a legend.

PS Caesar had a whole month named after him, as well as words like Czar deriving directly from his name. Pretty cool legacy I think. Plus he wrote a lot of things down. It's been said that if it wern't for Roman record-keeping, the invasion of Britain would have looked like a spread of ideas and fashions from the archaeological record alone. So that's pretty important as well. Not meaning to be too heavy on Jesus here, but at least there is no doubt that Caesar did waht he is said to have done.

Although I reckon Jesus looked cooler, and would probably win in a fight. And I suppose having an entire religion named after you does look good on the old CV.

We know what Julius Ceasar looked like. Julius Ceasar was part of the system that controls governments. We can look at something and say, that's what Julius Ceasar looked like. We do not confuse Julius Ceasar with something unseen. We didn't know about Jesus Christ until Julius Ceasar came into history. Julius Ceasar was a flesh and blood being, the person Jesus the Christ may not have been. And we still search for proof that their ever was a Jesus Christ in anything else but name. Julius Ceasar caused all of the deaths and wars throughout history. It was a Julius Ceasar that armed all the men to fight. It is the spirit that controls the spirit of Julius Ceasar that controls any government. And governments have shaped the world the way it is. Without a government there would be no culture, language, or country. Without governments I don't know that the population of the world could be so huge. Because the products of one people may support the livelihood of another people and the trade between the people is controlled by governments and the governments have contained the thoughts of Julius Ceasar.

Jesus Christ is in charge of the future, not history. Julius Ceasar does not control what you 'do' with any product of any government, but the spirit of governments controlled the printing of the bible. Jesus Christ is a product of faith that is expected to return some time in the future and rule as the King of Kings. That is in the future, not back in history. We have no evidence of any person named Jesus Christ, maybe it was all burned up by governments that had the men like Julius Ceasar in them; they may have been following the commands drawn up by Julius Cesear to cover up the truth of your existence because there is nothing you can do that you used to do.

Maybe in the future we will be able to do something different than we do now.

Jesus Christ is the Nous between the two worlds. He controls the gate into the future.

It's ORANGE JULIUS!

Uhh... Ditto for the Roman Empire, which was (essentially) founded by JC the Elder.

--Jaylemurph


Actually, JC II. Julius Caesar's father was also named Julius Caesar.

I'd like to point out that Jesus, the actual person, did not perform any of the atrocities that his idiot followers did. The crusades, the war in iraq, etc. That is the ignorant and naive people who took Jesus' words and fowled them for their own gain. Why do so many people blame Jesus for the things his followers have done? Plus, everything that has happened in his name was after he died. Almost anything that has to do with Jesus was done after he died, hundreds of years after. I still think Jesus' death had a much more profound effect on the entire world than the death of Julius Caeser. Sure, things would be different if Caeser hadn't of died the way he did, but he still did all the great things he did before he died. With Jesus, it's a lot dfferent. Jesus supposedly rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. That's a pretty huge thing to do. And then have people obsess over you like crazy after that. We will always remember Jesus more than Caeser, that's a big DUH moment.

HEY YOU GUUYS...CHOCOLETT....HAR HAR...

it is a stupid question. but the correct answer is jesus....myth or no. for many different reasons....yay for everyone who got it right.
and i aint even a christian.
but ofcourse its all subjective and u can believe what u want....dont take my word for it.

julius caesar was a great military leader....his civil skills were not quite as sublime, or fortunate.
that subsequent rulers adopted or were given the title caesar...which amounted to different things as time wore on...has more to do with octavian/augustus than the man himself. He was deified by augustus...his name adopted by augustus....augustus legitimised himself by using caesar and instituting a cult of caesar.

jesus if he lived would have come about under the same or similar conditions regardless of caesar existence. and would have died for the same religious or political reasons. Jesus's success, like caesar's as a focus of a cult (before it became a mainstream religion) has more to do with alexander than anyone else....remember im talking early days here.

caesar was his own propoganda merchant....most senatorial writers are slightly negative...not overtly condeming because it was more than their jobsworth/lifesworth.
his 'great' deeds were perpertrated against a far inferior warrior caste....and he regularly used genocide....he boasts of 'reducing' such a such tribe and subjecting others as a result. it was for good reason that tribes rebelled against him when they had the opportunity....he was a prize git.
his account of his wars in gaul and britain have been shown to be embellished, with bad things glossed over or given a different spin....ofcourse he could not tell many whoppers, there were far too many witnesses...but he made the best of things, like modern politicians.
We should not credit him for the empire...this is incorrect....or with the legacy of roman civilisation...it would not have been much different without him.

that christianity became the religion of the empire , or with western civilisation has more to do with Constantine than jesus and he wasnt even a christian untill his deathbed when he was in no position to object anymore. but enough of that.

ps i am not a legend, i assure you i am quite real.

i just wonder if you are aware that Caesar is more a title and not a last name?

there was

juliaus caesar
caesar augustus
nero caesar... etc...

that was a title that simply designated who the ruler was...

Julius may have had a whole month named after him... but Jesus had the enire existance of time named after him... B.C. and A.D.

dude Augustus started that tradition, first taking the name itself, then giving it to his successor....its a bit like the 'prince of wales' title in britain, although you can have more than one.
later emperors could not give themselves the name augustus for obvious reasons...if u dont know look up its meaning and significance. but they could take caesar.
diocletian instituted the tetrarchy, having two augusti and each of them having one caesar.....splitting the empire into east and west, with co-rule and succession sewn up. this was meant to stabalise the empire, but caused as many problems as it solved.
one very late emperor had the conciet to call himself augustus...dont know if that was his real name or one he adopted...he was a right doofus so i must have decided to not remember much about him.

it was actually julius caesar's name, and his dad as someone else pointed out, rather than a title at that point.

Yep.

Ceasar's full name was Giaus Iulius Ceasar, son of Gaius Iulius Ceasar, of the gens Iulia. His grandnephew Gaius Octavianus Thurinus took the name Ceasar when G. Julius adopted him as his son. The next four emperors (Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero) were all to some degree in his family and took his name as an imperial title. Subsequent rulers kept the name as a mark of respect.

And Caesar also started the calendar we use (with a few modifications), even if one of the time-scales we use (and one that is rapidly falling out of favour) to measure it was named after Christ.

--Jaylemurph