tflex

What you said is true, but still the principate did great for over 200 years, thats a long period of time. At the end it screwed up just like the republic. To get back to Sulla, I don't think history should just dismiss him as a ruthless tyrant, historians seem to concentrate more on the negative aspects of his reign rather than the positive ones. His positive qualities outnumber his negative ones. Ofcourse his victims would disagree with that statment, but I have come to understand his actions even if they were cruel, he used his power wisely to crush his opposition, and thats no different than the senators that murdered Caesar, but for some reason historians did not treat those characters as harshly as Sulla. They used assassination to further thier political aims but they failed and Sulla did the same thing but he succeeded, at least while he was alive.

That's a biased comparison--to be fair, look at the last 150 years of both or at the first 150 years of both. It's not a bias comparison, the principate was better for it's time, read carefully what I said. Again, facts cannot be argued the republic was failing in it's last 100 or 150 years and the principate was the right replacement, there is plenty of evidence to prove that, I don't want to keep repeating myself. Lets not try and rewrite history, if it was doing well, then why did it fall? The republic was good for it's time but ultimately expired, the same thing happened with the principate. If you read one of my earlier posts, you would have noticed that I already mentioned when the principate began to fail, it too needed some radical changes. All good things must come to an end whether it's the republic or principate. No need to feel so bad about it.

As I already mentioned in more detail in one of my previous posts, while the republic was more stable when it came to succession it didn't really matter at the end, the system was failing anyway and became very unstable, I guess because of ineffectual rule. As soon as the principate replaced it things immediately started improving.

Aftre PP warned him, there was no reason for Phil25 to retire, he should have just heeded the warning and carried on a civilized debate. But I think he might have been upset that his own personal agenda wasn't going to be accepted in this forum so he ran off. I wish he'd comeback and prove us all wrong.

The biggest evidence that the principate was more suited for it's time than the republic was the Pax Romana. As soon as the republic fell and was replaced by another system everything worked out just fine for the next 200 years plus, thats not a coincidence it's directly related. Look at the last 150 years of the republic and compare that to the next 200 years of the principate. The republic was obviously failing and the principate was obviously a successful solution. Again, thanks to Sulla and Caesar, without them it would have taken a lot longer to change the outdated system. It's a shame that by the late 5th century AD, there was no one couragous enough to make radical changes to a system that like the late republic was also failing after 500 years. The late empire could have used another Sulla reincarnated. It was the quirky characters that contributed much to Rome's laws.

I'm one of the new members but I can say with confidence that this forum has been running real smooth thanks to you guys. There's been some heated arguments here and there which is a positive thing, but when things get out of control the UNRV team is always there to bring about order and thats great management.

With one exception though ... Divi Fulius was an earlier (and excellent)member of the site under another name. Which is why he is a Patrician even though he seems new. Since you mention phil25, he was way too sensitive wasn't he? He had a bit of a quarrel with Ursus from what I recall. Curious to know what that was all about? I think at the end he decided to retire.

OK--point us to the original sources that support your claim. Any examples of Jesus engaging in systematic hypothesis testing? It was not Jesus's job to experiment in systematic hypothesis. I'm saying when you read the bible there are numerous examples where it backs up science or vice versa. But if you listen to some priest then I agree a lot of them are living in fantasy world.

I already mentioned corruption in my previous post, electoral intimidation through assassination is a form of corruption. You must have missed it or just ignored it. It's more like after starting your car for a few years it collapses. I'm sorry but the consuls were weak and ineffectual rulers in the late republic, they should have been overthrown more often, it might have done some good.. It's a good example though, thats what matters. Comparing the Roman republic's inability to stop Sulla, Marius and Caesar to the rape of a woman is ridicolous and laughable. Sulla was corrupt and a murder but no more than his contemporaries were. At least he had a plan and a vision. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the people who wanted more of the same. Defenders of the Republic enjoyed having a weak system in place because they personally benefited from it. They hated Sulla and Caesar because they both belted them back in line.

Athens as usual made the mistake of annoying the Spartans who were the military backbone of the Delian league. The Athenians throughtout their history were ungrateful backstabbing swines that owed their security and existence to the Spartans. Whenever their security was threatened they ran like dogs to the Spartans begging for help, only to betray them once they were saved. I think Sparta should have stepped away and let the Persians teach those wothless currupt Athenians a lesson. Had the Athenians behaved in a proper manner and yielded to Sparta once and for all, I think Greece living under Spartan laws would have grown into a formidable empire that would have challenged Rome itself.

I agree with you, I was just saying relying heavily on immigration whether in times of peace or war will almost certainly lead to undesirable consequences.

What is your evidence that the Roman republic at the time of Sulla was too corrupt or too large to defend itself? The best proof is as Rome grew from a city state and new provinces were constantly being acquired, centralized power collapsed and was fragmented to a point that the weakened system did not have the capacity or reach to control or discipline its provincial governors and military generals who acted on their own behalf with complete disregard to the traditional decisions makers such as the assemblies and the senate. How can a divided nation defend itself against increasing enemies. All you have to do is look at the instability of power starting from the period of the Gracchi brothers to the fall of the republic. A strong system does not allow its own citizens, politicians, governors and military leaders to successfully conspire against it which they did on several occasions. Around 133BC after the Gracchi brothers were killed, the republic was only a republic by name, elections were marked by murder and the opposition was disposed off, reforms were blocked not through legal means but by assassination. Furthermore, the republic was ill-equipped to deal with corrupt governors that opposed Rome itself when their interests were threatened by the system and military generals were beyond control. Can you imagine the victorious Eisenhower and his army marching on Washington DC after world war 2 to get rid of the Truman administration and forcing the senate to declare him dictator of America, that would have been ridiculous, I wonder what kind of a message that would have sent to the Russians? With Rome, this was the awful reality; Sulla, Marius and Caesar, the republic could do nothing to stop them. The emperors were the answer to the republic

I am one who thinks christianity goes hand in hand with science and logic, thats if you read it from it's orginal sources and avoid listening to so called priests and preachers who do nothing but corrupt religion through their radical interpretations just to further their own agendas and denominations.

The Roman republic was too corrupt and too large to support or defend itself. Sulla exposed it's weakness when he marched on Rome. He was the first to realize the danger of political infighting would distract Rome from it's real enemies. It's better for a Roman general to march on Rome then a foriegn enemy. Sulla's legislative programs might not have lasted too long but in the long term his overall actions helped Rome free itself from an outdated governmental system. Radicals proved invaluable to Rome, the same way the radical Spartans were invaluable to Greece. Without the radical Spartans Greece's timid republic would have probably been overrun by the dreaded Persians, and without radicals like Sulla and Caesar, Rome would have been overrun by it's enemies. Thats why I think history should be kinder to Sulla for being courageous enough to do the unthinkable at the time for the good of Rome.

You'd have to bring an Aramaic version along... I'll get it translated immediately.

Assuming I am going to meet Jesus 2000 years back. I will take a bible, a magnetic compass and a map so I can find my way to the province of Judea.

Yes, I am well aware they were both on different sides of the aisle and that Sulla regreted not murdering Caesar. But I think they are also very much alike in their methods of dealing with the opposition and in their leadership styles. Also, they were both superb military commanders that devised brilliant strategies to defeat Rome's enemies. But I think most important is that they both had a hand in weakening the republic which ultimately led to it's downfall. Anybody who is responsible for the fall of the republic (which at the time seemed more like anarchy) is a good friend of mine.

Sulla is well known as a ruthless tyrant that assassinated and exiled countless influential Roman politicians and citizens that opposed him and his philosophy. He is also vilified for starting the downfall of the republic. I think that characterization alone of him does not do him justice. Everyone knows Sulla marched on Rome and forced the senate to install him as dictator which was unprecedented, but not many people know that he used his position of power to restore the senate

I want to respond.....but it's not thread related. I'll just quietly hope that everyone knows the mark of a real man is actually self control. I am merely pointing out that if Caesar's only negative points are that he is a murderor and likes to sleep around, then we have to agree that he did pretty well compared to other Roman leaders before and after him. As for the mark of a real man, lets leave that to the Gods.

I get the feeling that popular opinion is not with me after all.

Is that suppose to be a serious comment? I just think the Cleopatra thing is getting blown out of proportion. He was seduced, if he refused her he wouldn't be a real man.

They are not War Crimes, the people he killed deserved it. They were a drag on Rome and onto themselves. Rome certainly did not need degenerates running the empire. You can't blame Caesar for having a little fun with Cleopatra. I mean he was a hard worker fighting all those battles, he needed some relief and who better than the Queen of Egypt. I think Augustus was outflanked by Anthony when it came to Cleopatra, he missed out..

I'm not sure, but does anyone know if there are Persian sources on the Battle of Thermopylae? if so where can I find it?

Requested by popular demand: Caesar's Military Achievements: 61-60BC Caesar decisively crushes rebellions in Spain 58BC Caesar defeats Helvetii and Ariovistos(Germans) 57BC Caesar defeats Nervii and other Belgae 55BC Caesar crosses the Rhine, invades Germany, then Britain. 54BC-52BC Caesar crushes massive rebellions throughout Gaul, subdues various tribes and ravages their land. Most notable is Caesar's outstanding victory in the Battle of Alesia. He quelled all resistance and demanded form all tribes to give there allegiance to Rome which they did. Gaul was now officially a Roman province, Caesar transformed Rome from strictly a Mediterranean empire into a European empire. Caesar is now officially the "Conqueror of Gaul". 49BC Caesar crosses the Rubicon and marches on Rome, he is appointed dictator and restores order to the city. 48BC Caesar destroys Pompey's army in the battle of Pharsalus. Caesar also successful in the Alexandrian war. 47BC Caesar swiftly defeats King Pharnaces II of Pontus and returns land in Asia Minor back to Rome. 46BC Caesar crushes surviving Pompeian forces under Scipio and Cato at Thapsus. Caesar also destroys remnants Pompians forces in Spain. Note: Cato commits suicide around this time. (He made the right decision) A good day for mankind. 45BC Caesar finishes off the Pompians at the battle of Munda. 44BC Caesar was preparing a campaign against the dreaded Parthians before he was murdered by some depraved senators. Tragic day. Caesar's Reforms: Tax demands on farmers were cancelled. Public land was allocated to fathers of three or more children. He reduced congestion in Rome, draining large tracts of marshy lands. Caesar gave full voting rights to the settlers in his former province south of the Alps and revised the tax laws of Asia and Sicily, resettled many Romans in new homes in the Roman provinces and reformed the calendar. He instituted a grand program of colonization to fulfil his goals: the social conditions in Rome were to be improved and the citizenship spread throughout the empire. He began by forbidding those collegia that were suspected of having political aims. The Jews where exempted from this, probably in thanks for their help during the Alexandrine Wars. He then carried out a census of the civic lists, reducing the recipients of free corn from about 320,000 to 150,000. This was not so much to save money, as it was to prevent the citizens of Italia from coming to the city. Life in Italia and the provinces was to be made more attractive for the broad majority of citizens. To further this aim, a third of the workers on the large estates were freed -- slavery was to be reduced to decrease unemployment. As for the corn dole, families with children were given additional privileges. In general, Caesar attempted to carry out just reforms. About 80,000 families were offered a new life in more than twenty newly founded roman colonies, among them the rebuilt Carthage and Corinth. To these settlers he added veterans of the civil wars, who were allotted farms and a bonus. At the same time he put in motion a comprehensive Romanization policy, particularly in the important provinces of Gaul, Spain and Africa, where he lavishly granted citizenship (and thereby a share in the benefits of the Empire) to a large number of people. To round off this substantial work, he drew up laws affecting how these new towns were to be governed. This law, Lex Julia municipalis, would become the cornerstone and foundation not only for municipal but also provincial administration which were to last until the fall of the Empire. Alone among his contemporaries, Caesar seems to have realized that Rome as a city-state could no longer survive. It was no use confining the citizenship to the people of Rome; everyone should, sooner or later, be bound to Rome; not Rome the city, but Rome the Empire. To further this aim, Caesar enlarged the Senate from 600 to 900, including many new citizens from the provinces. As most of these new senators were supporters of his (and automatically his clients), this strengthened his control of the Senate by ensuring that he would always have a majority. In addition, he increased the number of praetores from eight to sixteen, aediles from four to six, and quaestores from twenty to forty. He also took measures to prevent the provincial extortion of earlier times by introducing a new system of taxation in Asia Minor and Sicily, and further strengthening the extortion laws made in his consulship of 59. His increase in the number of praetors reduced the need for prolong the terms of governors in the provinces, and he drew up strict laws stipulating how long a governor could serve. He carried out economic reforms to solve the debt problems, which had bedevilled the Republic since its inception, as interests always went sky-high during times of war. He had interests lowered and arranged for one fourth of all debts to be cancelled. He also took steps to get more money into circulation, thus increasing liquidity. These precautions, taken to solve an immediate economic and social crisis, laid the ground work for the economic boom which occurred during the principate of Augustus, and three hundred years of monetary stability under the Empire. A huge amounts of public works were carried out in Rome and Italy. The forum was overhauled with a rebuilding of the Senate building, the courts, and the speaker's platform. New temples and commercial centres were built in the Hellenistic style and a state library was created. To ensure that Rome would become a centre of culture, privileges were conferred on the teachers of philosophy and liberal arts.[/i] All the above are facts. Do you know of any human being past or present that has accomplished so much in his lifetime, I don't think so. Have I proved Caesar's good points? Cato , I'm very curious to hear your good points for Caesar. I believe we now have a majority for Caesar in this forum. HAIL CAESAR!!!!

Not obvious at all. What are the numbers, and how do they compare to all the other candidates? In terms of proportions, the Battle of Thermopylae has to be the highest. I think modern estimates are 7,000 Greeks and 250,000 Persians. Casualties are 300 Spartans, 4,000 Greeks and 30,000 Persians. The casualties figure on the Persian side would have been much higher if it hadn't been for Ephialtes. When it comes to advantage in numbers there is no comparison to any other battle, the Spartans and Greeks were outnumbered by 97%, and still managed to slaughter 12% of the Persian forces. Please correct me if my figures are wrong.