Mosquito

I like Hornblower series but imho Patric O'Brian's Aubrey series are much better. Even Charlton Heston (Ben Hur) admitted it

Vlad the Impaler is highly overrated. In 17th century in the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, during rebelion in Ukraine, prince Jeremi Wisniowiecki -owner of vast latifundies - became famous not only for his military skills but also for impaling thousands of rebel cossacks. Noone actually know how many were killed in that way because noone cared to count them. Prince Wisniowiecki was use to impale all captured cossaks. He didnt try to get famous in this way but rather to spread fear between the rebeles and it was working as some of his enemies preffered to commit suicide instead of being taken alive. Here is little article about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremi_Wi%C5%9Bniowiecki

The second part - "Grass Crown" was good as well, not much about Caesar but a lot of Drusus and social war. I bet that in your opinion whoever present Caesar as the good guy, is the poor writer I hope that your little obsession wont change into serious personality disorder known for over 2000 years and named "catonism"

Iv read it and liked altough im not sure if slaves were Spartan wariors too.

Always on the first place for me goes "I Claudius". This is the novel I tried being 10 years old and this was the book that made me want to know more. Since Iv read "I Claudius" I have started reading everythng about Ancient Rome. Second for me goes McCullough's "Masters of Rome" series for both accuracy and great invention and narration of author. I didnt try Harris books yet but after reading your opinions I think I should check them. As for Quo Vadis that MPC likes, personally I have always considered it naive and childish, even inspite of the fact that my countryman who has written it got Noble Prize. I havent read it for qute long time but Harry's Turtledove "Lost Legion" wasnt bad Way better than Igguldens book because author had transfered in magi ways Roman cohort from Gaul straight to fantastic world.

Lord Voldemort may want it as well because there is an ancient magic in it. Why not write: "Harry Potter and the Roman Sceptre"

Now thats the ideal artifact for dictators who would wish to rule the world or at least big part of it. Im sure that Hitler and 3rd Reich would get it to prove that their power is derived from Roman emperors. My own proposal for Hollywood producers is: "Indiana Jones and the sceptre of Maxentius" Spielberg! If you are reading it - Im ready to prepare the script. 1 million $ is my price!

Augusta! Thank you very much. You are the first person who really cared to read my posts or it is me who uses such poor English that people completelly didnt get my point. Looks like i need a person who will be translating others what i wanted to say when I said that ****** You have well explained why did I compared the image of Augsutsu with the image of Caesar. Simply - knowing how did Augustus created his image in the minds of people, I just assume that Caesar did the same and that the man we know as Caesar isnt exactly the same person he really was but it is propaganda he has fabricated to prove that he is the one - first man in Rome - the only who is able to rule Republic and who can do it better than any collective body. Following this logic he wasnt narcistic or not to such extent as some people here claim, but it was just a clever political tactic. Last time Iv read Mommsen 10 years ago and since that time Iv read many other books. I dont follow any writer just try to think and find the truth myself, also in the discussion with many knowledgeable people like you. Claiming that I parrot someone - I find unjust. I did only say in private to you that I pay tribute to Mommsen who was first real modern historian of Rome. Unlike you I consider every opinion here as worth reading and I dont stick to any thesis being ready to change my mind. You are going only to prove that you are right about Caesar and want everyone to take your's vievs as theirs. Just like real Cato

I was at work and didnt have time to finish my thoughts. So I continue. Republic came to the point when one individual was going to rule it or at least to have major influence on its goverment. When Caesar decided that he is the one and defeated his opponents, considering traditions of Roman Republic and mos maiorum he had to prove that noone is better than him to rule the state. As he has been never defeated on the battlefield, had much better ancestry than Pompey and most of romans, his familly were descendats of goddes Venus, he was entitled to become the sole ruler of the Republic more than anyone else. So was it really narcism and problem with personality or it was just a picture painted for the people to justify the fact that not senate but Caesar will rule. Elites of Roman society didnt buy it but most of people did and treated Caesar as the person wich is more wise and can rule better than the whole senate and nobilitas. And anyway - it were the people's assemblies that were voting his bills and giving him power.

1. Affcourse Northern Neil i agree with you that it is for the sake of debate. I just dont agree with your diagnosis, thats all. But I really appreciate your participation and thoughts in this discussion. 2.Its not about Augustus so it isnt also about Napoleon or Hitler. But example of Augustus is a good one and very close to Caesar as they both did the same in the same time period and in the same country. One can wonder if it was because of narcisism or it was part of propaganda and image created by them to justify their actions. If Rome had to be ruled by 1 man - it should have been the best man in Rome - all the actions regarding his name and Caesar were aimed to prove that Caesar is the best man in Rome - and later Augustus. 3. My point was not about narcisism of Queen Elizabeth or any other ruler. I was going to put down the argument that puting someone's face on the coin is the evidence of narcisism. The custom of making coins with queens and kings is as old as currency in the monarchies - also hellenic monarchies - and Rome that time was already hellenised. 4. You can give such question. We live in the different world and single individual today means much less than 2000 years ago, even if he is president of USA. But if it was Caesar the president of USA today or 200 years ago, you cant say what would happend. Such people are being born once for 1000 years. 5. You dont know if Caesar invented the idea of renaming month after him or one of the flattering senators did it and Caesar simply didnt refused.

It is amazing how most of you do everything to put down one of my arguments and completelly ignore other arguments. What about Augustus who not much later did everything what Caesar did and even more: (put his face on coins, get full power, held together offices which were never combined before in the hands of one person in the same time, named month after himself, make himself legally a God, took power of plebeian tribune for life, killed 300 senators - sources say between 100 to 300 - erased half of remaining senators from senate list) - and he did it just few decades later, in the same state which had the same customs. And puting faces of monarchs into coins its not a 1200 years old tradition. Medieval rulers were doing it following the custom of ancient Rome where emperors were on the coins. As for Napoleon he is glorified in the history of France as great law giver - go to Paris and read inscription on his grave. Napoleon finished as he did because he fought against all the Europe except Poland so comparing his fate to Caesar's is not adequate. G. Bush is a small man, you cant compare small people to giants. George Bush senior got air carier named after him and he is still alive, isint it narcisism?

George Bush isint good example. But wasnt Goerge Washington offered another presidency which he refused? All the kings and qeens in Europe are on the coins of states in which they reign. The point is that Caesar wanted to be a monarch so step by step he was trying to become a one. And his descendant did it. Actually Augustus did more, he became a God - following the policy of his grand uncle. It was against mos maiorum but few decades after Caesar, Agustus did the same and achieved even more. In the same state where were the same customs, just a little bit later.

It is also worth to notice that Caesar wasnt that much original as many think and that in fact he was learning from Roman history. Like Gaius Flaminius Nepos he challenged the senate and wanted to reform the state but wasnt homo novus and wasnt defeated on the battlefield. Like Gaius Marius he was backed by the people and had crowd on his side - also build his fame on the military carieer - but wasnt homo novus and was far better politician. Like Sulla he was an aristocrate and took unlimitted power in the Republic - but didnt want to give it up - being realist he has realised that times of collective goverment are over and sooner or later someone will take power - so why not him if he was better than anyone else in his times.

So what? He was going to change political system of Rome. Nothing else but currency can better show who is ruling the state. It has nothing to do with narcisism. Following your logic Queen of England has a real mental problem because she is on the coins of UK, Canada, New Zeland, Australia and probably few other countries. Caesar decided that Republic is a past and was going to transfer system toward monarchy. After his death it was done by Augustus. As for name of the months Augustus did exactly the same. And the name of the month wasnt changed by Caesars decision but it was done by the senate and people's assembly in democratic vote For sure Caesar was trying to copy eastern patterns on the Roman ground but he probably didnt realise that it require much more time. And by the way - I belive that we today (at least most of us) live in the free countries because there was never again such tyrrant like Caesar. If all the tyrrants were like him, pmajority of people would probably gladly accept tyrrany (except for elites which would loose power).

Do it Gaius! Do it! I start looking MPC descriptions in Cicero's letters, thats gonna be funny!

Hitler wasnt military genius but a simple soldier. He doesnt belong to this group. Instead of him Genghis Khan and Attilla are better candidates.

How much of this is truth and how much is enemy propaganda? Actually Tiberius was giving a lot of power to senate. This excerpt comes from my article about roman senate: "The successor of Augustus

Anyway doesnt matter if the sources are biased or not, there are some things about Tiberius that we can say for sure because even his enemies couldnt deny that: 1. Tiberius was a very good military commander who spent his youth fighting for Rome, not in luxuries but in the forests and military camps, leding brillant campaigns against barbarians. 2. Tiberius recognised that Augustus was right and that enlarging the borders of empire will not bring any good. Thats why he didnt make agressive wars. 3. In provinces his reign was a time of prosperity and hapiness. Governors were not allowed to overcharge their subjects, the state and its treasure was in perfect condition. I was always saying that if every emperor was like Tiberius the Empire would never fell. Emperor didnt have to be a military genius or great philosoph or reformer. It was enough if he wasnt a fool or madman. Empire needed good and just administrators and Tiberius was such person. 4. When he died he left the state in perfect shape. Do I need to say more?

Oh yes, Cicero's letters are great evidence. Author widelly describes himself how great he is, how important he is, how he has saved the Republic - and how small are others. People like Pompey and Casar are described as great and wonderful when they are in frindship with Cicero and as evil when are not. Letters of Cicero are telling us more about Cicero than about others because are highly subjective.

Well said Virgil. Thats far better argument than considerations on mental health of the man who died over 2000 years ago. Its hard to say that one can get impression that author of Gallic and Civil war was mentally unstable. In opposite - even political enemies of Caesar - like Cicero - admitted that it was great work. Its over 2000 years since people learn latin on his work, learning his style and trying to master their skills in the way that Caesar has showned.

I was always saying that Tiberius was one of the best Roman emperors and I belive he dont even needs to be defended. As for Caligula there was very interesting work written by Roland Auget who proved that Caligula could have been not mad and that his actions (even making a horse - senator) are logic and consequent.

Ask psychiatrists and read Northern Neil post before yours. Psychiatry is just a such type of medical science. It is always funny when during studying the students are obliged to diagnose themselves or their friends - other students and find that got some kind of personality disorder, almost all of them. Noone is completelly "normal" or "sane". Well, I wouldnt like to be.... Anyway, we can talk about the same personality disorder that Caesar had also in case of Cicero and Pompey. When we will consider the personality of MPC - we may find that he was a maniac who devoted his life to destroy Caesar. But in fact all this discussion dont give the answer on the question I asked. Do you think that personality of Caesar, as it was presented by history, both by friends, enemies of Caesar and by Caesar himself - is reall? Remember that Caesar soon after his death became a God, Divus Iulius. Saying somthing bad about him was a crime. Im not sure if in case of Caesar we didnt get the picture wich was just like in the case of Augustus - false and fabricated by the author or his descendants. Do we know Caesar as he really was or as he wanted people to belive that he is - or at least as Augustus wanted people to belive he was. Dont forget that when Augustus was old, there were only few people who could have remember Caesar as a real person - for the rest he was divine Julius when they were born.

As I said before Caesar is being condemned for the same reasons for which Augustus is praised. There is little difference between them, Caesar didnt like to kill his enemies while Augustus murdered thousands only to put hands on the monay of his victims. Accusing Caesar for cruelty in Gaul i find especially funny. Consider what Romans did with many of their "socii" during social war not to mention what Marius and Sulla were doing to Romans. While Gauls were barbarians and traditional enemies of Rome, their lifes were worth for Romans as much as lifes of american indians for europeans in 16th century. As for "personality disorder", my cousin psychiatrist says that if you examine 100 people you will find that 99 of them got some "personality disorder", even if those 100 examined people wil be psychiatrists. And the one without personality disorder will be such a boring guy that wont be even worth examining. You must consider that Roman nobilitas just was like that, especially nobilitas of patrician origin. Today most of the people dont care for their personal "dignitas" as much as it was in Roman times. This what Caesar was doing and what you consider "narcistic" was normal in that time. When Caesar or Sulla were behaving like that it was considered normal. It was becoming funny when people like Cicero or Pompey were trying to be like all those old patricians. Today we assumed that we all are being born equal. But in the past it was recognised by most of the society, that some people are being born better than others, and Caesar belonged to the group of people who were born best.

Winston Churchill was an alcoholic. On the other hand, if Caesar really was a genius who understood that Roman Republic cannot work any longer in the way it was working in the past. Not after Marius and Sulla, not after Pompey. If he belived that he knows better what to do even when the ruling class of Rome couldnt see it. It was the ruling class of Rome that drove Rome into social war with Italians. It was rulling class of Rome that was injustly treating people in the Roman provinces and all the allies of Rome. It were people like Cato who were so conservative that could have not accept any change, even good change. Unlike most of them Caesar had somthing to offer. And what happend in the end? Caesar was condemned for the same things for wich Augustus was praised. The difference was that Caesar wasnt use to murder his political opponents like Augustus did.

Following this type of logic, the boy named Magnus was even more narcistic and insane than Caesar.