Pyrrhus

I vote for Nero.

It was quite good as well Meant you didn't have to care all that much about them, as if they died no one could do anything because you were part of a Roman army! Genius.

You might be able to find a Latin translator online or something, although the accuracy of some of them is apparently very poor. Perhaps a University website might be best.

You may laugh and scoff at such beliefs, but many it seems believe that it was for that reason he acted as he did. Marcus Brutus was indeed a very rich man due to the huge interest rates he would place on loans, but would not the honour and prestige of being Consul in 41 far outweigh that of any minor increase in his bank balance? To the Romans, as you will be well-aware, the position of Consul in the Republic was very important, and to keep Caesar in charge would mean he would indeed be Consul. And yet he did not. Instead he murdered the man who could hand him the job his father could never reach. Instead he murdered a man who, some say was the greatest General of all time. For money? For greed? He would have become far richer with the prestige and honour of the Consulship. Cicero on Brutus: 'the courage of a man and the brains of child' He acted for his ideals, that the Republic was best, and Rome did not need an Emperor, or at least one man in power: the very set-up of their Government was to avoid such things. A man of his abilities of acquiring money could have found other ways to increase his estate, with Caesar in charge, and he himself in the position of Consul. I found this: "All this was extremely unrepublican, and Brutus decided that he had to act." The word "unrepublican" is the key here, as it does not say: "He was trying to preserve the "Republic" at all costs because new reforms introduced by Caesar, were aimed at putting an end to some of these abuses..." - Germanicus Of course I admit Brutus was tax-farmer, there is no case for saying that he was not. Of course I admit that Brutus was a fool to murder Caesar, and I do not even like the man. I do not think he was a martyr, and the basis for thinking that I do escapes me. But I do think this: Marcus Brutus killed Julius Caesar because he wanted the Republic to stay alive, because he thought it was the best way to govern.

I hope you are not taking this to be an accurate historical source PM Livy is nostalgic in the extreme! And so cannot be trusted to write exact truths about someone who came so close to destroying Rome Hannibal does of course RULE!!

I do concede that some, probably most of those of supported the Republic were in it for their own ends, but you must admit Marcus Brutus would have had a very prominent position with Caesar in charge, and so by assassinating him, he must have simply been defending what he believed in. His family started the Republic, and he himself, at the very end did all he could to keep it alive. At the very least you can credit him for defending what he thought was right. Shame Caesar had to go though .

Perhaps some kind of vote for the poems? That would at least be democratic So when's the next competition?

It has been very interesting to hear your discussion about which was the best, and it is good to hear people actually giving their opinions! (Unlike other forums I have been on) I would like to point out that not all politicians wanted to eradicate all traces of the Republic, indeed, was not Marcus Brutus the ancestor of one of its founders? And in his act to assassinate Julius Caesar, was he not trying to preserve the Republic at all costs? Although some power hungry men would have torn the at best fragile Republic apart for their own ends, others would indeed risk all to preserve it. In my opinion the Republic was best. Although some men were indeed desperate for power, the whole basis is the Republic was to ensure that this did not happen. You may have had a bad Consul, but he was only Consul for one year. An Emperor was there until he died (or until he was murdered ) and so was it not better to have a temporary bad leader instead of a perminent one?

The terrain will be of the Generals choosing. If Marius can out-manoeuvre Sulla then he can have the better terrain, and vice-versa. The question here would be who is the best "manoeuvrer".

2 Armies, 2 Generals, 1 Victor Here's the story. -Both men are in their prime (As this is hypothetical they can be) -They are given a legion each -They are all raw recruits, untrained, but young and able -Each General is given a proper training facility, Legion equipment and people to train the recruits. They are told that in one year, they will fight the other in battle. (Note I said "In battle" and not "In a battle") When the time comes, they will each be told "War has begun" (or another cliche) and they will manoeuvre, retreat, advance around their enemy as much as they wish, until they face each other and fight. The battle will take place in Italy. (There are no politics, outside helpers, or any more men available. The only things that stand are the things I have said. This makes the whole thing simpler, and boils it down to the point I am trying to make) So, who do you think would win? They have everything they need to win, but factors must be considered. Who is the best tactician? Who is the best at manoeuvring? Who is the best at training and organising his men? Who is the best at leading his men? Who is the best at keeping moral high? So, all considered, who do you think would win the war?

I am assuming this came fourth from the "Fourth Place!" sign at the top, although I am amazed that something this good could come so low down!! I am wondering what on earth managed to beat it to the 3rd, 2nd and 1st spots!!!

I would dispute that Richard the Lionheart could have done much more than he did. When faced with the prospect of the fortified Jerusalem after a famous victory on the battlefield against the Muslim genius Saladin, the Lionheart knew his troops were tired, and so would not be much use against the city. When Richard went on the crusade, Saladin had control of all the Holy Land, when he left, he didn't. That tells us something of Richards

Most definitely.

This is a really interesting discovery, although I have to admit when I first read the topic title you meant Suetonius! He himself might have been intrigued to learn of such an event, and perhaps a sequel to his best-seller would have been in order

Although there is a strong argument that for Brutus at least, the murder of Caesar was a last ditch attempt at saving the Republic his ancestors had started so many decades before.