Greatest Roman Figure

[tflex]

These 3 questions will help you determine the Greatest Roman figure: Who is the most prominent Roman leader? Which single person did the most to make Rome the most powerful Empire ever known? When you think of Rome which leader first comes to mind?

 

I think without a doubt Julius Caesar is the greatest. I think he was the greatest general, I put him ahead of Trajan as a general. He significantly expanded the empire outside of Italy which finally allowed Rome to become a dominant superpower, he also was the most skilled politician with his new ideas and I think his assasination actually speeded up the process of Rome becoming a great empire, Rome might have remained a republic for much longer. One of his best decisions was to select Octavian as his heir, people forget as great as Augustus was, he would never have been an emperor had Julius decided to choose someone else to be his heir.

[phil25]

Caesar ultimately failed, but I would certainly rate him as one of the greatest individuals - in terms of foresight, intellect, personal ability, dynamism etc. Did he lose his way at the end?

 

Octavian/Augustus must surely rate high - he founded a system that, though evolving, lasted over 400 years, 1450 odd if you allow for Byzantium as a direct descendent. But was the ability only his or must we also credit Maecenas and Agrippa and others (Tiberius?) with some of the achievement?

 

Pompeius magnus perhaps added most to the empire - he masterminded the clearance of Mare Nostrum of pirates, but his personality was curious and he largely acted outside the system.

 

How does one rate Gaius or nero - madmen, or farsighted rulers who were misunderstood, seeing the need for Hellenistic absolutism long before others did?

 

What about early republican figures: Marcus Junius Brutus the first consul? Scipio Africanus? the empire was smaller then, so achievements less dramatic - but less important?

 

Then there's Trajan "optimus princeps" clearly held in highest esteem in his own day. Or Hadrian the great traveller and problem solver? Or Constantine who changed things?

 

I hate this picking out one, but if i had to chose it would be between Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, I think, with the laurels going finally to the latter. he was a man as admired in his own day as he is now, compassionate, thoughtful, a strong ruler... but then he too had a weakness. He left his throne to his son, a disaster.

 

Phil

[tflex]

I understand you choosing Trajan or Augustus, but I do have a problem with Marcus Aurelius. I agree Marcus was one of the great emperors but he lacked great accomplishments. Julius, Augustus and Trajan were movers they added to the empire and were great visionaries. Marcus Aurelius and Antonius Pius ruled during the most peaceful and prosperous time of the empire, I think they both ruled admirably for their time but they did little to strengthen the empire for the long term.

[Pertinax]

I thought Niobe looked great oh ! not that sort of figure?

 

We are all prisoners of our age. no man can avoid the accident of his birth or the ill of his times. Marcus Aurelius was a great scholar and no bad Emperor,-and no-one can avoid having idiotic relatives. As a philsopher he is my favoured candidate . I suggest Hadrian as the greatest because he realised that expansion could go no further and sought to consolidate and rationalise.Pragmatism I like.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Pertinax

[tflex]

Hadrian was great because he contributed to the long term well being of the empire by setting a limit to expansion. As you mentioned, Marcus Aurelius was one hell of a scholar and philosopher, he was also an excellent emperor but you need to be more than a philospher to have the privelage of being named the "Greatest".

 

note: I still feel sorry for poor old Niobe.

[M. Porcius Cato]

These 3 questions will help you determine the Greatest Roman figure: Who is the most prominent Roman leader?

 

If by 'prominent' you mean 'famous', I suppose Julius Caesar is now the most famous Roman. Among their contemporaries, however, perhaps Augustus was the most prominent Roman leader. The Res Gestae was plastered everywhere, and he had a stable of propagandists to celebrate him to most of the civilized world.

 

If by 'prominent', however, you mean 'having great significance or value', I think Scipio Africanus was the most important Roman. He saved Rome from annihilation; he generally respected republican institutions; and he provided Polybius to posterity, thereby providing a conduit between the political philosophy of the Roman world and the political revolutions that shaped our own world.

 

Which single person did the most to make Rome the most powerful Empire ever known?

Again, I'd nominate Scipio. He conquered Africa, saved Italy, had a hand in conquering Spain and Asia, and he turned the Roman army into a tactical tiger. These accomplishments were much more important in laying the groundwork for Italian domination than running up the body-count in Gaul to get a triumph.

 

When you think of Rome which leader first comes to mind?

Depends on what I was thinking of before I was thinking of Rome. If someone says "blah blah architecture blah blah Rome", I think Vitruvius. If someone says "blah blah Germany blah blah Rome," I think of Mussolini! That's just how memory works--it's called priming.

[Valerius]

I'd go with Augustus. C.Julius Caesar finished off the Republic and changed the history of Rome, but seems to have no real idea of what to do next. At the end of the day his civil war was simply an attempt to protect his dignitas and establish himself as the first man in Rome. It was Augustus who founded the Principate as a political alternative to Republican government and ended the cycle of civil wars sparked by individuals simply trying to be the dominant figure of their time.

[Germanicus]

Julius Caesar

 

than running up the body-count in Gaul to get a triumph

 

Oh so subtle as usual Cato, you just can't resist.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Well, I see Constantine as the Greatest Roman Figure "for the late era of the Roman Empire."

Edited January 9, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Lost_Warrior]

My vote is for good old Julius Caesar.

 

I agree that Augustus did more of the Empire building, however without J.C. there would be no Augustus

[P.Clodius]

I think Scipio Africanus was the most important Roman. He saved Rome from annihilation; he generally respected republican institutions; and he provided Polybius to posterity,

Scipio rules. And it is with the greatest reluctance that I undercut your argument. Saved rome? I don't think so. Rome's victory is a result of a flawed split policy on the part of the carthaginians. Hannibal received lttle support from Carthage, which sought to maintain its hold in Spain. From a strategic perspective the Romans/Scipii did the right thing by carrying the war to multiple fronts and ultimately wresting Carthage's breadbasket. Had Carthage's support been focused on Hannibal the war would have been a different, more desparate struggle in Italy, though I do believe Rome would still have been successful. Hannibal attained 4 major victories over the Romans during the entire 14-15 years he was there. What did these victories accomplish? They succeeded in molding a new breed of generals, Fabius, Marcellus, Gracchus, Nero, and of course Scipio. Scipio never fought a major engagement in Italy against Hannibal, against the old guard of Hannibal's army. The others did. Scipio's victory was attained by standing on the shoulders of men like Fabius, Marcellus and Nero. Scipio was also something of a demagogue, taking his legislation/deriving his imperium from the concillia as opposed to the senate. Also, Polybius never met Scipio, but was a client of Scipio Aemellianus, 40 something years after Scipio was dead.

Edited January 9, 2006 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think Scipio Africanus was the most important Roman. He saved Rome from annihilation; he generally respected republican institutions; and he provided Polybius to posterity,

Scipio rules. And it is with the greatest reluctance that I undercut your argument. Saved rome? I don't think so. ... Scipio's victory was attained by standing on the shoulders of men like Fabius, Marcellus and Nero.

True and fair. Unfortunately, I could only choose one--it was in the crucible of the Punic Wars that Roman tactical fighting was forged, but I couldn't very well choose Hannibal as Rome's greatest (could I?).

 

 

Scipio was also something of a demagogue, taking his legislation/deriving his imperium from the concillia as opposed to the senate. Also, Polybius never met Scipio, but was a client of Scipio Aemellianus, 40 something years after Scipio was dead.

 

Oh, shite. Well, I knew I was gilding the lily with the Polybius argument--too bad I was gilding it with fool's gold.

 

than running up the body-count in Gaul to get a triumph

Oh so subtle as usual Cato, you just can't resist.

 

No, I really couldn't.

Edited January 9, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[tflex]

Which single person did the most to make Rome the most powerful Empire ever known?

Again, I'd nominate Scipio. He conquered Africa, saved Italy, had a hand in conquering Spain and Asia, and he turned the Roman army into a tactical tiger. These accomplishments were much more important in laying the groundwork for Italian domination than running up the body-count in Gaul to get a triumph.

 

Scipio was a skilled general but he is also one dimensional, he was a great military general nothing more and nothing less. Julius was multi dimensional, he contributed militarily, politically and philosophically to Rome. He won countless major battles and significantly expanded the Roman Empire, he crushed rebellions in Spain, his conquest of Gaul was successful though he was severely outnumbered, he defeated a much larger German army and crossed to the east of the Rhine, he annahilated Nervii and the Belgai tribes, he pushed all the way up north to Brittania which was a great feat on it's own and smashed the Britons, he even destroyed rival Roman armies under the leadership of Pompey who was a good general in his own right, he destroyed an Egyptian Army and returned land that was previously lost in Asia Minor through his sheer military genius. I can also start talking about his political accomplishments but I will never finish, I would have to write an essay about that.

 

No doubt Scipio was a brilliant general and indeed he did prevent Rome from being annahilated by a much weaker Hannibal than his earlier days, that fact cannot be overlooked. Scipio's army were fighting for their livelyhoods, they had to win otherwise they would not have a home to go back to. But Caesar's accomplishments cannot be matched, he is in a league of his own.

Edited January 9, 2006 by tflex

[P.Clodius]

But Caesar's accomplishments cannot be matched, he is in a league of his own.

I couldn't say it better than that. HAIL CAESAR

[Pantagathus]

If by 'prominent', however, you mean 'having great significance or value', I think Scipio Africanus was the most important Roman. He saved Rome from annihilation; he generally respected republican institutions; and he provided Polybius to posterity, thereby providing a conduit between the political philosophy of the Roman world and the political revolutions that shaped our own world.

 

Which single person did the most to make Rome the most powerful Empire ever known?

Again, I'd nominate Scipio. He conquered Africa, saved Italy, had a hand in conquering Spain and Asia, and he turned the Roman army into a tactical tiger. These accomplishments were much more important in laying the groundwork for Italian domination than running up the body-count in Gaul to get a triumph.

 

In essence I have to agree with Cato on this. It was the after effects of Scipio's leadership & decisions that launched Rome onto the world stage and set the wheels in motion for their domination over the Classical world.

 

Also, Polybius never met Scipio, but was a client of Scipio Aemellianus, 40 something years after Scipio was dead.

 

But from what I understand, Polybius did know Gaius Laelius which was almost the same as knowing P.C. Scipio Africanus himself.