Greatest Roman Figure

[P.Clodius]

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

True, he also met and talked with Massinissa. Polybius is the most important historian of the 2nd Punic War, having gleaned information from many of those who fought (including Carthaginians), though he was not a client of Africanus as was implied!

[tflex]

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

 

My loyalty is only for Caesar, everybody else was a pretender. Some were great pretenders and some were terrible pretenders. There is only one Caesar, I hope it is the same for you. HAIL CAESAR

Edited January 9, 2006 by tflex

[Pantagathus]

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

 

My loyalty is only for Caesar, everybody else was a pretender. Some were great pretenders and some were terrible pretenders. There is only one Caesar, I hope it is the same for you. HAIL CAESAR

 

That's rather subjective! By Jove why didn't you just name the thread I :wub: Caesar!? or Caesar > Other Guys? Instead of imply some debatable uncertainty?

 

Edited January 9, 2006 by Pantagathus

[P.Clodius]

My loyalty is only for Caesar, everybody else was a pretender.

Do you include Octavian/Augustus in this statement?

[tflex]

Do you include Octavian/Augustus in this statement?

 

Octavian/Augustus came the closest but just fell short of Caesar's unmatchable accomplishments. I would say Octavian is almost an equal of Caesar.

[Jimi]

My loyalty is only for Caesar, everybody else was a pretender. Some were great pretenders and some were terrible pretenders. There is only one Caesar, I hope it is the same for you. HAIL CAESAR

 

I guess since all the emperors took his name, then they must all be pretenders.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Jimi

[M. Porcius Cato]

Julius Caesar is the most over-hyped scoundrel to have ever cursed the banks of the Tiber.

 

What were Caesar's rightful claims to excellence? As a general, his accomplishments were not particularly superlative. The Gauls were weak compared to the forces of Hannibal; they were numerous but incompetently led, and Caesar's only notable achievement while butchering these poor, iron age farmers was the circumvallation at Alesia, which was an accomplishment of Roman engineering not Caesar's daring. His contributions to tactics, siege craft, and weaponry are paltry to non-existant compared to that of his predecessors. Nor was he even that good at killing Romans. He was completely out-foxed at Dyrrahaecium, and he only defeated Pompey by a stroke of dumb luck (placing an extra cohort on the correct side of the battle-field).

 

Nor were his choices of enemies well-considered. Those poor Gauls butchered by Caesar the Merciful were no threat to Rome: they provided Rome with excellent trade, taxes, auxiliaries, and were being rapidly Italicized northward of Narbonensis. For this we may thank noble Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus. Caesar, far from deserving thanks, simply made a desert and called it peace.

 

Further, Caesar was most likely a criminal--his expeditions into Germania and Britain were illegal. The latter crossing was ill-timed, ill-planned, and ill-conceived. It brought nothing to Rome but the bodies of dead Romans. Caesar Poplicola--who wept when the poor cried (as Shakespeare would have it--ha!)--had no legitimate military purpose in Britain. It's been said Caesar crossed into Germany and Britain as a warning to Rome's neighbors, but this must be a joke--it was said he only crossed into Gaul to defend a friend of Rome, but then he needed to stay to defend that friend, and to attack the neighbors of that friend to teach them a lesson, and their neighbors too! This is all nonsense--the only lesson being taught was the one sent home in Caesar's commentaries, viz. that the darling of Venus, "the husband of every wife and the wife of every husband," was a Big-Shot He Man. Please.

 

And when Biggus He-Man came home, he was--surprise!--completely unfit for civilian life, threatening death to anyone who stood in his way (to the treasury). Romans quickly found theselves beset by a hypocrite, an adulterer, a power-luster, a killer, a dictator, and a would-be godling.

 

Julius Caesar was not a blessing to Rome but a curse. In my opinion, he couldn't be stabbed enough.

[Germanicus]

Thanks again Cato. Most disagree with you but hey - just like old times, again, and again, and again. I must say I do find your passionate hatred for a long dead historical figure interesting, in a clinical way at least.

[phil25]

So you condone murder, Cato?

 

Actually, I don't disagree with you that much - I had been going to post this response to tflex last night (UK time) but the site seemed to be down.

 

Caesar ultimately failed. there is ample evidence that he was baffled by the state of rome and had no ideas on how to solve the problem of the decadent republic. hence his intended withdrawal to fight a war in Parthia.

 

Augustus solved the problem of the republic - he gave it strong personal direction. he did not shy away from finding an alternative to kingship in name if not in fact.

 

Caesar lacked the moral courage to do so.

 

Caesar showed folly in being merciful - and those he pardoned, betrayed him.

 

Octavian made no such mistakes.

 

Caesar could not work with others - he fell out with Pompeius, was unable to act in tandem with Bibulus, Labienus deserted him, Antonius was probably in on the fringes of the conspiracy that killed him.

 

Caesar's record in Gaul is brutal to the point of incredibility.

 

And Caesar's motives - almost always for the dignitas and auctoritas of Rome, not of Caesar.

 

I'll grant you that in intellect, personaility, charisma and achievement Rome produced few, if any, men to equal him. But he failed. And that failure - a ctually the fact that he had been for once bankrupt of ideas - was evident not after a lapse of time, but on the day after the Ides of March 44BC

 

Phil

[Jimi]

Julius Caesar was not a blessing to Rome but a curse. In my opinion, he couldn't be stabbed enough.

 

Cato, your blind hatred for Caesar causes you to make irrational conclusions, you cannot discredit every single achievement of his. You don't defeat so many enemies by accident, every task Caesar set out to do he completed successfully, the only reason he was not successful at the end was as you mentioned he was brutally assassinated and that was not his fault. The senate and the elite were not ready for change, it took his murder to finally set the stage for Octavian to do his thing. In every revolution there is a martyr and Caesar's blood had to be spilled for Rome to change.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Jimi

[LEG X EQ]

Well, Caesar must have done something right. After all, his legacy is the greatest. His name Caesar became a term for Power and Glory, that following leaders were awarded with his name as a title. And that far beyond Rome and italy, long after the roman empire, the russian Zsar and german Kaiser both derive from Caesar.

Till modern times (present day) people reffer to caesar as "THE ROMAN",

And the folks in Las Vegas didnt name their roman style casino after Scipio or Augustus, they named it after Julius Caesar. Pretty sure its a refference to Julius Caesar, because they have this person run around claiming to be Julius Caesar.

Edited January 10, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[tflex]

I already made my case for Caesar being a great conqueror, plus the facts speak for themselves. Caesar the general is an equal to Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan.

 

Further, Caesar was most likely a criminal--his expeditions into Germania and Britain were illegal.

 

His expeditions might have been illegal according to the senate but so what. He conquered new land and significantly expanded Rome's empire and power to the North and to the East. The senate was impotent anyway, had Rome remained a republic and continued to be dependant on the senate, the empire would never have reached the Zenith that it did under Caesar and the Emperors. If it wasn't for Caesar, Rome would have been remembered the same way as Athens and classical Greece. Caesar changed Rome from a great city with allies here and there to a self-sufficient coloussal military powerhouse which ultimately led to the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Caesar was Rome not the senate, therefore Caesar should make the rules and give the orders not an impotent senate filled with cowardly assassins. I would have liked to see Brutus try to stab Caesar on his own, but ofcourse he knew better then that, Caesar would have made pork chops out of him with his bare hands.

 

Caesar's record in Gaul is brutal to the point of incredibility.

 

Brutality was highly regarded in Roman culture.

 

And the folks in Las Vegas didnt name their roman style casino after Scipio or Augustus, they named it after Julius Caesar. Pretty sure its a refference to Julius Caesar, because they have this person run around claiming to be Julius Caesar.

 

Well written LEG X EQ

Edited January 10, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well, Caesar must have done something right.

 

Of course Caesar did something right. He just wasn't Rome's greatest figure: he is over-hyped.

 

So you condone murder, Cato?

 

Tyrannicide--yes, as an act of war.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks again Cato. Most disagree with you but hey - just like old times, again, and again, and again. I must say I do find your passionate hatred for a long dead historical figure interesting, in a clinical way at least.

 

The repetition is necessary, as we have new people who haven't yet heard a case against Caesar. The passion is not really so much against Caesar as it is for republicanism and against servility.

[Primus Pilus]

Caesar will always rank among the greatest because simply his name is synonomous with Rome. Personal feeling is irrelevant really. Whether we like it or not, the masses loved Caesar then, and in a way, they still love him now, no?

 

At any rate, I am partial to the old Republic and think of men such as Marcus Furius Camillus, the conqueror of Veii, who helped subvert the possible kingship designs of Capitolinus, the man who was credited with the title of Second Founder of Rome when he supposedly routed the army of Brennus and the Gauls after they were paid off to leave Rome (though I believe any battle that occured was probably far less monumental than described and actually served as a way for the Romans to save face in light of their humiliation). He twice served as dictator and several times as military tribune with consular powers in a time of deep social upheaval and external conflict, bringing several neighboring city states within Rome's sphere of influence and helping to stabilize the ongoing and debilitating 'conflict of the orders' in the process. He was much beloved by the people, despite largely serving on the Patrician side of the struggle with the Plebes. He retired from public service perhaps as young as the age of 55 before succumbing to the plague the following year.

 

Camillus is truly the first hero of Rome whose deeds can be believed (mostly) for the way they are written. Unlike Cincinnatus, whose entire story must be taken with a proverbial grain of salt, Camillus was a bonified heroic figure.