Greatest Roman Figure

[Neos Dionysos]

How can anyone not chose Caesar! He was magic.

 

Your opinion.

 

Was Caeser great? Sure. Did he accomplish a hell of a lot of things? Most definently. Was he the greatest Roman of all time? Not by my standards...

 

What makes Ceaser's accomplishments better than say, Pompey's, or Scipio's, or Constantine's, or Auerilans, or Trajans? I think by default Caeser wins this contest because as Germanicus has pointed out, (and as has others), Caeser is the most widely known Roman to everyone from many walks of life. Chances are, you've heard the name or seen something on him or a symbolism of him. Caeser's Palace in Las Vegas is a good example, Little Caeser's Pizza, a chain of stores called Caesersland, (regional). The point I am making is that better would choose Caeser compared to anyone else even if they did not know anything about him, they know his name compared to others I have mentioned and so will choose what they know over what they don't.

 

There is no right or wrong answer since this is all a matter of opinion and POV, though I tend to lean toward other Romans who did perhaps just as many great acheivements, (perhaps less), over Caeser because of the times in which they lived were starkly different than those of Caeser's day.

[tflex]

In any case, perhaps you can elighten us as to what those reforms were?

 

Phil, check this site out, these are some of his important reforms.

 

http://www.fenrir.dk/history/bios/caesar/reforms.php

 

But you still have not answered my direct discussion of your post - and if caesar was killed half-way through his reforms, then he certainly did not save the state - he can merely be said to have been trying to do so. That the moment Caesar was killed everything reverted to the chaos and confusion

 

The only argument, I've heard from you is that Caesar is a failure because he was killed before he could continue his reforms and a civil war broke out after his death, therefore in your opinion he offered no solution. This argument doesn't hold water, the senators murdered him because they knew if he stayed alive he would pass all his reforms and make them permanent whether they liked it or not, the senators were well aware that Caesar finishes everything he starts. They figured if Caesar was murdered his ideas would die with him but they were dead wrong. Caesar's ideas turned out ot be larger than life and ironically by them murdering him they actually handed the republic it's death sentence exactly what they were trying to prevent. Death caught up quickly with each of those cowardly assassins soon after their despicable act. Caesar lived on symbolically thorugh his ideas and his political agenda was accepted by the Roman populace. Many of the reforms that Caesar could not implement because of his untimely death were enforced by Octavian. It was the senators that failed not Caesar. Caesar was a revolutionary, he was in the process of overthrowing a system that had been in place for hundreds of years, so when he died in the middle of this transformation immediately there was a power vacuum, the revolution was unfinished and civil war broke out. Is it not natural for civil war to break out in the middle of a revolution, especially when it's leader is assassinated? Anyhow when the dust settled Octavian was victorious and Caesar's legacy prevailed. Caesar was not made famous just by historians but also by the Roman people, Caesar lived on in their hearts after his death, he was a symbol of Rome itself. He was a hero, a soldier, military genius, brilliant political leader, reformer, revolutionary, philosopher and a tragic figure. If you say Caesar wasn't the greatest roman, even though I disagree I can understand your arguement, but to call him a failure is laughable, he is the epitomy of success.

 

Also don't underestimate his invasion of Gaul, Caesar's conquest of Gaul was one the greatest military achievements in history. From Rome's orgin as a city state, the Gauls constantly harrassed them even invading Rome at one point. Before Caesar there was a failed attempt to defeat Gaul, the Romans recognized that so long as Gaul was independant it was a threat to Rome's expansion and existance. Outnumbered, Caesar annihilated the Gauls and by doing so he removed Rome's biggest obstacle and paved the way for Rome to grow into a formidable empire. "According to Plutarch, the whole campaign resulted in 800 conquered cities, 300 subdued tribes, one million men sold to slavery and another three million dead in battle fields. Ancient historians notoriously exaggerated numbers of this kind, but Caesar's conquest of Gaul was certainly the greatest military invasion since the campaigns of Alexander the Great. The victory was also far more lasting than those of Alexander's: Gaul never regained its Celtic identity, never attempted another nationalist rebellion, and remained loyal to Rome until the fall of the Western Empire in 476."wikipedia

 

Even if you take 50% or 25% of those numbers it is still an outstanding military feat considering the world's population at that time and remember we are just talking about one of his campaigns. There were many others.

 

Another one of Caesar's notable military accomplishments, is when he smashed Pompey's army which was almost twice as large as his own.

 

It has been argued that he had to absent himself to give himself time to consider what needed to be done, and/or because he was actually bankrupt of ideas.

 

Pure speculation, no facts to back it up. It's your own opinion not factual.

 

I addressed your initial post seriously, I'd be grateful if you would do the same for mine.

 

I hope I answered your question.

Edited January 17, 2006 by tflex

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

For some reason, we've been having heated arguments about Caesar. Obviously one of the main questions is whether Caesar was a failure or a success. In my opinion, Caesar's success/failure should have more relevance to his political moves. Militarily, you can't put up much of a fight saying Caesar didn't accomplish great things. In the political fray, Caesar might have been shrew. He appealed to the plebeians, yet not all the senators. I believe the mistake was that his actions spoke too loud about his ambition which obviously threatened the senators and that was a good lesson for Agustus to learn too. Example, you have Cleopatra. In a way, she was seen as Caesar's queen and she was despised by the Romans, so that is another mistake Caesar made because the thought of being ruled by a foreign queen whose culture is considered despicable doesn't appeal too well. Though his end could signify failure, I still believed he was also a success aside from military success because of his politicals reforms really did help out the lowerclass Romans and which could have been impossible with the patrician class still in power.

 

Sorry for the jumbled mess, I'm simply saying why can't Caesar be both failure/success.

Edited January 16, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[tflex]

For some reason, we've been having heated arguments about Caesar. Obviously one of the main questions is whether Caesar was a failure or a success. In my opinion, Caesar's success/failure should have more relevance to his political moves. Militarily, you can't put up much of a fight saying Caesar didn't accomplish great things. In the political fray, Caesar might have been shrew. He appealed to the plebeians, yet not all the senators. I believe the mistake was that his actions spoke too loud about his ambition which obviously threatened the senators and that was a good lesson for Agustus to learn too. Example, you have Cleopatra. In a way, she was seen as Caesar's queen and she was despised by the Romans, so that is another mistake Caesar made because the thought of being ruled by a foreign queen whose culture is considered despicable doesn't appeal too well. Though his end could signify failure, I still believed he was also a success aside from military success because of his politicals reforms really did help out the lowerclass Romans and which could have been impossible with the patrician class still in power.

 

Sorry for the jumbled mess, I'm simply saying why can't Caesar be both failure/success.

 

I would put it this way, Caesar's successes were more important and far greater than his failures.

[phil25]

I was pondering Caesar's greatness today - tell me, some ardent adherent of Caesar:

 

Why, if he was so unchallengably, undeniably great as you propose, did so many of those who had served under him so loyally in Gaul and elsewhere turn against him to the extent that they were eventually part of the conspiracy, and in some cases wielded daggers against him?

 

Decimus Brutus, Trebonius, even Antonius possibly are names that spring to mind, Titus Labienus earlier.

 

Surely it can only be that something happned in Caesar to disillusion them - perhaps that his character changed before the end...

 

Grateful for an explanation,

 

Phil

[tflex]

I was pondering Caesar's greatness today - tell me, some ardent adherent of Caesar:

 

Why, if he was so unchallengably, undeniably great as you propose, did so many of those who had served under him so loyally in Gaul and elsewhere turn against him to the extent that they were eventually part of the conspiracy, and in some cases wielded daggers against him?

 

Decimus Brutus, Trebonius, even Antonius possibly are names that spring to mind, Titus Labienus earlier.

 

Surely it can only be that something happned in Caesar to disillusion them - perhaps that his character changed before the end...

 

Grateful for an explanation,

 

Phil

 

This is my personal opinion, I think he became so successful that they were all jealous of him, he got most of the credit in Gaul. Plus you have to remember that Caesar loved power and towards the end he was the undisputed leader of Rome not the worthless senate who was filled with petty scoundrels in the late republic. This didn't sit well with some of his friends and some senators.

Edited January 16, 2006 by tflex

[P.Clodius]

Dignitas played a large part. Here's what wikipedia says about it.

Dignitas was a unique social concept in the ancient Roman mindset. The word does not have a direct connotation or translation in English. To an extent, it was the sum total of the personal clout and influence a male citizen acquired throughout his life. When weighing the dignitas of a particular indvidual, factors such as personal reputation, moral standing, and ethical worth had to be considered, along with his entitlement to respect and proper treatment. As the cultivation of dignitas was extremely personal, Roman men of all classes (most particularly noblemen of Consular families), were highly protective and zealous of this asset. Most were prepared to kill, commit suicide (as in the famous case of Marcus Antonius), or go into exile, in order to preserve their personal standing.

Given that. How could one "shine" in the presense of a giant such as Caesar?

[Tobias]

Dignitas played a large part.

 

Precisely. I believe it is the case with most of Caesar's roman enemies; from Pompey and the Boni to the conspirators in his murder; when they looked at Caesar, they saw someone who was great in almost every way, a person who was better than them in almost every way. Antonius housed ambitions from his early days in service with Caesar in gaul to be as great as Caesar, but he would never be able to come close to achieving that. This is similar for many; they wished to be able to build up their own personal standing in Roman society and history, and they were envious of Caesar for having the unparalleled ability to have built up a dignitas that made their own pale into insignificance in comparison. That is probably the majority of the motivation for these peoples turning on Caesar; that old, little black monster called Jealousy.

[thamistocles]

I beleive octavion to be the best emporer of all

[M. Porcius Cato]

If Caesar and Octavian were alive today, we'd recognize them for what they were--fascists. The term may not have existed at the time, but that's true of nearly all firsts (if you prefer, you can call them proto-fascists). In either case, Caesar and Octavian were authoritarian nationalists who gained their power from a combination of expansionist warfare, populist propaganda, and the use of political violence against their adversaries. Ancient historians who were witnesses to the rise of fascism in Europe (such as Ronald Syme) immediately recognized Octavian's revolution for what it was, and in my opinion, it's time to wake up and call a spade a spade.

[Emperor Goblinus]

Romulus. Without him, well, there would be Roman history.

[Guest Emperor Garison]

If I have to name the greatest Roman General and just plain Roman, I would have to say it is Scipio Africanus the Elder (Publius Cornelius Scipio). He defeated the greatest generals of his day nad never lost a battle. He defeated all of the Barcas, inlcluding Hannibal and soundly defeated the great Carthaginian empire. He not only outdueled his adversaries, but was a great administrator. I doubt that any other man of his day could have established the Roman presence so well in the Iberian territories that he captured. Before Scipio Rome was the 2nd empire in the Mediterranean and he left it as the first. He began Rome's ultimate drive toward empire, not Caesar.

Without Scipio it is likely that the Romans would have fallen to the might of Carthage. Hannibal had already ransacked most of Italy and all but captured the city of Rome. Scipio made the brillinat, but then unpopular, decision to attack Carthage itself. He forced Hannibal out of Italy when no other Roman commander could seem to faze the mighty Hannibal. it is one of the sad facts of history that Hannibal is remembered while the greater Scipio is all but forgotten.

[Julia C]

If Caesar and Octavian were alive today, we'd recognize them for what they were--fascists. The term may not have existed at the time, but that's true of nearly all firsts (if you prefer, you can call them proto-fascists). In either case, Caesar and Octavian were authoritarian nationalists who gained their power from a combination of expansionist warfare, populist propaganda, and the use of political violence against their adversaries. Ancient historians who were witnesses to the rise of fascism in Europe (such as Ronald Syme) immediately recognized Octavian's revolution for what it was, and in my opinion, it's time to wake up and call a spade a spade.

 

Oh, fascism is far more extreme of an ideology than all that. If it weren't, then it'd be a wonder that it only appeared so late in history. Fascism is characterized as being totalitarian, and both C

[Ginevra]

Hi guys, this is my first post here, i'm sorry if my english isnt always correct, it isnt my own language...

I'm very young and i'm studying roman history just now, and i study latin aswell.

 

Well, you talked a lot about Scipio and the Punic Wars, I agree, he was great...but...what about Quintus Fabius Maximus called "Cunctator"? His way to fight saved Rome in the Second Punic War...

and what about the Seven Kings? Some of them really existed.

[Gaius Octavius]

In my opinion, there is a problem with the word 'greatest'. It presupposes personal priorities. If one considers Scipio, it might be said that were it not for him, the Roman Empire and the present Western World might never have come about. Caesar, Augustus, Justinian, etc., might never have existed as great men. Scipio's contribitution was mainly in the field of war; Caesar in both war and politics.

To me, it seems that time, place and manners (the evolution of weapons and tactics in war; the evolution of concepts and ideals in politics, etc.) must be considered. Are Alexander, Caesar and Scipio interchangeable when the aforesaid are considered? Would any of those men have had their successes and failures in the China of their times or a thousand years earlier? I doubt if any would claim that Brutus or Pompey were Caesar's equals or Hannibal, Scipio's. Yet, these were 'great' men.

Since we cannot get in between Caesar's ears, it is possible that he had the good of the state in mind (in his terms), rather than personal aggrandizement.

My ignorance of Italian is monumental, but I believe the word 'fascisti'(?) means 'doer'. I would appreciate it very much if someone would give me a definition of 'fascism'.