Guest klegg Posted May 5, 2004 Report Share Posted May 5, 2004 Other than Caesar who was the best Roman from the Republic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted May 5, 2004 Report Share Posted May 5, 2004 Hello klegg and welcome to UNRV! Tough question, as you didnt specify if you mean military, political or art, (and best in what?) julius caeser was not good at all for the Republic he basically ended it, but in any case i believe there are several influencial ones and Sulla comes to my mind as the most important one, but that is just my thought. cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caine Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Caesar may have ended it, but the Republic had died since 133BC with the inheritence of the Kingdom of Perganum and everything that fallowed with the wars in Asia. Greatest Roman in the Republican period (other then Caesar of coarse) I would have to vote for Marius or Scipio, or even Sulla. Marius achievments were great: especially with the war agsint the migrating Germans into Italy, as well as managing to achiev an unprecidented 7 Consulships (most of those were legit) As for Scipio, his achievments to conquer all of Carthage in the Second Punic War are obvious, as well as his contributions in the East with Macedonia. Sulla, another great general, managed to sack Athens for their revolt, defeat and force Mithridates into a treaty, and be the first man to march upon Rome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 One musn't leave out the achievements of Pompey both politically and militarily. His expansions in the east were of considerable value and made the 'Republican' resistance of Caesar possible. Cicero, or course, is many times overlooked for lack of military glory. Cicero though is regarded as one of history's greated politicians, oraters and lawyers. He was a champion of Republican idealism, and should never be far from the top of all-time most important people in the ancient world. There are many, so as Viggen asked, please give your motivation and we can better address the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
journaldan Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Nero: For meritous achievement with a fiddle. Caligulia: For lifetime achievement and breaking the barrier of main-stream theater via presence of his self-titled, Penthouse-produced X-rated film appear in general-audience theaters. But seriously... Constantine's decision to embrace Christianity impacted not only the Roman empire of the time, but has had a ripple effect that continues to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Indeed, but Constantine lived 3 and half centuries after the Fall of the Republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
journaldan Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 Sorry, thought we were talking greatest Romans. I must have blanked out on the "of the republic" part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 Actually for the sake of further discussion, feel free to talk about any Roman who you think ranks among the best of the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 Before I state my opinion, by mentioning who the greatest roman was, you need to think about how the romans felt about this. Bloodline was very important to Rome, they would not just call anybody romans, even though the citizenship of most of Italia, as well as their various provinces. To ask your self who the greatest Roman was I think you need to think of who on your list was a true roman and who was not. The likes of Gaius Marius and Pompeius were both great generals and leaders, but they would never be considered romans, because of their Italian blood. Marius was from Arpium and Pompeius from Picentine. They were able to gain such high ranking because, marius married a Julian, the family with the highest blood, and Pompey's father was a general for rome as well as a senator. Pompeius also married a Julian, Caesars only daughter, with a roman wife, Julia. So to correctly reply to this question, since Caesar has been eliminated from possiblility, since he was by far the greatest roman, I would go with his great nephew, and adopted son, Octavius "Augustus" Caesar. Octavius was the first declared emperor, even though caesar was made dictator of rome, until that fateful day on the Ides of March, 15, 44 BCE. Augustus started the empire with a great start as he was the start of Pax Romano age, the golden age of rome, relative peace throughout the empire for almost 200 years I believe it was, until the last emperor Marcus Auerilius, not the gladiator one, died and his son Comodus took the ivory chair and ended that era, so my choice if caesar is unavailable is Octavius August Caesar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurius Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 I'd have to second Augustus as the greatest. However, the one who drew me into studying Roman history is the legend of "lefty" - Scaevola. He sure as heck would have psyched me out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Before I state my opinion, by mentioning who the greatest roman was, you need to think about how the romans felt about this. Bloodline was very important to Rome, they would not just call anybody romans, even though the citizenship of most of Italia, as well as their various provinces. To ask your self who the greatest Roman was I think you need to think of who on your list was a true roman and who was not. The likes of Gaius Marius and Pompeius were both great generals and leaders, but they would never be considered romans, because of their Italian blood. Regardless of how a 'New Man' was received by the populous, one cannot discount the achievements of men such as Marius and Pompeius simply because they weren't of Latin descent. The fact that new men such as these were able to achieve so much reflects even more highly upon them. Cicero too was a new man. He is without a doubt one of the greatest Romans ever to have lived. In fact, Marius and Pompeius were both adored by the public, (except for Pompeius after he opposed Caesar). All were Roman citizens, thereby making them Romans, regardless of their birth lines. If it were based on the feelings of patrician or equestrian families, then yes these men were not exactly revered. Any man with considerable power was never the favorite of other senators, and in this case, especially because of their Italian heritage. However, Caesar, as patrician and latin as they could come, was no more liked by his colleagues than Marius or Pompey. In fact, Pompeius, when opposing Caesar was preferred as the lesser of two evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 thats all i was saying. I am not saying that the new man did not have a great impact on rome. Gaius Marius and Pompeius Magnus were better generals than almost 90 percent of noble romans. I was saying that if you look at it from the true roman point of view Marius and Pompeius were not true romans and would always be considered new men by the senate. I am not discrediting their importance, but am trying to take the view of how someone of true patrician roman blood would have viewed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 This true Roman and not true Roman ended with the end of the Rebublic? Some Emperors didnt even come out of Latium, never mind todays Italy, Illyria and Hispania comes to my mind... Or was the bloodline more important then location? cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Prior to the 1st century AD this was very important, but with the death of Nero, it no longer mattered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 The greatest? Well that really depends on one's definition. Was Caeser great? I don't know. Was Napoleon great? I tend to favour Cicero for reasons of his humanity, as well as his literary achievements. However I see Scipio as being perhaps the best in his defence of Rome. As for my greatest Roman of them all? I favour Flavianus Claudius Julianus. Philosopher, restorer of religious tolerance (Ignoring his persecution of the teachers due to his feeling they were hypocrites) great general, governmental reformer, his high level of respect achieved in the eyes of his army, his unwillingness to abuse his power.......... There is much I admire about Julian the Apostate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.