Poll - Are you an "optimatis" or a "Popularis" ?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

The best example I can think of is the B.S. where the Senate gave Scipio command of Sicilia knowing that he intended to invade Africa from there, but did not give him the right to levy troops. I don't know how they expected him to properly execute the war without men, and luckily for the republic he was able to find volunteers and the Cannae legions, without which all he would have had was Massinissa's Numidians (keep in mind that at this point Massinissa had no kingdom). It's that type of crap that caused the frustration of so many of Rome's greatest men, who were trying to help but were stifled by the "old men".

 

Maybe they thought Scipio will use the "force" ?

[Julia C]

This is a tricky question for me. I do not condone the tactics of either Triumvirate and don't approve of mob violence. I also don't trust the unwashed masses to really know what's best for them. I do absolutely agree that the Senate ought to be the firm paternal hand guiding the Republic.

 

However, once the watersheds were broken it was pretty silly to harken back to a Republic that was never ideal. The senators were pretty greedy and manipulative, and they needed watching. I am an obvious imperialist in the sense that I support the Augustan Principate in its theories and benevolent autocracy.

 

I must confess, though, that if the Republic was ever as ideal as it was supposed to be in the period before the Punic Wars, then it would be ideal. So I have difficulty answering this question.

 

Augustus, after all, was theoretically more conservative than his divine father and certainly felt that Cato Uticensis was worthy of some respect. But for all that, he still did not hesitate to use the mob to hold him up above the rest. Remember that his reign was theoretically just the ascendancy of one patrician house over the rest, which is something that they had all wanted to aspire to. It was very traditional in that respect--the only reason it seems vastly new is because no house had entirely managed it, though some had come very close. The difference is that it took them several generations, they achieved primacy by pieces and Augustus did it all at once.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Julia C

[The Augusta]

[quote name='Julia C

[ASCLEPIADES]

None of the above.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Maximus_Superbus_Bongus]

I have a problem with the rich running and owning everything. So guess where I would be?

 

 

Moderate populare. I am fully for the Popularis cause but anything done to excess is problematic at best. I have a conservative streak but have no use for the "old blood", especially when all they do is squabble amongst themselves.

 

And how would you have had the senate conduct its business if it were not to debate matters? Were the right policies simply to emerge from the head of Jove, or is it possible that all that "squabbling" was actually productive and in the best interests of the republic?

 

Seeing that Athena sprouted form Joves head, maybe that would have been a good policy for the senate, figureatively speaking. Maybe if they had sprouted more wisdom and less wit they might have gotten someting done.

 

The best example I can think of is the B.S. where the Senate gave Scipio command of Sicilia knowing that he intended to invade Africa from there, but did not give him the right to levy troops. I don't know how they expected him to properly execute the war without men, and luckily for the republic he was able to find volunteers and the Cannae legions, without which all he would have had was Massinissa's Numidians (keep in mind that at this point Massinissa had no kingdom). It's that type of crap that caused the frustration of so many of Rome's greatest men, who were trying to help but were stifled by the "old men".

 

 

Aw, come on, Julius - it kept the Republic occupied for 500 years!

 

Much like celebrities today.

[Ingsoc]

You do have some errors in your options:

 

A moderate Optimatis - A mixed government between Consuls from the nobility and T.B from the people

 

The tribunes just like others magisters where part of the Roman Nobilitas, I hardly think you could consider people like the Gracchii or Publius Clodius Pulcher to be "from the people".

 

An extremist Popularis - A dictator by the people for the people

 

A Monarchist... Bring back the Tarquins

 

I actually see the two options as one and the same. consider this: initially the Roman Rex enjoy full Imperium. after the fall of the monarchy this imperium was divided between the magisters of them their were at least two to every office and they enjoy equal power and veto right over each other actions. however the Romans understand that sometimes the situation require a single man at the helm and thus created the Dictatura whose holder was without the colleague and enjoy the king's imperium for a limited time (until his task was completed or six months had passed).

 

Now when Caesar declare himself to be a dictator for life and abolished the time limit on holding the office he actually declare that he was king in anything but name.

[sylla]

No Roman politician would have considered himself a "popularis"; it was always used as a pejorative term against others. Everybody's own perception was as an optimas, the best of the best. And naturally, virtually everyone used his influence on the mob to cheat where and whenever it was possible.

[Northern Neil]

OK - I'm going to shock you all! Let me say first of all that my choice of what kind of Roman I would have been has nothing at all to do with my present day political leanings ...

...whereas mine, on the other hand, does. An EXTREMIS POPULARIS for me - sometimes the will of the people demands a temporary suspension of democracy

[sylla]

OK - I'm going to shock you all! Let me say first of all that my choice of what kind of Roman I would have been has nothing at all to do with my present day political leanings ...

...whereas mine, on the other hand, does. An EXTREMIS POPULARIS for me - sometimes the will of the people demands a temporary suspension of democracy

The "suspension of democracy" (temporal or not) and the "will of people" in the same phrase seems like an oxymoron to me; that sounds more like modern dictator's chat.

[Northern Neil]

The "suspension of democracy" (temporal or not) and the "will of people" in the same phrase seems like an oxymoron to me; that sounds more like modern dictator's chat.

haha! Yes!

[P.Clodius]

Funny, I would think that an extreme populare would be in favor of direct democracy, not dictatorship. I guess that shows what frauds the populares were--they claimed to be for the people, but even the populare advocates (such as the one who made this poll) can't hide that they really want (to be) dictators. All the guff about "the People" is just a cover for the populares' real ambition--naked power.

I guess that would be because it is easy for us moderns to fall into/categorize, we have a penchant for categories and classifications. The Gracchi bros were touted as commies by the commies, no? You and I both know the romans used an optimate means, or a populares means to achieve an end.