Drusus Nero Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 He did seem rather a weak-minded boy . I think the portrayal Brian Blessed gave as Augustus Caesar was much better . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted April 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 He did seem rather a weak-minded boy . I think weak minded is the wrong choice of words, yes by all accounts he was a sickly individual and probably physically weak, but what he lacked in physical strength he more than made up for in mental strength. Octavian was a highly intelligent individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 At about this point, I think that the question should be turned around, thus: What if so-and-so (your choice, e.g., Cicero), took over after CJC? Might shed more light or dreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingsoc Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 Base on the historic evidence I think Octavian, while maybe would't be Caesar's heir, would have played a prominent role in the Caesarian regime and would be in a high place to inheret his throne. Remember that Octavian was Caesar relative and in monarchist regimes (and Caesar, regardless of his title was a monarch) the ruler offen prefer to give the importand and high offices to his relatives, also we know from the fact that he was named Caesar heir in such a young age the Octavian was highly regarded and much beloved by Caesar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 By the by, I don't really see a basis for Brutus being seen as an heir over Octavian. He could've been named in the actual will but he wasn't. Which Brutus? Decimus Brutus was named in Caesar's will. Also, it's useful to consider an option not listed: Caesar is defeated by the Parthians and joins Crassus in the afterlife. Caesar would have defeated the Parthians I think. He would have been away at war for fivew years or so. During this time Octavian would have been in the east with Caesar and Caesar would have better groomed him to succeed him. It is very clear at this point that Octavian was the heir. Mark Antony would have been sent against the Dacians and one wonders whether or not he would have had success. Brutus was no military man. Octavian and Agrippa get much needed seasoning during the Parthian campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Brutus was no military man. Decimus Brutus certainly was. Also, Cassius himself had experience fighting the Parthians, and he would have been an ideal legate in the Parthian campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. of the Julii Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 This is a spin off from the "Did Caesar deserve to die?" thread. If the liberators had failed in their attempt to assassinate Julius Caesar and he'd gone on to dominate Rome , then what would have become of Octavian? Would he have still had the determination and intelligence to rise and become a prominent figure and successor to Caesar or would he have just been another face in the shadow of Caesar never coming to the fore and would he just go down in history as another name who lived in the age of Caesar? I know this is another "what if ?" question but I enjoy them, it's interesting and fun to see the different tangents that people go off on. So please give me your thoughts. I have a question that has <i>something</i> to do with this topic...Would any of you consider Julius Caesar a Republican or a Democrat?? I know those parties weren't around but still, any ideas? Greatly appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 I have a question that has <i>something</i> to do with this topic...Would any of you consider Julius Caesar a Republican or a Democrat?? I know those parties weren't around but still, any ideas? Greatly appreciate it. I would have considered him neither. Whilst it is best not to attempt to equate the politics of ancient Rome with the modern day party system across various democracies, even in the loosest sense I cannot see how he would have fit into either category. I believe Caesar was an autocrat - not because I am one of his detractors on the Forum, but because I am putting him firmly in his own time. He wanted sole rule and would play whatever card he had to at the time to get it. So did his successor. Both traditional 'republicans' and 'democrats' - or to be more precise 'optimates' and 'populares' - were content to carry out their duties within constitutional bounds - serve their terms as magistrates and military leaders and retire gracefully from the scene or debate matters in the senate until death. I cannot honestly believe that Caesar would have ever retired gracefully as Sulla had before him, and. had the conspiracy not emerged, he would have happily ruled Rome as Dictator in perpetuum for as long as the Senate and People allowed it. 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.