Greatest Roman Figure??

[The Augusta]

Shakespeare probably did the most to popularize Caesar. The play is a tragedy after all, introducing Caesar to the masses once again and spinning the line that his death was a terrible loss, his flaws have been lovingly overlooked ever since....being required reading in many a high school english class probably contributed to this.

 

A very good point - and this probably deserves its own thread. We have to remember that Shakespeare wrote for the Elizabethan court. Whatever he may or may not have thought about Julius Caesar, one could not put on a play before a monarch that rejoiced in the downfall of another! This needs to be borne in mind in any discussion of Shakepeare's 'Histories'.

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

I would say Germanicus. The Roman world love him dearly.

[The Augusta]

I would say Germanicus. The Roman world love him dearly.

 

He was indeed a popular figure, but can you point to a lasting achievement? Well, I can think of the one thing that Germanicus left to the Roman World - Caligula!

[Ingsoc]

I would say Germanicus. The Roman world love him dearly.

 

He was indeed a popular figure, but can you point to a lasting achievement? Well, I can think of the one thing that Germanicus left to the Roman World - Caligula!

 

I agree, Germanicus was a mediocre person at best, his campaigns in Germany ended with defeat and while he stayed on the east he didn't show sufficient character to assert his command over Piso. The only reason he so highly regarded in that ancient writer tend to discredit Tiberius.

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

For good or bad, his family line (Claudius, Caligula, Nero, Agrippina the Minor), will always be remembered.

 

As for mediocrity, I think any man who refuses the purple and honors Augustus' wishes is a great man, at least morally. How many generals plundered and cast Rome into Civil War for this very reason?

 

As for his battles, they all seem to have gone well. His objectives were met, Arminius defanged, and the lost standards recovered. There were some losses, but that is war. Tiberius ended the Campaigns in Germania, most likely out of jealousy or fear of his adopted son's rising popularity and fame. So he did not leave in defeat.

 

As for Piso, I think Germanicus was just too fair and eager to follow the rules, for his own good. With men like Piso, you cant reason.

 

I only wish that later soldiers and men of Rome were so mediocre. Makes one wonder what would have happened had he leaved? Would Rome have been subjected to the horrors of Caligula and Nero?

 

But thats just my opinion. Fascinating thread by the way.

 

Inqsoc. Would Germanicus have been in control of Syria, or Piso as Governor? I am not certain. I would love to see what resources each had at their disposal.

[Ingsoc]

As for mediocrity, I think any man who refuses the purple and honors Augustus' wishes is a great man, at least morally. How many generals plundered and cast Rome into Civil War for this very reason?

 

As I said before much of Germanicus "greatness" is a result of the anti-Tiberian attitude of historians, true Tacitus say that the German legion support him: "For the memory of Drusus was held in honour by the Roman people, and they believed that had he obtained empire, he would have restored freedom. Hence they regarded Germanicus with favour and with the same hope" (Annales, 1.33) however from other comments this assessment seem baseless:

 

"As soon as he touched on the mutiny and asked what had become of soldierly obedience, of the glory of ancient discipline, whither they had driven their tribunes and centurions, they all bared their bodies and taunted him with the scars of their wounds and the marks of the lash. And then with confused exclamations they spoke bitterly of the prices of exemptions, of their scanty pay, of the severity of their tasks, with special mention of the entrenchment, the fosse, the conveyance of fodder, building-timber, firewood, and whatever else had to be procured from necessity, or as a check on idleness in the camp. The fiercest clamour arose from the veteran soldiers, who, as they counted their thirty campaigns or more, implored him to relieve worn-out men, and not let them die under the same hardships, but have an end of such harassing service, and repose without beggary. Some even claimed the legacy of the Divine Augustus, with words of good omen for Germanicus, and, should he wish for empire, they showed themselves abundantly willing. Thereupon, as though he were contracting the pollution of guilt, he leapt impetuously from the tribunal. The men opposed his departure with their weapons, threatening him repeatedly if he would not go back. But Germanicus protesting that he would die rather than cast off his loyalty, plucked his sword from his side, raised it aloft and was plunging it into his breast, when those nearest him seized his hand and held it by force. The remotest and most densely crowded part of the throng, and, what almost passes belief, some, who came close up to him, urged him to strike the blow, and a soldier, by name Calusidius, offered him a drawn sword, saying that it was sharper than his own. Even in their fury, this seemed to them a savage act and one of evil precedent, and there was a pause during which Caesar's friends hurried him into his tent." (Annales, 1.35)

 

Despite the claims of support for him as an emperor we could see that the main claims of the legion was their bad service conditions and when Germanicus "threaten" to end his life it's hardly raise a shock among the troops, hardly a reaction you would expect if Germanicus was indeed their knight in shining armor, in sharp contrast the prestige of his wife Agrippina and toddler son Gaius was greater than his (Tacitus, Annales, 1.41).

 

In the end Germanicus only manage to get a hold over the legions by surrendering to their demands (Tacitus, Annales, 1.37).

 

As for his battles, they all seem to have gone well. His objectives were met, Arminius defanged, and the lost standards recovered. There were some losses, but that is war. Tiberius ended the Campaigns in Germania, most likely out of jealousy or fear of his adopted son's rising popularity and fame. So he did not leave in defeat.

 

And again while Tacitus is hostile to Tiberius and sympathize with Germanicus he doesn't hide the great failures of his campaigns against the Germans (for example see Annales, 2.8) and at best we could say his campaigns had mixed results (another example is Annales, 1.55-74) the hostile Tacitus condemn the recalling of Germanicus by Tiberius, but in fact it was the continuation of Augustus policy not to get involved in a long costly war over territory which the benefits to Rome from it are extremely small.

 

As for Piso, I think Germanicus was just too fair and eager to follow the rules, for his own good. With men like Piso, you cant reason.

 

Germanicus behavior in the east was deplorable, he dressed as a greek and flatter the natives (Tacitus, Annales, 2.59), he receive golden crown from the Nabatean king (Annales 2.57) not exactly a behavior worthy of a proper Roman.

 

Inqsoc. Would Germanicus have been in control of Syria, or Piso as Governor? I am not certain. I would love to see what resources each had at their disposal.

 

Germanucs was given Maius Imperium in the eastern provinces, this mean that in any such province all of the other Roman officials are subjected to his authority. Piso was no different, however Germanicus seem to lack the talent to bend him to his will and make his follow his commands and orders.

[Maximus_Superbus_Bongus]

Brutus was hands down a great Roman and gets a bad rap. What he and Cassius and the others wanted was to save the republic. I think if Brutus and Cassius beat antony and Octavian people would have a different view of Brutus. Here was a Man who decided to betray one of his best friends, Caesar. Also he had the name Brutus and had that on his shoulders because it was his ancestor Lucius Brutus who killed the last king of Rome and ushered in the republic. If Brutus and Cassius came out on top I wonder how he would be veiwed. Would he still be the traitor or would he be the savoir of Rome? To bad Caesar was loved by the people. But Dictator for life? Caesar was king in all but name. His biggest error was not killing Brutus after Pompey was defeted. Instead he welcomed him back. If he executed Brutus the history could of changed. Or still Caesar would of been wcked out so to speak. Brutus indeed was a great Roman for trying to save the republic and not letting his feelings for his "Father figure" get in his way.

 

 

I have always been a Caesar fan, and agree that he is probably Rome's most famous son.

 

More and more, as I read and study his life, Africanus is becoming my favorite Roman, though.

[sylla]

Brutus was hands down a great Roman and gets a bad rap. What he and Cassius and the others wanted was to save the republic. I think if Brutus and Cassius beat antony and Octavian people would have a different view of Brutus. Here was a Man who decided to betray one of his best friends, Caesar. Also he had the name Brutus and had that on his shoulders because it was his ancestor Lucius Brutus who killed the last king of Rome and ushered in the republic. If Brutus and Cassius came out on top I wonder how he would be veiwed. Would he still be the traitor or would he be the savoir of Rome? To bad Caesar was loved by the people. But Dictator for life? Caesar was king in all but name. His biggest error was not killing Brutus after Pompey was defeted. Instead he welcomed him back. If he executed Brutus the history could of changed. Or still Caesar would of been wcked out so to speak. Brutus indeed was a great Roman for trying to save the republic and not letting his feelings for his "Father figure" get in his way.

Cicero and many other contemporaries seem to have thought like you, and certainly so did Plutarch. BTW, Cassius was presumably as great or bad Roman as Brutus (with the additional merit of an outstanding performance against Pacorus and his Parthians after Carrhae); even so, he usually gets even worse rap than Brutus.

 

Anyway, I would think great figures should be defined by their performance, not so much by their intentions. As it was, Cassius and Brutus transformed the relatively balanced peace under Caesar into an even worse Civil War than the last one.

 

Arguably, they should probably have killed Anthony and even Lepidus; even so, there is no way to predict where the allegiance of the Legions would have fallen. If Brutus and Cassius had beaten Anthony and Octavius, they would all still be remembered as the men responsible for the greatest Roman citizen slaughter ever at Philippi.

 

More important, we are again probably giving too much weight to individual performances for the Republican outcome; if the centuries-long Republic was eliminated at all, it must be concluded that it lacked the support of the Roman people as a whole.

 

Had Brutus been executed after Pharsalus, that would have hardly been compatible with the purported contemporizing intentions of Caesar after his victory. Besides, Cassius and the other Liberatores would presumably had still been on their way to magnicide.

I have always been a Caesar fan, and agree that he is probably Rome's most famous son.

More and more, as I read and study his life, Africanus is becoming my favorite Roman, though.

Quite few people ever may be compared with the original Caesar on fame's magnitude.

Just be aware the more and more we read on Scipio Africanus Major, the more we read panegyrics; virtually no critical analysis of his figure survived from Classical times; one can only guess if that was the case for the lost Plutarch's biography.

Edited May 24, 2009 by sylla

[Maximus_Superbus_Bongus]

Alot can be said about every Person mentioned in this thread. But they are all great in their own ways. Caesar was great. Pompey's name says it all and Brutus even. Remember history is written most times by the victors so it is always in their favour and against their foes.

 

Brutus was hands down a great Roman and gets a bad rap. What he and Cassius and the others wanted was to save the republic. I think if Brutus and Cassius beat antony and Octavian people would have a different view of Brutus. Here was a Man who decided to betray one of his best friends, Caesar. Also he had the name Brutus and had that on his shoulders because it was his ancestor Lucius Brutus who killed the last king of Rome and ushered in the republic. If Brutus and Cassius came out on top I wonder how he would be veiwed. Would he still be the traitor or would he be the savoir of Rome? To bad Caesar was loved by the people. But Dictator for life? Caesar was king in all but name. His biggest error was not killing Brutus after Pompey was defeted. Instead he welcomed him back. If he executed Brutus the history could of changed. Or still Caesar would of been wcked out so to speak. Brutus indeed was a great Roman for trying to save the republic and not letting his feelings for his "Father figure" get in his way.

Cicero and many other contemporaries seem to have thought like you, and certainly so did Plutarch. BTW, Cassius was presumably as great or bad Roman as Brutus (with the additional merit of an outstanding performance against Pacorus and his Parthians after Carrhae); even so, he usually gets even worse rap than Brutus.

 

Anyway, I would think great figures should be defined by their performance, not so much by their intentions. As it was, Cassius and Brutus transformed the relatively balanced peace under Caesar into an even worse Civil War than the last one.

 

Arguably, they should probably have killed Anthony and even Lepidus; even so, there is no way to predict where the allegiance of the Legions would have fallen. If Brutus and Cassius had beaten Anthony and Octavius, they would all still be remembered as the men responsible for the greatest Roman citizen slaughter ever at Philippi.

 

More important, we are again probably giving too much weight to individual performances for the Republican outcome; if the centuries-long Republic was eliminated at all, it must be concluded that it lacked the support of the Roman people as a whole.

 

Had Brutus been executed after Pharsalus, that would have hardly been compatible with the purported contemporizing intentions of Caesar after his victory. Besides, Cassius and the other Liberatores would presumably had still been on their way to magnicide.

I have always been a Caesar fan, and agree that he is probably Rome's most famous son.

More and more, as I read and study his life, Africanus is becoming my favorite Roman, though.

Quite few people ever may be compared with the original Caesar on fame's magnitude.

Just be aware the more and more we read on Scipio Africanus Major, the more we read panegyrics; virtually no critical analysis of his figure survived from Classical times; one can only guess if that was the case for the lost Plutarch's biography.

[Maximus_Superbus_Bongus]

I read Tacitus annals a while ago and plan on a refrsher because I forgot alot of his annals. But from what I remember Germanicus was beloved by the Legions. He must of had some good virtue for this to be so. And I also think I remember Tactitus saying "he was beloved by the romans".paraphrase. AM I remembering my studies wrong?

 

 

 

 

As for mediocrity, I think any man who refuses the purple and honors Augustus' wishes is a great man, at least morally. How many generals plundered and cast Rome into Civil War for this very reason?

 

As I said before much of Germanicus "greatness" is a result of the anti-Tiberian attitude of historians, true Tacitus say that the German legion support him: "For the memory of Drusus was held in honour by the Roman people, and they believed that had he obtained empire, he would have restored freedom. Hence they regarded Germanicus with favour and with the same hope" (Annales, 1.33) however from other comments this assessment seem baseless:

 

"As soon as he touched on the mutiny and asked what had become of soldierly obedience, of the glory of ancient discipline, whither they had driven their tribunes and centurions, they all bared their bodies and taunted him with the scars of their wounds and the marks of the lash. And then with confused exclamations they spoke bitterly of the prices of exemptions, of their scanty pay, of the severity of their tasks, with special mention of the entrenchment, the fosse, the conveyance of fodder, building-timber, firewood, and whatever else had to be procured from necessity, or as a check on idleness in the camp. The fiercest clamour arose from the veteran soldiers, who, as they counted their thirty campaigns or more, implored him to relieve worn-out men, and not let them die under the same hardships, but have an end of such harassing service, and repose without beggary. Some even claimed the legacy of the Divine Augustus, with words of good omen for Germanicus, and, should he wish for empire, they showed themselves abundantly willing. Thereupon, as though he were contracting the pollution of guilt, he leapt impetuously from the tribunal. The men opposed his departure with their weapons, threatening him repeatedly if he would not go back. But Germanicus protesting that he would die rather than cast off his loyalty, plucked his sword from his side, raised it aloft and was plunging it into his breast, when those nearest him seized his hand and held it by force. The remotest and most densely crowded part of the throng, and, what almost passes belief, some, who came close up to him, urged him to strike the blow, and a soldier, by name Calusidius, offered him a drawn sword, saying that it was sharper than his own. Even in their fury, this seemed to them a savage act and one of evil precedent, and there was a pause during which Caesar's friends hurried him into his tent." (Annales, 1.35)

 

Despite the claims of support for him as an emperor we could see that the main claims of the legion was their bad service conditions and when Germanicus "threaten" to end his life it's hardly raise a shock among the troops, hardly a reaction you would expect if Germanicus was indeed their knight in shining armor, in sharp contrast the prestige of his wife Agrippina and toddler son Gaius was greater than his (Tacitus, Annales, 1.41).

 

In the end Germanicus only manage to get a hold over the legions by surrendering to their demands (Tacitus, Annales, 1.37).

 

As for his battles, they all seem to have gone well. His objectives were met, Arminius defanged, and the lost standards recovered. There were some losses, but that is war. Tiberius ended the Campaigns in Germania, most likely out of jealousy or fear of his adopted son's rising popularity and fame. So he did not leave in defeat.

 

And again while Tacitus is hostile to Tiberius and sympathize with Germanicus he doesn't hide the great failures of his campaigns against the Germans (for example see Annales, 2.8) and at best we could say his campaigns had mixed results (another example is Annales, 1.55-74) the hostile Tacitus condemn the recalling of Germanicus by Tiberius, but in fact it was the continuation of Augustus policy not to get involved in a long costly war over territory which the benefits to Rome from it are extremely small.

 

As for Piso, I think Germanicus was just too fair and eager to follow the rules, for his own good. With men like Piso, you cant reason.

 

Germanicus behavior in the east was deplorable, he dressed as a greek and flatter the natives (Tacitus, Annales, 2.59), he receive golden crown from the Nabatean king (Annales 2.57) not exactly a behavior worthy of a proper Roman.

 

Inqsoc. Would Germanicus have been in control of Syria, or Piso as Governor? I am not certain. I would love to see what resources each had at their disposal.

 

Germanucs was given Maius Imperium in the eastern provinces, this mean that in any such province all of the other Roman officials are subjected to his authority. Piso was no different, however Germanicus seem to lack the talent to bend him to his will and make his follow his commands and orders.

[sylla]

I read Tacitus annals a while ago and plan on a refrsher because I forgot alot of his annals. But from what I remember Germanicus was beloved by the Legions. He must of had some good virtue for this to be so. And I also think I remember Tactitus saying "he was beloved by the romans".paraphrase. AM I remembering my studies wrong?

 

By carefully quoting and critically analyzing the Annals, Ingsoc made a quite convincing case for Tacitus grossly exaggerating Germanicus' at best moderate deeds and virtues so he could abuse the supposedly jealous Tiberius; just judge by yourself.

[Ingsoc]

I read Tacitus annals a while ago and plan on a refrsher because I forgot alot of his annals. But from what I remember Germanicus was beloved by the Legions. He must of had some good virtue for this to be so. And I also think I remember Tactitus saying "he was beloved by the romans".paraphrase. AM I remembering my studies wrong?

 

Germanicus was indeed love by the urban masses in Rome, however in my opinion the fact that he became the darling of the masses doesn't mean in any way that he was a great general or statesman. and one can only wonder if he wpuld still maintain his popularity if he wasn't died so young?

 

Tacitus is a good historian, however it's important to make a different between the facts and his own opinions regarding them. In the case of Tiberius Tacitus doesn't miss the chance to make his look like a villain.

 

See for example this passage:

 

"The news both relieved and disquieted Tiberius. He was thankful that the rising had been crushed; but that Germanicus should have earned the good-will of the troops by his grants of money and acceleration of discharges

[marcus silanus]

Had Publius Cornelius Scipio not gained control of Spain and ultimately defeated Hannibal, the evolution of Rome into the first world superpower may well have not happened. Hannibal's objective, by consensus, was to reduce Rome to a regional city state power, lacking influence beyond central Italy. If this had been the case, it would be rather pointless talking about the relative merits of Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Germanicus, Pompey or Trajan for example, because there would not have been an established Roman domain in which to develop greatness of deed and character.

 

Scipio possessed all the Roman virtues and the forward thinking chracter of an Philehellene. He saved Rome from disaster and gained little reward. Scipio Africanus was to Rome, the same as the RAF to England in 1940 and surely deserves recognition.

[sylla]

Had Publius Cornelius Scipio not gained control of Spain and ultimately defeated Hannibal, the evolution of Rome into the first world superpower may well have not happened. Hannibal's objective, by consensus, was to reduce Rome to a regional city state power, lacking influence beyond central Italy. If this had been the case, it would be rather pointless talking about the relative merits of Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Germanicus, Pompey or Trajan for example, because there would not have been an established Roman domain in which to develop greatness of deed and character.

 

Scipio possessed all the Roman virtues and the forward thinking chracter of an Philehellene. He saved Rome from disaster and gained little reward. Scipio Africanus was to Rome, the same as the RAF to England in 1940 and surely deserves recognition.

Raw experience has repeatedly shown us that no man or woman has all virtues: Scipio possessed all in our available sources because all what we have are unashamed panegyrics that tried to eclipse Hannibal's figure after the death of Marcellus. In fact, those same sources tried to eclipse any other Roman general, Scipio's own brother included (ie, Africanus would have defeated Antiochus almost alone as second-in-command). All that might have been true, but in the absence of any critical unbiased account we might rightly remain skeptical.

 

Ancient sources regularly considered the commander's abilities as the main and almost only factor for the battle's outcome; ie, Varro in Cannae (the patrician Paulus was suspiciously forgotten); nowadays we are well aware that there are numerous factors involved. Hannibal didn't conquer Rome mainly because of the immense collective effort from the Roman Republic as a whole. Scipio might well have been the decisive factor for the ultimate victory, but it seems quite unlikely that Carthage had any real chance after Metaurus.

 

A couple of unsettled questions:

If Scipio was never defeated, why did he require five full years (210-206 BC) for expelling the Carthaginians from Hispania?

If Hasdrubal Barca was so utterly defeated, how was he able to cross the Alps with so huge an Army in 207 BC?

Why didn't Scipio attack Hannibal in Italy while he was a consul in 205 BC?

 

And of course, Scipio died in exile after a rather dirty and turbulent political issue.

[marcus silanus]

A couple of unsettled questions:

If Scipio was never defeated, why did he require five full years (210-206 BC) for expelling the Carthaginians from Hispania?

If Hasdrubal Barca was so utterly defeated, how was he able to cross the Alps with so huge an Army in 207 BC?

Why didn't Scipio attack Hannibal in Italy while he was a consul in 205 BC?

 

And of course, Scipio died in exile after a rather dirty and turbulent political issue.

 

Scipio did not land in Spain until late in the campaigning season of 210 and retired to winter quarters to train and gather intelligence. The position he faced was one where three widely dispersed Carthaginian armies, each as large as his own, could not plainly be engaged at once and if he engaged with one, he feared the intervention of the others. That is why the following year was taken with the campaign at New Carthage. The major campaign of 208 ended with Hasdrubal Barca's defeat at Baecula. 207 was a quiet year when an attempt to face Hasdrubal Gisgo in the far South was thwarted by his dispersing his army amongst the region's cities. Scipio could not remain in the area and suffer a supply problem and also allow opposition forces to grow strength around him. 206 saw the final battle at Illipa and given the circumstances, I don't think this period is lengthy for completely changing the fortunes of Rome on the Iberian peninsula.

 

Scipio was cautious and it is perhaps fair to say that he was undefeated because of this, his attention to detail in gathering intelligence and building alliances with the Spanish tribes.

 

On Hasdrubal Barca's defeat, this was not by any means a slaughter. His defensive position at Baecula positioned on a plateau with ravines on both flanks and a river in front, led Scipio to employ innovative tactics in attacking the Carthaginian flanks. However, Hasdrubal was able to withdraw the larger part of his army and baggage train. Scipio, still feared the arrival of Mago or Gisgo and did not pursue, instead allowing his men to plunder the Carthaginian camp.

 

I am sure that most members realise that Polybius is both a major source of detail and was a standard bearer for the Scipiones. Having said that, Scipio's achievements are beyond doubt. The facts are that he did eject Carthaginian influence from Spain and he did ultimately defeat Hannibal. Had this not happened, Rome may well have taken a very different path. Greatness can be in deed, character, significance or any number of human attributes. Scipio's greatness was, in my view, most certainly in deed, and significance. He remains my greatest Roman figure.

Edited May 28, 2009 by marcus silanus