Historical Role Models

[Mithridates_VI]

Which historical figures do you admire the most and whom you consider to be a person worthy of modeling yourself after? personally I most look up to Mithridates VI (surprise) and Vlad Tepes.


I admire Mithridates for turning his small kingdom of Pontus, a mere strip of land on the north east coast of Anatolia, into a mighty Empire, conquering all of Anatolia, Portions of the northern coast of the black sea, and subjugating Colchis. Not only this, but Mithridates was truly the Hannibal Barca of the East. He waged three wars against Rome and posed the greatest threat to the empire since Hannibal Barca threatened the great city itself in the second Punic war. Any man who can menace the greatest power in the world is worthy of respect in my book. He was finally put down, after being failed by Greek allies and family members, by no less than Pompey the Great. Such was the inevitable fate of all who opposed Rome, though few were able to make such a stand.


In addition to his great military prowess, Mithridates was completely immune to poison by taking small dosages of poisons until he built up an Immunity. The process today is known as mithridatism. Pliny the Elder also listed him as a polyglot who was able to speak the languages of the 22 nations he ruled. Mithridates was truly a rare and remarkable man in every respect.

I'd really like to hear about what everyone else's role model is and why. There's many remarkable people throughout history and I'd love to learn more about those considered to be worthy of respect and honor. I'd also encourage everyone to research more of Mithridates VI, there's much more to him than what I covered. C:

[jirisys]

If I were to choose a doppleganger historical figure for myself that must be a military man, it would be either Xenophon, Mithridates IV or Pyrrhos of Epiros. Otherwise, Socrates, Pytheas of Massalia or Strabo.

As for role models? I would have a very hard time even finding one.

~Jirisys ()

[Noncommunist]

Maybe not a role model given our differing situations but I admire Paul Emil von Lettow Vorbeck. He was a German commander in Tanzania who managed to successfully hold his army together throughout WWI despite being massively cut off from any support or supplies.

[The Lurker Below]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert_of_the_Rhine

I'm not sure it's admiration but I've always been very jealous of this blokes adventures. And check out his bling!

[Fragony]

Marquis de Sade, his books are funny as hell and he didn't give a crap about the authorities. Often misunderstood he was no sadist, he was horrified by the slaughters. Bit of a French Oscar Wilde, he also didn't give a crap.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Hmmm..role models from history. King Ashoka rings out large, for coming to understand the suffering his own self-exhaltation as King could cause, and his utter distaste for it. Caesar, for his obvious intellect and for managing to pass on down, through the centuries, something of what it was to be of the Roman nobility of his era, something of how they thought of themselves. On top of that, his moral and physical courage has to be admired.

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus as an example of someone who saw what was coming, and for encapsulating what might have been good about the original 'dream' that was Rome, and his younger brother Gaius who - from the accounts that we have - was an intellect to match Caesar and is an early voice of those who lose out in (pseudo) Capitalist systems.

[Arjos]

On top of that, his moral ... has to be admired.

Caesar? Moral? I mean I understand military enthusiasts loving his campaigns, but a man facing rightful criminal charges, which at worst would've sentenced him to an exile for few years, in accomodations fitting his status; instead sent thousands to their deaths is anything, but moral...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Caesar? Moral? I mean I understand military enthusiasts loving his campaigns, but a man facing rightful criminal charges, which at worst would've sentenced him to an exile for few years, in accomodations fitting his status; instead sent thousands to their deaths is anything, but moral...

You misunderstand me, which is not surprising given the brevity of my post. I spoke of what it meant to be a Roman noble at this time, and in terms of that morality he had the courage of his convictions. I'm talking about the moral proclivities within the context of the late Roman Republic (where such concepts as Gravitas, Auctoritas, Veritas, Dignitas and Humanitas have to be seen within context, a context that I think Caesar managed to convey in some of his writings and that are somewhat outside of our modern perceptions of their derivatives).

I'm not suggesting that I agree with his morality (in terms of what he did in Gaul..... mass enslavement, slaughter, mutilation...I certainly do not ), but rather that, in terms of his own moral compass he did not back down from what he felt was the right thing. An example would be his refusal to divorce his first wife as part of a deal with Sulla. Ancient morality may not be what we expect today. His pondering over crossing the Rubicon expresses his ruminations on the value of Caesar's Dignitas. A counter example would be, I would suggest, Cicero. Someone who certainly made very contradictory statements with regards to his morality.

As for what are "rightful criminal charges", that is questionable. Charges were often brought against political opponents. The charges were not brought against him rightfully (as in, for the purpose of the crimes themselves) but rather because they feared his power and conspired against him. Such were the politics of the Roman Republic.

[Arjos]

No, I didn't misunderstand you, I wasn't even speaking of his wars in Gallia.

He brought civil war on his nation, to avoid the consequences of his crimes (doesn't matter one bit, their opponents' motive. He did committ them).
To believe to be in the right, has nothing to do with being right. (And Caesar, was never even close to being oppressed) He went through anything, to get what he wanted: public beatings, corruption and other illegalities. He was an ambitious man, morality was in his way to power...
Anyway follow whatever cult of personality, you care to believe in...

Plus to speak of late roman republic values is just laughable, all these men did whatever aided them, not even thinking about the sacrality of those institutions or places...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

No, I didn't misunderstand you, I wasn't even speaking of his wars in Gallia.

He brought civil war on his nation, to avoid the consequences of his crimes (doesn't matter one bit, their opponents' motive. He did committ them).
To believe to be in the right, has nothing to do with being right. (And Caesar, was never even close to being oppressed) He went through anything, to get what he wanted: public beatings, corruption and other illegalities. He was an ambitious man, morality was in his way to power...
Anyway follow whatever cult of personality, you care to believe in...


You have misunderstood me. Completely. Morality is not a constant, unchanging facet of humanity. I am not even talking of agreeing with, or sharing his morality. I am talking of him having the courage of his convictions. That my first 'role model' was Ashoka (and the reasons given) ought to have given you pause for thought. I was simply pointing out that one has to admire his courage, and that courage comes in many forms.

Let me be categorical. I do not share Caesar's moral values.

As for "he brought civil war to his nation"...really? The other participants had nothing to do with it? They weren't ambitious men? They were the ones who talked of raising an army against Caesar prior to any invasion. This seems such a shallow reading of the civil war.

But, if you want to make personal attacks veiled as reasoned responses; if you want to make pjudgements about my beliefs without taking into account what I am actually saying, and my reasoned attempts to do so, be my guest.

[Arjos]

lol where did I write that you share his morality?

As you said again, you appreciate his conviction. I said, anyone can like of dislike, whatever cult of personality (in this case Caesar's), leaving open to question, how much of it could be true, how much embelished and so forth. I just pointed out, his it's no morality (again Caesar's), at least in my opinion.
The only personal "attack" to you (if we have to call it that), was to disagree on calling Caesar moral.

To the other point, I didn't say anything about any side being "right". They were all doing their bidding. I just tried to make clear, how self-centered Caesar's decision was: a moral man at the end of his legal and military term, might've resolved to face prosecution.
And to your particular example, considering whether to raise force against an unlawful general, who could disrupt the nation's stability seems hardly something any body of state wouldn't do.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Arjos, I don't care whether you agree with me or not. In fact if you disagree I'm more than happy to discuss that with you. What I find personal is "Anyway follow whatever cult of personality, you care to believe in...". That is a personal judgement, and was a personal attack - clearly intended as pejorative, and a complete misunderstanding of my position (but then that's the problem with making personal judgements). If I'm honest I see very little to see as role models in historical figures. Most of them are egotistical and seek power - power very rarely comes to those who don't seek it.

As for the idea that Caesar might have resolved to face prosecution; this again is a very shallow reading of the circumstances. Its too easy to write off the circumstances as being simply about personal ambition, and I don't think it is as simple as that. It might be your opinion that it is that simple, and that morality has nothing to do with it, I would disagree. I would also say that this opinion of yours appears to be based upon a modern judgement of what morality is, as if our modern ethical framework can be used to judge whether morality has anything to do with it.

As evidence for that I would offer up the legislation that Caesar implemented that was of benefit to Roman citizens, most especially those most impoverished. I would offer his clemency to his enemies in the civil war.

As for whether you made (or are making) a judgement as to whether either side was right....Well, the use of the term "rightful criminal charges" suggests that you do. You then seemingly exonerate those simply "doing their bidding" by your suggestion here that; "considering whether to raise force against an unlawful general, who could disrupt the nation's stability seems hardly something any body of state wouldn't do.". Forgetting to mention that they physically attacked a Tribune of the Plebs - as one example of their less than lawful behaviour. What passed as law was, as equally as our modern concepts of ethics, not what we might understand as law. The courts were as much a part of the political battlegound as anywhere else in Rome. Yet you suggest that he should just face prosecution - as if it were simply a properly defined legal entity separate from the machinations of the political battle. (The battle over who sat on the juries is a major pointer to the true nature of the courts)

As a final question; do you really think it was only Caesar that had something to lose in this situation? I wonder why so many rallied to his cause if it was simply Caesar that stood to gain or lose.

[Arjos]

That is a personal judgement, and was a personal attack

Must be my english, what I meant with that phrase, was "believing in what has come down to us, regarding Caesar's character"...


do you really think it was only Caesar that had something to lose in this situation? I wonder why so many rallied to his cause if it was simply Caesar that stood to gain or lose.

In my point about facing prosecution, you still keep out of the question the sparkling of a civil war (with its implications for the stability of the republic) and the suffering that was going to be experienced by the citizens. That is what a moral man would've considered imo. Caesar on the other hand, easily kept on following that path he started way back with his consulship and further building his image, which was the only thing keeping all those crazy veterans he moulded...
Let's for now, remove the certainty of his crimes and accept that he was innocent of everything, champion of legalism and what the world needed to get better; did he consider what his demise would've meant for such a mission? At Dyrrachium against any other man (maybe even a younger Pompeius), he would've died. In my opinion, not a moment did he think of anything similar: he was going to get power, anything less would've been as good as death for him. If countless people were to die for this to happen, so be it.

The "popular" legislations were the only political choice he had, the other being lynched by the mob, if he behaved like any other Optimates in power. If you are going to imply a social concerned and loving Caesar, I'm telling you already that's nonsense.
His clemency, again that was more of his incredible pragmatic calculation. (Which in a machiavellian sense, of course has to be admired) He, as the unlawful party seeking power, had to build all the consensus he could among the people and making the "undecided/ not hardliners" in the senate and roman political sphere, to accept him and overlook his crimes.

The many he rallied, I don't know, whom you are speaking about? Plebes or Optimates?
After Sulla, he already was lucky to be alive and to dream of any political success, siding with the plebeian malcontent was the only remote hope he had. And that only after securing the friendship of Pompeius, an Homo Novus. Antonius was indebted and a drunk.
For the people, the only next step was dying. His soldiers might've lost benefits and land.
But what has any of this to do with him taking moral choices?

"Rightful charges" was meant as in he committed those crimes, not who brought them was in the right or the proper judicial figure.
Caesar went on and didn't face prosecution, because he knew he was guilty :P

What's worse, at worst he wasn't even going to face any grave penalty, except (in his eyes), being side-lined from the political life. And, there's probably lots of ground, to consider him obtaining a far better deal, had he acknowledged the senate's demands earlier. But Caesar wanted it all...

And please, drop this nauseating "modern vs ancient" morality: moralitas, stands for proper behaviour and in neither side of Caesar's Civil War, there was moralitas...
Like I pointed out few posts above, to speak of late republican values is a farse: sacrality was trampled on for political gains. With either side, blaming the other saying "they started it" and so on and so forth...

[Darth Feather]

I say Archimedes. IMO he was great.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Must be my english, what I meant with that phrase, was "believing in what has come down to us, regarding Caesar's character"...

What has come down to us regarding Caesar's character? I am aware of his many faults, but I think what has come down to us is very confused. There is the version you seem to understand, and one which I think is too shallow an understanding, that he was just an egomaniac with no particular beliefs. There are those who, perhaps, hero-worship him. I think it a little more nuanced than that.




In my point about facing prosecution, you still keep out of the question the sparkling of a civil war (with its implications for the stability of the republic) and the suffering that was going to be experienced by the citizens. That is what a moral man would've considered imo. Caesar on the other hand, easily kept on following that path he started way back with his consulship and further building his image, which was the only thing keeping all those crazy veterans he moulded...

I don't keep that question out of the equation, I have addressed it on each occassion you have brought it up. Again, you seem confused in your argument because you insist, on the one hand, that you aren't talking of who was in the right, but then insist that Caesar was in the wrong (ie he was guilty of the crimes and was acting illegally - so by logical deduction from that, that his oppnents' actions were legal) and that he sparked the civil war.


Let's for now, remove the certainty of his crimes and accept that he was innocent of everything, champion of legalism and what the world needed to get better; did he consider what his demise would've meant for such a mission? At Dyrrachium against any other man (maybe even a younger Pompeius), he would've died. In my opinion, not a moment did he think of anything similar: he was going to get power, anything less would've been as good as death for him. If countless people were to die for this to happen, so be it.

You see, right here you have imagined my positioning beyond my thinking(and in contradiction to what I have said) by attributing such lofty idealisitc picture of him, and again (in contradiction to your claim of not taking sides) take no account that the players on the other side had any part to play in sparking the war. You must be aware of the offers of conference that Caesar made to Pompey? As for the legality of his opponents position (and therefore the unlawful nature of Caesar's position - an aspect that can't simply be discounted as if it were irrelevant to the point in question); Legislation was voted through the Senate that would have ended the spectre of civil war. Curio presented Caesar's proposal, that both he and Pompey resign their commands. This was passed through the Senate by 370 votes to 22, but a tribune vetoed the legislation (illegally, as tribunician veto was supposed to precede voting). When Mark Anthony tried again to put forward this legislation the Consul refused to allow it to be debated. He then put forward legislation making Caesar an enemy of the Stae which Anthony tried to veto. For his actions Anthony was forcibly removed from the Senate - completely illegally, as the person of the Tribune was sacrosanct under law.

we don't have to pretend anything about Caesar's innocence or guilt, one merely has to stop pretending one isn't suggesting who was right and who was wrong when one clearly is.



The "popular" legislations were the only political choice he had, the other being lynched by the mob, if he behaved like any other Optimates in power. If you are going to imply a social concerned and loving Caesar, I'm telling you already that's nonsense.

Who is simply accepting what is handed down to us now? he had to or be lynched? By who? The fact is he didn't implement the sort of extreme popularis legislation that many crowed that he would. His legislation on debt relief was measured, he reduced the numbers able to claim the grain dole (and in the process cut out a lot of the fraud involved with it). He insisted that Senate and assembly publicly post their proceedings. He changed the system of taxation in the provinces, to the benefit of the provincials - hardly a move intended to mollify the local Roman populace. Perhaps he was afraid that they would travel from Sicily and Asia to lynch him.



His clemency, again that was more of his incredible pragmatic calculation. (Which in a machiavellian sense, of course has to be admired) He, as the unlawful party seeking power, had to build all the consensus he could among the people and making the "undecided/ not hardliners" in the senate and roman political sphere, to accept him and overlook his crimes.

Again, here, you - despite your protestations to the contrary - make a judgement on who was in the right. You clearly believe his opponents to be in the right. yes, you are right, there is a level of pragmatism involved but...whether he needed to do this? Like Sulla?


The many he rallied, I don't know, whom you are speaking about? Plebes or Optimates?
After Sulla, he already was lucky to be alive and to dream of any political success, siding with the plebeian malcontent was the only remote hope he had. And that only after securing the friendship of Pompeius, an Homo Novus. Antonius was indebted and a drunk.
For the people, the only next step was dying. His soldiers might've lost benefits and land.

He must have been a real military genius. How else could he win the civil war with so few on his side?


But what has any of this to do with him taking moral choices?

I am arguing that, rather than the simplistic idea that Caesar was interested only in his own glory, that he had no choice but to side with the Plebeian underbelly - a mistaken proposition anyway. The easiest course to have taken would have been to accept Sulla's demand to divorce his wife,. As a member of a Patrician family he could have followed a very well foraged path to power. I don't see Caesar as some flawless individual worthy of hero-worship, but I don't agree with the idea that he had no moral position, only self-interest - and I think his actions back that up.




"Rightful charges" was meant as in he committed those crimes, not who brought them was in the right or the proper judicial figure.
Caesar went on and didn't face prosecution, because he knew he was guilty :P

Guilty of what? The sentence is self-contradictory. It matters absolutely whether the proper legal process is used to declare someone's actions illegal, otherwise anybody could decide anybody else guilty of whatever they desired. That is the whole purpose of due legal process. You can't declare the one thing (that Caesar was guilty) without, by the nature of that statement, the equal claim that his accusers and judges acted correctly.


What's worse, at worst he wasn't even going to face any grave penalty, except (in his eyes), being side-lined from the political life. And, there's probably lots of ground, to consider him obtaining a far better deal, had he acknowledged the senate's demands earlier. But Caesar wanted it all...

Or...Caesar believed in something..


And please, drop this nauseating "modern vs ancient" morality: moralitas, stands for proper behaviour and in neither side of Caesar's Civil War, there was moralitas...
Like I pointed out few posts above, to speak of late republican values is a farse: sacrality was trampled on for political gains. With either side, blaming the other saying "they started it" and so on and so forth...

You are judging these proposals of what were "proper behaviour" on the basis of your own, modern moral position. And I believe that you are simply overlooking, perhaps not even comprehending, that what is seen as "proper behaviour" is not a constant throughout history, nor even between individuals. And...strangely you only find Caesar guilty of this, you don't question the legality of the 'charges' against him. You simply take the position that he was legally in the wrong. One might as well argue that Churchill was guilty for starting the war between Britain and Germany. I mean, all he had to do was accept German rule, its not like he was going to face any terrible punishment. But, he wanted it all, it seems..

[Arjos]

You assumed me talking of any of his guilt, as having to do with the march on Roma....

But I was speaking (and thought you were aware) of the accusations about starting the Gallic War illegality and all his activities during his first consulship and even before that his debts...
Plus the end of his mandate...
In all those accounts, maybe only exception being the war in Gallia, he was guilty...

And in that the senate was right in calling for prosecution...
Matter remains that Caesar had run away from legal consequences, since his early political career...

Of course there were already in motion (by the end of the Gallic Wars), something which Caesar helped in creating, events that forced his core enemies, to become "fanatically" obsessed. Justifying his advance...

But that was a scenario he helped to create and, imo, he wanted it. It's also perfectly reasonable and possible for Pompeius, had Caesar not forced him to join his enemies, to have interceded and helped him, for a milder sentence and eventually continue his political career. Still that wasn't the man Caesar was, just like when he rejected Sulla, he didn't settle for half measures and compromises on his person and status...


How else could he win the civil war with so few on his side?

On this a a whole new discussion can be started on, who had the majority of veterans. How Pompeius acted as the campaign strategist he was (like he showed in Asia) and although making sound decisions, couldn't come up with enough confidence or tactical genius to win on the field.
Still Caesar was a brilliant general and probably an even greater politician...

But really this has nothing to do with Caesar, being moral...
Partaking in bribery, which he might well have pushed to new levels at the time, he surely didn't have that much virtus and fides. And I'd say that by the collusion, with which he gained prestige, even his dignitas had short-comings...
Still don't take me addressing his wrongs as me acknowledging his opponents' worths. I am not doing that, I told twice already, how in my view the whole ruling class was selfserving and pragmatic with little care for real roman morality, but rather much more for the appearance of mos maiorum...
Of all the wolves, Caesar was simply the cleverer in the political stage ^^
Just consider the outrage towards Antonius in Egypt and say goodbye to Caesar's self-control with Cleopatra aswell :D
If one prefers to take him in total control of the situation and sage his character in that moment alone, sure he was the embodiment of what meant to be roman...

By any standards his wasn't a particularly praiseworthy morality. And I guess we'll just keep on disagreeing on this :)

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

You assumed me talking of any of his guilt, as having to do with the march on Roma....

But that was a scenario he helped to create and, imo, he wanted it. It's also perfectly reasonable and possible for Pompeius, had Caesar not forced him to join his enemies, to have interceded and helped him, for a milder sentence and eventually continue his political career. Still that wasn't the man Caesar was, just like when he rejected Sulla, he didn't settle for half measures and compromises on his person and status...

I'd be interested t know in what way he forced Pompeius to join his enemies? As far as I know he worked very hard to try and keep him on-side.

As for wanting an excuse to march on Rome, he worked tirelessly to try and forge a diplomatic solution to the impasse. He made numerous offers (and his mandate was ended 6 months early) that would allow him to enter Rome and stand for election. His actions in attmepting to solve the problems diplomatically don't match up with the picture of someone who wanted to march on Rome.



On this a a whole new discussion can be started on, who had the majority of veterans. How Pompeius acted as the campaign strategist he was (like he showed in Asia) and although making sound decisions, couldn't come up with enough confidence or tactical genius to win on the field.

Sorry, I wasn't intending to open that discussion, I was being contrary. My point was, Caesar couldn't have won without a great deal of support.


But really this has nothing to do with Caesar, being moral...
.

By any standards his wasn't a particularly praiseworthy morality. And I guess we'll just keep on disagreeing on this :)

I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. I think that much of his morality is far from being praiseworthy. I simply don't thin k that he was without morality, or without political beliefs.

[Arjos]

By demanding the end of his command aswell...

I wouldn't know how much he intended to march on Roma (personally I don't think he desired it, from way back), but it's clear that either side wouldn't compromise (as diplomatic as he was, he still demanded immunity, which was the whole point) and mutually forced the other to extremes...
Who knows, probably Pompeius felt he didn't have faith in him on helping with the prosecution and that helped the rift...
And I'd reckon that Caesar likely saw the bigger picture earlier and not as his first choice, he already planned the march. So much of the later phase of the discussions, was a scene to gain the "moral ground/popular support"...

I don't pretend to make a scale of morality lol
Didn't intent to paint the picture of an hell-bent maniac, just the idea of his moral to be admired, made my nose twitch :P
So by using episodes at the far end of the spectrum, might've given you that impression...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

By demanding the end of his command aswell...

I wouldn't know how much he intended to march on Roma (personally I don't think he desired it, from way back), but it's clear that either side wouldn't compromise (as diplomatic as he was, he still demanded immunity, which was the whole point) and mutually forced the other to extremes...
Who knows, probably Pompeius felt he didn't have faith in him on helping with the prosecution and that helped the rift...
And I'd reckon that Caesar likely saw the bigger picture earlier and not as his first choice, he already planned the march. So much of the later phase of the discussions, was a scene to gain the "moral ground/popular support"...

I don't pretend to make a scale of morality lol
Didn't intent to paint the picture of an hell-bent maniac, just the idea of his moral to be admired, made my nose twitch :P
So by using episodes at the far end of the spectrum, might've given you that impression...

As I have said, I find a great deal of Caesar's morality repugnant - even within the context of his time, I think some of his actions were beyond the pale. But, he did have beliefs that he held firmly to and followed through on. I suppose I could have simply said that one had to admire his courage...but then, I'm happy to have a discussion rather than simply offer a point of view :-)

[Hax]

Genghis Khan. Timur Leng.

[Franconicus]

John Lennon