The history of the Roman republic and Empire

After reading this thread over a glass of chianti, I am salivating for more. I never studied history at all in school but recently developed a deep interest in antiquity. I just finished Plutarch's "Roman Lives" Penguin Classics and I still didn't know a quarter of the things brought up here. Could any of you recommend something to the laywoman to follow up Roman Lives with for more information? I'm specifically interested in Caesar and Cicero, if that narrows it down at all.
:book:


Oh yeah, and demanding that your ransom be twice as much as asked for when kidnapped by pirates and than crucifying your captors is up there with Greatest Turn of Events Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I just finished Plutarch's "Roman Lives" Penguin Classics and I still didn't an eigth of the things brought up here. Could any of you recommend something to the laywoman to follow up Roman Lives with for more information? I'm specifically interested in Caesar and Cicero, if that narrows it down at all.

---

Plutarch's "Lives" is a primary source for information about Caesar. Others you'll want to read are:

"Lives of the Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius; focuses less on military detail and more on the gossip than Plutarch.

"War Commentaries of Caesar" by Caesar et al; details on all Caesar's major military campaigns, and by its nature laced with propaganda (but still excellent). Available in Penguin in two volumes: "The Gallic Wars" and "The Civil Wars"

For Cicero, simply take your pick of his own letters and writings. Penguin's "Selected Works" is good, as I recall, with lots of letters to, from, and about Caesar. "Murder Trials" is another interesting collection, though if you ever intend to read Steven Saylor's Gordianus the Finder mysteries, you'll want to wait till after you've read them (those novels are basically lifted from Cicero's speeches).

For more references, you can hit my website on Hellenistic and Roman History; the references section on the Caesar biography contains links and/or references to most of the interesting material.

/Strategy

Quote:

---

"I see many Marius' in him" Talking to his trusted General, Just after letting him go."

---

This comes from Conn Iggulden's Emperor Series :)

Which I am enjoying fully and can't wait for the 3rd Book to come out in soft cover (pocket book format) however, lets not also forget to read the Historical Notes that Conn always takes care of adding at the end of the storry explaining how many elements althought inspired by various historical accounts have been rearanged for the sake of the Storry, and if you ask me he has done an excelent job in blending these elements in the Novel Series. Yet, we should be aware aswell that the Novels can't be considered Accurate Historical Books, they are an Artistic Expression, which does cause one to actually go and dig up the Historical Facts never the less hence to me valuable as well.

Also, "Augustus", means "Son of God" as well...many Caesars also adopting the Augustus were themselves tracing their lineage to one of the Gods, hence were not only Kings, they were Divine Kings...

Not surprising, how later in Christianity, Kings continued to be Annoyted by God. But the trend certaintly did not start with Christianity. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strategy

For more references, you can hit my website on Hellenistic and Roman History; the references section on the Caesar biography contains links and/or references to most of the interesting material.

/Strategy

---

That's a very nice website and thanks for the suggestions. I think I'll start with Suetonius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

That's a very nice website and thanks for the suggestions. I think I'll start with Suetonius.

---

A most entertaining book. Enjoy the gore, but don't take the gossip literally - it's more indicative of the sort of court gossip that was prevalent in those days than of the real attitudes and behaviour of the Emperors concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

A most entertaining book. Enjoy the gore, but don't take the gossip literally - it's more indicative of the sort of court gossip that was prevalent in those days than of the real attitudes and behaviour of the Emperors concerned.

---

Interesting. Considering somewhat similar warnings I had heard about Livy, I guess these Romans historians weren't much for objectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suraknar

This comes from Conn Iggulden's Emperor Series :)

---

Haven't read any of them fully myself, but what I've seen and heard of them don't leave me too excited. However, anything that gets people looking into history is a good thing. ~:)

Quote:

---

Also, "Augustus", means "Son of God" as well...many Caesars also adopting the Augustus were themselves tracing their lineage to one of the Gods, hence were not only Kings, they were Divine Kings...

---

That is the first time I've heard of that. "Augustus" is usually translated to mean "August One"; alternatively an equivalent to "Majesty" or "Imperial Majesty" (cf. Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary). Given that he frequently referred to himself as "Caesar Augustus Divi Filius Pater Patriae" (this is, for instance, what you'll usually find on coins) which translates to “Caesar Augustus, son of god, father of the country"; I definitely think your source is mistaken.

Augustus of course was able to take the title divi filius because he was the adopted son of Julius Caesar, whom he had cunningly had deified as a god in 42 BC. Similarly Tiberius had Augustus deified, and it became traditional for the "legitimate" heir of an emperor to deify his predecessor - part of the reason being of course that it bestowed some legitimacy on the successor. Some emperors were not deified (Tiberius being one), while a number of emperors insisted on deification while alive (Caligula, Domitian, et al).

The idea of an Emperor/King anointed by God, I think really only took shape with Pope Leo and the "Holy Roman Empire" of Charlemagne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Interesting. Considering somewhat similar warnings I had heard about Livy, I guess these Romans historians weren't much for objectivity.

---

If you really want gossip, Suetonius is your man. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strategy

Yes, as already pointed out. Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, and Ruspina are all Caesarian defeats. He won a lot too; but that doesn't change facts.

And actually Caesar:
- Did not beat all of his enemies (The Pompeian faction survived Caesar; Aggrippa was the man who put an end to the last of them - Sextus Pompeius).
- Did not conquor Egypt (Cleopatra remained ruler of Egypt until it was annexed by Augustus).
- Did not conquor Brittania and basically achieved nothing worthwhile during his visit there (except get some good propaganda material).
- Did not rule an empire alone; the first thing he did upon his arrival in Rome was to call into being the Senate. His power as dictator was no greater than that wielded by Sulla (and actually less - Sulla simply killed those who opposed him; Caesar refused to do so).
- Did not establish an empire for centuries; Augustus was the one who did that.
- Was in fact rather unpopular at the time of his death (as Plutarch also notes). He was considerably more popular fater hid assasination than prior to it, and that was partly through the manipulations of Antonius.



Yes they did. Assuming you've read any of them, you'd notice too. :book:

Even Caesar notices that Caesar was beaten, though he likes try and cover it up. :embarassed:



What case was that? That Caesar was a failure? I think you'll have to find better arguements than those (though the case can be made - he did after all fail to reform Rome with ruinous consequences for himself and the Republic).

---

so "he who know history better then me" if caesar was a failure then
napoleon was a joke , if caesar was a failure then hanibaal was a fool , pompey was a success yes because his sons outlived caesar hmmm
in your point of view alexander was a failure because his empire collapsed after his death
o yes cleopatra was ruling egypt , but you forgat , caesar loved her how you missed that ???
again and again you repeat the britania invasion and you simply wont listen
he did not want to conquer the island but to cut the supply road to galia
do you really think that octavian could rule an empire just like that , hey the first thing he did was to call himself caesar the second thing he did was to take control of caesar money and with that to control his army
aha now caesar was unpopular , you really don't know that antonius controlled rome just because he was caesar right hand
antonius words about caesar made rome a city on fire , just the word caesar made the people of rome fanatic and the "liberatores" so frightened that they escaped rome for ever
no matter you achieved something in your life - you are the first man ever to say that caesar was a failure
go to the academy and shout it and take with you the books of ancient historians to make your point they in the academy will be glad to laugh a little
~D

Dear caesar44,

Point 1:
You stated that Caesar was never beaten as proof of his greatness; a fact which is patently untrue (as I have pointed out) as he was in fact defeated in several battles. I refuted your suggestion that these defeats were minor by pointing out that in at least two of those cases, his biographers (and Caesar himself) were convinced that he could have lost the campaign decisively.

Point 2:
I nowhere in this thread (or anywhere else) stated that Gaius Julius Caesar was a failure. I stated that his invasion of Brittania was arguably a failure. If you intend to discuss, then please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I write.

Quote:

---

And again you repeat the britania invasion and you simply wont listen
he did not want to conquer the island but to cut the supply road to galia

---

Even if we accept this as his goal (and I'd suggest that this is a contentious issue); what evidence do you have that he succeeded in this? Rome received no recorded tribute from Britain, did not subsequently manage to stage any coverage of the coast, and in fact the expedition was apparently such a great success that a lot of Gauls thought its aftermath was the perfect time to revolt (resulting in the total loss of 15 cohorts).

Quote:

---

aha now caesar was unpopular , you really don't know that antonius controlled rome just because he was caesar right hand

---

If he did, Caesar can't have been very popular, as Cicero had no trouble wresting control of Rome from him after Caesar's death and driving him out of Italy, can he?

Quote:

---

go to the academy and shout it and take with you the books of ancient historians to make your point they in the academy will be glad to laugh a little

---

You'll find more than one ancient historian with distinctly negative attitudes to Caesar's "greatness"; not least with respect to his battle accounts which many "great" historians have considered little better than pure propaganda (e.g., the viewpoint that Caesar outnumbered his foes in most of his major battles is not an uncommon one). Suffice it to say that the academic community definitely has a more nuanced view of Caesar than you seem to think.

I am always happy to discuss history. If you feel the urge to actually discuss your viewpoints rather than trying to write sarcastic statements (most of which don't make sense in any case, since they seem to be mostly false where you want them to be true and vice versa), then:
- Firstly, read what it is I have written and please try to respond to that.
- Secondly, back up your position with facts from the actual sources.

If, as seems to be the case from your responses so far, you do not wish to do either of these things, I guess there is not much point in continuing our "discussion".

/Strategy

strategy
what about pompey and cleopatra , what about the facts on octavian and antonius , i made that up ?
as you know (or don't) when someone wish to make a statement like caesar was no great (then who was , ahenobarbus ?) he should give the evidence !!!
i let the fact talk for me , and here there are again :
1. he conquered gaul (and nearly doubled the roman empire)
2. he was the first man ever (since the celts) to invade britania (no matter what he achieved)
3. he overcame all his enemies (including sextus pompey who managed to escape to a little corner in africa and then established himself in sicily under octavian)
4. he never lost a combat even if he suffered setbacks and that includes the celtic tribes (several dozens) , the pompians , the alxandrians , farnaces , cato , scipio nasica , the iberians (in his praetura) , the belgae , several german tribes - i made that up you can be sure that the thracians and the parthians were next
5. he was the first roman ever that had the power in all the empire (sulla to control rome got an agreement with mithridates - don't forget that , sulla had the aristocracy on his side , caesar crashed the aristocracy - the first roman to do so , sulla was a restorator not a reformer , he did not have plans to extend the empire...)
6. caesar got control of the empire-republic by the commons so how you can say that they did not loved him
7. caesar was a great orator and a great wirter , is there any roman general who can be called a writer
8. caesar's name was so great that he was the first to be called a god and his name was the name of all the emperors (augustus was a title that became a name)
9. caesar was elected pontifex maximus at the age of 37 against harsh opponents , he got 5 consulates , 5 or 6 triumphs , 5 years as a dictator , he was proconsul 10 years whit out even visit rome
10. caesar had a unique personality - his clemencia , his cynicism , he did not take himself to seriously (he knew about the conspiracy but did not care) he was a gembler that always , always managed to get what he wanted
11. caesar established the calender that you are using (yes there was gregarious)

let the historians talk :
appian 1 , 4 - " a man who had become strongly committed to the popular cause ... his immense power . the people in fact missed him more then they had anyone else ..."
sir ronald syme " he was as great as a man can be ..."
sallust cat 54 " for himself he wanted a high command , an army and a war in some field where his gifts shin in all their brightness"
cicero to atticus 7 9 " ... caesar ... weak as he then was , he was more then a match for the whole state , so what do you think he will be like now"
cicero sel let 67 " but do you see what sort of man this is into whose hands the state has fallen , how clever , alert , well prepared ? ..."
plutarch caesar 69 " but that grear divine power or genius ..."
grant the world of rome " ... his clear , swift vision , intense intellect , and will of still .."

dear strategy , there is only one history , these are the facts it is up to you to bring proofs , not to me , i didn't say that scipio africanus was repeatedly beaten so i need not to prove it capish , this is science , 99 % thinks that 1 + 1 is 2 and 1 % thinks that its 3 , who should bring the proofs

veni vidi vici - oh yes he did
~:handball:

:dizzy2:

strategy
what about pompey and cleopatra , what about the facts on octavian and antonius , i made that up ?
as you know (or don't) when someone wish to make a statement like caesar was no great (then who was , ahenobarbus ?) he should give the evidence !!!
i let the fact talk for me , and here there are again :
1. he conquered gaul (and nearly doubled the roman empire)
2. he was the first man ever (since the celts) to invade britania (no matter what he achieved)
3. he overcame all his enemies (including sextus pompey who managed to escape to a little corner in africa and then established himself in sicily under octavian)
4. he never lost a combat even if he suffered setbacks and that includes the celtic tribes (several dozens) , the pompians , the alxandrians , farnaces , cato , scipio nasica , the iberians (in his praetura) , the belgae , several german tribes - i made that up ? you can be sure that the thracians and the parthians were next
5. he was the first roman ever that had the power in all the empire (sulla to control rome got an agreement with mithridates - don't forget that , sulla had the aristocracy on his side , caesar crashed the aristocracy - the first roman to do so , sulla was a restorator not a reformer , he did not have plans to extend the empire...)
6. caesar got control of the empire-republic by the commons so how you can say that they did not loved him
7. caesar was a great orator and a great writer , is there any roman general who can be called a writer
8. caesar's name was so great that he was the first to be called a god and his name was the name of all the emperors (augustus was a title that became a name)
9. caesar was elected pontifex maximus at the age of 37 against harsh opponents , he got 5 consulates , 5 or 6 triumphs , 5 years as a dictator , he was proconsul 10 years whit out even visit rome
10. caesar had a unique personality - his clemencia , his cynicism , he did not take himself to seriously (he knew about the conspiracy but did not care) he was a gambler that always , always managed to get what he wanted
11. caesar established the calender that you are using (yes there was gregarious)

let the historians talk :
appian 1 , 4 - " a man who had become strongly committed to the popular cause ... his immense power . the people in fact missed him more then they had anyone else ..."
sir ronald syme " he was as great as a man can be ..."
sallust cat 54 " for himself he wanted a high command , an army and a war in some field where his gifts shin in all their brightness"
cicero to atticus 7 9 " ... caesar ... weak as he then was , he was more then a match for the whole state , so what do you think he will be like now"
cicero sel let 67 " but do you see what sort of man this is into whose hands the state has fallen , how clever , alert , well prepared ? ..."
plutarch caesar 69 " but that grear divine power or genius ..."
grant the world of rome " ... his clear , swift vision , intense intellect , and will of still .."

dear strategy , there is only one history , these are the facts it is up to you to bring proofs , not to me , i didn't say that scipio africanus was repeatedly beaten so i need not to prove it , capish , this is science , 99 % thinks that 1 + 1 is 2 and 1 % thinks that its 3 , who should bring the proofs ?

veni vidi vici - oh yes he did
~:handball:

Your attempts to argue using broad generalizations (half of which are false anyway) is rather pointless, given that you are arguing against a position that I have never stated. ~:rolleyes:

Let me know when you actually bother to try and read and understand what I have written.

hhooouu
what arrogance
now you don't even try to answer my points
false ?? false ??
ronald syme is false ??
cicero is false ??
what is your argument anyway ?
leave it , it is not going anywhere

heil domitius ahenobarbus !!!
~:cheers: ~;) ~;) ~;)

This thread began well enough, exploring the general history of the republic. It stayed in the Entrance hall because new members where finding it easily.

But now it has turned from an examination of history to an opinion session on the relative 'greatness' of Roman historical figures, and then degenerated into personal spats.

This dictates closure of the thread, as further fruitful discussion cannot take place.

Thanks to all for your contributions to the topic. :thumbsup: Further discussion can be had in the Monastery https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=16