I believe we are talking about figures from the late Roman Republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy
Printable View
I believe we are talking about figures from the late Roman Republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy
My apologies. Although being pedantic wasn't Rome technically a Republic until the end. Certainly the Senate remained, in name if nothing else?
after the Princeps the Senate was nothing but a talking shop, i don't think it had any real power at all. what about the Praetorians, during a time didn't they do what they liked and killed emperors just for the fun of it.
I'm shocked too. This is a poll regarding the most interesting characters right?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Yes he was a step away from cold-blooded murder, and also the first general to march on Rome. However thats interesting! He also saved Rome from Mithradates the Great, became Dictator with a mandate, reformed Rome totally (although within a few years Pompey and Crassus tore them down), and resigned as Dictator to end his life with a (in his eyes anyway) a kick-ass party!
To me Sulla is an enigma, but hey... ...thats cool!:2thumbsup:
Oh, this also includes non-generals? Well, he wasn't really not a general, but Cato the Elder sure was something... ~:pimp:
Is he the guy who finished every sentence withQuote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
" Carthage MUST be destroyed!"
I voted "other",namely Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. Just as is noted above,he won practically all of Octavian's battles for him. There's no fancy way of disguiseing a cold,cruel b%tch named "fact".
Cato and the Boni (The ultra-conservative faction headed by Cato, which was the main political opponent to Caesar) were a bunch of ignorant couch generals. Defintely the worst.
The best, is of course Caesar. Who cares if he disobeyed orders from the senate by conquering Gaul? In the end it was for the complete benefit of Rome, the loot must have been massive. And he had no choice but to cross the rubicon, exile in the courts wouldve been his fate if he didnt.
"Carthago est delenda!" :viking:Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
The fact remains that he was the proximate cause of the collapse of the Republic. Besides, he did it out of ambition, not out of any love for Rome. He wanted to make himself popular with the masses, if Rome derived any benefit from that, it was completely incidental for Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
The senate wouldve fell sooner or later. Of all the reading iv done on it, it was basically a aristocracy. Headed by the big families like Brutus, Julius, Lucilius, capeo ect ectQuote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
And do you not think that Caesar was not one bit patriotic? He was a julius, one of the ancient families of rome, he didnt do it ALL for the public support, for the glory of rome must have been somewhere in the back of his head. Rome benefited tremoundsly from the amount of loot and slaves sent back, and rome could afford the manpower that Caesar spent conquering Gaul at the time. Its not like Gaul was some far off province like Parthia, it was a good investment on Rome's part.
I agree with you that the Senate was already in decay, and Caesar was just a catalyst to bring the whole system crashing down, (although it was Octavian that finished the job :crowngrin: ).
Also agree that Cato was a stubborn fool, who didn't know which end of a sword went where... :oops:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Caesar was, first and foremost out for himself, however, just about all aristocratic Romans wanted to be the best ROMAN, and wanted what they thought was best for Rome (well thats my belief anyway, they saw Rome as being better than anywhere else and wanted it to stay that way?). So I think that while he had selfish motives, he wasn't being malicious towards Rome, merely towards his enemies. And I don't think that Caesar's impact can be disputed.
BTW: @ holybandit, have you read Coleen McCollough's Masters of Rome series? It has a very similar argument to you, and they are some brilliant historical novels!
If he didn't know which end of the sword went where his suicide must have been awkward.
Had to go with Marius, though Octavian and Sertorius were a close second for me.
On Sertorius, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sertorius
Sorry, I should have emphasised: he was the proximate cause for the fall of the Republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
I don't deny that Rome benefited materially from his conquests in Gaul, but I was refuting your statement that he waged his campaign in Gaul for the good of Rome.
I have! I have! :couch: At least, up till Fortune's Favourite. I am now rereading the series, halfway through First Man in Rome. I was most amused by one particular anecdote: one of the new praetors of the year, Gaius Cornelius Scipio, was awarded the commission of Hispania Citerior. He refused to go, explaining honestly to the Senate that "I would rape the place." I lol'd. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
No mention thus far of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, and his brother Gaius. To my mind, one of the great "What Ifs" of history is whether the social/political upheaval of the period that led to the Republic's fall would have been sufficiently mitigated had the Gracchi succeeded in their reform efforts.
Two of the main factors in the unravelling of the Republic were class conflict and the post-Marian professional soldiers' loyalty to general over Republic. A Roman citizen's duty to remain under arms for the duration of a campaign often led to veterans who had fulfilled their civic duties only to return to find their land foreclosed upon and taken over by patrician landholders. This would often force the homeless veteran into the ranks of the urban unemployed, the driving force of the turmoil of the late Republic. Fewer enfranchised, landed citizens to fill the ranks of the legions also resulted in Marius' reforms, which, as others have noted, weakened a soldier's sense of duty to the state, and transferred it to his general.
Both Tiberius and Gaius attempted to address these issues but were thwarted. For instance, the Lex Sempronia Agraria, would have redistributed land that wealthy patricians held in contravention to Lex Licinia Sextia to some of these homeless veterans. This would have lessened popular resentment by reducing the disparity between plebian and patrician, as well as thinning out the ranks of the resentful urban masses. Further, it would have again expanded the recruitment pool for the legions, reducing the need for Marius' reforms.
Gaius' reforms included similar measures. Additionally, he sought to limit the time a citizen might be required to spend on campaign in order to allow a man to maintain his landholdings and not be driven into bankruptcy by carrying out his civic obligations. He also attempted to extend Roman citizenship to some of the Italian allies, a move which would have forestalled the Social Wars.
The threat posed by the Gracchi (and their sometimes extra-legal attempts to advance them) was such that both eventually had to pay with their lives, their reforms incomplete or rapidly undone. Had they succeeded, much of the chaos of the late Republic might never have occurred, and the likes of Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, Antony and Octavius, might never have had the opportunity to undermine, and eventually destroy, the very foundations of the Republic.
@ Quirinus: Me too, its a case of maybe being too honest? The reply 'I agree Gaius Cornelius, you would rape the place,' ... Classic, and irony. IMO Fortunes Favourites is probably the best book in terms of depth, the following three emphasise Caesar, and the final one Octavian and Antony. However, the amount of research and the imagination required to create a world that real staggers me!!!