I've just been given all eight volumes of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
but i don't know what to look at first, i just want to pass the time with something interresting...
any suggestions?
Printable View
I've just been given all eight volumes of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
but i don't know what to look at first, i just want to pass the time with something interresting...
any suggestions?
8 volumes?
i've been plodding through them for the last couple of months and i have the unabridged version. so difficult to find, and the version i have only has six volumes. don't tell me he wrote more? the thing is lenghty. i'm on chapter 50 and dude jibber jabbers a lot and writes these convoluted sentences that skirt with dancing around what he's trying to allude to. i know it was the writing style of the time for any man of letters in england but i'd rather have a little less 'wuthering heights' style in my history and more bluntness.
mine has maps
If your interested in the rise and fall of the empire you might find this interesting as well.
I was very interested in the events of Teutonberg Wald (9AD) and I found some books that deal with the topic that I thought might be entertaining for those interested in the Roman Empire.
(Teutonberg Wald is one of the most important events in history. Without the events in Teutonberg forest in 9AD there would be no Germanic dialects as the people would have been subjugated by by the Romans like the peoples of Gaul. There would be no Germanic peoples to influence the evolution of english language and no Saxons to invade Brittan. Infact, there would be no Vandals to sack Rome some 400+ years later.)
The books I found most interesting when looking into this topic were:
History of the Art of War Within the Framework of Political History Volume2 -by Hans Delbruck
The Great Battles of Antiquity a Strategic and Tactical Guide to Great Battles that Shaped the Development of War - By Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose JR.
Book One has a nice overview of the empire, and is probably a good place to start. Personally, I'm going for straight though, in order. On Book Two at the moment, got a bit bogged down in all that blither about Christianity.
yeah Teatonburg forrest (Wald ) is indeed interresting '' Give me back my legions ! '', never thought about the fact that it was a part of the cause of the sacking of Rome, good thinking about that one...I would also read about Ceasar, I think he was one of the most brilliant generals of al time, which explainse how he managed to conquer gaul in 9 years, with not a single motorized thing in his army
somehow caesar is all ways remembered for his gallic campaign
for me he is the greatest general ever because of his victories over his roman opponents , he is the only general who had never beaten and he is the first man in history to rule the lands and seas from the english channel to parthia
all the emperors were called "caesar" after him
yes i know , there was before him one , alexi but he is another story
:book:
Before Ceasar there was Lucius Cornelius Sulla who was likely Ceasar's role model even though publicly Ceasar is known to have accused Sulla of buying the Consulship and when Sulla threatened him Ceasar is said to have replied "Considering that you bought it, you are absolutely right to call it your own.” But just because they had one public argument does not mean Ceasar did not secretly admire the accomplishments of Sulla and Pompey was given the title of Magnus(great) by Sulla. Before Ceasar said the "die has been cast" and marched on Rome Sulla did so. Sulla becomes the first dictator not to step down after his 6 month term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayven1
sulla was a great roman general , yes , he ruled rome for several years , but (a big but) he did not beat mithridates and he did not cocquered all his enemies like caesar did
sulla had sertorius is spain
sulla did not have a vision of conquering the world , his main goal was the restoration of the old government
Sulla was indeed the first dictator, but the populace didn't exactly love him..as a matter of fact it were dark day's for Rome. so i've read.
Ceasar on the other hand was loved, for his victory's but also for the way he ruled.
and I don't think Sulla was really loved for starting the civil war with Marius, although there is no doubt that he too was a brilliant general.
however I thought Ceasar beiing a cousin of Marius ( yes the same as above, and the Reformer from the game )didn't see Sulla as a role model, I would say he hated Sulla because that was the man who killes his uncle.
BTW correct me if I'm wrong here. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
Sulla did not kill Marius. Marius was jealous of Sulla. When Sulla wanted to take an army east to fight the King of Pontus Marius convinced the Tribune Sulpicius Rufas to force a vote in the peoples assembly that would give command of Sulla's army to Marius. Sulla had already left Rome with the army and upon hearing the news gathered his commanders and convinced them to join him in marching on Rome. Sulla marches on Rome with 6 legions and Marius flees. Sulla forces the senate and the peoples assembly(Comitia) to to do what he wants and leaves Rome in the hands of the newly elected Consul L. Cornelius Cinna. Now that Sulla has left Rome Cinna betrays him and allies himself with the outlaw Marius. Marius's forces retake the city and Marius is elected Consul along with Cinna. Marius now an old man dies shortly thereafter. Sulla eventually comes back to Italy rich with the spoils of his war in Asia and finds allies who assist him in his second march on Rome including Gnaeus Pomeius the younger(soon to get the title the great given to him by Sulla) and Marcus Crassus.
Ceasar has a brush with the dictator that nearly ends his life. Sulla hated Ceasar because he felt Ceasar was to much like Marius. What Sulla did'nt realize is that Ceasar was not at all like Marius. Ceasar was just like Sulla and yearned for the same things. Sulla condemns Ceasar to death because Cinna, the consul who betrayed him after he left Rome the first time, nominated Ceasar as Priest of Jupiter(Flamen Dialis). Ceasar left Rome slipping by the soldiers sent to kill him. Sulla eventually pardons Ceasar but comments on how much he thinks Ceasar is just like Marius.(Gotta look up the phrase. Can't remember now.) Sulla does however order Ceasar to divorce Cinna's daughter but Ceasar refuses. For this Sulla confiscates Cinna's daughters dowery.
From all of this we can see that Sulla is really the model Ceasar follows. You don't have to like a person to lust for what they have and study how they achieved it. Ceasar wanted to be just like Sulla and his actions mirror it. Ceasar himself says that he did not mean to emulate Sulla but his actions prove otherwise. Ceasar could fool the people but he could not fool the elite into thinking he was any better or his actions were any different than those of Sulla. Ceasar declared himself Patron of the people.. The people loved Ceasar because Ceasar would hand out money and food to them. Could you imagine a presidental canidate that at his election rallies gave out money to the potential voters? He'd be popular too I bet.
To answer one other person who posted here:
Ceasar did defeat all his enemies but he was not the only Roman to do so. Octavian is by far the most successful and first true Emperor of Rome.
"I see many Marius' in him" Talking to his trusted General, Just after letting him go.
Rayven1: I agree Lucius Cornelius, certianly hated Gauis Juilius.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla,
Real name Lucius; Surname Cornelius; Family branch, or nickname Sulla.
He was certianly not the first Dictator of Roma. There is a long line of them, including Marius himself.
The Emporers did not call themselves Ceasar.
They where Augustus Ceasar. You have to take the two words together to understand the meaning.
In truth, Augustus Caesar Augustus, or Octaivian, was not an Emporer, but a First Citizen.
Ceasar, pronounced, in Latin, (Latino), kaye-SARR. Went on to mean, a leader, or a King.
Where as Augustus means "Reverred one".
NOTE: Latino means a Latin, Someone from Romanus Latin origin, it does not mean a Hispanic from some place in the America's, as some like to claim.
The Best example to explain this, is the "Rule of four".
Two Augustii, or Augustus Caesar, and Two under-studies, Caesar.
Caesar in later writing, tends to lean more to King. Whereas, Augustus is an Emporer.
Remembering, that after Constantines offical Acceptance of Christanity, the Emporer's are also head of the Roman Church on Earth. With Power to appoint popes. Yes, Even the vatican.
Now days Caesar means Emporer in most general language. From Russian (Tzar) to German(Kaiser).
My Apolegies to all, i am on my way to a meeting and called in. Please forgive spelling, and it is just a general run down as i haven't time like i use too, and a full run down and proper explaination would take a page or so.
fenir
(back and Forth)
PS: I want to go back in time to uni.
what a mass
marius never became a dictator , sulla was the first dictator (in 82) since 201
marius wife was caesar aunt
caeser really saw in sulla model but just in the way he took power
again , sulla did not finished
all his enemies and not conquered mithridates
all the emperors took the name caesar with the title augustus
caesar was a name that became a title , augustus was a title that became a name
give me another example for a name , just a name that became a symbol of emperors , kings and even sha's
augustus successes came from only one thing - he was caesar only relative
caesar veterans choose octavianus as their leader just because caesar mentioned him in his will
all of augustus secseses were diplomatic , he was no general at all , he did not came to power by himself but again , on his adoptive father body
augustus was a great man but not a successful soldier , he lost some battles only to be saved by agrippa
please , there is only one history
:book: :book: :book:
i just learnt that the roman army (imperial or rebublic) used the pilum in a running matter, not as in RTW where your soldiers stops, picks the pilum, throws it and then begins the charge, instead they did the whole pilum throw in one (swift cant be right?) motion while running in formation. if this is true then wow, talk about skill :bow: anyway there the link where i found it:The Century's Charge
Really sorry if this is a bit out of the subject, because I have no idea about this part of the world's history, but what would be today's Armenia? What part did they take in the history of the Roman history?
Thaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo_longsword
hi
armenia , from about 55 bce to the fall of the roman empire was a buffer state to separate the dominions of the romans and the parthians and then the persians
the two civilizations fought for centuries to control armenia
the armenians managed to stay independent because of their strategic location
:book:
Thanks caesar44.
Would you know what would be today's Armenia? Or what is Armenia's Land today?
Thanks again.
R
Caesar was defeated both at Gergovia and Dyrrhachium, which definitely classify as "beatings". His first expedition to Britain can also arguably be considered a failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Scipio Africanus the Elder laid the foundation for the Roman empire, fought one of the best generals of the ancient world, and was never defeated in battle.
His impact on Roman folklore was so powerful that more than a 100 years after his death, Caesar had to think off a stratagem to keep his soldiers from being demoralized during the fighting against Scipio's distant descendant in Africa.
Julius Caesar - A biography
Scipio Africanus - A biography
I never said Marius became or was a Dictator. "caeser really saw in sulla model but just in the way he took power" -- My point exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
"give me another example for a name , just a name that became a symbol of emperors , kings and even sha's" --- Augustus. The honor given to Octavian. August - adj. Inspiring awe or admiration; majestic: the august presence of the monarch. Venerable for reasons of age or high rank.
I agree that it does not ring through time the way the name Ceasar does though but you have to understand why Ceasars name is so popular.
Ceasar declared himself patron of the people! Ceasar started handing out money and food to the poor. This has gotten more then one person killed before Ceasar.(I do believe a senator was beat to death with the chairs that the patrons who were watching his speech were sitting on and his body was thrown in the Tiber) Remember that there was no such thing as a "fair" election the way we have them today. Your patron gave you food and money and in exchange you agreed to vote for him. Remember the power of the mob(as in lots of poor people not organized crime ~:) ) Ceasar appealed directly to the mob upsetting the elite and breaking from tradition. While the elite hated Ceasar for this the people loved him. The final straw was asking the people to elect him dictator for life unlike... The people loved Ceasar and found the leadership of the dictator to be more desirable than the empty promises of the republic. From this we can see the triggers that cause the civil unreset when the senate conspirators killed Ceasar. The Liberators as the senators called themselves thought they were doing the people a favor. The Senators could not see past their own station and could not associate the popularity of Ceasar with the failings of the republic.
-"augustus successes came from only one thing - he was caesar only relative
caesar veterans choose octavianus as their leader just because caesar mentioned him in his will
all of augustus secseses were diplomatic , he was no general at all , he did not came to power by himself but again , on his adoptive father body
augustus was a great man but not a successful soldier , he lost some battles only to be saved by agrippa"-
One could argue that Augustus the most important leader in Roman history. First Augustus learned well from the mistakes of Sulla and Ceasar and made good use of the lessons he learned. Like Sulla and Ceasar before him Octavian too marched on Rome securing the city and forcing his will upon the senate. Octavian was a general but that is not his main claim to fame or even what he was best at. Augustus was a master politican. Augustus was a man who realized that it was not only important to defeat the enemy in the field but it was important to address the underlying issues that caused the problems in the first place. More on Augustus another time since I have to leave work but he is seriously the most successful Roman in history if we look at all the things he achieved.
(BTW: I'm hoping this is still a friendly conversation. I senced a bit of irritation there. I'm enjoying myself talking about this topic.)
hi rayven 1
talking about roman history make my wife crazy...
now , we agree that augustus was the greatest roman emperor (think about tragan who actually had the name optimus - the greatest of them all)
but we have differences about who was the greatest roman ever
caesar had many things that augustus did not have
1. a military genius
2. the ability to look at things with perspective (he did not took himself to seriously)
3. a philosophic/literaturic ability (his books , his responses to cato)
4. caesar acted many times as a gambler , and always with success , augustus on the other hand when his general lost in 9 ad decided to bring the roman expand to an end
and so on
:book:
1. in the bottom line caesar took gergovia so what are we talking aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Strategy
2. dyrrahachium was just a prolog for farsalus and we all know what happened there
3. a first ever expedition to britania and you call it a failure , caesar achieved exactly what he wants - to cut off the supply line from britania to gaul
when we talk about loosing a battle we should look at the outcome - crassus lost it in 53 bc , varus in 9 ad , but caesar always managed to get out of it with the upper hand
i think that scipio is one of the 3 great roman republicans ever (like momsen)
but we should remember that he beaten hanibaal 17 years after his italian expedition , in this 17 years the punics lost everything they had (italy , hispania , sicily most of africa and so on)
hanibaal of 201 is not hanibaal of 218 , wars are not football matchs (hanibaal vs scipio ets) to say that scipio won the second punic war is to ignore the achievements of fabius , marcelus and scipio own father and uncle
history ia not so simple
:book: :book:
In fact, he never did succeed in taking Gergovia.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
That was quite an ingenious answer. The loss of 32 standards, being forced to retreat into unfriendly territory, and the near entrapment and destruction of Domitius's forces says otherwise. So does Caesar, for that matter; even he was ready to admit that Dyrrhachium could have been the end of him.Quote:
2. dyrrahachium was just a prolog for farsalus and we all know what happened there
Question: If the first mission was such a success, then why did he have to go there again the year after? Even the Ancient authors (e.g., Plutarch who I quote on the subject in the article above) didn't buy that one.Quote:
3. a first ever expedition to britania and you call it a failure , caesar achieved exactly what he wants - to cut off the supply line from britania to gaul
Of course I almost forgot Ruspina; as usual glossed over in the Commentaries, but yet another battle in which Caesar is badly beaten and only saved from total destruction by the incompetence of his opponents. The battle apparently made the term "Caesar's Luck" proverbial for a while (cf. Appian).
And while luck is a great attribute for a General to have, it doesn't change the fact that Caesar was beaten - repeatedly.
And, this affects the discussion how?Quote:
but we should remember that he beaten hanibaal 17 years after his italian expedition , in this 17 years the punics lost everything they had (italy , hispania , sicily most of africa and so on)
True enough; Hannibal of 202 was a vastly more experienced commander than Hannibal in 218, and thus a far better General when Scipio met him at Zama than he had been at Cannae.Quote:
hanibaal of 201 is not hanibaal of 218 ,
Ive Gibbons *masterpiece* ive read most of it that interested me, and didnt find it to hot to be honest, i havent read it all and its a shortened version but still massive, however i just couldnt get into it.
Ceasar (Gaius Julius) was truly a great person. But to call him the greatest of all is mistake. He was not a master tactician nor a master strategist. For example; In one battle with the Gauls (can't remember where or when, sorry) his troops were completly surrounded. What he did was the probably worst thing he could do - he charged in both directions. Yet he got extremley lucky and got away with it. The sole reason the Roman troops didn't flee is because they knew if they deserted their whole unit would be tortured and some even to death. That's the reason for the success of their armies. Strict discipline and organization that nowhere in the ancient world could be found.
Ceasar was only special that he was the first of many generals that would use his own troops against Rome herself. Yes, his own troops. He took every drifter, petty criminal, vagabund he could find and give them food, shelter and training. He made men out of nobody. After they were too old to fight he gave them land in newely conquered areas thus expanding Romes power directly. In the ancient Rome, if you didn't have land, you were nobody. That's why his troops were loyal to him instead of senate. Caeser inventioned pension plan... When he was called to Rome, and was specificaly told to leave his troops behind, he knew that his greatest rival general will kill him, the rest is history...
If you ask me what's the greatest person from Roman times, it has to be Cinncinatus. For those of you who don't know, he was a noble man that lived a life of simple folk. One day he got elected for the dictator to defend Rome from the enemy. He dropped his plow and took his sword. Once he banished the enemy, he still had a couple of months left to rule and govern all roman people as he wished. Since he had power over every life and death in Rome he could have ordered that everybody must be painted blue and walk the streets on their hands if he wanted so, and he could get away with it too. However, on the day of his victory he stepped down from the office of dictator and returned to his plow.
What made Rome itself great? It wasn't the fact that they ruled whole know world in their day... It was the fact that an etruscan king made the first census in the world. After they got rid of etruscans, Romans sweared that they'll never be under a king again. They used the census to know how many people Rome had, thus general public voting became a possibility. A truly organised republic. Of course the greeks had republic long before Rome was a collection of mud shacks, but Rome wasn't a simple collection of small bickering tribes. The ability for a state to be that highly organized is what made Rome great. Of course the Greece was conquered! Each greek army had 10 or more generals that could give out orders with equal importance. They needed a lengthy counsel each time to perform a simplest flank!
wow
caesar was a failure , he was beaten repeatedly , repeatedly
this is new history
caesar was beaten repeatedly...
you could have an argument until now
let us rewrite history - caesar did not conquered gaul , did not beat all of his enemies including pompey the great , did not took egypt with 3,000 man , did not invade britania (for the only time in 100 years) , did not rule an empire alone tor the first time ever , did not became a common hero as a dictator , he did not establish an empire for centuries , no no , he was beaten repeatedly by the gauls , by the britons , by ahenobarbus or calvinus or something like that and most of all - by the descendants of scipio in mauritania or numidia or africa
oh plutarch , cicero , saliustius , appianus , dio cassius , paterculus ets
did you not noticed that caesar was beaten tepeatedly
i rest my case
:wall:
by the way , caesar was kidnapped by pirates in 75 , you could add it to his defeats
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
LOL!! I liked the 75 pirates thing. I don't think anyone is trying to say Ceasar was a failure. Ceasar was a great general but he was bad at politics and had very little tact when it came to pushing his domestic agenda forward. He tried to change to much all at once. To Ceasar's credit he was a big success when it came to destroying the republic ~:)
" he did not establish an empire for centuries , no no "
Actually your right about that. Augustus established the principate. Ceasar mortally wounded the republic but Augustus finished it off and established the empire.
BTW: Someone said Augustus was no General. That person would be very wrong. Augustus was incharge of operations during the civil war and he beat Anthony , Sextus, Lepidus and the Liberators that remained. Regardless of reverses ultimate victory would always fall to Augustus. It was under Augustus that we see the Pax Roma.
Ok, I know someone will mention that while Augustus was emperor we see the destruction of 3 legions in Germany in 9AD under Varus. Remember that at this point Augustus had nothing really to do with the day to day operations of the military like he did during the civil war. Also remember that it was while Augustus was Emperor that Drusus subjegated the Germans in the first place and if it was'nt for Tiberius's fear of a Roman general controling troops for years on end Germanicus would have re-conquered Germany more than likely. If we look at the supply routes along the Lippe established by Germanicus we can see that he solved Drusus's supply problem and gave Aliso a line of supply and communication back to Vetera(Roman fort on the Rhine)
For those interested is some short quick stories on world history on the below sites that are easy to read
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/
http://www.thehistorynet.com/
Some that apply to this time persiod
http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blhannibalrome/
Hannibal's Epic March Across the Alps to Rome's Gates
In 218 bc, Hannibal Barca left Iberia to take the Second Punic War to Rome -- leading a disparate 84,000-man army.
By Daniel A. Fournie
A powerful army stood poised to cross the Ebro River into northern Spain, comprising soldiers from many peoples and cultures. Yet heterogeneous as the force was, most all of them were veterans of two decades of continuous warfare. It was a cohesive army built for speed and shock, and it answered to one man and one will -- Hannibal of Carthage. Swift light cavalry from the desert plains of Numidia screened the main body from curious or hostile eyes. Past this barrier the army stretched for miles: massed squadrons of Iberian cavalry and infantry; mercenary Balearic Islanders, trained from childhood in the art of the sling; archers; javelin men from the tribes of North Africa; mighty elephants plodding forward like mobile watchtowers; veteran Libyan spearmen -- more than 80,000 men all told.
Hannibal Barca of Carthage had brought this army to the banks of the Ebro in a fateful year, 218 bc. Ten years earlier, the Senate and people of Rome had forbidden the Carthaginians to cross that river on pain of war. Now nothing could please Hannibal more. The young general was resolved not only to cross the Ebro but also to conduct an epic march across the Pyrenees, on through Gaul, over the Alps and into Italy to threaten Rome itself.
and this one
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...oman/fall.aspx
Dreams of Empire
The Fall of the Roman Republic (Part 1)
by Addison Hart
"The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice." - Cicero
Introduction
Early in the first century BC, a Roman teenager from a minor patrician family visited Nicomedes, King of Bithynia. On his return trip to the city of Rome, the historian Plutarch tells us that “he was captured by pirates near the island of Pharmacusa. At that time there were large fleets of pirates, with ships large and small, infesting the seas everywhere.” When the boy was first captured, the pirates demanded that the family pay twenty gold talents for his safe return, but it was soon upped to a good fifty talents when the boy told them that they did not understand the importance of their new prisoner. The boy sent most of his companions away to earn the money, and he was left alone with the pirates. The boy was not at all intimidated by the villainous pirates, and for thirty-eight days he lived with them, and they grew to respect the boy, and they even began to grow a sort of bond with him. The boy once, in a jovial manner, said to them that he would one day have them crucified. They laughed with him then.
The boy was released when the pirates received their ransom money, and he made his way to the city of Miletus, governed by one Junius. There he demanded that the pirates be pursued, and they were surprised on their island and captured by the Romans. The boy then ordered Junius, governor of Asia, that the pirates “be brought forth and crucified.” So says Plutarch, “Thus he carried out the threat which he had often made to the pirates when he was their prisoner. They had never imagined that the boy should be taken seriously.” That boy was Julius Caesar.
can read more of the stories there
hhhmmm
nice
~:cheers:
Yes, as already pointed out. Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, and Ruspina are all Caesarian defeats. He won a lot too; but that doesn't change facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
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:Quote:
oh plutarch , cicero , saliustius , appianus , dio cassius , paterculus ets
did you not noticed that caesar was beaten tepeatedly
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).Quote:
i rest my case
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.
Plutarch's "Lives" is a primary source for information about Caesar. Others you'll want to read are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
"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
This comes from Conn Iggulden's Emperor Series :)Quote:
"I see many Marius' in him" Talking to his trusted General, Just after letting him go."
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. ;)
That's a very nice website and thanks for the suggestions. I think I'll start with Suetonius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strategy
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 Proletariat
Interesting. Considering somewhat similar warnings I had heard about Livy, I guess these Romans historians weren't much for objectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
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.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...
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.
If you really want gossip, Suetonius is your man. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
so "he who know history better then me" if caesar was a failure thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Strategy
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.
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:
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
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:
aha now caesar was unpopular , you really don't know that antonius controlled rome just because he was caesar right hand
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.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
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