Who, in your opinion, is the most interesting figure in the late Roman Republic era and why?
Printable View
Who, in your opinion, is the most interesting figure in the late Roman Republic era and why?
Marius reformed the legion and added an eagle and dominant military sign even to these days.
What he said.
I don't claim to be that well informed regarding this era, though from what I know of him, Gaius Marius seems to have been a genuinely moral person, as well as a brilliant reformer. He defended the Republic on any number of occasions, made it's army (and perhaps to some extent, the state itself) much more socially equal, and died defending the city from Sulla. Not a bad lad.
Cicero got my vote, without him we would lack a lot of infomation regarding that time. (I think)
Yes, Marius was a good guy. But, what about his struggle with Sulla?
He was partially responsible for Sulla's march on Rome. The Republic was torn apart by this struggle between him and Sulla.
One of the reasons that I choose Marius.
(you stole my avatar...not a reason...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
Really? Was the Republic that bad?
Hundreds of avatars and we choose the same one. Haha.
Caesar, a great general and politician and a briliant orator.
Though honestly I think it's the mix of all those great figures that makes the last century of the Republic so interesting.
Lucius Licinius Lucullus. Screw Sulla and screw Pompey.
I AM SPARTACUS!
Most interesting - Octavian, though he should burn in hell for all eternity for destroying the Republic, as should J.C. and the rest for bringing it about.
Favourite - I'm going to join Baba Ga'on with Lucullus; great general, instrumental in defeating Mithradates (though Pompey stole all the glory) who was betrayed by his men and his peers. Possibly also Cassius and/or Brutus - for trying to restore the Republic (though, IMHO, Brutus was an idiot).
Easily Octavian. I view him as the ultimate (in more ways than one) Republican politician. He played the system better than any of them. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caeser, Brutus, Lepidus, Marc Antony, etc. all tried to do the same thing he did in their own particular ways, but they all failed. Octavian succeeded, which is all the more remarkable considering his young age, his relative inexperience, and his start as a major underdog. Top it off with the fact that he became (arguably) the best Emperor that Rome ever had, and you have a supremely impressive figure. During his life he was a living God for a very good reason: he dominated the political scene of Rome more completely than any other man in history. Many other men embodied the Republic better than Octavian (I tilt my hat towards Cicero in particular), but in Imperial Rome he has no equal.
The rise of the Roman Empire was inevitable. Julius Caesar and Octavian aside the Republic was destined to be dissolved or rendered irrelevant one way or another. The fact that one bold, audacious man could send the Republic tumbling down like a house of cards speaks volumes as to the validity and stability of the Roman government at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
One could also argue that the excellent Marian Reforms helped hasten the end of the Republic. Marius may have created one of the most effective military machines in history but he also created an entity whose loyalties to the state became questionable. In the post-Marian era expediency and the needs of Rome's ever expanding borders often demanded that these armies be funded in part or entirely by the generals who led them. In most cases these generals were actual statesmen who, by nature of their personal ambitions, created reasons for Rome to go to war so that they could raise a personal army and conquer with the intent of accumulating more power and glory. The fact that the average Legionary became highly dependent on his general and benefactor for pay, incentives and his very survival meant that it was simply a matter of time before the man who controlled the largest and most effective Roman army ultimately became the man who ruled Rome.
Octavian. Boy he was a character, and the 'clan' he founded was something else too.
Where is Cato on that list? He was such a clown.
Where is Cato on that list? He was such a clown. Also, where is Agrippa? He pretty much won all Octavian's battles for him.
I'm curious, why do you think that? Is it because you think republic is inherently better than empire (monarchy), or do you think that Rome in particular would be better off as a Republic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
Sertorius is the most interesting in my opinion. Beign able to run a successful rebellion with a political system based on that of the people you are rebelling against is not something that can be done often.
NO I AM SPARTACUS - I EVEN HAVE THE DIMPLE IN MY CHIN - KAMIKHAAN LOOKS MORE LIKE TONY CURTISQuote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Well, I think it would have been better off as a republic. Having a republic ensures that you don't get people such as Caligula and Nero having absolute control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
All the republic needed was better control over the military and maybe better voting methods.
Yeah, instead you get Marius and Sulla having absolute control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorenus
you forgot julius
I think one of the reasons that the late Republic is so popular is because there were so many great (but still flawed) men. And the fact that the likes of Cicero and Caeser left permanent records for us all.
I couldn't choose a favourite (though I voted for Caesar), but I can tell you my *least* favourite - that muppet Cato, and his pig-headed belief that blind stubborness = virtue. You want to blame someone for the fall of the Republic? There's yer man....
I would probably blame Marius. His reforms to the army were the major precondition for extraordinary commands, private armies, and so on. But I don't dislike Marius or any else for this. Whether or not a state 2000 years ago was a republic or a principate makes no difference to me. It seems to have made the Romans happy to have a stable and powerful state.
I'd have to go with Cornelius Scipio, Julius Caesar, and Cicero.
Everybody has done their bits in history. I personally like Augustus, brilliant adminstrator, not a great general but had the loyalty of the army, Augustus was the first of the Imperators and perhaps the greatest of them all. why isn't Marcus Apprippa there? he practically won the Roman empire for Augustus. and what has Lepdus done?
Egads! I'm only the second person to pick Sulla? As abhorrent the proscriptions late in his career may be, it's hard to deny that his story is one of the more fascinating ones, even among the collossi of the late Republic.
Why isn't Aetius mentioned?
The 'Last of the Romans'. OK, you can argue he didn't have a lasting effect but look at his achievements. I also have a sneaking suspicion that he wasn't driven by personal advancment (Ceaser, cough, cough)
Caesar was an ambitious figure, but that is most certainly not a valid reason to discard him. He has proved to be a great general and benefited the republic well, he is a hero of Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyGuy
Ceaser may have been a 'great general' but the question of whether he benefited the Romans is ambigious. Patton may have been a great general, but if he attacked the Russians in 1945 (as he wished) and disobeyed the orders of his commander he wouldn't be remembered in the same light. Ceaser may have won many battles (and lost a few as well), but he also disobeyed an order from his commander-in-chief (the Senate). Regardless of his motives, that removes the sheen from his record.
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!!!