Historical figures from the late Roman Republic...

[Vorenus]

Who, in your opinion, is the most interesting figure in the late Roman Republic era and why?

[Julian the apostate]

Marius reformed the legion and added an eagle and dominant military sign even to these days.

[Justiciar]

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.

[shlin28]

Cicero got my vote, without him we would lack a lot of infomation regarding that time. (I think)

[Vorenus]

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.

[Motep]

One of the reasons that I choose Marius.

(you stole my avatar...not a reason...)

[Vorenus]

One of the reasons that I choose Marius.

(you stole my avatar...not a reason...)

Really? Was the Republic that bad?


Hundreds of avatars and we choose the same one. Haha.

[Conradus]

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.

[The Wizard]

Lucius Licinius Lucullus. Screw Sulla and screw Pompey.

[seireikhaan]

I AM SPARTACUS!

[Somebody Else]

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).

[TinCow]

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.

[Spino]

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).

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.

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.

[Hound of Ulster]

Octavian. Boy he was a character, and the 'clan' he founded was something else too.

[Furious Mental]

Where is Cato on that list? He was such a clown.

[Furious Mental]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

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?

[CountArach]

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.

[King Kurt]

I AM SPARTACUS!

NO I AM SPARTACUS - I EVEN HAVE THE DIMPLE IN MY CHIN - KAMIKHAAN LOOKS MORE LIKE TONY CURTIS

[Vorenus]

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?

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.

All the republic needed was better control over the military and maybe better voting methods.

[CountArach]

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.

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.

[Caeser The III]

you forgot julius

[Mount Suribachi]

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....

[Furious Mental]

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.

[Paradox]

I'd have to go with Cornelius Scipio, Julius Caesar, and Cicero.

[Quintus.JC]

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?

[Quirinus]

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.

[CrazyGuy]

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)

[Paradox]

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.

[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.