Marcvs Licinivs Crassvs

I admit I had not heard of the work, I will have to take a look at it! Thank you for the reference.

Just a quick correction, it was the Battle of Colline Gate.

Let's not forget that Crassus backed Caesar to the hilt, financially anyway, so he must have some liking and confidence in the man, so what's to say that Crassus would have turned his back on the senate and chosen to support Caesar instead? Now there's a thought???? Btw welcome to the forum Marcvs Licinivs Crassvs. . That thought had crossed my mind, however, given the politics of the late republic, I would think he would do what was best for him, which would have been to side with the Senate and Pompey. Of course, conjecture like this leads to all sorts of unforeseen possibilities!! And thank for the welcome, I'm finding this forum fascinating!!

I don't know if I would agree with the notion of Crassus being a "pawn." In many ways he was better at manipulating the political atmosphere than his co-triumvirates, especially Pompey, who was abysmal at politics. Crassus often manipulated events in such a way that left Pompey the worse of the two, in a political sense. This can be seen as early as 70 BC, when a tribune expressed concern about the consuls feuding and Crassus played the better man, embracing Pompey and endearing himself to the citizenry (some evidence suggest that the tribune who did this was in fact one of Crassus' stooges). Consider also, that after the triumvirate had been formed, and Pompey and Caesar were beginning to exclude Crassus from power, Crassus manipulated events in Rome to such an extent that Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus had to meet again and re-establish their alliance in terms very favorable to Crassus (although it did ultimately lead to his death). I think an interest fact about Crassus that is often overlooked, is that he appears to have been more connected to the "optimates" than Pompey, who eventually became their champion. Allan Ward, in his book Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic (an excellent read that I highly recommend) drew attention to the fact that when the triumvirate was formed the senate often went to Crassus, hoping to play him against the other two, especially playing Crassus against Pompey. So I was curious what everyone's thoughts on this were. Do you think that the optimates were simply exploiting a rift that had long existed between the two, or do you agree with Ward's idea that the senate preferred Crassus over the others? And finally, another interesting question that he brings up, had Crassus been successful in his Parthian invasion, but Civil War still occurred, do we think that senate would have turned to him or Pompey or perhaps both? I know conjecture of this type is not necessarily accurate, but Ward raises the questions and I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss. Any thoughts?

I recently begun reading Rome and the Sword, and the author gives fairly convincing evidence that the sword used by the Romans prior to the gladius was the xiphos (the thrusting sword of the hoplites).

Though you make some good points, I would still consider Crassus a warlord. Though he was legally appointed to command the armies by the Senate, he used it as other had to his own ends. He did not immediately disband the army he used to crush Spartacus, for Pompey and himself camp outside Rome in order to have their triumph (Pompey) and ovation (Crassus). This move can be seen as a power play that ultimately ensured the consulships of both men in 70 BC. I would also say that warlord is an accurate term because warlords are people who generally retain power through through both civil and military power. Crassus rose to power mostly through war. His success under Sulla enabled him to amass some of his fortune, which in turn allowed him to maintain his political clout. I would agree with the idea that when compared to his contemporaries, his power was best represented by his master of politics (especially backdoor politics) and that he was more or less outshone by the military might of Pompey and then Caesar. However, I would still say he classifies as a warlord given his rise to power through the military and his successful campaign against Spartacus.

This is an interest topic, I've recently begun reading Rome and the Sword by Simon James. He talks about how the Latin City-States (Rome included) as having a warrior culture. The Romans, and Latins in General, were raised to be fighters and were actually excellent fighters. The book also talks about the fact that the Gladius was an excellent weapon for thrusting and cutting, but that thrusting was typically preferred, especially against Gauls who used large swinging swords, as they could duck under the swing and thrust at the groin, chest, and/or neck. More evidence of the Romans being good individual fighters can be gleemed from Caesar's Gallic Wars when two centurions rushed out to try and "outdo" the other. They broke from the ranks (Roman soldiers could be very disorderly ) in order to show off their fighting prowess. Just some thoughts.

Salve All, I wanted to see what everyone's opinion of Marcus Crassus is? I for one have always enjoyed reading about him and have studied him above most other Romans. I always felt that he was a relatively neglected warlord of the late republic. Any thoughts?