Republic, Principate, Or Dominate

[pompeius magnus]

It was brown-nosing, and it wasn't even very original brown-nosing. Personally, I sort of liked it in spite of it's vapid references to his contemporaries, but it wasn't as good as Lucretius[/code]

 

Here you just proved my point, you say here that it wasnt as good as Lucretius, is there an official book on the point values each work got to rate them, if so please send it to me email me and I will send you an address kslice2k2@aol.com. This is my smartmouth way of saying that what you are claiming about Lucretius is your own opinion. We could argue all day long about what Roman work is the best, and get nowhere because we each have our own opinions. Personally I like Martial in terms of poetry and Livy in terms of all other literary work, so if I were to take a page from your book then Martial and Livy are the best, no to me I think they are the best, but to others it may be Horace, Sullust, Catullus, Virgil, or ever Lucretius.

 

Furthermore, my example about Ovid's text was an example, books meanings are not always easily seen by just reading the words, you have to take a step back and examine the book as a whole. And if you want to tell the professor with a phd in Mythology and an expert at latin, then Ill give you his email address and you can tell him yourself. The example I gave was showing that Ovid had another underlying cause for writing this and not to just have his head up the backside of Augustus as you claim they all did. Your theory on the matter of these Golden Age writers is just proposterous in its own respect. And as far as your first comment on my literary talents, I have read many of these texts in both English and Latin and have my own biases about them, I personally dont like Catullus' work, but that does not mean I think he is a terrible poet, I just prefer the Cynisism of Martial because it fits my personality as a bit of a sarcastic person. That is is for now, I look forward to future talks. Good day.

[tflex]

But tflex, the foundations of the Roman empire WERE laid down - and indeed largely completed - under a REPUBLIC!!

 

Pompeius' conquests in the east, the accession of Greece and Macedonia to the empire, Caesar's conquest of gaul - the taking over of Spain and Africa from Cathage, ALL happened under the republic.

 

The empire, is anything, stalled growth. Augustus played a bit with Germania but stopped expansion after the Varus disaster; Claudius conquered Britannia - but how does that compare to the earlier work of Caesar in the west or Pompeius is the east? Trajan extended the empire in Dacia and Armenia, but this was not long-lasting, and was relatively soon given up.

 

So I don't think your argument stands up.

 

phil

 

Phil, I agree with you to the point that the republic laid down the foundations for Rome to become an empire. But Caesars conquests were his own, the senate did not approve of his actions. Infact all the senate wanted was to keep him out of Rome fighting in Spain and Gaul hoping that somehow he would fail or get killed. Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by the senate. When they saw Caesar was succeeding they ordered him to disband his army and go back to Rome. Even though Rome was still a republic, Caesar was operating more so under a self imposed principate system than a republic. The republic had outlived it's time and was already faultering until Caesar started reforming it by centralizing the government

after he won the civil. Therefore you cannot credit the republic for Caesar's successful conquests if the republic was against him. The republic was good in the early years but it outgrew itself and would not have been able to maintain such a large empire that rapidly expanded from Caesar to Trajan.

Edited January 11, 2006 by tflex

[P.Clodius]

Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by the senate.

I think you might want to re-phrase that to "Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by some of the senate members." These senate members would number about 18 and were led by Cato.

Edited January 11, 2006 by P.Clodius

[tflex]

Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by the senate.

I think you might want to re-phrase that to "Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by some of the senate members." These senate members would number about 18 and were led by Cato.

 

I will refrase it this way. "Some of Caesars's conquests were considered illegal by some influential senate members led by the powerful Cato."

 

I would also add that the republic itself as a system conflicted with Caesar's conquests. Thats why the system failed because it prevented great generals like Caesar from breaking out and doing what they were born to do, which is to conqueur and rule or vise versa.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I would also add that the republic itself as a system conflicted with Caesar's conquests. Thats why the system failed because it prevented great generals like Caesar from breaking out and doing what they were born to do, which is to conqueur and rule or vise versa.

Caesar was BORN to conquer? Did he inherit that from his ancestor Venus? Wow, have you been drinking Caesar's Kool-Aid or what?!?

[Primus Pilus]

I would also add that the republic itself as a system conflicted with Caesar's conquests. Thats why the system failed because it prevented great generals like Caesar from breaking out and doing what they were born to do, which is to conqueur and rule or vise versa.

Caesar was BORN to conquer? Did he inherit that from his ancestor Venus? Wow, have you been drinking Caesar's Kool-Aid or what?!?

 

That's one thing Cato and I can happily agree upon. Lets keep the points within the realm of historical reality rather than the mythical.