Greatest Roman Figure

[M. Porcius Cato]

Caesar will always rank among the greatest because simply his name is synonomous with Rome. Personal feeling is irrelevant really. Whether we like it or not, the masses loved Caesar then, and in a way, they still love him now, no?

Servility and authority-worship are timeless.

 

Camillus is truly the first hero of Rome whose deeds can be believed (mostly) for the way they are written. Unlike Cincinnatus, whose entire story must be taken with a proverbial grain of salt, Camillus was a bonified heroic figure.

 

Yes, I agree--he was the father of his country, but a good father--one who lets his children grow up to become self-governing.

[phil25]

The world - in the sense of its various political entities, nations, countries etc - has been governed by forms of personal rule for far longer and far more effectively than it has been by representative or democratic governments.

 

If we consider civilisation as going back to say 3,500 BC (a fairly conservative estimate) then Egypt, Assyria, the Hittites and Mitanni - were all ruled by kings of some kind (called Pharoahs, emperors etc). China established itself under emperors. Later the Macedonians conquered the world under a king.

 

More recently, britain, France, Spain etc all founded great empires under monarchical rule.

 

So I find all this about "a good father [letting] his children grow up to become self-governing", pretty platitudinous. It isn't true for most of history.

 

You can almost trace those ideals back to 1776, and to the French Revolution which followed the American. It's about the last five minutes on the clock face. True some of those ideals were borrowed from the past - Greece, republican Rome, but democracy (or whatever term you wish to employ) was used then in an utterly different context to that of today.

 

So please, let's have some realism...

 

Phil

[P.Clodius]

Servility and authority-worship are timeless.

True. And it is the servilty of the senate and it worship of a diminished authority that is surely laughable!

[tflex]

The world - in the sense of its various political entities, nations, countries etc - has been governed by forms of personal rule for far longer and far more effectively than it has been by representative or democratic governments.

 

Yes I agree, democracy and being nice to your subjects never produced great empires. Ofcourse, Caesar recognized that early on and went about his business accordingly.

[Jimi]

I think we all agree that the republic system was good in building Rome internally and attarcting various allies from the region but Rome needed men like Caesar and Augustus to take them to the next level.

[Germanicus]

Anyone know what the attitude of Cato and the other Optimates was to the reforms of Sulla and his dictatorship ?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Anyone know what the attitude of Cato and the other Optimates was to the reforms of Sulla and his dictatorship ?

Cato's dad was dead before Sulla assumed power, and Cato was far too young to have much of an opinion. Plutarch reports that Cato's tutor introduced a very young Cato to Sulla, and when Cato saw how afraid everyone was of Sulla, Cato asked why hadn't been given a sword to liberate his country.

 

For the lovers of dictatorship, this will be unbelievable, but that's a good thing because they never see the tyrannicide's sword coming until it is too late.

[Germanicus]

Cato asked why hadn't been given a sword to liberate his country.

 

For the lovers of dictatorship, this will be unbelievable, but that's a good thing because they never see the tyrannicide's sword coming until it is too late.

 

If Cato or some other "tyrannicide" had have killed Sulla before he had a chance to reform the treason laws, the dispute that lead to Caesars march on Rome may not have occured. Cato hung his whole "Gallic Wars were illegal" arguement on those very reforms of Sulla, Cato should have thanked the dictator. Without those laws, the legality would probably not have been questioned by him.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato asked why hadn't been given a sword to liberate his country.

 

For the lovers of dictatorship, this will be unbelievable, but that's a good thing because they never see the tyrannicide's sword coming until it is too late.

 

If Cato or some other "tyrannicide" had have killed Sulla before he had a chance to reform the treason laws, the dispute that lead to Caesars march on Rome may not have occured. Cato hung his whole "Gallic Wars were illegal" arguement on those very reforms of Sulla, Cato should have thanked the dictator. Without those laws, the legality would probably not have been questioned by him.

 

Which is why it's a good idea not to let 9-year-olds decide political matters.

[senatus populusque romae]

Hello,everobody newbie here!

My vote most definetly goes to P. Cornelius Scipio: maybe it's too much to say that he saved Rome (he most certinly did,but not all on his own),but he can be considered as Roman prototype of warleader-strategist.Roman generals before him (and before II Punic war) haven't had the need of using clever strategies because they were relying on sole fact that Roman warfair style was enough to win battles (manipular system along with Roman training and discipline).Only facing the gratest general ever oposed to them,Romans realized importance of good generalship,and Scipio was first of Romans to do so: at battle of Ilipa he showed tactical genius of Hannibal's match,and after gaining his first command office (Spanish campaign),he practicaly had complete success (no battle lost), with pinacle at Zama.Maybe Caesar was more complete,but importance of Scipio was far greater: Rome desperately needed great general to beat Hannibal, and save City from anihilation, where in Caesar's case, he only determined the course of later Roman history(Rome surely would have existed even Caesar never had appeared, only that world history would differ in such case from ours with Caesar in it).Needless to say that after Punic wars,Rome's social and economic state deeply changed, creating favorable conditions for emerging of glory-hungered generals, whose primary trade was warfare (Sulla, Marius, Pompey, and offcourse Caesar), which ultimatly lead to end of Res Publica.Pre-Punic conditions were simply much different (no professional generals!),which only emphasizes the greatnes of Scipio's military genius,which saved Rome.

[P.Clodius]

Welcome SPQR, may you rapidly ascend the group of slaves. Any friend of Scipio is a friend of mine. Though Scipio was AWESOME, I reluctantly disagree.

[tflex]

Don't you think that Scipio's win at Zama had more to do with Carthage shortchanging Hannibal. Scipio had Rome to rely on. Rome suppots it's own and provided him with an army, weaponary, supplies, reinforcements etc. Poor Hannibal had no support from his country he practically had to earn everything. Basically, Carthage gave Hannibal the finger.

[P.Clodius]

Don't you think that Scipio's win at Zama had more to do with Carthage shortchanging Hannibal.

You're on the right track yes but not at Zama. Zama was the culmination of the Carthaginian policy, a policy that had been implemented atleast for the previous 16 years. This is one of Hannibal's few faults, he didn't secure his political position at "home". I put "home" in quotations because he hadn't been to Carthage since he was 9 years old. He was 22 when he took command of the Carthaginian forces in Spain. This brings to mind a paragraph I read just this afternoon.

 

"When Hannibal reached Italy he began his campaign with a bold offensive. Rome had been used to no system other than taking the offensive herself. To be driven to the defensive was so much of a novelty to her that it required the lesson of three or four bitter defeats to teach that there was something greater than her military audacity in the genius of Hannibal. The defeats, however, did teach Rome the necessary lesson. She went diligently to school to Hannibal, and first under Fabius, but more intelligently under Marcellus, began a system of what is called offensive-defensive, which was her only safety. From the time she did this, and put her ablest men to the front, the scale began to turn in her favor, because her body-politic was sound and her system right, and because the system of Carthage was blind in not supporting Hannibal, and her political structure feeble from the cornerstone up. While Rome was acting the patriotic part, and with military sense, Carthage was intent on nothing but the holding of Spain as a mere mart for trade." T.A. Dodge, Hannibal.

 

Pheew...That was some typing!

[senatus populusque romae]

Don't you think that Scipio's win at Zama had more to do with Carthage shortchanging Hannibal. Scipio had Rome to rely on. Rome suppots it's own and provided him with an army, weaponary, supplies, reinforcements etc. Poor Hannibal had no support from his country he practically had to earn everything. Basically, Carthage gave Hannibal the finger.

Yes,and no.Yes, for Carthage did deprive Hannibal of lot he needed, only proving that greater plan eluded them,allowing themselves to be petty and jealous of Hannibals great acomplishments.

No, for Zama was Hannibal's 1st and last defeat to Romans (actually not 1st, but former were small ang strategically unimportant),and allthough Scipio didn't outgeneralled him in that batlle (he simply well responded to each Hannibal's move),it was Scipio's course of actions he took (decision to attack Africa),that ultimatly lead to Zama,and Hannibal's final defeat.

As for Carthage screwing Hannibal up,that proved to be their undoing,and to take Rome victory less magnificent for that is, least to say, disrespect to the Rome's shiniest historical hour!

[tflex]

As for Carthage screwing Hannibal up,that proved to be their undoing,and to take Rome victory less magnificent for that is, least to say, disrespect to the Rome's shiniest historical hour!

 

It was one of Rome's shiniest hours and I don't want to take anything away from that. But my point was Scipio was a good general just not of the same caliber as Caesar.