Greatest Roman Figure

[Julia C]

Fascism comes from the Latin fasces, which is the bundle of rods tied together representing state authority. Etymologically, that's all it refers to.

 

But insofar as Mussolini was the creator of fascist ideology, it refers to an extremist militaristic authoritarianism that features totalitarian controls and at least some aspects of xenophobia in order to inflame nationalist sentiment. See Francisco Franco and Adolf Hitler for other takes on fascism, one of which was a little more mild and the other was far more extreme.

[Gaius Octavius]

[quote name='Julia C

[Julia C]

Absolutely not. He was the precise opposite. Stalinism, however, shares many characteristics of fascism but the goal was different.

 

In fascism, the state was held above all. In communism, there was to be no state. Stalin modified this a little bit in that there would be no states, just a universal communist umbrella centered around what used to be Russia.

 

Sometimes it's important to ask how different fascists and Stalinists really were. Sometimes, there isn't much and sometimes there's a world of difference. For instance, when fascists throw out mounds of propaganda, they really want people to believe it. When Stalinists do so, they use it as a means to an end--but exaltation of the state isn't the end itself.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Julia C

[tflex]

If Caesar and Octavian were alive today, we'd recognize them for what they were--fascists.

 

Fascists or non-fascists, they built the greatest empire that stood the test of time.

[coolgolfer]

I would have to say that will all the pickering about Ceasar that i have read through out this forum disscussion, I would have to say that everyone made alot of good points about Ceasar's successes and about his failures.

 

But I will have to say that Tobias statement below is on target. It all comes down to Jealousy. Which of course is all know as greed/ambition whcih all plays a big part in the murder of Ceasar.

 

I truly believe that if Ceasar wasn't murdered, Ceasar career and leadership would have been just as great as Octavian's was politically and militarily.

 

There is one question that has puzzled me for a long time. As many would have heard in many readings, there have been discussions about Ceasar's next military campaign. From my understanding ceasar was planning a campaign again the Parthian's right around the time of his asasination. What I would like to know if whether Ceasar would have been successful on conguering the Parthian's/Parthian empire as he did Gual and many other previous campaigns? any thoughts?

 

 

Dignitas played a large part.

 

Precisely. I believe it is the case with most of Caesar's roman enemies; from Pompey and the Boni to the conspirators in his murder; when they looked at Caesar, they saw someone who was great in almost every way, a person who was better than them in almost every way. Antonius housed ambitions from his early days in service with Caesar in gaul to be as great as Caesar, but he would never be able to come close to achieving that. This is similar for many; they wished to be able to build up their own personal standing in Roman society and history, and they were envious of Caesar for having the unparalleled ability to have built up a dignitas that made their own pale into insignificance in comparison. That is probably the majority of the motivation for these peoples turning on Caesar; that old, little black monster called Jealousy.

[athenian1977]

The greatest of all , Caligula (!)

[Neos Dionysos]

[quote name='Julia C

[Julian]

I find these sort of questions too difficult to give a definitive answer. I doubt that a 'greatest' even existed. So many depend upon so many others to be even given a chance.

 

Nevertheless, I will try my best.

 

Who is the most prominent Roman leader?

 

The most prominent? I take it we are speaking generally? Well among those unschooled in the subject, it must be Julius Caesar. No other Roman is as well known. Second to him is most likely Tiberius because of his association with Christianity.

 

Which single person did the most to make Rome the most powerful Empire ever known?

 

Rome was the most powerful empire ever known? That's news to me. My money's on the British empire.

 

That out of the way; I must remain non commital. No Roman alone made Rome what it became. No single Roman destroyed it. Julius Caesar's success would not have been possible without the victory won by Scipio Africanus. There may never have been an Emperor of not for Julius Caesar and Augustus, etc etc.

 

 

When you think of Rome which leader first comes to mind?

 

It depends. I think of many people when I think of Rome. Many never became leaders. Julian is atop my list, but I do regard him as an overly superstiscious and naive individual. I think of him when I think of what was lost to us in regards to genius, and the onset of ignorance. i.e. the growth of Christianity, the destruction of logic and the beginnings of the Dark ages.

 

When I think of military arms, I think of Caesar, Augustus, Constantius, Constantine etc etc. But then, I am an enthusiast after all.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Julian

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

this has been a very interesting topic and i've learn't a lot of things i previously didnt know, but after listening to all the arguments for and against the candidates i've come to the conclusion that it is pretty much impossible to name one solitary figure to be the greatest roman. if it was a poll to find the most well known roman then caesar would win hands down , but its not. the simple fact is that rome has had many great men in its history and to pick only one just isn't fair!!

 

 

well thats my opinion anyway guys

 

 

 

 

maximus

[tflex]

Yes, but if we were to name one individual, I would put them in this order.

 

1. Julius Caesar

2. Scipio Africanus

3. Augustus

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Yes, but if we were to name one individual, I would put them in this order.

 

1. Julius Caesar

2. Scipio Africanus

3. Augustus

 

 

as i said it would be very difficult to pick just one, but i dont think many people will argue with the three you have chosen, maybe not in that order, i think caesar has the edge on scipio, both were great generals there's no doubt but caesar had charm and charisma and that i liked, where as augustus was not as greater general but was by far a better statesmen, he set the foundations for the empire that was to last another 400yrs . but all in all i applaud your selection there is no better three romans(in my opinion )

[Neos Dionysos]

In no particular order...

 

Constantine

Aurelian

Valentinian

Theodosius

[Lex]

In no particular order:

 

Julian

Constantine

Diocletian

Augustus

Edited May 29, 2006 by Lex

[Gaius Octavius]

It seems that 'the greatest' boils down to Caesar and Scipio and maybe Augustus. Try this: Alexander fought oriental mobs; Caesar fought the likes of Vercingetorix; Scipio fought Hannibal. Insofar as generalship is concerned, beating Hannibal was the greater task. If I recall correctly, Scipio had the two disgraced legions from Sicily amongst his legions, so his legionaries weren't all of the 'best'. In the end, Scipio fell from grace in Rome. It seems that politically he had no ambitions. Caesar, on the other hand, extinguished the Gallic threat overhanging Rome. His skill in tactics and strategy won the battles and wars. He directed his engineers as to what and how to employ engines and constructions. He should be the one who gets credit for that. Unlike Scipio, Caesar was either forced to seek political power or he sought it in his own right. In any case (and in my OPINION), Caesar was NECESSARY (an evil if you like) as the Senate was a corrupt, servile and inept institution at this time. Had it been otherwise, it would not have fallen. Caesar may have been 'for the people', but the transition took power from one elite and handed it over to another. If republicanism is to be equated with democracy, then I hold that there never has been a democracy, there are none now and most likely there never will be one. I doubt very much that a peasant could have, can or ever will be able to run for consul. Nonetheless, Caesar commenced the change in form of government that Augustus expanded on. The government of the empire could not continue in its then fashion with the war lords holding it prisoner. And then there were the likes of Cicero. Nonetheless, Caesar failed at governing. Augustus' efforts brought peace to the empire, and great prosperity to a few. The condition of the many changed not at all insofar as political rights were concerned. Augustus was unexcelled at governing; Agrippa was his general.

 

If it wasn't for Caesar, we might all be speaking gibberish. If not for Scipio, we might be wearing turbans. If not for Augustus, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Roman_]

But Caesar's accomplishments cannot be matched, he is in a league of his own.

I couldn't say it better than that. HAIL CAESAR

 

 

Am with you guys,HAIL CAESAR!