Greatest Roman Figure

[Germanicus]

They were trapped behind a wall! By what definition is that deployment? Ultimately, the victory came from superior engineering plus competent (but not spectacular) on-field command. If you think otherwise, make your case--I'm all ears.

 

A small force was trapped behind a wall.....a massive force was converging on the outer wall from the other side - two fronts. I don't separate superior engineering from on field command as you do - it's the general who decides on how to deploy his engineers, where he wants to put the works, where the troops are stationed, where he wants pits dug and stakes sunk - the credit is his alone. What you're saying in kind of like saying "It's the builders who deserve credit for the building - not the architect."

[Neos Dionysos]

They were trapped behind a wall! By what definition is that deployment? Ultimately, the victory came from superior engineering plus competent (but not spectacular) on-field command. If you think otherwise, make your case--I'm all ears.

 

And what about the relief Gallic force that attacked Caeser from behind? Logicial military protocol tells us that one cannot continue or maintain a seige with the enemy to your back yet Caeser acheived this. Now you can say he was irresponisble and make a very risky and gutsy call but it doesn't change the fact he succeded with such success given the circumstances. Giving all the credit to engineering qualities is not fair in my eyes.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato, you have, along with a pathological hatred of Caesar a poor understanding of military tactics it seems!

 

Well to each his own. It is his own opinion whether he likes Caeser or not but it's not a blind hatred, as much as I have seen he has always forwarded good and founded arguements against Caeser with good reaons. Though I must ask Cato, where/when did you first start be so anti-Caeser if I may ask? Was it a professor? A book? A lecture? etc.

 

First, thank you for noticing that I don't just yell, "I hate Caesar" (unlike the "Hail Caesar!" posts), but I instead offer specific and detailed arguments.

 

Second, the origin of my anti-Caesarism comes primarily from my love of the republican ideal as put forward by Polybius. It's an almost romantic version of the Roman constitution, but I think the reality was not as far from Polybius' ideal as was almost everything else. From there, Caesar's role in the Catilinarean conspiracy (as described by his friend Sallust) earned by disrespect; Caesar's destroying of the republic earned my anger; and Caesar's behavior after the civil war (particularly posing as a demigod) earned my total contempt and disgust. I wouldn't single out any particular book as putting me off Caesar, but Syme's Roman Revolution--which is mostly about Octavian--struck me as having strong implications for how we should evaluate Caesar as well. Finally, I confess to a certain reactionary impulse with respect to Caesar: if he weren't so widely celebrated, I'd not feel so compelled to set the record straight.

 

They were trapped behind a wall! By what definition is that deployment? Ultimately, the victory came from superior engineering plus competent (but not spectacular) on-field command. If you think otherwise, make your case--I'm all ears.

 

And what about the relief Gallic force that attacked Caeser from behind? Logicial military protocol tells us that one cannot continue or maintain a seige with the enemy to your back yet Caeser acheived this. Now you can say he was irresponisble and make a very risky and gutsy call but it doesn't change the fact he succeded with such success given the circumstances. Giving all the credit to engineering qualities is not fair in my eyes.

 

Of course you're right that all the credit can't go to engineering for exactly the reason you mention (although I'd point out that even the relief force had to deal with Roman engineering). My point is that Caesar's defeat of the relief force was competent but not really spectacular. Zama was reallly spectacular.

[Neos Dionysos]

Cato, you have, along with a pathological hatred of Caesar a poor understanding of military tactics it seems!

 

Well to each his own. It is his own opinion whether he likes Caeser or not but it's not a blind hatred, as much as I have seen he has always forwarded good and founded arguements against Caeser with good reaons. Though I must ask Cato, where/when did you first start be so anti-Caeser if I may ask? Was it a professor? A book? A lecture? etc.

 

First, thank you for noticing that I don't just yell, "I hate Caesar" (unlike the "Hail Caesar!" posts), but I instead offer specific and detailed arguments.

 

Second, the origin of my anti-Caesarism comes primarily from my love of the republican ideal as put forward by Polybius. It's an almost romantic version of the Roman constitution, but I think the reality was not as far from Polybius' ideal as was almost everything else. From there, Caesar's role in the Catilinarean conspiracy (as described by his friend Sallust) earned by disrespect; Caesar's destroying of the republic earned my anger; and Caesar's behavior after the civil war (particularly posing as a demigod) earned my total contempt and disgust. I wouldn't single out any particular book as putting me off Caesar, but Syme's Roman Revolution--which is mostly about Octavian--struck me as having strong implications for how we should evaluate Caesar as well. Finally, I confess to a certain reactionary impulse with respect to Caesar: if he weren't so widely celebrated, I'd not feel so compelled to set the record straight.

 

Well we owe that to those who have come before us. As I mentioned in another thread, we make figures in history greater than they were, everyone in some form or another. And I do understand your point on that, afterall when people think Rome or of a famous Roman... even people ignorant of Roman history they know of Caeser or at least the name.

[Jimi]

Cato, you have, along with a pathological hatred of Caesar a poor understanding of military tactics it seems!

 

I couldn't agree more. Cato ignores everything positive and twists the facts to make Caesar look bad. I'm sorry but his arguments are well written but baseless. Somehow he turned a great conqueror into a raving lunatic that won all his battles by luck or divine intervention. Give credit where it is due, look at his record, no Roman general conquered as much as he did.

 

Well we owe that to those who have come before us. As I mentioned in another thread, we make figures in history greater than they were, everyone in some form or another. And I do understand your point on that, afterall when people think Rome or of a famous Roman... even people ignorant of Roman history they know of Caeser or at least the name.

 

All the emperors must have been ignorant to adopt Caesar's name. I guess you have to make comments like the one Cato and Dionysos made when you can't make a sensible argument.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Jimi

[senatus populusque romae]

Scipio made his name by defeating a weakened Hannibal.

Not quite true.Hannibal was weakened,but not quite weak: he had infantry advantage at Zama,least to say 80 war elephants,nevertheless Scipio's true genius exposed itself at battle of Ilipa.

One must admit Caesar's military brilliance,but I'm just pointing out that Scipio was not far behind at all as commander,plus if you consider historical circumstances, his mission had much more importance and much dire consequences in case of failure.

Edited January 11, 2006 by senatus populusque romae

[M. Porcius Cato]

Give credit where it is due, look at his record, no Roman general conquered as much [Caesar] did.

 

Ever hear of Aurelian? Or does your knowledge of Roman history begin and end with Caesar? I ask because you have yet to cite any facts about the generals you regard to be Caesar's inferior: you only mention facts about Caesar. But to support a comparative claim, you have to cite facts about both of the agents whom you are comparing, including facts regarding marginal utility (i.e., what did the agent ADD to the value of the larger unit.)

 

Ugh... I give up. This thread has become all heat and no light.

[Primus Pilus]

Give credit where it is due, look at his record, no Roman general conquered as much [Caesar] did.

 

Ever hear of Aurelian? Or does your knowledge of Roman history begin and end with Caesar? I ask because you have yet to cite any facts about the generals you regard to be Caesar's inferior: you only mention facts about Caesar. But to support a comparative claim, you have to cite facts about both of the agents whom you are comparing, including facts regarding marginal utility (i.e., what did the agent ADD to the value of the larger unit.)

 

Ugh... I give up. This thread has become all heat and no light.

 

Gentlemen, this is almost turning into one of those infamous what if threads. Regardless of points made regarding military ability it really is quite difficult to compare generals and tactics of different eras. We can't simply line them up against one another and decide who was better. Even in the cases where generals faced one another, (such as Scipio vs. Hannibal) there are plenty of variables to decipher which may or may not indicate which general was actually superior.

 

It is impossible to say who was better from a complete military standpoint... Caesar or Scipio, because they faced different circumstances, with far different variables. Suffice it to say that both were great generals and yes, (this is for Cato's benefit) even that reviled and butchering law breaking Caesar is still very highly regarded among military historians.

 

Keep in mind this thread is.... the Greatest Roman Figure. What does that mean? I don't know. Perhaps it means... name the most well known Roman... assuredly this is Gaius Julius Caesar beyond any shadow of a doubt. Perhaps it means, who best exemplifies Roman virtue and tradition? This would not be Caesar or any other player of the Late Republican dramatic period (in my opinion), regardless of our individual admiration or hatred for any particular individual.

 

I personally don't feel that Caesar is the greatest Roman figure, but he is one of history's greatest and most influential characters.

[tflex]

Ever hear of Aurelian? Or does your knowledge of Roman history begin and end with Caesar? I ask because you have yet to cite any facts about the generals you regard to be Caesar's inferior: you only mention facts about Caesar. But to support a comparative claim, you have to cite facts about both of the agents whom you are comparing, including facts regarding marginal utility (i.e., what did the agent ADD to the value of the larger unit.)

 

Ugh... I give up. This thread has become all heat and no light.

 

I reluctantly agree with Cato on this one, even though he is a Caesar basher he does always make good comparative arguments and provides a lot of insight on the subject in question. He makes a good case against Caesar and a good case for the republic. I still think Caesar is the greatest though.

 

 

I personally don't feel that Caesar is the greatest Roman figure, but he is one of history's greatest and most influential characters.

 

Primus, I am interested to know who you think is the greatest? in terms of a true Roman thats most impressive in his deeds for the Roman civilization.

Edited January 11, 2006 by tflex

[Primus Pilus]

Primus, I am interested to know who you think is the greatest? in terms of a true Roman thats most impressive in his deeds for the Roman civilization.

 

A couple pages back I mentioned Marcus Furius Camillus as a candidate, but in that time period all of the aristocracy was decidely anti-plebe. Quite honestly its difficult for me to vote against Scipio Africanus as the greatest Roman.

 

When one considers all of his accomplishments... militarily in Hispania, Africa and the oft ignored campaigns against Antiochus that brought Asia under Roman influence, and the way in which he retired from service, is there another Roman that exemplifies what it meant to be a Roman.

 

He understood the power of the mob yet did not use his popularity to incite them to violence against his political enemies (but he wisely used them to protect himself). Unlike the characters of the late Republic, Scipio Africanus laid down his arms and withdrew from public life rather than sully the greatness that was Rome.

[Neos Dionysos]

All the emperors must have been ignorant to adopt Caesar's name. I guess you have to make comments like the one Cato and Dionysos made when you can't make a sensible argument.

 

Yeah, there is a reason for that, Octavian got his initial start AND his position from being the heir to Caeser in his will so why would he NOT take on this role? After so long of a period when Julio-Claudians were in power they were seen as the established base and the legitmate people to rule Rome all steeming from Caeser himself, why would they NOT take his name and use it as a term to rule? The further and further you go, the more Caeser, (and as I have been pointing out EVERY HISTORICAL FIGURE), is turned into something greater than he was and used as a tool but the current leaders as a way to legitimize themselves and thier positions and titles. How is this not a sensible arguement? And for the record I am not a Caeser-basher, I merely understand points that others make, perhaps if you read completely my comments you will see I am not just writing negative attacks but using logical points to make them based and arguable.

 

And I never inteded to call those who came after him ignorant for using his name as a title or part of their own name. My point was that people today, who have NO understanding or knowledge of ancient history or Rome will most likely be able to know at least the name 'Caeser'.

 

Primus, I am interested to know who you think is the greatest? in terms of a true Roman thats most impressive in his deeds for the Roman civilization.

 

A couple pages back I mentioned Marcus Furius Camillus as a candidate, but in that time period all of the aristocracy was decidely anti-plebe. Quite honestly its difficult for me to vote against Scipio Africanus as the greatest Roman.

 

When one considers all of his accomplishments... militarily in Hispania, Africa and the oft ignored campaigns against Antiochus that brought Asia under Roman influence, and the way in which he retired from service, is there another Roman that exemplifies what it meant to be a Roman.

 

He understood the power of the mob yet did not use his popularity to incite them to violence against his political enemies (but he wisely used them to protect himself). Unlike the characters of the late Republic, Scipio Africanus laid down his arms and withdrew from public life rather than sully the greatness that was Rome.

 

 

Have you ever considered Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus? Of course the times are different but he held dictator twice and like a true good Roman he went back to farming and a private life once the crisis had been averted.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Primus Pilus]

Have you ever considered Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus? Of course the times are different but he held dictator twice and like a true good Roman he went back to farming and a private life once the crisis had been averted.

 

The problem with Cincinnatus was simply that he is a character based largely in legend. The details of the history are simple not available. I am not suggesting that Livy created him out of thin air... certainly not... only that because of the taint of the unknown I am personally forced to find another candidate. However the legend of Cincinnatus certainly qaulifies as 'the Greatest Roman Figure'.

[Neos Dionysos]

Have you ever considered Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus? Of course the times are different but he held dictator twice and like a true good Roman he went back to farming and a private life once the crisis had been averted.

 

The problem with Cincinnatus was simply that he is a character based largely in legend. The details of the history are simple not available. I am not suggesting that Livy created him out of thin air... certainly not... only that because of the taint of the unknown I am personally forced to find another candidate. However the legend of Cincinnatus certainly qaulifies as 'the Greatest Roman Figure'.

 

 

Hmmm... well I would not put it past him that he created him in an effort to show others and his contemporaries what a true Roman was like and therefore hopefully dictate current leaders into taking after Cincinnatus, ergo helping to keep the Republic ideals alive and show how they work when a good Roman heads it.

[tflex]

Looking back through the pages it seems as though the argument is almost always between Caesar and Scipio for the title of the greatest Roman. Some other names were mentioned from the republic and early empire, but hardly any were metioned from the mid to late empire before the Byzantine era. I guess it's harder to find great leaders from that time since the empire was already in decline and lacked strong leaders, but Rome was still the most powerful empire and there must have been some great generals, emperors, and politicians that were able to prolong Rome's survival that can be mentioned as the greatest. Any names?

Edited January 11, 2006 by tflex

[Neos Dionysos]

Well knee jerk reaction usually makes someone from the republic/early principate as the greatest Roman. But if we were to include the later empire, I'd put forward Diolcetian and Constantine, though I do favor Valentinian and Valens... but Valens has gotten a bad reputation after Adrianople... I've learned a lot recently on him and his brother and thier efforts to help the empire and get it back on its feet.