Greatest Roman Figure

[Virgil61]

..

 

By the way Cato, as i said, i read your remarks about Caesar, but i've decided to not bite and argue back, otherwise this thread may degenerate into a Caesar argument again

 

I hadn't been following this thread on the Greatest Roman Figure. Now that I have it looks to have already degenerated into a Caesar argument.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I hadn't been following this thread on the Greatest Roman Figure. Now that I have it looks to have already degenerated into a Caesar argument.

 

I would call it a Scipio argument.

[Neos Dionysos]

I hadn't been following this thread on the Greatest Roman Figure. Now that I have it looks to have already degenerated into a Caesar argument.

 

I would call it a Scipio argument.

 

Got into an argument over Valens for a while too... even though he wasn't a candidate... lol...

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I hadn't been following this thread on the Greatest Roman Figure. Now that I have it looks to have already degenerated into a Caesar argument.

 

I would call it a Scipio argument.

 

Just curious, but Cato, what would you specifically designate yourself in terms of Roman politics. Were there any sub-groups in the Republican side that you could identify with?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Just curious, but Cato, what would you specifically designate yourself in terms of Roman politics. Were there any sub-groups in the Republican side that you could identify with?

 

Any friend of the Republic was a friend of mine, especially those who offered reforms that would secure the republic against future autocracy, future corruption, and future abuse of provincial tax-payers. At various times, optimates and populares would have had my support. In this I differ from hypocritical, knee-jerk partisans of Caesar, who ALWAYS hate the optimates--even if it means complete dictatorship and the everlasting disenfranchisement of the people of Rome.

[phil25]

The "people of Rome" were never enfranchised in more than name. the system, whatever it might nominally offer, was strongly weighted in favour of the Senatorial and wealthy equestrian classes.

 

Frankly, I think this casual use of the democratic idea in connection with Rome between 500BC and c 30BC is dangerously anachronsitic and sentimental (as I have note before).

 

I am also amused by the implication that the Roman republican system could somehow have been "saved". All political systems evolve, and the Roman one did too - into the principiate and then a full imperial system. No system stays static - neither did the Roman one in the 500 odd year period I mentioned.

 

Throughout it was a fount of corruption (not least bribery) autocracy and abuse of taxpayers - though the latter was simply taking the standard practice of tax-gathering throughout history, a step too far for the tastes of that period (and they changed). Politics in Rome were never "nice" always brutal (though not always violently so) and to romaticise it it simply laughable.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

The "people of Rome" were never enfranchised in more than name.

 

Why don't you take a look at Fergus Millar's "The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic"? He completely demolishes this cynical mythology.

[phil25]

I'll have a look at it sometime, but I'm afraid i'm sceptical of ideas like that. I've read too much over too long a period about Rome to believe for a moment that the mass of society there was enfranchised in more than name. It is not a concept that the ancients would even have understood.

 

And i am afraid that in politics cynicism is the only frame of reference.

 

Phil

[tflex]

The best reason why Caesar is the greatest is that he simply was the saviour of Rome. For reasons that I have already mentioned the republic had become inefficient and impotent. Caesar recognized this and saw the need to transform a system that was breaking down and dragging down the loyal citizens of Rome with it. Caesar had to step in as a dictator or the republic risked having another general similar to Hannibal exploit it's weakness. To put it in few words, the republic had become soft and impotent and Caesar was Rome's *iagr* giving it a much needed boost by hardening it from the inside thorough his reforms and expanding it from the outside through his successful military conquests. Therefore, Caesar prolonged Rome's empire and for this he should be thanked not mocked. Hail Caesar!!!!

Edited January 15, 2006 by tflex

[phil25]

But tflex, Caesar dd not "save" Rome.

 

Some of his ideas and decisions may have helped blaze a trail for Octavian/Augustus, but they did not offer a solution - not even one as effective as Sulla's was (at least temporarily).

 

The proof?

 

That the moment Caesar was killed everything reverted to the chaos and confusion of before the Rubicon - Antonius seeking to dominate - resistence to him; a weak Senate easily co-erced into granting extra-constitutional favours to Octavian; civil war (even leaving the Liberators aside) between the Antonian faction and other Caesarians under the consuls Hirtius and Pansa.

 

In what way, pray, had Caesar "saved" the republic in any sense?

 

He dominated it, and his will gave the state direction, order, strong government - but it was a Dictatorship (literally in both senses - as office and style) and it was resisted: Caesar died at the hands of Senators!!

 

Neither did Caesar restore any energy or potency to the republic. It was within the lifetime of all the leading figures that Pompeius (and Lucullus before him) had conquered in the east and before that put down the pirates. Caesar had only just returned from gaul which he had added to the empire - and he had voyaged to far Britannia (crossing Ocean for the first time in that sense). he was about to go off to war in Parthia when murdered.

 

In what sense is this a stste or society needing "*iagr*" - you must live in a dream world.

 

I think you ignored my last post pointing out the deficiencies of your logic and facts - no doubt you'll do the same this time.

 

Phil

[tflex]

I think you ignored my last post pointing out the deficiencies of your logic and facts - no doubt you'll do the same this time.

 

Phil

 

The only thing thats deficient is your memory, your last post was a reply to Cato.

 

That the moment Caesar was killed everything reverted to the chaos and confusion of before the Rubicon - Antonius seeking to dominate - resistence to him; a weak Senate easily co-erced into granting extra-constitutional favours to Octavian; civil war (even leaving the Liberators aside) between the Antonian faction and other Caesarians under the consuls Hirtius and Pansa.

 

The only reason things became chaotic after his death is because he was murdered in the middle of his massive transformation. Octavian fixed everything because he was able to live, he learned well from Caesars assasination. No doubt you will blame Caesar for being murdered by jealous thugs.

 

The Caesar bashers are the same people that think he started the fall of the empire. The empire survived hundreds of years after his death. It's called blind hate with no objectivity.

.

Edited January 15, 2006 by tflex

[phil25]

But tflex, Caesar dd not "save" Rome.

 

Some of his ideas and decisions may have helped blaze a trail for Octavian/Augustus, but they did not offer a solution - not even one as effective as Sulla's was (at least temporarily).

 

The proof?

 

That the moment Caesar was killed everything reverted to the chaos and confusion of before the Rubicon - Antonius seeking to dominate - resistence to him; a weak Senate easily co-erced into granting extra-constitutional favours to Octavian; civil war (even leaving the Liberators aside) between the Antonian faction and other Caesarians under the consuls Hirtius and Pansa.

 

In what way, pray, had Caesar "saved" the republic in any sense?

 

He dominated it, and his will gave the state direction, order, strong government - but it was a Dictatorship (literally in both senses - as office and style) and it was resisted: Caesar died at the hands of Senators!!

 

Neither did Caesar restore any energy or potency to the republic. It was within the lifetime of all the leading figures that Pompeius (and Lucullus before him) had conquered in the east and before that put down the pirates. Caesar had only just returned from gaul which he had added to the empire - and he had voyaged to far Britannia (crossing Ocean for the first time in that sense). he was about to go off to war in Parthia when murdered.

 

In what sense is this a stste or society needing "*iagr*" - you must live in a dream world.

 

I think you ignored my last post pointing out the deficiencies of your logic and facts - no doubt you'll do the same this time.

 

Phil

 

It's age tflex - initially your comments didn't show up for me. But you have still not responded to my points? my questions still stand.

Phil

 

Sorry tflex - I kept seeing different versions of your last post.

 

I am certainly not a "Caesar basher" i have commented on my admiration for him elsewhere on these boards.

 

But you still have not answered my direct discussion of your post - and if caesar was killed half-way through his reforms, then he certainly did not save the state - he can merely be said to have been trying to do so.

 

In any case, perhaps you can elighten us as to what those reforms were?

 

Had he not been murdered, he intended to quite Rome for some years to campaign in the east. So his reforms would still have been left to settle without him. It has been argued that he had to absent himself to give himself time to consider what needed to be done, and/or because he was actually bankrupt of ideas.

 

I'd be interested to hear your views.

 

I addressed your initial post seriously, I'd be grateful if you would do the same for mine.

 

Phil

Edited January 15, 2006 by phil25

[Tobias]

You know, maybe we've all misinterpreted the meaning of this thread: How do we know that it wasn't about which Roman in history had the best body figure

[Arvioustus]

G'day everyone, i've been away for a while, but now i'm back, and having read this thread, i have a few opinions to offer.

It's very interesting; in the time i've been a member of this site, this argument always pops up in one guise or another every so often. I suppose it is because such a topic is so controversial and bound to attract powerful debate. I would personally say that in the history of such a great power such as Rome, it is impossible to designate ONE person who was the greatest of them all. The longevity and power of Rome ensured that throughout it's history, it would face different threats; militarily those of external invasion and internal resistance, politically the threat of economic instability, discontent and the disruption of the Pax Romana. In such times, many different figures would rise to face these challenges. Rome had the ability to throw up such men in times of danger; i.e. Lucius Junius Brutus at the beginning of the Republic, Fabius, Scipio and others against Hannibal, Gaius Marius against the Cimbri and Teutones, Sulla in the east and later against what he saw as "political instability", Pompey again against Mithridates, Caesar against the Gauls and thus against what he saw as the larger, more looming problem of the Germans, and later against what he saw as the tyranny of the Boni in the name of the Mos Maiorum.

I could go on for ages and ages, naming many many great figures from different times. Many figures in Rome's long history achieved greatness at different times, under different circumstances and against different threats. They had two things in common; they fought for Rome, and they affected Rome in some way. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to have a single greatest figure in Rome's history. To attempt to do so is bound to cause controversy; as in history their are not just different threats and circumstances, but different viewpoints, as is demonstrated by people such as M Porcius Cato (who have my sincere respect for laying out their views in the face of stalwart opposition), and these different viewpoints see Rome's great figures in different lights.

So i would say that Rome has no single greatest figure; all those who influenced Rome were part of Rome's ongoing parade. These men each had something to give to Rome, and for better or worse, they gave it. But for an Empire which spanned Europe for so many years, faced so many different enemies and were eventually overcome, it is virtually impossible to compare (for example) Aurelian to Julius Caesar or Gaius Marius to Aetius. As i said, each had something to give to Rome, or some influence to exert, and they certainly gave it. The results of these influences resound through the centuries.

 

By the way Cato, as i said, i read your remarks about Caesar, but i've decided to not bite and argue back, otherwise this thread may degenerate into a Caesar argument again

I can compare, Caesar defeated all, gauls,German tribes with an astonishing display of strategy but mostly an ability to train an army in a way that they cannot be deafeated.( seemingly so) I say train, somehow train...we know his charisma convinced them to fight to the death. Many Romans soldiers surpried even caesar when fighting the German tribes,sometimes hurling themselves into German 'phalanxes". However,even courage couldn`t do the job when you are so outnumbere. It was training. Training in a way that was not done before and never since. Caesar was innovative and confident, against all. Such confidence crossing the Rhine and just hoping for a fight after he humiliated all the Germans he fought to date. They fled in terror...trying to go far inalnad hoping Caesar would not go. Many chiefans asked for mercy. This is in the face of being even more outnumber than at Alecia.

How can anyone not chose Caesar! He was magic.

[Germanicus]

How can anyone not chose Caesar!

 

Because not everyone is so "one-eyed" (or should I say "starry -eyed") that they are incapable of seeing differences between situations faced, and how individuals handled them. I too chose Caesar, mostly because there's not a person in the world who doesn't know his name, or at least that of Caesar, but those with a different criteria for "Greatest", could well choose someone else.