| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Julius Caesar Greatest man in history.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Julius Caesar Greatest man in history.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Julius Caesar Greatest man in history.
    Posted: 01 Feb 2011 at 15:48
This is my opinion as to why Julius Caesar is the greatest and most important person in history. His actions lead directly to the next fifteen hundred years of European and world culture. This directly effected all of the modern world. Through his actions to march on Pompei and Rome and his establishing himself as Dictator for life lead directly to the Establishment of the Roman empire. His very death itself lead to this happening. So through his actions in life and the style of his death I feel lead directly to the next 2000 years of history. Not only extremely important to the then political situation Rome but all of Romes conquered territories and Rome's neighboring countries. After Octavian took power and established the Roman empire. It was Caesar's family who continued to rule and establish the imperial powerhouse that was to rise. The Rise of Christianity in Rome albeit not apart of the Roman culture and not a "Caesar" creation but its the reason most people who are Christians today are Christians.

The Fall of the Roman empire lead directly to the dark ages and the continue of the byzantine empire and the next 1000 years of History even if "Rome" was gone so to speak. The culture effected all of modern society. I mean we all speak variants and combos from then languages mostly deriving from Latin. Look at all of the Americas and Europe. Even today the past the Rhine the language barreir is so vastly different. I mean spanish and english translate out perfectly but with German and other languages the words are mixed up and sometimes there isn't even a direct translation like the word "Kremlin" in russian has no real direct translation into an english or spanish word.

This isn't exactly explained correctly but I feel Ceasar was the greatest and most macro historically influential person in history. I feel his status as simply one of the great "generals" is abhorrent and diminishes the mans historical importance. Even if it was inadvertent or he was cruel towards the Gaulic tribes. Does anybody agree or think somebody else might be more important like Octavian or Constantine or maybe the norman king who invaded england? though that it inself happened cause Caesar happened.

Its funny how simple things or battles that occured in the Roman age effect us so much today like the battle of teutoberg forest had so much unforeseeable effects to the Germans and Romans who took part it in that its not even funny. I mean yeah it crippled Roman power there for a while and the Romans did go back with Germanicus but still thats not even its real historical importance.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2011 at 16:11
Everything happens because something else happens.
 
Without Catiline, no Caesar?
Even with Caesar, what happens without Octavian becoming Augustus?
 
And for that matter how much influence did Caesar have on China or India?


Edited by gcle2003 - 01 Feb 2011 at 16:12
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2011 at 17:08
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Everything happens because something else happens.
 
Without Catiline, no Caesar?
Even with Caesar, what happens without Octavian becoming Augustus?
 
And for that matter how much influence did Caesar have on China or India?

I understand he didn't have direct influence on those parts of the world but they were eventually conquered by europeans so i guess you could say he had direct influence on the fifteen hundred years of Roman rule and influence and indirect influence on everything else. I don't know I just feel he was like the greatest person ever in history and his life is possibly the most macro historically people in the entire scheme of people.


Edited by Joe - 01 Feb 2011 at 17:09
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2011 at 17:16
Julius Caesar, the greatest? Because he destroyed the Republic? 
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2011 at 18:00
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Julius Caesar, the greatest? Because he destroyed the Republic? 

Basically.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:00
The more important man in history is Jesus, followed by Columbus. All the rest come after them.
In the intellectual plane, the smarter by far was Isaac Newton, with Einstein and Archemides comming close, and then the rest.
In the literarian plane, there is a tie between Shakespeare and Cervantes.
Julius Caesar? The most important politician of Rome. I don't see him as anything more important than that.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:18
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Without Catiline, no Caesar?


Why would you suppose that? Caesar's career was already well developed and he was always on the trajectory to claim a special personal place for himself above the Republic. The Catilinarian episode didn't alienate him from his peers anymore than he already was, though it was the point at which the cordial dialogue between Caesar and Cato broke down.

Caesar would have carried on doing just what he did, Catiline or not.

Regarding Caesar in general, the man is often held up as the epitome of greatness. And in many ways he was, he excelled all others in virtually every field. I have always wondered how his Parthian campaign would have gone had he been left alive to wage it.

But he wasn't perfect, the was a reason he stabbed to death afterall.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:20
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The more important man in history is Jesus, followed by Columbus. All the rest come after them.
In the intellectual plane, the smarter by far was Isaac Newton, with Einstein and Archemides comming close, and then the rest.
In the literarian plane, there is a tie between Shakespeare and Cervantes.
Julius Caesar? The most important politician of Rome. I don't see him as anything more important than that.


We are discussing greatness though, the ability to excel and dominate in whatever one turns one's attention to. Greatness does not necessarily equal influence nor a savant intellect.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:25
As I said. Julius Caesar was the more important politician of Rome. Isn't that great?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

As I said. Julius Caesar was the more important politician of Rome. Isn't that great?


I see Caesar as much greater than Columbus. Columbus was a good sailor and leader of men, but Caesar was a consummate intellectual, politician, economist, soldier, commander, writer etc etc etc. Casesar to me appears more intelligent, driven and energetic than either Columbus or Jesus.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:36
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

As I said. Julius Caesar was the more important politician of Rome. Isn't that great?


I see Caesar as much greater than Columbus. Columbus was a good sailor and leader of men, but Caesar was a consummate intellectual, politician, economist, soldier, commander, writer etc etc etc. Casesar to me appears more intelligent, driven and energetic than either Columbus or Jesus.


As I said, Caesar was a superb Roman politician, but Columbus and Jesus achieved a lot more than him. While Caesar  destroyed the Republic and started the dynasties of Emperors, Columbus helped into the discovery of 40% of the world surface. Jesus, on the other hand, it is a central figure in history since two thousand years ago, that still moves people of all conditions, and that started a religion followed by 1/6 of the human race.

With respect to intellectual skills, I bet Jefferson was smarter than Caesar. At least, the American was a mathematician Wink

Edited by pinguin - 02 Feb 2011 at 01:38
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:48
Quote While Caesar  destroyed the Republic and started the dynasties of Emperors,


The Republic was already on its last legs. Caesar transformed it into something more powerful and better suited to the running of an empire. And he did far more than that. He conquered Gaul, reformed the Roman Senate, won the Civil War despite atrocious odds, defeated the Germans and Helvetii, defeated the Pontic kingdom, founded new colonies and cities all over the Mediterranean world, reformed the calendar! to make it more accurate, commissioned too many amazing buildings that I cannot list them. Then there are his personal exploits that demonstrate his courage, cleverness and leadership skills - such as dealing with the pirates who captured him.

Quote Columbus helped into the discovery of 40% of the world surface.


Columbus sailed with three ships from Europe to the Americas. What happened after should be credited to other men. Important? Certainly. But not much compared to Caesar.

Quote Jesus, on the other hand, it is a central figure in history since two thousand years ago, that still moves people of all conditions, and that started a religion followed by 1/6 of the human race.


I thought the figure is closer to 1/3 or 1/4. Jesus achieved very little in his lifetime compared to Caesar, and what was achieved in his name should be credited to those other men who made it happen. Jesus was a remarkable and compassionate human being, but responsibility for the religious movement he founded belongs to the men who wrote the Bible and preached. Just as Caesar should not be given credit for everything all the Emperors after him did, Jesus should not be given credit for all the things various individuals who never even knew him did.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:55
Whatever, if you like Caesar, your choice. I believe Ptolmey I contributed a lot more to human development than him. Anyways, each one with its own prefferences.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 01:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The more important man in history is Jesus, followed by Columbus. All the rest come after them.
In the intellectual plane, the smarter by far was Isaac Newton, with Einstein and Archemides comming close, and then the rest.
In the literarian plane, there is a tie between Shakespeare and Cervantes.
Julius Caesar? The most important politician of Rome. I don't see him as anything more important than that.

the guy is directly and indirectly responsible for the past 2000 years.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 02:10
That is true he can't or anybody can't get "all" credit especially as thats unfair. I believe though that with Caesar's events if someone else had done what he'd done or he was stopped somehow the events of world history would be unforseeable. Like in greece when pompei almost defeated him. He got through on sheer luck alone.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 02:14
Because you love Caesar, obviously. Everybody has its own totems to venerate.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 02:23
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Because you love Caesar, obviously. Everybody has its own totems to venerate.

Better than Jesus.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 02:42
In your oppinion, of course.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 03:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

In your oppinion, of course.


Jesus was a cult leader who said self absorbed things and said that he is the son of god and there is no possible way but to absolutely believe in him and believe he is apart of God. He was a trouble maker who was executed. Thats not special and he his "followers" which really just was a patchwork of then religions and seemed more like judaism than modern christianity with hail mary prayers. Jesus was a cult leader and every thing he says and does in the bible proves this. He said he had a special link to "God" said you have to absolutely believe in him and him alone or you go to hell and in many chapters he even incites violence but hes conveniently left out. He was a failed savior who said bs things and his followers held people back a thousand years. If i remember correctly the world was more advanced in Roman times as they actually had running water. The Romans might have conquered but their culture and influence permeates today; all the catholic church and Christianity did was hold us back.

Jesus was nothing better than a cult leader whislt caesar as said before was a politician, a intellectual, a leader of men and hero of his time and will be remembered for ever as who he was. Not a hypothetical person who if he did exist was nothing better than a cult leader. Similar to Jim Jones or David Koresh. I'd give Caesar veneration and admiration for historical role on humanity before i gave jesus anything other than hes a ______(word edited due to offensive content - Seko) like jim jones.


Edited by Seko - 02 Feb 2011 at 15:58
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 03:08
Matt 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power (authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

If I said this on this forum or in real life in all seriousness I'd be put in a mental hospital or maybe some idiot would believe me.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 09:06
I don't think it's possible to establish the greatest man of history on any factual basis. It has to come down to personal preference. Surely Caesar was among the most influential men, both contemporarily and in posterity, but the same is true for many others and there is no measuring stick that is precise enough to rank them with any fairness. It's also a bit eurocentric; for most of human history China has been the most advanced and stable civilization, but they hadn't even heard of Caesar until recently and were doing just fine.
 
Jesus is a very different case. He was not a particularly influential or unique individual during his lifetime, but his followers did a great job in building on his legacy to make organised Christianity into what it became. Ideologically he is paramount, but for all practical purposes he was not what made Christianity a world religion, that honor would have to go to men like Paul and Constantine.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 12:12
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Without Catiline, no Caesar?


Why would you suppose that?
On the supposition that Caesar copied Catilinian populism (and admittedly made a greater success of it). More generally I was trying succinictly to point out that Caesar was the last on a series of Roman figures that used (or tried to use) populist appeal against the Senate, thereby leading to the imperialisation of Rome. How about 'without the Gracchi, Marius and Catline'?
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 12:22
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quote While Caesar  destroyed the Republic and started the dynasties of Emperors,


The Republic was already on its last legs. Caesar transformed it into something more powerful and better suited to the running of an empire.
That's like praising Kennedy for Johnson's civil rights programme.
 
Anyway, didn't Darius do that - take an existing state and make it more powerful and suited to running an empire? Napoleon? Peter the Great? Kublai?
Quote
And he did far more than that. He conquered Gaul, reformed the Roman Senate, won the Civil War despite atrocious odds, defeated the Germans and Helvetii, defeated the Pontic kingdom, founded new colonies and cities all over the Mediterranean world, reformed the calendar! to make it more accurate, commissioned too many amazing buildings that I cannot list them. Then there are his personal exploits that demonstrate his courage, cleverness and leadership skills - such as dealing with the pirates who captured him.
Alexander?

I already said he was possibly the world's greatest self-publicist.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 13:04
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

On the supposition that Caesar copied Catilinian populism (and admittedly made a greater success of it).


I don't see it that way. Caesar's populist tendencies pre-date Catiline by a long way. That he continued this stance after Catiline is incidental. Caesar, as an enemy of Sulla, adopted populist tendencies as early as his teens and never abandoned them.

Quote More generally I was trying succinictly to point out that Caesar was the last on a series of Roman figures that used (or tried to use) populist appeal against the Senate, thereby leading to the imperialisation of Rome.


Not the last, surely. Nero did very much the same thing, which is part of the reason we have such a negative press of him (the senatorial class afterall are the ones who wrote the histories, not the plebs).

Quote How about 'without the Gracchi, Marius and Catline'


The Gracchi? certainly. Caesar saw that land reform was urgent, and forged ahead even when it made him unpopular with the Senators. And why not? The Senators hyper conservatism and general mediocrity were suffocating Roman administration.

Marius? Absolutely! More than any other figure, Caesar followed the example of Marius. Populism combined with military victory.

Catiline? No way. Catiline was a disorganised mess. Lacking planning and vision, two qualities Caesar made us of in grand abundance. Caesar, with his dizzyingly lofty standards, would never emulate a thorough disgrace like Catiline. Roman society provided far more accomplished figures to emulate (and surpass).

Quote
That's like praising Kennedy for Johnson's civil rights programme.
 
Anyway, didn't Darius do that - take an existing state and make it more powerful and suited to running an empire? Napoleon? Peter the Great? Kublai?


Kennedy did not take a moribund system and breathe new life into it. Granted, Augustus deserves his due for reforming the Republic fully into the Imperium. But it was Caesar who provided the inital victories, the loyal Caesarian troops, the capable Caesarian officers, and a capable Caesarian heir to build upon what he had established. After Caesar the Republic was gone, and after the previous century of maladministration this was just as well.

Quote Alexander?

I already said he was possibly the world's greatest self-publicist.


It could certainly be argued that Alexander was greater.

I am not necessarily arguing that Caesar was the greatest of all time. There are a number of other contenders for that role.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 13:43
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

On the supposition that Caesar copied Catilinian populism (and admittedly made a greater success of it).


I don't see it that way. Caesar's populist tendencies pre-date Catiline by a long way. That he continued this stance after Catiline is incidental. Caesar, as an enemy of Sulla, adopted populist tendencies as early as his teens and never abandoned them.

Quote More generally I was trying succinictly to point out that Caesar was the last on a series of Roman figures that used (or tried to use) populist appeal against the Senate, thereby leading to the imperialisation of Rome.


Not the last, surely. Nero did very much the same thing, which is part of the reason we have such a negative press of him (the senatorial class afterall are the ones who wrote the histories, not the plebs).
Sorry - I meant the latest at the time i.e. the last such figure as of c. 50 BC.
Quote
Quote How about 'without the Gracchi, Marius and Catline'


The Gracchi? certainly. Caesar saw that land reform was urgent, and forged ahead even when it made him unpopular with the Senators. And why not? The Senators hyper conservatism and general mediocrity were suffocating Roman administration.

Marius? Absolutely! More than any other figure, Caesar followed the example of Marius. Populism combined with military victory.

Catiline? No way. Catiline was a disorganised mess. Lacking planning and vision, two qualities Caesar made us of in grand abundance. Caesar, with his dizzyingly lofty standards, would never emulate a thorough disgrace like Catiline. Roman society provided far more accomplished figures to emulate (and surpass).
Catiline has a bad press as failures often do. However I wouldn't push the point that much: it's just that Catiline popped first into mind while I was writing, and Caesar was associated with him and again he was the 'last' of his predecessors in that tradition.
Quote
Quote
That's like praising Kennedy for Johnson's civil rights programme.
 
Anyway, didn't Darius do that - take an existing state and make it more powerful and suited to running an empire? Napoleon? Peter the Great? Kublai?


Kennedy did not take a moribund system and breathe new life into it. Granted, Augustus deserves his due for reforming the Republic fully into the Imperium. But it was Caesar who provided the inital victories, the loyal Caesarian troops, the capable Caesarian officers, and a capable Caesarian heir to build upon what he had established. After Caesar the Republic was gone, and after the previous century of maladministration this was just as well.

Quote Alexander?

I already said he was possibly the world's greatest self-publicist.


It could certainly be argued that Alexander was greater.

I am not necessarily arguing that Caesar was the greatest of all time. There are a number of other contenders for that role.
 
And I'm not disputing he is a contender. I was just reacting rather vigorously to the original post.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 14:07
For the love of me I can not figure out the incessant demand for associating Gaius Julius with Lucius Sergius Catilina? As others have pointed out, the precedents of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla are far stronger and, frankly, the libels of Sallust and Cicero have pretty much tarnished the historical scenario (we will not even mention that old gossip Suetonius) as far as Catiline is concerned. By the way, if one even looks at the political details surrounding the Catiline Conspiracies, Caesar does pretty well and Cicero comes across as someone ready to commit judicial murders (and does) to gain his own ends. This latter interpretation (which should have all Ciceronians aghast) goes a long way in explaining the why for his proscription by Marcus Antonius (and not the purposted vengeance of Fulvia). But, hey, if you think political agiprop is a novelty on the historical horizon, the Romans  were masters of the technique over 2000 years ago and the fact that speechifier Cicero had his oratory survive as examples of classical Latin have colored interpretation ever since then.
 
Now as far as who is the greatest...well the question begs for the only answer: Cassius Clay aka Muhamed Ali! 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Ziegenbartami View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ziegenbartami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 15:41
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

The Fall of the Roman empire lead directly to the dark ages and the continue of the byzantine empire and the next 1000 years of History even if "Rome" was gone so to speak. The culture effected all of modern society. I mean we all speak variants and combos from then languages mostly deriving from Latin. Look at all of the Americas and Europe. Even today the past the Rhine the language barreir is so vastly different. I mean spanish and english translate out perfectly but with German and other languages the words are mixed up and sometimes there isn't even a direct translation like the word "Kremlin" in russian has no real direct translation into an english or spanish word.

While English contains many words derived from Latin (and Greek), the language itself is Germanic, belonging to the West-Germanic family of languages, which also includes German and Dutch. The reason modern English seems so different from these others is the uniqueness of the linguistic development on the island due to the influence of the French-speaking Normans and the separation from continental consonant shifts and the like.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/640154/West-Germanic-languages#



Edited by Ziegenbartami - 02 Feb 2011 at 15:41
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 16:04
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

For the love of me I can not figure out the incessant demand for associating Gaius Julius with Lucius Sergius Catilina? As others have pointed out, the precedents of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla are far stronger
 
Sulla was on the other side. Actually if he hadn't had an unusually weak moment, there wouldn't have been any Gaius Julius Caesar for anyone to discuss.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 16:08
Originally posted by Ziegenbartami Ziegenbartami wrote:

Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

The Fall of the Roman empire lead directly to the dark ages and the continue of the byzantine empire and the next 1000 years of History even if "Rome" was gone so to speak. The culture effected all of modern society. I mean we all speak variants and combos from then languages mostly deriving from Latin. Look at all of the Americas and Europe. Even today the past the Rhine the language barreir is so vastly different. I mean spanish and english translate out perfectly but with German and other languages the words are mixed up and sometimes there isn't even a direct translation like the word "Kremlin" in russian has no real direct translation into an english or spanish word.

While English contains many words derived from Latin (and Greek), the language itself is Germanic, belonging to the West-Germanic family of languages, which also includes German and Dutch. The reason modern English seems so different from these others is the uniqueness of the linguistic development on the island due to the influence of the French-speaking Normans and the separation from continental consonant shifts and the like.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/640154/West-Germanic-languages#

Personally I disagree with that. The reason modern English (and indeed Renaissance English, etc) is different from the continental languages is that it is not a West Germanic language but a Germanic-Latin-Celtic hybrid. Which is why I object to calling Anglo-Saxon 'old English' there being no English before the later Middle Ages, either as a people or as a language.
 
But I just enter a marker. It woudl take us off topic and it's been discussed before.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2011 at 16:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

For the love of me I can not figure out the incessant demand for associating Gaius Julius with Lucius Sergius Catilina? As others have pointed out, the precedents of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla are far stronger
 
Sulla was on the other side. Actually if he hadn't had an unusually weak moment, there wouldn't have been any Gaius Julius Caesar for anyone to discuss.
 
Do I detect Gcle as a fan of Colleen McCullough's Roman cycle? Seriously, Graham, we all know we are in The Tavern here and can release our fancies willy-nilly but could it be that "love" was somehow behind Sulla's benign treatment of the young Flamen Dialis? Worse, could it be that Caesar realized the political mistakes of Sulla as the "First Man in Rome" and thus shaped his subsequent career in a manner that would avoid those pitfalls?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.