| 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  <123
Author
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2020 at 20:34
I read the above posts with some interest. Whether Julius Caesar was the 'greatest' is somewhat subjective, it depends on your opinion, but please note the Romans almost named the Principate "The Age of Augustus", Augustus being the far more influential adopted son.
 
However, Caesar was a notable individual. Not for nothing does Suetonius put him before Augustus in his book on the first Caesars of Rome. But did he really destroy the Republic? That accusation was made toward Augustus too. Nonetheless, despite the increasing monarchial nature of Roman leadership, Rome remained officially a Republic until the end in the west nearly five hundred years later. Certainly, although Caesar had little regard for the republican institutions, he remained polite toward the Senate and consulted it on decisions.
 
Yet Caesar was something unusual in Roman history, the only man to be declared Dictator Perpetuo, and tempted fate by edging ever closer to becoming king of Rome - something the elite of Rome would never have accepted even though the common folk were all too ready for something more identifiable than a mass of faceless senators to lead them politically.
 
Okay, he was a successful military campaigner. His victories were not for Rome, one should remember, but an excuse to accumulate booty and pay off the massive debts he incurred running for office. His landmark visits to Britain weren't about spreading the empire - he was keen to interdict British support for conquered Gallic tribes and more than that, find the silver he had heard of (He never found it as Cicero laments).
 
He would return to mount a military coup in Rome. He had to, in one sense, because the Senate had ordered him to relinquish his command when he returned to the city as was both precedent and politically necessary. He then proceeded to loot the temples and public finances. Although he was keen to refuse the offer of a crown, most felt he was only delaying the inevitable, and the whole point of the Roman Republic was to avoid the tyranny of monarchs.
 
A self publicist, certainly, but no worse than some modern characters we know of. A ruthless leader. A vastly ambitious man. A very charismatic politician with the common touch. But the greatest man in history? Only because he's become a historical figurehead so to speak. Ask anyone to name a Roman - his name will be the most popular, not because he was that important, not because he did anything lasting, not because he publicised himself, but because we mention him as a prominent Roman even when we don't know who he was or what he did.


Edited by caldrail - 04 Jan 2020 at 20:35
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Brad Watson, Miami View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2020
Location: Miami, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brad Watson, Miami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 03:59
Julius Caesar (JC) more important than Jesus Christ (JC)?! I don't think so. Is it possible that JC was reincarnated as JC? Yes. That would explain the karma involved with Y'shua bar Yosef receiving 39 lashes and crucifixion.
GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th
Back to Top
Brad Watson, Miami View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2020
Location: Miami, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brad Watson, Miami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 04:21
The Julian Calendar is under-appreciated. It's basically the Roman Calendar we use today. The Gregorian Calendar only made a very slight leap-year fix.

Julius Caesar (JC) and his advisors fixed their solar calendar and encoded GOD=7_4 - "As Above, So Below" - with its 7 thirty-one day months + 4 thirty day months + February's 28 (7x4) days. The solar calendar adjusts the lunar year of 12 lunar months. There are 4 primary lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each, thus 7-day weeks & 4 weeks in a 'moonth'. Lunar year 354 days + 7 day week + 4 days = solar year 365 days.

There are 7 moving objects in the heavens seen with the naked eye known to the ancients as the sacred 7 Luminaires/7 Planets ('Wanderers')/7 Heavens: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sunday, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. 4 of these can't be easily seen during the day/4 don't cast shadows on Earth. The Romans named the 7 days of the week after the 7 Planets.

GOD=7_4
months=74=M13+O+N14+T20+H8+S19
objects=74=O15+B2+J10+E5+C3+T20+S19
heavens=74=H8+E5+A1+V22+E5+N14+S19
shadows=74=S19+H8+A1+D4+O+W23+S19


Edited by Brad Watson, Miami - 05 Jan 2020 at 04:30
GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2020 at 01:59
Quote Julius Caesar (JC) more important than Jesus Christ (JC)?! I don't think so.
Caesar was more important. But religious dogma has since raised Jesus to a somewhat improbable level.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2020 at 03:05
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Julius Caesar (JC) more important than Jesus Christ (JC)?! I don't think so.
Caesar was more important. But religious dogma has since raised Jesus to a somewhat improbable level.
We name our dog Caesar and our son Paul. Precisely because Jesus is able to see himself as the other, there is no idea more revolutionary in the ancient world, says I. Wink
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2020 at 02:40
So what? Your bias toward Christian themes is meaningless beyond your faith in the whole rotten subject. Jesus doesn't see anything. He's dead. The Romans nailed him up to please the objectors to his popularity as a preacher, notwithstanding some dubious political ambitions. Since Christianity is not a pure religion on its own behalf (Christians and Mithraists shared or stole ideas from each other, so you cannot separate Christianity from its pagan origins, especially since it preserves pagan Roman customs as its own), the importance of those individuals involved in the evolution of Christianity is no more than their historical impact, which for the most part is fairly irrelevant on the larger scale. But you can name animals and people as you will.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2020 at 03:04
So what?
Ideas tend to outlast individual human beings.

One can pretend to know there is nothing, uncertainty remains part of the human condition. Why does anyone admire beautiful things? Or why are we moved by loss of life, to sadness or cheers? 

I do NOT KNOW, what I do know from experience is that beyond everyday consciousness we have an extended intelligence.

Right JC & JC- both dead. Do you admit the ambiguity of every line you ever read of Roman history? Augustus and deliberate ambiguity, there is a hermetic connection with Augustus and numbers were sacred knowledge. Augustus wanted to rewrite the past and misrepresent the Imperialism as a Republic, or not, it's all a coin toss. Were they mock -up Greeks? Were they savages who could read?

Not a pure religion? Go on then name a pure religion. What ever that might be. You can't separate the Romans as pinchers of the Greek ideas. 

Ok Jesus was irrelevant "except for the historical impact", you win.
And of course we play with the old number system as much as we like, it's fascinating. 

Why would you refuse yourself knowledge based on hero worship of the other JC? 






Edited by Vanuatu - 16 Jan 2020 at 04:44
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2020 at 02:08
Ambiguity? Well, the Romans aren't usually guilty of that. They tended to enjoy the specifics of fate. It had something to do with morality and entertainment in the storytelling process. I suppose it could be compared reasonably with the arena, in that a man's (or woman's) terrible end is fine because it was in someway deserved and you didn't get hurt.
 
My own disdain for Christianity was nourished by my mother, a pious soul who departed some years ago. She may have had the right motives but her methods were misguided, and once the realisation dawned on me as a young lad as to just how manipulative she was, then her constant lessons and urges toward adopting Christianity fell on deaf ears. You see, I had realised the imperfection, the dishonesty even, of worshipping Jesus Christ simply because it was conformal to do so. As it happens, she interfered in a great deal of my earlier life, determined that I would become a confirmed Christian and do all those events that Christians do. Her disappointment concerning my adoption of a spiritualist type of belief was pronounced and reinforced her desire one way or another to set me back on course, which she maintained until the end, despite my constant reminders that I would not under any circumstance.
 
Quote Not a pure religion? Go on then name a pure religion. What ever that might be. You can't separate the Romans as pinchers of the Greek ideas. 
And Etruscan. And Syrian. And Egyptian. The rest were simply re-interpreted as standard Roman divine stereotypes.
 
Can I name a pure religion? Not as such, although I am tempted to nominate Islam (despite the poor interpretation that radicals like to preach) but that's purely on the grounds that Islam is supposed be based on the last word of God as relayed to the Prophet Mohammed. Truth be told, I'm not an expert on religions, so this is a difficult question for me. Is my own belief system pure? (fingers tapping on desk....). In a sense, in that I came to conclusions for myself, but of course, who isn't influenced by our experiences and education?
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2020 at 23:49
That was an impulsive comment, yes bias bc I grew up with Christians no doubt yet the worlds' religious history is worth learning about and deserve preservation. I retract it.
Credit for the idea of self as other doesn't belong only to Jesus, it's older than that. 
  

Julius Caesar is an intellectual lawyer, and a master of ambiguity in oratory the value of being correct but not bragging or incorrect and not yielding. If you believe Cicero he thought JC was better than any of his contemporaries as a speaker. 
The idea that things have two or more meanings is so ancient, Proto-Indo European letters D,I,A,O,U are all shared by the Hebrews they meet at some point with Eastern people and this is the reason the word god in Europe is Deus Dio and variants of those vowels. The consonants change depending on which part of Europe you happen to be in. The first man, in the creation myth is hermaphroditic and doesn't get to see it's other half bc they are connected at the back. God makes them into two that can procreate. One thing is always two things.




Edited by Vanuatu - 18 Jan 2020 at 01:40
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10528
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2020 at 03:04
I think you might mean 'E' instead of 'D'.  I am sorry Caldrail that you had problems with your mother, (or that your mother had problems with you.), but that is part of what family is for, having problems with.  You get to choose your friends, you don't get to choose your family (although your parents in a way choose you.)  When I was a child, something happened and I realized that adults did not really know what was going on.  They were faking it, something that even they were only dimly aware.  That does not mean that there was any "bad faith" going on.  Just, the emperor has no clothes.  Parents don't know what is going on, and even if they were "trained," there would still be novel situations, and questions of applicability of the training.

Purity is an interesting (and misplaced) idea for religion.

There were two men in antiquity that were said to understand their own times (probably Plutarch).  One was Themistocles, the other was Julius Caesar.  Philosophers could be said to understand, but they were men of ideas, not of action.  Julius Caesar saw that a republic was too awkward and decentralized a system for the Roman state.  Cicero was a pretty smart cookie, but he was tied to the idea of a republic as were a lot of other Roman statesman.  Of course, Julius Caesar died at the hands of his fellow senators, so one might ask how well he understood.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2020 at 13:46
Yes, the vowels come after the first seven consonants, just trying to show the link with names for god in Europe.

Edited by Vanuatu - 18 Jan 2020 at 13:51
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10528
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2020 at 11:30
You might look at Hyginus, I think it is called 'Fables'.  The last or almost the last myth is about the origin of the alphabet.  Hermes got the idea for letters from the shape that birds made (individually) in the air.  Hyginus "fables" is not that well written, but it has myths from antiquity that are found nowhere else.

I don't know whether people have seen the HBO "Rome" series (season 1 and 2).  To me, the most insightful moment is when a slave girl gets too close to Octavian, and he just hits her, because he can.  Just a casual reaching over, and thwack!  No rhyme or reason to it.  That is how Rome probably was, for Julius Caesar massacring the Gauls.  How do you fight that kind of brutality?  IMO opinion, Christianity came along and instead of directly resisting, they did a judo move.  Taking on the brutality through martyrdom, making it so the average Roman didn't understand what was going on, but his wife and his slaves were probably converting.  There are a lot of women and slaves, there are not so many old soldiers (who were inclined to mithraism.)

Just because I admire the judo move that Christianity did to the Roman Empire, doesn't mean I am recommending Christianity today.  I have a certain kind of conservatism, I would have been a pagan in antiquity probably because that was the norm.  Give me that ol' time religion, if it was good enough for Kali, then by golly it is good enough for me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2020 at 02:43
Quote Julius Caesar saw that a republic was too awkward and decentralized a system for the Roman state.
 
Perhaps. But beware of assuming that the Roman Republic was a modern republican system - it was not. Polybius wrote about the Roman system around 150BC where he describes a compound system of three elements. The public assemblies, the democratic element of it, were not on the basis of one-man-one-vote. Block voting and tribal pecking order were part of that equation. Further, the Romans had built a system that avoided sole tyrants by the neat packaging of power and privilege, and they managed these important considerations. Power was by consent, power was shared, and power was temporary.
 
I don't think Julius Caesar saw it in those terms anyway. He was hugely ambitious (and if Suetonius is to be believed, was reared to succeed from the start) and more likely spotted weaknesses to exploit. Caesar's behaviour in his early career was brazen and sometimes downright illegal, but being pushy, went for it. He had of course seen Egypt and the extraordinary reverence  (officially at least) that their rulers expected. Whilst Caesar was aware of the hostility that elite Romans had toward monarchical rule, he was moving toward that idealisation in Roman society. Okay, he made a big show of refusing the crown, but Dictator Perpetuo? Did he really need one?


Edited by caldrail - 28 Jan 2020 at 02:48
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2020 at 01:02
The unique system involved no written constitution and the aristocratic class wanted to be jurists. Being able to interpret the law was a sign of distinction and virtus. 
Cicero comments on the fact that jurists often win their legal arguments without referring to the written law as long as he can persuade others in the Senate that their spin is the best spin.

What is good for Rome is good for Romans, SPQR.
This idea was polished to a shine by JC and installed literally into the architecture and coinage by Augustus. A territory conquered by Rome was glad for Roman citizenship and roads, like the scene in Life of Brian where they ask "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Of course they made war and suffering too.

JC's written accounts of his exploits involve 3 characters, the "I" who presents as author, "Caesar" as the protagonist experiencing the events and his actions, thinking, observations etc. And then JC himself who is orchestrating the entire history and legacy for the future, it's no 'field report' from a servant of Rome. And the Senate did vote for JC to be dictator for life, they didn't want to and they were afraid not to since Roman politics were always in a state of flux.

Caesar recognizes weakness and exploits it with an ambiguity towards the territories annexed by Rome. 
Yes it's the uniform principle that organized Roman Legions re-purposed for ultimate political flexibility. A thousand ways to remain uncommitted and therefore appear solid and all powerful, last minute changes would never appear to violate stated policy. Ambiguity allowed for 'friends and allies' without alliances or official treaties unless Rome demanded trade deals that could be upended if need be. It is a literary device that exists as a mirror to the intentions of the patricians.


franciscosan- your query about the HBO series "Rome" I think it's one of the best series of all time. British cast the phrasing is poetic and reminiscent of ancient writers. Spartacus was another series at the same high quality level of production and has a sense of being in another time.[unrelated must mention "Deadwood" same good quality]

Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2020 at 02:37
Quote Yes it's the uniform principle that organized Roman Legions re-purposed for ultimate political flexibility.
Erm.. Not sure you're right about that. The reason I question it is because the legions remained what they had always been intended as, a packet of military force. Some aspects changed over the centuries, most of which we love to discuss or argue about on internet forums, but remember that because the legion depended upon it's leader for prosperity, not the state, they tended to place their loyalties likewise. So if the leader got ideas into his head, or the troops themselves persuaded him to go about a change in status, then they would march with him, thus loyalty rested more often than not upon the leader - and despite a long record of civil wars and coup detats, it is also true that loyalty wasn't often betrayed - or the result would have been chaos. But in any case, most leaders weren't up the risks of ambition and Rome always preferred steady cautious types in charge of legions.


Edited by caldrail - 30 Jan 2020 at 02:38
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2020 at 03:38
"uniform principle that organized Roman Legions re-purposed for ultimate political flexibility." 
This becomes the approach to making political decisions, the aristocracy are playing head games with all their Greek book learning. Caesar played better than anyone ever had before, so tired of winning, no crown please.

"Roman way" of war. This approach included a tendency towards standardization and systematization, practical borrowing, copying and adapting from outsiders, flexibility in tactics and methods, a strong sense of discipline, a ruthless persistence that sought comprehensive victory, and a cohesion brought about by the idea of Roman citizenship under arms – embodied in the legion.[1] These elements waxed and waned over time, but they form a distinct basis underlying Rome's rise.-wiki
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2020 at 02:22
Quote This becomes the approach to making political decisions,...
Politics were not decided by the legions, though in fairness they did sometimes intervene in the choice of who made political decisions. Rome, from the Republic onward, had a system of magistrates with state power divided among their titles. The Senate was formed to advise, composed of the senior and wealthiest men (Roman society was always graded by wealth). After the plebs almost rebelled, voting assemblies were brought in with a remit to decide on certain subjects.
 
Later the Senate became a power itself, able to make decrees, effectively the Roman government by the late Republic. It was however divided into factions and rivalries. With the excess wealth from Roman expansion and victory in warfare, warlords began to emerge with stronger presences in the Senate. Julius Caesar would be among them. He mounted what was more or less a military coup and became Dictator for three years (the standard maximum term was six months). This was extended to ten years, then finally perpetuo. No other Roman was so empowered and Antony had the office of Dictator abolished after Caesar's death.
 
The issue of monarchy was very contentious for Rome. Many considered that in order to wed Cleopatra, Caesar would have to become a monarch. Caesar refused the crown but all the same clearly had considered it and was testing the water. But he was assassinated, and lacking any support for her own power base in Egypt, she opted for Antony.
 
As you can see, the legions were peripheral to this cascade of authority.
 
Quote the aristocracy are playing head games with all their Greek book learning. Caesar played better than anyone ever had before, so tired of winning, no crown please.
Caesar? Tired of winning? I really don't think so. Winning was everything for him. But better than others? Caesar was able in leadership but a clumsy strategist. Leaving aside his military record, note that shortly before he was killed he dismissed his bodyguard. Hardly a sensible move in the Roman political bearpit, which was always close to violence among themselves as it was (though this state of affairs grew worse under Augustus)


Edited by caldrail - 31 Jan 2020 at 02:26
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2020 at 02:41
Your insight is appreciated. To re-state my observation, the tactics of the legions seem to parallel the tactics of politics. You wouldn't have a legion that could fight unless it could adapt and Rome is known for the ability to adapt and invent. I didn't think the Senate was operating beyond an advisory role in Caesar's time. 
No, lol he wasn't tired of winning I'm sure. Those words have a bit of a sting in US politics:) 
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2020 at 22:47
Quote To re-state my observation, the tactics of the legions seem to parallel the tactics of politics.
Of course it does. The Roman Army was not an organisation that existed in any real sense. Every legion was an independent packet of military power allocated to politicians serving Rome in the provinces. As the possibility of individual power grew in the late Republic, you find politicians starting to follow their own ambitions rather than any sort of strict civic duty. This led to the Principate whereby an ambitious politician could mount rebellions or coups, either because they disagreed vehemently with the current dominant individual(s), or simply because they wanted to dominate in place of. Nearly half the major battles fought by Roman Legions were against each other.
Quote You wouldn't have a legion that could fight unless it could adapt and Rome is known for the ability to adapt and invent.
No, it was not. Rome did have a habit of making changes it felt were necessary (qv Michael Grant) but it remained a very conservative society in many ways, the legions particularly. The concept of an army based on heavy infantry worked when first decided upon during the Punic Wars and was maintained more or less until changes were forced upon the Romans by increasing mobility of their enemies and the increasingly defensive stance of military strategy. In fact, this steadfast one trick army was vulnerable if the enemy realised its weaknesses. Surena did this at Carrhae - he had put together a primarily cavalry army the Romans had no adequate tactical counter.
Quote I didn't think the Senate was operating beyond an advisory role in Caesar's time. 
The Senate had for some centuries built upon its advisory role to run the empire. They had the right to pass laws remember. the practice of the Senate empowering individuals to complete objectives was long since established by Caesar's rise to power, the very same process continued to be used in imperial times.


Edited by caldrail - 10 Feb 2020 at 22:48
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2020 at 13:11
I can list the adaptations and inventions of the Roman Empire but you already know them.
Why is it phrased exactly this way but you are saying it's incorrect?


The emperor held the title of Princeps Senatus, and could appoint new senators, summon and preside over Senate discussions, and propose legislation. The Senate therefore took its lead from the emperor and, in most important areas, was only an advisory body.


Edited by Vanuatu - 19 Feb 2020 at 07:24
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2020 at 21:28
Firstly there was no political post called Emperor - that was a monarchial title and elite Romans would not have tolerated such a gross rehjection of Roman traditions. However, the Caesars were adopting a role that was in that area, even if, as Professor Greg Woolf says - "Emperor was not a proper job". We call them emperors, they did not.
 
The title Princeps Senatus had fallen into disuse by the time Augustus held authority over Rome. He did not adopt such a specific title (I'm not sure why some people think he did), preferring instead to nominate himself as Princeps, making him 'first citizen', thus the top dog in social status and a title adopted by his successors though they never seem to have stressed it - they much preferred the military title of Imperator which officially at least required periodic renewal.
 
The Senate had always been an advisory body with elected magistrates acting in an executive capacity. Technically, the Caesar were a new class of magistrate above anyone else, but remember that they did not have a single post to fulfill. Their authority was a conglomeration of lesser titles and powers presented by the Senate to the new incumbent.
 
The use of senatorial decrees was a means of providing emergency powers when the office of Dictator fell into disuse. The first instance appears in 133BC and the last I know of is dated 200AD, though the authority of the Caesars would effectively make the decree system obselete, it nonetheless took some time to be forgotten. However, for those who consider that the Senate in Principatal times merely did what Caesars wanted, it must be pointed out their authority was not easily overturned. They represented the senior and wealthiest men in Rome. And as an example, even Caligula - who has little respect for them - nonetheless asked them for permission to hold games.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 01:44
In the case of Caesar, your area of disagreement is unclear. Caesar brought about the shift in power from the Optimates to himself. He chipped away at the Senate's power by use of reforms such as term limits on provincial governors. 

Yes Liberator and Imperator are not "emperor." Augustus called himself by a number of titles all meaning sort of what emperor means, not a strictly military title like Imperator.

JC is technically Pontifex Maximus, the standard for a Roman at his level of power. He was also the Dictator for ten years, a magistrate  to whom even the consuls were subordinate before being voted dictator for life. 

One of the quora authors makes a comparison of JC's power and influence to that of Oliver Cromwell, with only the title Lord Protector Cromwell held all the power. Arguably before JC there would have always been men who could brake you in Rome. He may not have been the man with the best title.
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 hours 28 minutes ago at 22:18
Caesar did not 'chip away' at the power of the Senate. He was in fact rather respectful of it once he was Dictator (He used the Senate in an advisory capacity in normal Roman manner). Reforms and changes? These had happened before anyway.
 
Quote Augustus called himself by a number of titles all meaning sort of what emperor means, not a strictly military title like Imperator.
Not at all. Our word 'emperor' means monarch. The Roman idea of monarch was Rex, which was a much more tyrannical concept than our modern populist conception. Intolerable to the Romans. Caesar was assassinated partly because he threatened to become King of Rome both because of his own ambitions (Caesar had set up a throne in the Curia) and because of his relationship with Cleopatra.
 
Augustus preferred to accentuate civic duty and governorship of Rome rather than ruling it. That was why he was among the longest lived and successful of Caesars. I agree he was perhaps heavy handed and certainly a control freak personally, but as he said himself, he did not invent anything new.
 
Quote JC is technically Pontifex Maximus, the standard for a Roman at his level of power. He was also the Dictator for ten years, a magistrate  to whom even the consuls were subordinate before being voted dictator for life.
Pontifex Maximus was certainly an important job in Rome but not equatable to ruling power. His Dictator Perpetuo was however equivalent (and unique). This was why he angered many senators.
 
Quote One of the quora authors makes a comparison of JC's power and influence to that of Oliver Cromwell, with only the title Lord Protector Cromwell held all the power. Arguably before JC there would have always been men who could brake you in Rome. He may not have been the man with the best title.
But of course OC replaced the King after Charles I had talked himself into an execution as OC predicted he would. Lord Protector was as much a monarch of the Commonwealth albeit with far less pomp and ceremony, but when OC died, his son Richard took over and lost the job within a year because he was so bad at it, and Charles II was invited home to take up the throne.
 
Mind you, debates in the Senate often resulted in factions and continual rivalries. Remember that republican Rome was based on the ideas that power should be shared, power should be temporary, and power should be by consent. They never argued that someone should be powerful, apart of the late Republican period when top level posts in the Senate had fallen into disuse and leadership was lacking. Roman republican politics was about managing power and privilege.
 


Edited by caldrail - 21 hours 27 minutes ago at 22:19
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.