Cicero, because Robert Harris' books make him seem like a swell guy. And he did mind battle with Ceasar+Crassus+Pompey so that means he's just a little under three times as good as any one of them =D
Poll: Favorite Roman?
- Thread starter Kasten
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My favorite is Marcus Aurelius, who wrote the book of Stoic Philosophy called "Meditations," which I need to finish reading. He was also that last of the "Five Good Emperors," before passing it onto who son who kind of screwed things up.
Despite what the movie Gladiator says, he was not assassinated for political reasons.
But since Aurelius was not an option, I'll say Awe; True to Caesar.
Despite what the movie Gladiator says, he was not assassinated for political reasons.
But since Aurelius was not an option, I'll say Awe; True to Caesar.
Marcus Tullius Cicero for me.
I like the guy's writing and his ideas, very interesting to read. I believe I have two books about him and his life and a few that he's written, and those I take my time to read because sometimes the translations are a little rough and because I want to get what he's trying to say.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus is a close second.
I like the guy's writing and his ideas, very interesting to read. I believe I have two books about him and his life and a few that he's written, and those I take my time to read because sometimes the translations are a little rough and because I want to get what he's trying to say.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus is a close second.
I'm crying that was so funny (and choking on a cracker). I also nominate those romans as well as any romans I command in Rome Total War and every Roman that appears in Rome 2 Total War.Rawne1980 said:
Emperor Hadrian.
A 'Warrior Emperor' whose rule was remarkably absent of any major campaigns, who spent his term visiting nearly every Provence in the empire, reinforcing the borders (even abandoning his predecessor conquests as they were indefensible) and pioneered 'Peace through Strength.' He also is responsible for the rebuilding of the Pantheon after its destruction by fire in 80AD.
Later regarded as one of the 'Five Good Emperors' by Niccolò Machiavelli, due to his patronage of the military and of the arts.
A 'Warrior Emperor' whose rule was remarkably absent of any major campaigns, who spent his term visiting nearly every Provence in the empire, reinforcing the borders (even abandoning his predecessor conquests as they were indefensible) and pioneered 'Peace through Strength.' He also is responsible for the rebuilding of the Pantheon after its destruction by fire in 80AD.
Later regarded as one of the 'Five Good Emperors' by Niccolò Machiavelli, due to his patronage of the military and of the arts.
Nero was not, in fact, insane, a lot of the stick Nero gets today is actually leftovers from smear campaigns that were enacted during his life, and he was in fact a pretty good emperor, almost entirely due to the fact that he was good at choosing people to do the actual hard work.Chrono212 said:I like the plastic ones.
It's the loyalty that gets me.
OT: Nero for sheer insanity. And over used name in media.
The Great Fire of 64 also wasn't his doing, nor did he "fiddle while Rome burned" again this was a lie spread by his political rivals, he actually was personally responsible for organizing a large force of civilians that fought the fire, and he didn't use burnt real estate to expanded his palace, he used the real estate to build more tenements for those that had lost their homes in the fire, and had it built in a way that discouraged the spreading of any future fires.
The whole captive audience thing was true, but I'd sooner attribute that to his vanity than any form of insanity, but according to historical records, Nero was actually a very talented actor and musician, all the people with sore palms had them because they were legitimately applauding him, when playing at a musical contest in Greece, the crowd applauded him so much and so sincerely he freed the entire country from Roman rule, one of the reasons the upper class hated him so much, he was more worried about being popular among the middle and lower classes, he made a ton of rulings that benefited the plebeians, and not many that helped the rich, which is why they spread all kinds of nasty rumors about him.
Sure he may have had his mother killed and all that, and maybe he kicked a few women to death, but most of his "insane" acts were pretty legitimate power grabs, as there were a lot of people who didn't want him on the throne, a lot of that owing to the fact that his father was probably one of the biggest pricks in the entire universe, he whipped up his horse to run over children, he gouged out a man's eyes for criticizing him, and killed slaves for the smallest of offenses, not to mention his mother Agrippina wasn't much better, not to mention his uncle was Caligula, probably the worst emperor.
Yeeeeaaah but just about every Roman general ever that wasn't already in running for being emperor butted heads with some emperor or another, it's how Julius even BECAME one, just marched into his recall to Rome with the 13th Legion like "Hey guys. Surrender. Nao." and the Senate and Consuls were like "Sure thing bro. Don't stab us." and then he stabbed only some of them.Goofguy said:
I had a feeling I would find you here.SckizoBoy said:
As for me...well, my Roman history is quite weak. I like the little bit I know about Emperor Justinian, even if he couldn't fully recapture the Western Roman Empire.
No love for Marius?
sure his reforms may have opened the door to Imperium, but the unprecedented standardization of the military really put power in the roman's hands.
And why hasn't anyone mentioned Anonymous? That guy was everywhere, especially Rome. He must have found the sorcerers stone or something since hes been quoted hundreds of years apart.
sure his reforms may have opened the door to Imperium, but the unprecedented standardization of the military really put power in the roman's hands.
And why hasn't anyone mentioned Anonymous? That guy was everywhere, especially Rome. He must have found the sorcerers stone or something since hes been quoted hundreds of years apart.
Thankee kindly and y'welcome! You'll find that I am primarily a military historian as opposed to an all round historian, so most of my broader knowledge of the political scene of Rome is a bit lacking (namely, the Gracchi brothers). But, as you can tell, I love me the Second Punic War...fenrizz said:
LOL, yah... home from home! =PA_Parked_Car said:
Yeah, but the problem was that his reforms had to happen within twenty years of that time (whether they were instigated by him or not, though granted, he was the only one with the intelligence and fucking massive balls to do it) or Rome would've been pushed back to the Italian peninsula as the old system (combination of conscription and allocation of service by wealth and volunteers) would be crushed by its own success. However, it would only ever be a good system in the short term. Before, Roman armies were a combination of Roman and allied land-owners (for the most part). They had no vested interest in letting wars drag out as they wanted to go home and make sure their land was still in good shape. That is to say, they displayed loyalty to the Senate, or rather, the city of Rome. Because of the head-count system taking advantage of the discontent felt by the dispossessed, they go to war for a profession and the plunder, so they want wars to last a while so they can accrue a bit of a fortune, thus, their loyalty is to the general that brings them teh moneez. And with ambitious generals across the empire, it's always going to come to a head when the Senate tries to curtail said ambition.health-bar said:
I personally think that Africanus' system (of which we only had a fleeting glance at in Sicily) was the ideal compromise. Maintain the yearly levy, but any field forces required for overseas war efforts can be supplemented by separating the citizens into two: those who can legitimately serve; and those who can't. You want to get off military service? OK, pick a hobo over there, pay for his equipment and training and you can go home. Free army! And since there is also the traditional consular levy, the loyalties of any overseas army is divided and no-one can ultimately use it to their absolute use beyond the political aims dictated by the necessities of the war. Then, the veterans can be settled on the land they conquer and after a while, they won't want to move for anyone.
