Poll: Favorite Roman?
- Thread starter Kasten
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I pick Marcus Tullius Cicero.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all Greek, so I can't pick them.
Also, he died by decapitation. How gruesome is that?
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all Greek, so I can't pick them.
Also, he died by decapitation. How gruesome is that?
Rather thin on the ground Republic-wise, aren't you? Though to be fair, too many potential candidates to choose from.Kasten said:
However, this I will ask: which 'Brutus' are you talking about? Lucius Junius Brutus the first consul of Rome? Decimus Junius Brutus the assassin? Marcus Junius Brutus the more famous assassin?
Best emperor? Yes... best Roman or most influential? Debatable... as a soldier and administrator, he was damned canny and knew what the hell he was doing, but no-one will ever know if he had the foresight to realise he was propping up a dying beast that didn't know it was dying yet. If there is one thing he must be credited over all others, though (with the possible exception of Augustus), it is the stability he brought. Unfortunately, I'll be critical here and say that it was easy enough considering how much of a jackass Domitian was and how impotent Nerva was. However, unlike most Roman emperors, his choice of successor was good judgement (on the basis that the adoption was official and Hadrian was declared heir apparent... not sure on that count).MacNille said:
With reference to his post-adoption pre-accession life? Most historians... -_- and twats like me... ¬_¬Quaxar said:
*cracks knuckles*Vegosiux said:
Please bear in mind that what follows comes from the.... keyboard of an unashamed advocate of Scipio Africanus. I'd say that if it were not for Scipio Africanus, Hannibal would've just been less unlikely to take Rome...
*ahem*
There is sufficient justification to believe that Hannibal had been doomed to defeat in the broader war by 211BC, through a combination of factors including: his abortive march on Rome; the ineffectual blithering of his brother Hasdrubal in Iberia; the Numidians making noises at each other rather than Syphax simply shutting up like a good idiot he was; Philip's lack of interest in Italy; and Hannibal's own military situation.
Roman public spirit was on a veritable high when Hannibal's army marched up to the walls (camped within three miles) only to turn back around again (Livy reports his cavalry was beaten back by Romans reinforced by... of all people... Numidian deserters). Now, even had the Brothers Scipio been replaced other than Africanus (i.e. if Claudius Nero had been allowed to stay), the situation would have swung back and forth indefinitely in all likelihood in Iberia, that is to say, Hasdrubal, Mago, Masinissa and Gisco would've all stayed south of the Ebro. I consider it a justifiable mistake on Africanus' part that he fought Hasdrubal, with his army facing north.
By this time, Hannibal was penned in Magna Graecia and Bruttium with what amounted to four legions in Sicily, six to eight legions south of Rome and another four north of Rome. What did he have? Never more than fifty thousand spread across his rather loose confederation in the south. Verrucosus' policy of non-engagement would ensure that this number just keeps going down, coupled with Flaccus and Marcellus running around giving as good as they got. It's just a pity that Pulcher is dead.
Speeding forward to 205BC, Carthage ended in Iberia, Nero has done what no-one else managed to do and outwit Hannibal, and hurled Hasdrubal's head over the wall of his camp. He can still fight, yes, he has a veteran army, but he is much more jaded, and his army is tired. Even before Africanus stepped foot in Sicily, there was no way in hell Hannibal could win. What most people fail to realise is that he was in the same situation as the Brothers Scipio in Iberia: you can win all the battles you like, but if you can't hold the land you capture, what's the freakin' point?! And Hannibal's biggest mistake was moving south so soon after Trebbia. Granted, he'd want his frostbitten troops out of the cold asap, but a Cisalpine summer isn't exactly bad... temperate at worst. But he really needed to establish a location wherein he could guarantee the hospitality of the natives (where better than the Boii... Albinus would be quick to add), and send diplomats to the Illyrians, which I'm surprised no-one has ever really picked up on. Parallel to Gnaeus Scipio at Tarraco. After winning Cissa, he marches back north of the Ebro, settles in and starts sweet-talking all the Iberians to Rome's side.
And lastly, Zama. Even if Hannibal had won Zama, his political capital has been destroyed because he was forced to retire from Italia and everyone will be reluctant to have him in command of any war effort that follows. Also, during that campaign of the autumn of 202BC, Africanus had wiped the floor with him. If Hannibal's 51000 had won, they'd be in little position to follow it up, because most of them were dehydrated (prior to battle Africanus' camp was right in the way of Hannibal's closest source of water thanks to his line of march and Hannibal's necessary pursuit) and the October sun was not nice in this part of the world. Also, Africanus would've legged it back to Cirta with Masinissa or Utica to Castra Cornelia which no-one dared attack (here's another strange point). His survivors would've then fallen under the command of either Tiberius Claudius Nero (if he'd arrived at all) or Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus, both of whom brought four fresh legions and whatever else was in Sicily (a few more albeit undestrength legions here and there). So, current chances of Hannibal taking Rome? Right... royally... fuck'd!
Realistically speaking, the turning point was the first battle of Nola: Marcellus shows the world Hannibal is not unbeatable (yes, yes, I know it was a tactical draw, but the mere fact that Marcellus compelled Hannibal to cede the field meant a shitload to the Roman people at the time and was a big reality check for Hannibal so soon after Cannae).
...
Err... sorry, ended up refuting the second thing only there... so... err... another vote for Publius Cornelius Publius filius Lucius nepos Scipio 'Hispanicus' Africanus.
Here's a question for you... is Africanus worthy of the agnomen Hispanicus as well? 'Cos I think he damned well is.
I don't understand this part, what do the Romans have to do with the American cultural identity?Kasten said:
Anyway my knowledge of Ancient Rome is slim. Only briefly covered it in my Making of Europe lectures, however next semester I'm doing 'From Republic to Empire' so should have a much larger understanding of Rome.
So for now I'll have to say Augustus, because as far as I know he was the biggest mover in making Rome become the imperialistic power house it's known for.
biig american teetees!Sassafrass said:
Shut up, he totally counts. >_>
Definitely, if we're going for actual goodness.MacNille said:
Trajan is the best one.Hands down.
My god man, that was the best read I ever had on this site.SckizoBoy said:
I like to think of myself as a Roman history enthusiast, but that was just fucking great.
I applaud you, good Sir, for you insight!
OT:
Though it is not really related to the really insightful post which I quoted, I'd have to say it's a tie between Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius.
After watching Rome [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_%28TV_series%29] though I'd have to go with Marcus Antonius.
He's just freaking cool.
Cicero was the greatest Roman, as far as we know. Without Cicero, we would have little concept of Roman culture as we idealize and imitate it. Cicero created the notion of Rome that the men who created the modern western world cherished and wanted to recreate. Of course that is just one man's vision but it endured through the conversion to Christianity and gave people a philosophy so universal that they continued to read it. There is a Cicero quote for every situation as long as you know him well enough.
