Roman History General Discussion

[Conserative Morality]

Here are some opinions;

Julius Caesar was a self-serving tyrant and i'm glad he got stabbed.

Optimate detected. Prepare to be forgiven.

I believe Augustus was the greatest ruler of any state who has ever lived and most Optimus of Princeps.

Is that why he stopped the conquest of Germania after putting his incompetent family in-law in charge of three legions?

Justinian was the last true Roman. After him, no one would be deserving of the moniker of Augustus.

Justinian was a persecutor of the gods of the Roman state who married an infames and thought women should be put to death for adultery if they were raped. He's no Augustus.

[Minzerland II]

Sulla was somewhat justified in his proscriptions, but, like the OP stated, his proscriptions did more harm than good. His precedent would make Julius Caesar's dictatorship possible and therefore destroy the Republic utterly.

Here are some opinions;

Julius Caesar was a self-serving tyrant and i'm glad he got stabbed.

Optimate detected. Prepare to be forgiven.

[Khanastan]

Optimate detected. Prepare to be forgiven.

He was a brute and a butcher. This is one of the few times i'll admit that the nobles were right in what they did. Besides, without Caesar's death we would have no Augustus, then where would we be?

Is that why he stopped the conquest of Germania after putting his incompetent family in-law in charge of three legions?

Rome was already overextended and Germania wasn't worth the hassle. If they hadn't abandoned it then it would have been abandoned by Tiberius. And you can hardly blame Augustus for trying to give him adopted family some imperium. Especially after Tiberius threw his little tantrum and embraced everyone.

Justinian was a persecutor of the gods of the Roman state who married an infames and thought women should be put to death for adultery if they were raped. He's no Augustus.

He married an infames of a different faith at a time of religious upheaval, a sign that he was willing to make efforts to preserve the church. She also turned out to be quite the catch, no? That Roman trademark social mobility worked out well for those two.

[Conserative Morality]

He was a brute and a butcher. This is one of the few times i'll admit that the nobles were right in what they did. Besides, without Caesar's death we would have no Augustus, then where would we be?

In a much better place. Augustus' interests lay more with the nobility than the common people, unlike Caesar.

Rome was already overextended and Germania wasn't worth the hassle. If they hadn't abandoned it then it would have been abandoned by Tiberius. And you can hardly blame Augustus for trying to give him adopted family some imperium. Especially after Tiberius threw his little tantrum and embraced everyone.

I absolutely can and will condemn Augustus for practicing the kind of nepotism that would later define and destroy the Empire. Rome wasn't overextended, and the subjugation of Germania both for its amber and the pacification of the Germanic tribes would have been immensely useful.

He married an infames of a different faith at a time of religious upheaval, a sign that he was willing to make efforts to preserve the church. She also turned out to be quite the catch, no? That Roman trademark social mobility worked out well for those two.

She was a fellow Christian intensely interested in the persecution of the religious minorities within their borders. The actions and attitudes of Justinian and Theodora were more becoming of eastern despots and monarchs than Roman leaders of the res publica.

[Khanastan]

In a much better place. Augustus' interests lay more with the nobility than the common people, unlike Caesar.

Caesar's interest in the common people was nothing more than a popular grasp at power. He was a pandering tyrant in every sense of the word. He would have run the state into the ground.

I absolutely can and will condemn Augustus for practicing the kind of nepotism that would later define and destroy the Empire. Rome wasn't overextended, and the subjugation of Germania both for its amber and the pacification of the Germanic tribes would have been immensely useful.

Later define? I'm pretty nepotism was a cornerstone of Roman political life since its inception, especially during the republic. It would have been useful to hold all of Mesopotamia and Dacia too, but still unrealistic. I don't think its a coincidence that Rome was never able to maintain any conquests of land outside of that achieved at the end of Augustus' reign. Dacia has to be abandoned. Mesopotamia had to be abandoned. Armenia was constantly being taken and lost. The only exception to this was Britannia, and even then that was tedious. Rome had gotten as big as it could possibly hope to maintain.

She was a fellow Christian intensely interested in the persecution of the religious minorities within their borders. The actions and attitudes of Justinian and Theodora were more becoming of eastern despots and monarchs than Roman leaders of the res publica.

Persecution of religious minorities within Christianity was already commonplace, going back as far as Constantine I to preserve the homogeny of the church. Like Constantine before them, Justinian and Theodora took steps to try and solve these schisms diplomatically. It didn't work, obviously, but at least they tried.

[Conserative Morality]

Caesar's interest in the common people was nothing more than a popular grasp at power. He was a pandering tyrant in every sense of the word. He would have run the state into the ground.

Optimate nonsense. Caesar's reforms were far more perceptive of the realities of the day than the angry old men who thought that the poor should just quiet down and accept their position as natural inferiors.

Later define? I'm pretty nepotism was a cornerstone of Roman political life since its inception, especially during the republic.

Less during the Republic, when political power was fluid and constantly divided, than in the empire, when political power became overwhelmingly concentrated in one family at a time.

It would have been useful to hold all of Mesopotamia and Dacia too, but still unrealistic.

Not really. Dacia was perfectly viable, and Mesopotamia was only stopped by the overly cautious attitude of emperors towards the stability of their power over the ambitions of the nation.

I don't think its a coincidence that Rome was never able to maintain any conquests of land outside of that achieved at the end of Augustus' reign. Dacia has to be abandoned. Mesopotamia had to be abandoned. Armenia was constantly being taken and lost. The only exception to this was Britannia, and even then that was tedious. Rome had gotten as big as it could possibly hope to maintain.

Brittania, Mauretania, Thrace, Cappadocia, Arabia... the Empire was far from stagnant after Augustus.

Persecution of religious minorities within Christianity was already commonplace, going back as far as Constantine I to preserve the homogeny of the church. Like Constantine before them, Justinian and Theodora took steps to try and solve these schisms diplomatically. It didn't work, obviously, but at least they tried.

Not a fan. Was referring to their persecution of pagans, mind you.

[The Parkus Empire]

Julius Caesar was truly great, he gave the poor political power and created enduring democracy in Rome. Prior to Julius Caesar the poor were hedonistic rabble who clamoured mainly for bread and circuses, but he turned them into a virtous demographic.

[Conserative Morality]

Julius Caesar was truly great, he gave the poor political power and created enduring democracy in Rome. Prior to Julius Caesar the poor were hedonistic rabble who clamoured mainly for bread and circuses, but he turned them into a virtous demographic.

Please, reveal more of your ignorance of Caesar's domestic reforms.

[The Parkus Empire]

Julius Caesar was truly great, he gave the poor political power and created enduring democracy in Rome. Prior to Julius Caesar the poor were hedonistic rabble who clamoured mainly for bread and circuses, but he turned them into a virtous demographic.

Please, reveal more of your ignorance of Caesar's domestic reforms.

I am well aware of them, but they certainly did not include giving the poor a greater voice in government anymore than Putin does.

[Conserative Morality]

I am well aware of them, but they certainly did not include giving the poor a greater voice in government anymore than Putin does.

His interest was in weakening the aristocracy of the Senatorial and Equestrian orders who had dominated the republic for their own benefit. This weakening necessarily implies a strengthening of the plebs and poor. If he wasn't assassinated in the midst of his reforms, which included land redistribution to the poor and jobs programs, debt relief, reformation and REDUCTION of the grain dole, etc etc, his reforms would have left the Republic better off in the manner of a Sulla rather than an Augustus.

[Khanastan]

Julius Caesar was truly great, he gave the poor political power and created enduring democracy in Rome. Prior to Julius Caesar the poor were hedonistic rabble who clamoured mainly for bread and circuses, but he turned them into a virtous demographic.

Judging by the actions of Commodus and friends, the poor clamoured for bread and circuses a lot more post-Caesar than they did pre-Caesar.

Rome, as in the city, was a mess. A million people and nothing to do with them. Bread and circuses was all you could do to keep them from starving and rioting. As time went on and the city got bigger, the 'hedonism' as you put it would have just got worse and worse.

Please, reveal more of your ignorance of Caesar's domestic reforms.

I am well aware of them, but they certainly did not include giving the poor a greater voice in government anymore than Putin does.

Make no mistake, even under Caesar the poor were almost voiceless. Comparing the political rights of a Roman plebian to a modern day person anywhere in Europe just doesn't work.

[Khanastan]

Optimate nonsense. Caesar's reforms were far more perceptive of the realities of the day than the angry old men who thought that the poor should just quiet down and accept their position as natural inferiors.

I'm not arguing that Caesar's reforms weren't good for the people. I am saying that Caesar used rabid popular support to cement himself as a dictator.

Less during the Republic, when political power was fluid and constantly divided, than in the empire, when political power became overwhelmingly concentrated in one family at a time.

Sure, term limits were put in place to prevent one man from becoming too powerful, but power still stayed in the hands of the same men from the same families. Nepotism was still rampant. The problem with Augustus was the lack of a limiting power to stop him from putting his dipshit relatives into positions of power.

Brittania, Mauretania, Thrace, Cappadocia, Arabia... the Empire was far from stagnant after Augustus.

With the exception of Brittania, all of those places were already client states of Rome. Germania was a different beast altogether and couldn't just be assimilated.

[The Parkus Empire]

This weakening necessarily implies a strengthening of the plebs and poor.

No it doesn't, it implies a strengthening of monarchy.

[Conserative Morality]

No it doesn't, it implies a strengthening of monarchy.

Tell me more about how hereditary autocracy is strengthened by a weakening of those with the power to support a hereditary autocracy. The age of absolutism is about a millenium and a half off, so your favorite tradition is somewhat out of place here.

[Khanastan]

This weakening necessarily implies a strengthening of the plebs and poor.

No it doesn't, it implies a strengthening of monarchy.

>weakening the nobility doesn't strengthen the lower classes
>but it does strengthen the monarchy, which the republic, famously, didn't have

You've lost me.

[Conserative Morality]

>weakening the nobility doesn't strengthen the lower classes
>but it does strengthen the monarchy, which the republic, famously, didn't have

You've lost me.

He has to maintain his Manichean outlook on historical figures.

[The Blaatschapen]

Where the people who attained the equestrian rank in the Roman empire the predecessors of the modern brony?

[The Parkus Empire]

Tell me more about how hereditary autocracy is strengthened by a weakening of those with the power to support a hereditary autocracy.

Tell me more about how Publius was a plebian.

The age of absolutism is about a millenium and a half off, so your favorite tradition is somewhat out of place here.

Your venom is not endearing, yet I see you are freehanded with it in regard to others, but lying about me I take very personally.

[Khanastan]

Where the people who attained the equestrian rank in the Roman empire the predecessors of the modern brony?

The equestrian rank always confused me, as the early Romans weren't a big fan of the horse and cavalry warfare in general. I guess it just means that you were wealthy enough to afford to house, feed and train a horse.

So yes, they kind of were. They were the brony-knights of antiquity.

[The Parkus Empire]

No it doesn't, it implies a strengthening of monarchy.

>weakening the nobility doesn't strengthen the lower classes
>but it does strengthen the monarchy, which the republic, famously, didn't have

You've lost me.

Weakening the nobility does not give the plebs strength if it the nobility's loss of power goes to an autocrat.

[The Parkus Empire]

Where the people who attained the equestrian rank in the Roman empire the predecessors of the modern brony?

Well, no, since they probably did not have sexual inclinations toward said horses.

[Conserative Morality]

Tell me more about how Publius was a plebian.

You'll have to be more specific.

Your venom is not endearing, yet I see you are freehanded with it in regard to others, but lying about me I take very personally.

Blood, mud, and pizen, that's the nature of man. My venom isn't meant to be endearing. It's just an expression of anger, disgust, and exhaustion. No lie here, though an exaggeration perhaps.

[The Parkus Empire]

Tell me more about how Publius was a plebian.

You'll have to be more specific.

Your venom is not endearing, yet I see you are freehanded with it in regard to others, but lying about me I take very personally.

Blood, mud, and pizen, that's the nature of man. My venom isn't meant to be endearing. It's just an expression of anger, disgust, and exhaustion. No lie here, though an exaggeration perhaps.

Publius Valerius Publicola

It's a lie, though I will not express my disgust any further over it.

[Conserative Morality]

Publius Valerius Publicola

Dunno how that addresses my accusation that the nobility are the ones with the power to uphold a monarchy. Does a pillar falling and collapsing a ruin disprove that a ceiling is held up by pillars? Or does it affirm it by its failure?

[The Parkus Empire]

Publius Valerius Publicola

Dunno how that addresses my accusation that the nobility are the ones with the power to uphold a monarchy. Does a pillar falling and collapsing a ruin disprove that a ceiling is held up by pillars? Or does it affirm it by its failure?

In the same sense the commoners are the ones with the power to uphold an aristocracy