NationStates

The Parkus Empire wrote:In the same sense the commoners are the ones with the power to uphold an aristocracy

And in that sense weakening the commoners would likewise make it very difficult for an aristocracy or any other upper class to sustain itself. The essence of aristocracy is the suppression of the strength of the masses, not its removal. Else nobility the world over would just be genocides.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:In the same sense the commoners are the ones with the power to uphold an aristocracy

And in that sense weakening the commoners would likewise make it very difficult for an aristocracy or any other upper class to sustain itself. The essence of aristocracy is the suppression of the strength of the masses, not its removal. Else nobility the world over would just be genocides.

Weakening is removal now?

The Parkus Empire wrote:Weakening is removal now?

Weakening is the removal of strength. So if aristocracies were not dependent on the strength of the commoners, the eventual and inevitable conclusion in a self-serving nature would be genocide. That doesn't happen, thus reinforcing my point.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Weakening is removal now?

Weakening is the removal of strength. So if aristocracies were not dependent on the strength of the commoners, the eventual and inevitable conclusion in a self-serving nature would be genocide. That doesn't happen, thus reinforcing my point.

They are dependent on their strength of utility, but not on their political power, which is kept weak.

The Parkus Empire wrote:They are dependent on their strength of utility, but not on their political power, which is kept weak.

Untrue. Their political power is their utility. Used as pawns against other nobles. Its their organization and understanding of their political power which is kept weak.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:They are dependent on their strength of utility, but not on their political power, which is kept weak.

Untrue. Their political power is their utility. Used as pawns against other nobles. Its their organization and understanding of their political power which is kept weak.

It is their legal authority which is kept weak.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Caesar was an experienced battlefield commander with decades of leadership in shit spots under his belt. What did Julian have? I believe in tried and tested commanders, not babes favored because they wrote a few anti-Christian tracts and looked good in armor.

B-but what if those tracts were really good?

Also, that's not entirely fair. Julian wasn't that much less seasoned than Caesar was when he started the Gallic Wars. He had experience fighting in Germania with considerable success.

He'd look better in his armor if he actually wore it tbh.

Where are those tracts? All hype and fanboyism over nothing with proofs. It's teenager logic. "If it wasn't copied it must be good!"

Not even close on the military experience. Caesar worked his way up the ranks from a lower command position. He had three solid campaigns under his belt. Julian roughed up some G*rmanics and tried to play in the big leagues. It was very far from a small difference. Julian was a boy playing at soldier.

On another note did you know Caesar married the granddaughter of Sulla :^)

Gracchus Brothers supporters - unite!

The East Marches II wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:B-but what if those tracts were really good?

Also, that's not entirely fair. Julian wasn't that much less seasoned than Caesar was when he started the Gallic Wars. He had experience fighting in Germania with considerable success.

He'd look better in his armor if he actually wore it tbh.

Where are those tracts? All hype and fanboyism over nothing with proofs. It's teenager logic. "If it wasn't copied it must be good!"

Not even close on the military experience. Caesar worked his way up the ranks from a lower command position. He had three solid campaigns under his belt. Julian roughed up some G*rmanics and tried to play in the big leagues. It was very far from a small difference. Julian was a boy playing at soldier.

On another note did you know Caesar married the granddaughter of Sulla :^)

Julian is like the Saint Augustine of contemporary Hellenismos.

Reading Livy's The War With Hannibal at the moment. Livy is such a fanboy my god.

Bakery Hill wrote:Reading Livy's The War With Hannibal at the moment. Livy is such a fanboy my god.

Hannibal in my opinion is an overrated general. He only defeated the Roman army because it was overconfident and complacent. Sure, a Cannae was a tactical masterpiece, but to be honest, the Roman army itself made a key mistake in that battle to mass heavy infantry at the center and any other general would just envelop the army from the flanks.
Once the Roman army ended its period of complacency and "invincibility", Zama happened.

The Transhuman Union wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:Reading Livy's The War With Hannibal at the moment. Livy is such a fanboy my god.

Hannibal in my opinion is an overrated general. He only defeated the Roman army because it was overconfident and complacent. Sure, a Cannae was a tactical masterpiece, but to be honest, the Roman army itself made a key mistake in that battle to mass heavy infantry at the center and any other general would just envelop the army from the flanks.
Once the Roman army ended its period of complacency and "invincibility", Zama happened.

Hannibal made good use of his enemy's weaknesses. Roman values and Roman political structure churned these kind of vainglorious and overconfident commanders a dime a dozen. The fuckers were always blustering into ambushes and charging people head on and it's a testimony to how good they were that they were got away with this shit so much.

Really, Hannibal shines from my reading not primarily because of his tactical skill but his ability to motivate his men and manipulate his enemies and allies. The one Roman who really worried Hannibal and so what Hannibal did was burn and loot the countryside, but making sure to spare Fabius's farms, playing into doubts and conspiracies of secret treachery. But of course, ultimately his political acumen was not so great that he could split Rome's associates from the city, and there lay his downfall.

The East Marches II wrote:Where are those tracts? All hype and fanboyism over nothing with proofs. It's teenager logic. "If it wasn't copied it must be good!"

"I didn't copy this because it was too good and caused people to doubt the lerd."

"You're just saying it was good because it no longer exists. =^)"

Clearly it was perceived as good (or rather, evil) even by his opponents.

Not even close on the military experience. Caesar worked his way up the ranks from a lower command position. He had three solid campaigns under his belt. Julian roughed up some G*rmanics and tried to play in the big leagues. It was very far from a small difference. Julian was a boy playing at soldier.

On another note did you know Caesar married the granddaughter of Sulla :^)

Ten years of more or less continuous combat experience before his campaign v. Sixteen scattered across twenty-five years? Come now, TEM, be reasonable.

Is it just me or is Roman history most interesting when they are loosing?

Purpelia wrote:Is it just me or is Roman history most interesting when they are loosing?

Yes.

Something that the French inherited as well from them

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Is it just me or is Roman history most interesting when they are loosing?

Yes.

Something that the French inherited as well from them

That would depend on if you count the entire Napoleonic period as one giant defeat or not. If yes, you would be right. And an argument can be made for it to be true.
Than again, arguments can and should be made for it being a great awakening for mankind. So either way, interesting.

Superbus, Brutus+Collantinus, Lartius, Sulla, Julius, Augustus, Stephen II.

From kings to republics and back again.

Call me crazy but I am more partial to the more fun loving emperors like Caligula. I just enjoy watching it all burn.

Purpelia wrote:Call me crazy but I am more partial to the more fun loving emperors like Caligula. I just enjoy watching it all burn.

Nero best emperor
/s

Call me a plebeian, but I find Roman history rather boring.

I've always been more interested in the 'barbarians' than the debauchery and violence of Rome.

The Transhuman Union wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Call me crazy but I am more partial to the more fun loving emperors like Caligula. I just enjoy watching it all burn.

Nero best emperor
/s

That man to me is like the most misunderstood guy ever. I mean sure, he presided over a great fire in Rome. But it's not like he was all evil about it. Indeed not only did he rebuild the city grander than ever but he found and punished the guilty as well. And yet because those evil little pyromaniacs managed to win a couple centuries later he gets bad press to this day.

Pontous wrote:Call me a plebeian, but I find Roman history rather boring.

I've always been more interested in the 'barbarians' than the debauchery and violence of Rome.

I am not too well versed in what those other guys did. How did their debauchery and violence compare? Like, it must have been amazing if it was better than what was going on in Rome.

Purpelia wrote:That man to me is like the most misunderstood guy ever. I mean sure, he presided over a great fire in Rome. But it's not like he was all evil about it. Indeed not only did he rebuild the city grander than ever but he found and punished the guilty as well. And yet because those evil little pyromaniacs managed to win a couple centuries later he gets bad press to this day.

Nero was considered to be "bad" because he used the fire of Rome to his advantage to try build a palace for himself (if I remember correctly from my history class milleniums ago), which caused the citizens to believe that he intentionally started the fire, so he just deflected the blame to Christian citizens.
Nero was, in my opinion, never a bad emperor (but still he was not a Trajan or something). But I think most historians at the time didn't consider him good because he was not popular, both with the people and the politicians at the time. He rose taxes to fund the projects he began.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Where are those tracts? All hype and fanboyism over nothing with proofs. It's teenager logic. "If it wasn't copied it must be good!"

"I didn't copy this because it was too good and caused people to doubt the lerd."

"You're just saying it was good because it no longer exists. =^)"

Clearly it was perceived as good (or rather, evil) even by his opponents.

Not even close on the military experience. Caesar worked his way up the ranks from a lower command position. He had three solid campaigns under his belt. Julian roughed up some G*rmanics and tried to play in the big leagues. It was very far from a small difference. Julian was a boy playing at soldier.

On another note did you know Caesar married the granddaughter of Sulla :^)

Ten years of more or less continuous combat experience before his campaign v. Sixteen scattered across twenty-five years? Come now, TEM, be reasonable.

Most ancient literature must have been good, since 99.999% did not get the copius, continuous copying necessary to preserve it until the Renaissance.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Most ancient literature must have been good, since 99.999% did not get the copius, continuous copying necessary to preserve it until the Renaissance.

Nice work on completely missing the point of my clarification to TEM who made the exact same accusation. Is it fun being deliberately obtuse?

Also, 99.99%? Most estimates have only 90% lost at most.

Random thoughts:

Aurelian, Antoninus Pius and Septimius Severus are quite underrated. Arguably Vespasian too.
Adoptive Emperors remain the best 'grouping' of leaders. Augustus was, on the whole, pretty good at the role. I don't think I could really give a 'best emperor'.

I like Caesar. Its an entirely subjective view - I just find him pretty damn charismatic.

Sulla is decent enough. Not some secret hero in need of redemption, but not a villain either. Mostly victim of a subsequent character assassination (not to mention the non-survival of his own account) and the relatively sparse nature of extant histories.

For all of Cicero's high ideals, he fucked up badly during his brief play for power (not as Consul, but in the period after Caesar's death).
Cato the Younger does not remotely deserve the praise he gets.

Sextus Pompey deserved better. Sertorius is underrated as a commander. Lucullus gets a bit ignored too. Fabius 'Cunctator' is good, but I guess that's generally recognised.

Suetonius is the best gossip of the period (though if you count him, Procopius is pretty great in his secret history).
People unfairly ignore Polybius, while praising Livy.
No one matches Tacitus for salt.

People really like to insert modern ideological issues to the Romans of the day (Gracchi in particular).
People really take views of 'moral decline' at face value.
People really have messed up views about what causes the end of the Empire.
Byzantine gets a bit shafted in the popular mindset (even though there's plenty of good emperors and interesting folk).

Elagabalus the absolute madman.