NationStates

A thread for discussion of the Roman Republic as well as Empire.

During the late years of the Roman Republic, there the tension between the aristrocrats (who controlled the senate) and the plebians (and non citizens) increased more regularly into violence, which reached an apogee under the populist consul Marius, who had no qualms about inciting mob m action and widespread murder to support his cause. Sulla, a military commander, marched on Rome to restore law, ironically destroying one of Rome's most important laws (armies are to stay out). He did restore order but, alas, Marius, after fleeing, returned, and was even worse. Sulla again marched on Rome, and the senate this time made him dictator; he used his power to proscribe (murder) those whom he consideres the ringleaders of the trouble (hundreds of men); when order was restored, he stepped down as dictator. So, for an opening topic, I ask: were Sulla's murders justified? I would say they harmed more than helped, since in the long run they paved the way for Caesar by setting an "above the law" precedent.

I think Augustus actually worsened the decline by his moral reforms.

The Parkus Empire wrote:A thread for discussion of the Roman Republic as well as Empire.

So, for an opening topic, I ask: were Sulla's murders justified? I would say they harmed more than helped, since in the long run they paved the way for Caesar by setting an "above the law" precedent.

Sulla's murders weren't justified, but the whole era of the Republic was pretty fucked-up. Violence was the order of the day, from the Gracchi to Marius to Cato to Cicero to Caesar. I wouldn't put particular blame on him for a process that had started decades before him.

The Parkus Empire wrote:I think Augustus actually worsened the decline by his moral reforms.

P. sure the Empire wasn't in decline by Augustus' time, though I disagree with his moral reforms for very different reasons.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:A thread for discussion of the Roman Republic as well as Empire.

So, for an opening topic, I ask: were Sulla's murders justified? I would say they harmed more than helped, since in the long run they paved the way for Caesar by setting an "above the law" precedent.

Sulla's murders weren't justified, but the whole era of the Republic was pretty fucked-up. Violence was the order of the day, from the Gracchi to Marius to Cato to Cicero to Caesar. I wouldn't put particular blame on him for a process that had started decades before him.

The Parkus Empire wrote:I think Augustus actually worsened the decline by his moral reforms.

P. sure the Empire wasn't in decline by Augustus' time, though I disagree with his moral reforms for very different reasons.

The difference is that Sulla was trying to conserve the republic.

Augustus certainly thought Roman morals had gone down the latrine.

The Parkus Empire wrote:The difference is that Sulla was trying to conserve the republic.

Why is that relevant? I thought you were all about how the ends don't matter if the means are vile?

Augustus certainly thought Roman morals had gone down the latrine.

Augustus also thought that it should be more difficult to free slaves, that Egypt was his personal fief, and that women needed to pump out more babies to be recognized as partially human instead of purely chattel.

I wouldn't count him as an authority on morality.

Sulla internet defense force reporting in. Sulla did nothing wrong. Marian scum had overthrown the Republic, they were stabbing him in the back as he fought possibly the greatest foe Rome ever faced in the form of Mithridates. A war on two fronts. The Marian scum took advantage of Sulla's mercy the first time. He did not make a mistake the second time in a mass pardon. Marius didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

Sulla did nothing wrong; his proscriptions were absolutely necessary to save the Roman state from nepotism.

Also a Daily Reminder Julian the Apostate threw the war with the Sassanid Empire and it speaks volumes he is the champion of edgy contrarians the world over even if some allegedly learned men like him.

The East Marches II wrote:Sulla internet defense force reporting in. Sulla did nothing wrong. Marian scum had overthrown the Republic, they were stabbing him in the back as he fought possibly the greatest foe Rome ever faced in the form of Mithridates. A war on two fronts. The Marian scum took advantage of Sulla's mercy the first time. He did not make a mistake the second time in a mass pardon. Marius didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

"Greatest foe"

Telling that one so chained in mind and spirit to Anatolia would lionize one of his own smh. To quote a REAL Roman: 'Veni, vidi, vici'.

The East Marches II wrote:Also a Daily Reminder Julian the Apostate threw the war with the Sassanid Empire and it speaks volumes he is the champion of edgy contrarians the world over even if some allegedly learned men like him.

RIP the last wolf of Rome, learned and forward-thinking, a champion of the common people and a man who understood economics, killed by the poor advice of his generals and the overeagerness of youth. =^(

The Parkus Empire wrote:I think Augustus actually worsened the decline by his moral reforms.

Why do you support adultery?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:I think Augustus actually worsened the decline by his moral reforms.

Why do you support adultery?

Increases the birth rate.

Come to think of it, perhaps Augustus' goal of "Women as baby fabricae" would have been better served by encouraging adultery French style.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Also a Daily Reminder Julian the Apostate threw the war with the Sassanid Empire and it speaks volumes he is the champion of edgy contrarians the world over even if some allegedly learned men like him.

RIP the last wolf of Rome, learned and forward-thinking, a champion of the common people and a man who understood economics, killed by the poor advice of his generals and the overeagerness of youth. =^(

If he was so forward thinking, why did he listen to poor advice and get killed by his own overeagerness?

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Sulla internet defense force reporting in. Sulla did nothing wrong. Marian scum had overthrown the Republic, they were stabbing him in the back as he fought possibly the greatest foe Rome ever faced in the form of Mithridates. A war on two fronts. The Marian scum took advantage of Sulla's mercy the first time. He did not make a mistake the second time in a mass pardon. Marius didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

"Greatest foe"

Telling that one so chained in mind and spirit to Anatolia would lionize one of his own smh. To quote a REAL Roman: 'Veni, vidi, vici'.

He figured out the Roman heavy infantry were how you win wars. Its quite telling that a MARIAN would lionize the man who fought a bunch of G*rmanics over somebody who fought a peer foe. Just like in the Social War, Marius could never measure up when facing an equal or superior force :^)

For the record: Caesar was pardoned by Sulla because he had potential and Caesar did nothing wrong in Gaul, Gaul had it coming. Do not listen to Dan "Muh Celtic Holocaust" Carlin

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Also a Daily Reminder Julian the Apostate threw the war with the Sassanid Empire and it speaks volumes he is the champion of edgy contrarians the world over even if some allegedly learned men like him.

RIP the last wolf of Rome, learned and forward-thinking, a champion of the common people and a man who understood economics, killed by the poor advice of his generals and the overeagerness of youth. =^(

>Understood economics
>Loses irreplaceable legions to hordes of disposable Persians
>"forward thinking"

"H-he was mislead by his generals is all"

He lost to the people with the worst historical KDR. He should have had his memory erased.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:If he was so forward thinking, why did he listen to poor advice and get killed by his own overeagerness?

No one's perfect. We all make mistakes. Julian was just a man, primus inter pares, and errare humanum est. =^)

The East Marches II wrote:>Understood economics
>Loses irreplaceable legions to hordes of disposable Persians
>"forward thinking"

"H-he was mislead by his generals is all"

He lost to the people with the worst historical KDR. He should have had his memory erased.

>> judging a man by one loss caused by his personal death

The legions he brought with him were damaged but not beyond hope or repair before his death. Also it is well-recorded that his generals told his Ctesiphon could not be taken like the cowards they were. Also also, the records show that he beat the Persians outside of Ctesiphon with nominal casualities amounting to a KDR of over 30-1.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:>Understood economics
>Loses irreplaceable legions to hordes of disposable Persians
>"forward thinking"

"H-he was mislead by his generals is all"

He lost to the people with the worst historical KDR. He should have had his memory erased.

>> judging a man by one loss caused by his personal death

The legions he brought with him were damaged but not beyond hope or repair before his death. Also it is well-recorded that his generals told his Ctesiphon could not be taken like the cowards they were. Also also, the records show that he beat the Persians outside of Ctesiphon with nominal casualities amounting to a KDR of over 30-1.

>Not beyond hope
>Lose your experienced officers
>Delet your middle command structure because you supposedly know better
>RIP half your forces

His generals told him not to be a Rambo wannabe. Julian screwed the pooch. Then he died like a punk without even having to live through the tragedy of his fuck up.

The East Marches II wrote:>Not beyond hope
>Lose your experienced officers
>Delet your middle command structure because you supposedly know better
>RIP half your forces

His generals told him not to be a Rambo wannabe. Julian screwed the pooch. Then he died like a punk without even having to live through the tragedy of his fuck up.

>> "P-Persians are the weakest of enemies"
>> "J-Julians officers were right to say that a Roman army could not hope to beat a Persian one without overwhelming numerical superiority and also I am a traitor who should be thrown from the Tarpeian Rock"

Choose one.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:>Not beyond hope
>Lose your experienced officers
>Delet your middle command structure because you supposedly know better
>RIP half your forces

His generals told him not to be a Rambo wannabe. Julian screwed the pooch. Then he died like a punk without even having to live through the tragedy of his fuck up.

>> "P-Persians are the weakest of enemies"
>> "J-Julians officers were right to say that a Roman army could not hope to beat a Persian one without overwhelming numerical superiority and also I am a traitor who should be thrown from the Tarpeian Rock"

Choose one.

>attacking an entrenched foe with a Rambo army and no real supply lines because "lol what is securing my lines of communication"

Thats a stupid idea even against the weakest of foes anon.

The East Marches II wrote:>attacking an entrenched foe with a Rambo army and no real supply lines because "lol what is securing my lines of communication"

Thats a stupid idea even against the weakest of foes anon.

Julian's fleet was more than adequate to supply his forces and Rome has a long history of defeating fools who put their faith in walls of stone over men of iron.

>> tfw you would have poorly advised Caesar to abandon the siege of Avaricum

It's like you don't even believe in Roman superiority over the barbarian masses.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:>attacking an entrenched foe with a Rambo army and no real supply lines because "lol what is securing my lines of communication"

Thats a stupid idea even against the weakest of foes anon.

Julian's fleet was more than adequate to supply his forces and Rome has a long history of defeating fools who put their faith in walls of stone over men of iron.

>> tfw you would have poorly advised Caesar to abandon the siege of Avaricum

It's like you don't even believe in Roman superiority over the barbarian masses.

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.

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.

Here are some opinions;

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

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

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

Those were some opinions. Thank you for reading.

I remember having a discussion a while ago on 8chan's /his/ board about who the last person with a legitimate claim on the Roman Empire was. General consensus pointed at Napoleon due to his sheer ambition, but other notable candidates include various Ottoman and Holy Roman emperors, Charles X of Spain, Peter the Great and for some reason Mussolini and Hitler. I can sort of get Mussolini, but Hitler is pushing it a bit. What does NS think?