We need to form a left-wing militia

Seriously? I haven't seen Voltaire on in a while. O_o

Marcus Aurelius just happened to be my favorite Roman emperor. I didn't know that Voltaire had already picked it. Or I fogot.

Oh well, guess it's going to be like this for 10 days.
 
apple0154 said:
Are you saying the gals will attack with hash on their hips? OMG, I'm going to be the wackiest, right wing nut there ever was. Come and get me!!!
Click to expand...

Proof that the left is weak and pathetic. You are unsalvagable. I shall join the right. Perhaps reactionaries can accomplish something. The left will never accomplish anything.
 
Voltaire didn't randomly pick Aurelius. I picked Trajan, and then recommended Augustus, Septemius Severus, Marcus Aurelius, and Elagabalus to each respective individual. I didn't expect everyone to take what I offered - especially since Elagabalus was mostly a joke.

Personally, I think you'd make a better Commodus, because he wanted to be deified while still a living emperor.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
Voltaire didn't randomly pick Aurelius. I picked Trajan, and then recommended Augustus, Septemius Severus, Marcus Aurelius, and Elagabalus to each respective individual. I didn't expect everyone to take what I offered - especially since Elagabalus was mostly a joke.
Click to expand...

Aurelius was a great Stoic philosopher as well as emperor. I've read some of his works and rather liked him. He's one of the few Roman emperors that wasn't a total dick, and was probably the most intelligent of the lot.

Emperor Trajan said:
Personally, I think you'd make a better Commodus, because he wanted to be deified while still a living emperor.
Click to expand...

I think Caesar would've gone down that route had he lived. Having experienced the Egyptian dynasty with Cleopatra, Caesar came to like the idea of the ruler being deified, as they were in Egypt. And that's one of the things that lead to his assassination, people fearing that he was giving in to such hubris.
 
Emperor Nero said:
Aurelius was a great Stoic philosopher as well as emperor. I've read some of his works and rather liked him. He's one of the few Roman emperors that wasn't a total dick, and was probably the most intelligent of the lot.



I think Caesar would've gone down that route had he lived. Having experienced the Egyptian dynasty with Cleopatra, Caesar came to like the idea of the ruler being deified, as they were in Egypt. And that's one of the things that lead to his assassination, people fearing that he was giving in to such hubris.
Click to expand...
Hardly! No Roman Emperor even remotely compares to Gaius Octavius. None of them accomplished what he did, had a fraction of the influence nor achieved the legacy that Octavian did. Many Romans exceeded Octavian as a military commander but none, not even Julius Ceaser come close to Octavians accomplishments as a politician. Octavians creation of the Roman Principiate was a staggering historical achievement and it's impact on how governments and the rule of law are administered have been handed down to this very day. There's no room even for discussion here. Not even Trajan, Aurelious or Hadrian come even remotely close to having the significance as Imperator as Octavian did.

As for your comment on Ceasar. That's just simply wrong. Ceasar held stoic philosophers in utter contempt. One of Ceasar's greatest political rivals was the greatest Roman Stoicist of all, Cato the Younger, and Ceaser publicly ridiculed him and his stoic philosophy as the best way to create the ultimate narrow minded fanatic. Ceasar was absolutely scathing in his contempt for Cato's stoicism and his fanatical adherence to a superanuated system of governance, The Roman Republic, which had worked well for a small city state but was utterly incompetent in dealing with the demands of a world wide empire. It was Cato and his Boni band of Optimates who would have brought the Roman Empire crashing down upon it's knees had not Ceasar marched on Rome. So there's no way what so ever Ceasar would have gone down that way and it was primarily because Ceasar was a radical and a revolutionary and wouldn't even remotely considered walking that path that he was assasinated in the first place. That's where Octavians brilliance as a politican outshone Julius Ceasar (and that's about the only example you'll ever find of any Roman outshining Ceasar). Octavian patiently and painstakingly built a bridge from the Republic to the Imperium that included the ruling political class (i.e. the senate) as active participants in ruling the Empire with himself having ultimate authority where as Ceasar created a political chasm which he would have leaped across with out regard for the Roman political class to drag Rome into the Imperium kicking and screaming with him self as the supreme autocrat. Octavian may not have been the universal genius that Julius Ceasar was but in this instance he was far wiser.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Hardly! No Roman Emperor even remotely compares to Gaius Octavius. None of them accomplished what he did, had a fraction of the influence nor achieved the legacy that Octavian did. Many Romans exceeded Octavian as a military commander but none, not even Julius Ceaser come close to Octavians accomplishments as a politician. Octavians creation of the Roman Principiate was a staggering historical achievement and it's impact on how governments and the rule of law are administered have been handed down to this very day. There's no room even for discussion here. Not even Trajan, Aurelious or Hadrian come even remotely close to having the significance as Imperator as Octavian did.
Click to expand...

Octavian was a great emperor. Aurelius was a wise one. I think you confused my meaning. Even the great Roman emperors were usually a bit of a dick, and it's somewhat odd to have a good emperor and a great philosopher in one person. While I wouldn't claim that Aurelius was a greater emperor than Octavian, I don't think it's crazy to believe he's interesting as a human being.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
As for your comment on Ceasar. That's just simply wrong. Ceasar held stoic philosophers in utter contempt. One of Ceasar's greatest political rivals was the greatest Roman Stoicist of all, Cato the Younger, and Ceaser publicly ridiculed him and his stoic philosophy as the best way to create the ultimate narrow minded fanatic. Ceasar was absolutely scathing in his contempt for Cato's stoicism and his fanatical adherence to a superanuated system of governance, The Roman Republic, which had worked well for a small city state but was utterly incompetent in dealing with the demands of a world wide empire. It was Cato and his Boni band of Optimates who would have brought the Roman Empire crashing down upon it's knees had not Ceasar marched on Rome. So there's no way what so ever Ceasar would have gone down that way and it was primarily because Ceasar was a radical and a revolutionary and wouldn't even remotely considered walking that path that he was assasinated in the first place. That's where Octavians brilliance as a politican outshone Julius Ceasar (and that's about the only example you'll ever find of any Roman outshining Ceasar). Octavian patiently and painstakingly built a bridge from the Republic to the Imperium that included the ruling political class (i.e. the senate) as active participants in ruling the Empire with himself having ultimate authority where as Ceasar created a political chasm which he would have leaped across with out regard for the Roman political class to drag Rome into the Imperium kicking and screaming with him self as the supreme autocrat. Octavian may not have been the universal genius that Julius Ceasar was but in this instance he was far wiser.
Click to expand...

OK.
 
I think its generally assumed that Augustus was the greatest Roman Emperor (although I have a soft spot for Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, whose Nervan Dynasty kicks the hell out of the Julio-Claudians and especially the shitty Flavians), which is why I offered it to Grind.

I personally hold grudges against Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus, because they were the wreckers of a Republic, whereas everyone from Tiberius onward inherited the system, and so forth. The modern Hell of Dante would swap out Brutus and Cassius for Caesar and Antony, as we are once again good republicans.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
I think its generally assumed that Augustus was the greatest Roman Emperor (although I have a soft spot for Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, whose Nervan Dynasty kicks the hell out of the Julio-Claudians and especially the shitty Flavians), which is why I offered it to Grind.

I personally hold grudges against Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus, because they were the wreckers of a Republic, whereas everyone from Tiberius onward inherited the system, and so forth. The modern Hell of Dante would swap out Brutus and Cassius for Caesar and Antony, as we are once again good republicans.
Click to expand...

Caesar and Augustus did Rome a favor by destroying the republic.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
I think its generally assumed that Augustus was the greatest Roman Emperor (although I have a soft spot for Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, whose Nervan Dynasty kicks the hell out of the Julio-Claudians and especially the shitty Flavians), which is why I offered it to Grind.

I personally hold grudges against Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus, because they were the wreckers of a Republic, whereas everyone from Tiberius onward inherited the system, and so forth. The modern Hell of Dante would swap out Brutus and Cassius for Caesar and Antony, as we are once again good republicans.
Click to expand...
That's because you have these sentimental notions about the Roman Republic that are niave. First, neither Julius Ceasar or Octavian (Augustus) wrecked the Roman Republic. It was the oligarchs in the Senate of the late Republic who wrecked the Republic. They grossly abused their position of power and pre-eminence and corrupted the Republic beyond the limits of viability. The Roman Republican form of Government worked well enough when Rome was a small city-state situated on the salt trade route. It worked well even when Rome became a major player in meditteranian politics after the second Punic war.

It was when Rome gained it's provinces in Asia, Macedon, North Africa and Spain that things began to unravel. What wrecked the Republic was the inability of the Roman oligarchy (the senate) to be able to rule it's far flung empire affectively. A handful of ruling families in Rome used the Roman system of magistrates to funnel the wealth of empire into the hands of a few ruling families. Not only did they use the Roman legal system to profit the ruling class as the expense of the people but then, in order to pay for their political careers, the oligarchs would go out into the provinces as governors and rape their economic and human resources so as to finances and advance their own careers back home in Rome.

The affect was that this greatly destabilized the empire and the Senate with a handful of entrenched oligarchs who were only concerned about protecting the status quo and their perks were incapable of rectifying the situation. In short the Republic had become corrupt and incompetent and completely unable to rule and govern a world wide empire. A political vacuum had been created in which great reforms were to continue if Rome were to maintain and expand it's empire. So Ceasar didn't wreck the Republic. The Republic had all ready been wrecked by the actions of the oligarchy against reformers like the brothers Gracchi, Marius and Sulla. By the time Ceasar was a small child the Republic had all ready been wrecked and by the time Octavian had been named Ceasar's heir the Republic no longer existed.


What you don't understand is that if Ceasar had not crossed the Rubicon then someone else (Pompey?) would have filled the power vacuum that existed and had that not occured the empire would have collapsed and their never would have been any Roman emperors and the Roman Republic would still have ceased to exist. If anyone or group of people were responsible for wrecking the Roman republic it was the small but influential optimate faction of the Senate. These were the people that thwarted the reform that was needed if Rome was to continue as an Empire. Men like Cato the Younger, Marcus Bibulus, Catalus Ceasar, Scipio Nasica and Brutus were far more culpable for the collapse of the Roman Republic then Julius Ceasar was. Julius Ceasar saved the Roman empire, the optimates would have destroyed it as they were incompetent, corrupt and unfit to govern.
 
Last edited:
Emperor Nero said:
Caesar and Augustus did Rome a favor by destroying the republic.
Click to expand...
But they didn't destroy the Republic. The Republic was all ready dead and had been before Octavian/Augustus ever rose to power. Ceasar mearly stepped into the vacuum that was created when the Republic collapsed from it's own dead weight. It would be more accurate to say that Ceasar and Augustus saved Rome's empire from the incompetent oligarchs of the senate.
 
Mott, you pretend that the city-state concept died off with the rise of the Principate. Definitely not true, and its the reason why emperors such as Aurelius occasionally dabbled in co-rulership, thus dividing the Empire up, until Dioletian set the final precedent of completely carving it up. Nothing that the Principate did was a realistic way of solving the Republic's problems, except that they typically ended civil wars for brief, if not extended, periods of time.
 
In the ancient world, republics and democracies weren't practical at anything but the local level. And lands composed of disunified city states were typically conquered by empires. I suppose you could have some sort of empire or monarchy at the top and then a local democracy. Problem is that, without the ability to put centrally friendly local rulers in place, such systems tended to ferment rebellion. Such empires tended to die and be replaced by the stronger, more centralized ones. The strong rose to the top. The others were pushed aside. That's why, in the circumstances of the ancient world, nearly everyone was ruled by an empire. And that's why, under modern circumstances, democracy is rising to the top. Democracy simply happens to be the strongest system now.

Ogliarchy and republicanism was always idiocy. The ruling class has always tried to justify their position by saying that their wealth and power is justified and good. Aristocracy literally means "rule by the best", in an etymological sense. The lower classes shouldn't concede to this bullshit. Don't swallow the lies.

That's why I think that the Roman Republic wasn't really anything ever worthy of respect anyway, and I think there was no real loss in conceding to the practical reality of empire. It was as indecisive as a democracy and as unfair as an empire. All of the bad, none of the good. It was inevitable that Rome would switch to empire, or be conquered by someone who had.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top