- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Octavius (Augustus) Caesar: Cruel sniveling coward or great Roman (or both)?
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:03 pm to BoardReader
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:03 pm to BoardReader
quote:
Belisarius
Good pick and I even like his name.
Stilicho was badass too although kind of a barbarian.
Heraclius is an underrated emperor
2
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:14 pm to blueboy
quote:
I will say, Scipio's strategy was funnier. I've always wondered what would have happened if Hannibal had continued his siege and conquest of Rome, allowing the two armies to basically just take over each other's home capital.
At that point in his campaign (by the time Scipio was on Carthaginian homeland), Hannibal would have been routed had he tried to take Rome. Rome had re-built its legions, had (IIRC) three separate armies tracing him around Italy, and a formidable defense of Rome itself. As great as he was, Hannibal didn't have the resources or manpower by 205 BC to do that.
If he was ever going to take Rome itself, it would have been right after Cannae, and even then, it would have been a tremendous gamble. That's one of the greatest "what ifs" of history in my opinion. The entire path of Western civilization might have turned out very differently had that happened.
Scipio's genius was in turning Hannibal's strengths against him. He understood how to beat Hannibal better than anyone because in many respects, he was exactly like Hannibal. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they met before Zama.
Also interesting is that two of the greatest warriors that ever lived both died in self-imposed/state-encouraged exile, bitter as hell at their home countries.
Edit to add: I always claim Scipio as the greatest because the stakes were so much higher than for Caesar (as previously mentioned). Rome would have still existed as a great state had Caesar never existed (though, to be fair, probably quite different). The same probably cannot be said for Scipio. He fought in Rome's equivalent of WWII and faced a truly powerful, existential threat that came damn close to annihilating the Roman Empire. Performing under that pressure is entirely different ballgame IMO.
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:25 pm to biglego
quote:Not kind of, his father was Vandal.
Stilicho was badass too although kind of a barbarian.
quote:Can't be compared to the traditional Roman Emperors. He comes from the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire and ruled in the 7th century.
Heraclius is an underrated emperor
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:27 pm to Methuselah
quote:except that part about the salt in the fields didn't really happen.
I think his exploits, as great as they were, ended up with his "country" defeated and a lot of the fields salted by the Romans.
quote:But Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen.
The greatest roman was jesus christ if you consider israel to have ever been a part of the roman empire and not just playing it cool til it was time to fight the war of northern aggression
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:29 pm to donut
quote:
Can't be compared to the traditional Roman Emperors. He comes from the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire and ruled in the 7th century.
Well I know that, but they still considered themselves Romans and he faced bigger problems than any other emperor mentioned. He's an underrated leader, as forgotten as the rest of Byzantine history.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:36 pm to biglego
quote:His biggest accomplishment was changing the official language from Latin to Greek.
He's an underrated leader
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:54 pm to Methuselah
Aegon (Targaryen) the Conqueror was probably the best because of the dragons. He conquered all of Westeros.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 5:05 pm to donut
quote:
except that part about the salt in the fields didn't really happen.
I think you are correct sir. Apparently that whole salting the fields thing was usually symbolic in any event.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 5:08 pm to shinerfan
Sulla was the first Roman to march on Rome.
Then he went and beat Mithridates while declared an outlaw. No support at all from home. None. Then he invades Italy and commences to fight a civil war and win. Usually outnumbered. Crassus and Pompey were two of his main generals in the civil war as well as Lucullus.
Sulla didn't play and there was a reason everyone was scared to death of him.
Then he went and beat Mithridates while declared an outlaw. No support at all from home. None. Then he invades Italy and commences to fight a civil war and win. Usually outnumbered. Crassus and Pompey were two of his main generals in the civil war as well as Lucullus.
Sulla didn't play and there was a reason everyone was scared to death of him.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 5:13 pm to biglego
I'm a fan of Flavius Claudius Iulianus Augustus.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 5:15 pm to donut
quote:
Can't be compared to the traditional Roman Emperors.
Why?
quote:
He comes from the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire and ruled in the 7th century.
So?
Posted on 1/12/16 at 5:18 pm to Mo Jeaux
Y'all should check out The History of Rome podcast and follow it up with The History of Byzantine
Posted on 1/12/16 at 6:11 pm to SuperSaint
Lost to the West is my favorite book on Byzantine history. Forget the author but it's well written.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 6:27 pm to biglego
Diocletian single handedly prevented the empire from collapsing after the crisis of the third century due to his economic military and administrative reforms. Due to him it went on for another century or so in the west and another 1200 years in the east
Eta check out history of Rome podcast by a guy named Mike Duncan, about 270 episodes from the founding by Romulus and Remus to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD
Eta check out history of Rome podcast by a guy named Mike Duncan, about 270 episodes from the founding by Romulus and Remus to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 6:30 pm
Posted on 1/13/16 at 9:33 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:He was good but only ruled for a short time. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had been able to rebuild the Jewish Temple.
I'm a fan of Flavius Claudius Iulianus Augustus.
He was also pretty lucky to become Emperor considering most of the makes in his direct family were purged by his Constantinian cousins.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 1:54 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:Not really. Small armies kept hounding him in a war of attrition, but it wasn't orchestrated by Scipio. Hannibal's biggest problem was that he lingered too long and as a result, his allies deserted him. His brothers' armies kept Scipio in check, but led to a thinning of Hannibal's overall force that made it difficult to gain further ground.
Rome had re-built its legions, had (IIRC) three separate armies tracing him around Italy
quote:Agree.
If he was ever going to take Rome itself, it would have been right after Cannae,
quote:I don't agree with this. I wouldn't call him a genius. He had the foresight to prepare a more calvalry-based attack on Hannibal, but a lot of his success in regard to that was due to the fact that Sicily, his base of operations after Iberia, was full of horses.
Scipio's genius was in turning Hannibal's strengths against him. He understood how to beat Hannibal better than anyone because in many respects, he was exactly like Hannibal.
Really, the key victory for him was immediately before Zama, when he destroyed a Carthaginian allied army in a nighttime surprise attack. Some call him a coward for that, but it definitely turned the numbers in his favor and he would likely not have won without doing it.
quote:Hannibal probably would have been allowed to die of old age if he didn't keep volunteering to lead armies in proxy wars against Rome's allies.
Also interesting is that two of the greatest warriors that ever lived both died in self-imposed/state-encouraged exile, bitter as hell at their home countries.
quote:I'm not sure about that. I think Hannibal's lack of support on the home front and dwindling allies would have eventually led to his ultimate retreat. Rome would have survived, IMO.
I always claim Scipio as the greatest because the stakes were so much higher than for Caesar
Caesar eradicated a historical, feared enemy and gave Romans the sense that they were invincible. The people loved him for his charity and he enjoyed tremendous popularity during his short reign. There's a reason emperors after him called themselves "Caesar."
quote:I've always wondered how Roman legions reacted to Hannibal's allied, the Celtic "painted people" as they came charging across the battlefield.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they met before Zama.
"Hey Gaius, check that out."
"Holy shite. Is that a bunch of naked, painted guys with swords?"
"Damn. These guys are serious."
Posted on 1/13/16 at 2:49 pm to blueboy
quote:this is true, but Hannibal never set out to take over the city of Rome. His goal was to turn Rome's allies against them and reduce them to a weakened city.
If he was ever going to take Rome itself, it would have been right after Cannae,
quote:
Scipio's genius was in turning Hannibal's strengths against him. He understood how to beat Hannibal better than anyone because in many respects, he was exactly like Hannibal.
I don't agree with this. I wouldn't call him a genius. He had the foresight to prepare a more calvalry-based attack on Hannibal, but a lot of his success in regard to that was due to the fact that Sicily, his base of operations after Iberia, was full of horses.
Really, the key victory for him was immediately before Zama, when he destroyed a Carthaginian allied army in a nighttime surprise attack. Some call him a coward for that, but it definitely turned the numbers in his favor and he would likely not have won without doing it.
But Caesar did not have to invade Gaul. Rome was not threatened by Gaul, at least not since the 4th century BC. Scipio was facing a true enemy that had to be defeated. That being said, Scipio did not have to fight against Hannibal but rather take the fight to Iberia and eventually North Africa where he would only face Hannibal when he was recalled by Carthage.
the guy that gets lost in much of the 2nd Punic War talk is Fabius Maximus. He developed the strategy to shadow Hannibal rather than challenge him. Rome wasn't satisfied and the result was not renewing Fabius and the disaster that was Cannae. Fabius' strategy was vindicated when Rome went back to his shadow strategy in Italy for the rest of the war.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 5:14 pm to donut
quote:Incorrect. The Gauls were constantly threatening Rome and had invaded just a half century before. These were the wars fought by Marius. At the time Caesar invaded, there was a lot of fighting between Rome's ally states and those seeking to expand their territory, which at the time of the invasion was threatening to encroach into Roman territory. The 4th century defeat was something every Roman was aware of, and the encroaching threat of the Gauls created a public fear.
But Caesar did not have to invade Gaul. Rome was not threatened by Gaul,
As far as military genius goes, the battle of Alysia was one of the most stunning victories in military history. The "double siege" had never before been attempted, and was never successfully pulled off afterwards. It was madness to even try it, and even more shocking that he succeeded.
quote:Hannibal never went to Iberia. Scipio went there to retake it and left his command because he knew that he could go no further, as he would have been sandwiched between two Carthaginian armies.
Scipio did not have to fight against Hannibal but rather take the fight to Iberia
quote:Hannibal wasn't recalled by Carthage. He left Rome after his allies deserted him and his brother was defeated and killed. Half of Carthage had never supported him, and he was constantly having to justify his invasion. When his strength had dwindled enough, he left on his own.
face Hannibal when he was recalled by Carthage.
quote:Right. It was this war of attrition that slowly defeated Hannibal, but the loss of patience by his allies, and their subsequent desertion, played an equal part.
Fabius' strategy was vindicated when Rome went back to his shadow strategy in Italy for the rest of the war.
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 1/13/16 at 6:23 pm to biglego
quote:
Lost to the West is my favorite book on Byzantine history. Forget the author but it's well written.
Lars Brownworth. He's also recently completed a solid book about the Vikings.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News