What Roman military hero do you admire most?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Crisps, however it may be twisted about, the man was passing laws to benefit the plebe, and was upsetting the status quo!
That is why he died, the aristocracy could not bear to share anything with thepeople, and were so
Narrow-minded in this that it
A. Led to Caesars assassination
B. Led to the end of the republic!

[Crispvs]

Well, the status quo had already been upset for some time. You only need to take a critical look at the careers of the two Gracchus brothers in the late second century BC to see that ambitious young politicians whose families were allied with minority groupings in the senate were already cynically courting the popular vote with often unsustainable offers in order to get around being blackballed by opposition families (how exactly did Tiberius Gracchus or his brother Gaius a few years later really plan to distribute land to the poor of Rome - the land in question was mainly in the north of Italy and was only 'public' because the senate had declared it confiscated following the defeat of Hannibal, yet this was only symbolic as the populations of these regions were still living there sixty years on. As tribunes of the Plebs the Gracchi could not have passed such a thing into law anyway [at best they could only have used their vetos to stop someone else doing the opposite] as they would have had to wait until they held at least the praetorship before they could realistically have put such laws forward. By promising land to the naive lower orders they were simply trying to gather enough support to get them onto the first rung of the cursus honorum, after which they could expect better things to follow. They were cynical, highly ambitious men who traded on the fact that the common people still naively believes the tribunes represented the interests of the poor. Their lasting fame stemmed from the fact that they were killed during their tribunates, leading the people to think they had died trying to enrich the people - the reality was that they had died because they risked becoming too powerful).

Caesar, seventy to eighty years later was no different. At a time when most of the influential members of the senate were associated with Sulla, Caesar was a confirmed Marian. He married Marius' niece and actually went so far as to re-erect Marius' standards in public places. Having done this he could not expect to gain any support from a large section of the senate, even when he was in the middle and senor levels of the cursus honorum, so he had to go elsewhere to get measures passed and that meant getting the otherwise largely ignored concilium plebis to pass measures for him, either by force or by effectively bribing the populace with public works or subsidised (and later free) bread.
You only have to look at how the curia centuriata operated to see how valuable the common people really were to Caesar's (and any other contemporary politician's) ambitions.

Don't think for a moment that he would have passed any of these measures if he did not expect them to bring him a hefty political payoff. He was a highly aristocratic man who had little use for the common man except to serve in his army or vote in the popular assembly. Like any other ambitious politician of his time he bought tribunes of the plebs such as Curio or Macro in order to circumvent the system and they in turn were only too happy to be bought as it gave them a leg up thanks to the association with a rising politician.
Also, don't be fooled into thinking that Tribunes of the Plebs after the mid second century BC really represented the interests of the common people. The distinction between patricians and plebians had largely disappeared a couple of centuries before and a number of prominent plebian families were at the top of senatorial society by Caesar's time. It was from these families the candidates for the tribunate of the plebs came and for them the tribunate was little more than a convenient stepping stone to the cursus honorum.

When looking at the careers of prominent politicians a dose of cynicism is never a bad thing, and a good idea of the context in which they operated is essential.

Like the equally ambitious Gracchi before him, Caesar died not because he wanted to make the lower classes better off, but because his rivals were concerned that the man who had become dictator in perpetua had become too powerful.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Just the opposite side of the fence.
Your support of the Patrician class is unshakable, as ever. mile:
However, he had the power, so why continue?
He was a shrewd politician yes.
But the undeniable fact remains he was still making and passing laws which benefited more
that just the elite minority.
He wasn't the Dalai Lama for sure, but it's too easy to write off his good work.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think if one were to ask the ordinary man in the street today "Who was the most famous Roman" he would reply "Julius Caesar"
Indeed we all know that he was a loveable rogue and most of the great things about his military life were written by himself.
Then as Byron points out about the end of the Republic I do believe that Caesar indeed groomed the young Octavian for such an event that was to come.
Then he went off to work that morning of the 15th knowing full well they were going to nail him for his idea of DICT PERT.
However if we look at all who followed in power they all termed themselves as Caesar.

[Crispvs]

"Your support of the Patrician class is unshakable, as ever."

As I tried to point out in my earlier post, by Caesar's time the idea of a patrician class was ancient history. The 'struggle of the orders' had ended centuries before. As some plebian families had grown sufficiently in wealth and influence to challenge the power of the old patrician families, they had won major concessions for themselves, and by the early second century BC it was already established that one of the two consuls (the highest magistrates in Rome and the pinnacle of the cursus honorum) must come from a plebian family. By Caesar's time, in the higher levels of society, the difference between plebian and patrician families was essentially meaningless and a new social class structure was well established, which had the senatorial class (those families whose members habitually formed the ruling class and for whom a notably opulent lifestyle was obligatory) at the top. Below them came the class of the equites (a large class of wealthy businessmen) and below them, in varying orders, came everyone else. In political terms, 99.9% of the time, no-one below the level of eques had any political currency at all. In fact, in most elections by the curia centuriata (which was the assembly which elected magistrates) very few people below the rank of eques ever actually got to vote. Some other useful business however was conducted in the concilia plebis, and it was in order to get this assembly on side that politicians such as Caesar provided aqueducts and food. True, they were things which did benefit the common people, but their real purpose was to buy political loyalty. The power to the tribunes of the plebs was backed by the loyalty and support of the common people, and the tribunes' vetos were used as political weapons to force deals to be made in political circles. If you want to understand late republican politics you need a keen sense of realpolitik!

Brian,

It is true that later emperors used the name Caesar for their heirs apparent, but this was largely an accident of history caused by Caesar's family (in the form of his great nephew) being the one which established the role of emperor and the model for this position.
Also, the opinion of the largely woefully uninformed ordinary 'man in the street' of today is of little relevance to the study of Roman history. Far from being a 'loveable rogue' he was a serious, highly competent political mover and military strongman who combined all of the lessons in the shrewd application of power which had been demonstrated over the previous ninety years.

Crispvs



Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Crispus, we are talking about Romans here.
I am aware how the political system worked!
The point being, Roman Military hero.
Caesar is one, plus as far as Romans go, he also was one of the better political
figures too.
I cannot help but admire him in his own context.
There are many others who were perhaps less ruthless, but considering his opposition, he would not be remembered today if he haden't mastered them.
And he did it, in part, because he was willing to help the poore classes,
not because he deemed them below his efforts.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

This man.

M.VIB.M.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Looks like Scipio....
Smells like Scipio.....

IS it Scipio???

[Theodosius the Great]

Another late suggestion I have, Flavius Aetius. His reputation isn't unblemished but his later actions could qualify him as a hero. Ian Hughes is publishing an upcoming book on him.

I think if one were to ask the ordinary man in the street today "Who was the most famous Roman" he would reply "Julius Caesar"

Also, the opinion of the largely woefully uninformed ordinary 'man in the street' of today is of little relevance to the study of Roman history. Far from being a 'loveable rogue' he was a serious, highly competent political mover and military strongman who combined all of the lessons in the shrewd application of power which had been demonstrated over the previous ninety years.

I agree that the man in the street is too woefully uninformed about Caesar. Most men probably think of him as the first emperor or some later emperor. As I said some time ago, I believe "the most famous Roman" today is Pontius Pilate. Most people, even non-Christians, know who he is for what he did. People are more familiar with their own religion than they are with history. The fact that average people know the name Caesar is just mere name recogition! And, yes, Caesar is far more admired today than when he was alive, as Crispvs pointed out. (Just as the Greeks of Alexander's day hated his guts but their descendants, who didn't suffer under him, claimed him as one of their own.)

Pompey or Sulla over Caesar?

They were both murderous, oportunistic psychopaths.

So what made them more worthy than caesar?

Why was Pompey a murderous psychopath? I never read anything of the sort about him. He showed mercy to the pirates by turning them into productive farmers when he could have given them what they truly deserved. He died as a loyal general of the Republic. Of all the Roman pagans I find him the most admirable.

Sulla's proscriptions were largely reprisals for the bloody purges under Marius. Marius was responsible for Rome's first political purge (i.e. in Stalinist style) thereby creating blood feuds among the aristcracy. Among the victims were the fathers of Crassus and Pompey. Sulla overthrew the rebel backed government and resigned his position. Caesar created a rebel backed government and kept his position indefinately.

Caesar was a great general, sure, but that's not enough to be a hero, IMO. He was reckless with his men's lives in Gaul and in the East. And I take a dim view of men who wage civil wars. As Crispvs said, everyone suffers. Caesar's giving benefits to the people was a means to his end, not the end itself. No, the Queen of Bithynia would stoop to any means to attain her ends. :lol:

~Theo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

One of Pompey's nicknames was the little butcher!
I find little to admire in a man who steals the thunder from
anothers hard work!
See enough in modern life to know what they are!
Revenge is not an admirable excuse for murderous purges, one thing Caesar refrained from!
Sulla was I believe responsible for the destruction of Corinth,
For little reason! Hardly an admirable act!
I do symphathise with his situation, and feel Marius was a bit devious to
have stolen the command from him, but they wee rivals from the north African affair.
Caesar, despite keeping the title given him by the senate, was doing good for more than just himself!.

[Gaius Colletti]

I'm surprised that no one has said Marcus Cassius Scaeva, one of Caesar's Centurions who even after he got an arrow in his eye, and injuries to his shoulder and thigh, kept on fighting

[Crispvs]

"I find little to admire in a man who steals the thunder from
anothers hard work!"

I take it here that you are referring to the complaint by Lucullus that Pompey was the 'Thief of other men's victories', after his command in the east was rescinded in favour of Pompey in 66BC.

One can understand Lucullus' frustration. He had been one of the great adventurer generals and had spent the years since 74BC successfully campaigning against Mithradates, who he had driven out of Pontus, and organising the east. However, he had gained the governorship of Cilicia by underhand means and had therefore developed enemies in Rome. In addition to this the senate was already considering replacing him anyway as it was not normal at that time for one general to have such a long command of a war (Pompey's command in Spain against Sertorius being the great exception) and Lucullus was already being accused of prolonging the war for his own benefit. Added to this, despite being a brilliant tactician and organiser, Lucullus' aloof attitude to the men who had won him his victories was beginning to lose him their loyalty and many deserted entirely when they heard he was to be replaced by Pompey. Pompey was certainly the better general anyway and had established a track record of dealing with the settlement of wars in an efficient way, so it was almost certainly right that he should have been appointed to replace Lucullus.

Lucullus was entitled to be proud of his earlier victories but referring to Pompey replacing him in the final stage of the war as the latter 'stealing his victories' was really just sour grapes. If a war went on too long it was normal for the senate to appoint a new commander, as Metellus had been replaced with Marius during the Jugurthine War. It is also worth noting that in 87BC Fimbria could have successfully defeated Mithradates but had been let down by Lucullus, who was commanding the fleet, but had failed to support Fimbria properly, so you could with almost as much truth say that Lucullus had robbed Fimbria of his victory.

Regarding something Theo mentioned, it is probably worth noting that Pompey's father, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, was the only general to be awarded a triumph in the Social War, for his victory at Asculum. The Social War had much the same character as the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s and unequivocal victories were rare, still rarer were victories which did not in some way or other damage the financial interests of influential people. Therefore it is notable that Strabo was admired in a way no-one else was in what was in virtually all respects a very dirty war. He died of disease just before Marius' soldiers went on their orgy of murder and pillage in Rome. Crassus' father was certainly killed at this time though.

Crispvs

[Theodosius the Great]

One of Pompey's nicknames was the little butcher!

He was a Roman general. It comes with the job description. Seriously though, he was less brutal than most in my estimation. Crassus' cruxifictions on the Appian Way is a good juxtaposition.

I find little to admire in a man who steals the thunder from
anothers hard work!

Are you referring to the Spartacus War? OK, sure, he stole Crassus' rightful glory. Roman politicians were notoriously competitive. But Pompey achieved many victories under his belt throughout his lifetime. Yes, Crassus didn't receive a triumph but he was rewarded with the consulship. Pompey was more deserving of his triumph and was the better general anyway.

Revenge is not an admirable excuse for murderous purges, one thing Caesar refrained from!

I agree. I was merely putting his actions in context. Once Marius created a precident a backlash was inevitable and others would follow his example (e.g. Augustus under the Triumvirate).

Sulla was I believe responsible for the destruction of Corinth,
For little reason! Hardly an admirable act!

No, Corinth was destroyed shortly after the Third Punic War. Sulla besieged and sacked Athens which was under the control of one of Mithradates' generals. Standard Roman operating procedure, really. Besides, Sulla needed to pay his men since Rome was under the control of Marius at that point. Caesar sacked many Gallic towns for lesser causes. He himself claimed to have killed a million Gauls.

For reasons I already stated I think Sulla is a worthier candidate as a military hero than Caesar. On the balance I think Caesar did more harm than good for Rome. The people, I think, would rather have not paid the price of civil war for any perceived benefits they received from him. As for his supposed political acumen I think little of it since he was killed by his own political allies (i.e. Caesarians).

He died of disease just before Marius' soldiers went on their orgy of murder and pillage in Rome.

Interesting. I read that he was struck dead by lightning which seems to happen quite often to important men in Roman history. When authors report this type of thing I think moderns interpret it to mean assasination. In any event, the timing of Strabo's death seems awfully suspicious to me.

~Theo

[DL Cooper Studios]

Wow, Thanks everyone! I will post longer later, I've got a deadline looming. I narrowing my list. I am going to do a series of three and I think I have got the first three chosen.

The debate is very interesting.
Didn't Caesar let 20k women and children starve between the lines at Alesia?
That has always bothered me.

[Theodosius the Great]

Didn't Caesar let 20k women and children starve between the lines at Alesia?
That has always bothered me.

I'm unsure about the figure but, yes, that did happen.

Caesar was probably the most brutal Roman who ever lived due to his actions in Gaul alone. I'm really hard pressed to think of another Roman general who could rival the scale of his brutality. Two others come to mind: Scipio Aemilianus at the destruction of Carthage and Vespasian, particularly during the Jewish war where he rounded up civilians and executed them en masse to terrorize the population into submission. But I think Caesar still claims a higher body count.

BTW, I have another suggestion for a hero: Marcus Antonius Primus
A distinguished commander who basically won the civil war for Vespasian.

~Theo