|
For those of you who want more Crixus (:D), Manu Bennett plays a badass side character in Arrow, huhuhu.
|
On March 28 2013 20:11 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
I wonder if Tiberius finished.
LOL
|
haha i really had a good laugh at those people that enjoyed raped history more than the actual history storywise.
|
On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things.
omg where did u take history classes... just because u pick hitler to make a comparison doesnt make it a good argument per definition lol. what ceasar did was not immoral by most if any standards of his time. and unless you want to get into a hardcore philosophical debate about ethics and incommensurability i think that closes the case.
Ceasar was a great military leader and a cunning politician, whether he couldve effectively governed the empire we will never know because he was killed. just because people did bad things in war, or even horrible "immoral" things (in peace) does not make them less of a great (military) leader. it may make them a bad person, it may make them a bad example, but not a bad leader. by that standard there would have been barely any great leaders.
please dont get all confused.
|
On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things.
You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name?
There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history.
1. His name is spelled Caesar.
2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates.
3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious.
4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world.
5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself.
6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop.
That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome.
EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face.
|
United States42516 Posts
Meiya, the pacification of Spain, the Germanic expansion, the pacification of the transalpine region, the addition of Pannonia and the annexation of much of the near east, notably Egypt, under Augustus makes him the emperor to add the single largest amount to the empire. Admittedly he had a much longer active career than Caesar and Agrippa did most of the leg work but still, in amount of land Caesar comes second. You specified the republic but while 33 BC makes a convenient date for the end of the republic there are numerous others you can use because the Augustan revolution did not bring a revolutionary new constitution and the declaration of empire. I would argue that it is difficult to make the case for Caesar's Rome being republican while at the same time discounting the early Augustan period, it wasn't until many decades later than the consilium principis became a governing executive and supplanted the senate.
|
Augustus never conquered any of that himself, he had subordinate generals such as Agrippa and Tiberius do it for him, as you said. Augustus wasn't really what I would call a conqueror in the sense that he actually commanded armies in the field, he was more of an administrator. I also meant to emphasise that it was the largest addition of land in one fell swoop, that is to say a single campaign/series of campaigns in the same geographical area. And finally I'm not sure I would define the pacification of land already owned by Rome already to be "adding land" in the sense that Gaul was an area over which Rome previously had very little influence. So basically I'm just defining things differently, I should have been more clear what I meant. Gaul was an incredible feat on Caesar's part nonetheless.
As for what is the Republic and what is the Empire, I'm not sure where the line is myself, I have seen it drawn as early as the formation of the second triumvirate in 43. I would probably argue that Caesar's Rome was the transition period from Republic to Principate, as from the time of Gaius Marius and Sulla Rome had been under the control of military strongmen rather than the Senate body, and the assassination of Caesar was the failed attempt of the optimates faction of the Senate to regain control of the state. If I had to pick I'd still define it as the Republic though, even if the Senate's influence was greatly reduced during this time.
|
On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face.
Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form.
1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors.
2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being.
3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is.
4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL.
5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack.
" I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit.
I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh...........
6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh.
"If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement.
"For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread......
"Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities.
Hate on.
But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser.
|
On April 02 2013 02:14 ZenithM wrote:
For those of you who want more Crixus (:D), Manu Bennett plays a badass side character in Arrow, huhuhu.
lol, that guy also plays Azog in the hobbit.
|
On April 05 2013 09:10 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face. Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form. 1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors. 2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being. 3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is. 4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL. 5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack. " I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit. I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh........... 6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh. "If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement. "For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread...... "Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities. Hate on. But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser.
As to your point 2; What the other guy tried to explain is that great battle plans wouldnt be sufficient if you wouldnt be a great leader, ofcourse you can debate on how you define leadership but he was one of the most beloved generals AND politicians. Leadership has many aspects to it but you seem to focus on the lack of some kind of socialist perspective.
I am really tempted to going into debate on why comparing a society as such with modern socialist ideology is more then stupid to do but i suppose that will not contribute much.
As to slavery for example, slavery has existed for ever, in every period (except maybe prehistoric) and every civilization it existed even long after the abolition of slave trade and slavery. You talk about "Doing good".... and there we go its inevitable to discuss in some degree perspectives on society and life. Doing good in 90% of human history had nothing to do with building up social systems or abolish slavery. To most extent this also goes for 'genocide' etc. So there really is no point in argueing he should have changed something. He did by the way made sure that after his death every roman in Rome would get a huge sum of money. And for example he was very tolerant to Jews, which was rather unusual.
As to point 3 once again; when ages of society teach you from the day you are born to be ambitious and power hungry because that is what you are judged on you cannot blame such a person. Just as little childs (in Cambodja if im right) were indoctrinated for a long period of time after which they were told to kill their parents.
Hitler can really nott be compared, hitlers genocide was part of ideology, and was meant to exterminate a race. Caesars genocide can be viewed more as a necessity, kill or be killed and never meant as genocide before it happened.
At the end, the discussion isn't about facts but it is about how you think a modern day view which doesn't even apply to many modern day countries can be used and applied on very different societies to make a point or judge something. Ofcourse i do agree that considering my socialist ideas and perspectives history of men is full with immoral unjustice and disgusting events, but the thing is TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, which is not a modern day perspective.
|
On April 04 2013 00:46 KwarK wrote:
Meiya, the pacification of Spain, the Germanic expansion, the pacification of the transalpine region, the addition of Pannonia and the annexation of much of the near east, notably Egypt, under Augustus makes him the emperor to add the single largest amount to the empire. Admittedly he had a much longer active career than Caesar and Agrippa did most of the leg work but still, in amount of land Caesar comes second. You specified the republic but while 33 BC makes a convenient date for the end of the republic there are numerous others you can use because the Augustan revolution did not bring a revolutionary new constitution and the declaration of empire. I would argue that it is difficult to make the case for Caesar's Rome being republican while at the same time discounting the early Augustan period, it wasn't until many decades later than the consilium principis became a governing executive and supplanted the senate.
Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt the Roman empire divided into 3 regions controlled by 3 different leaders but still forming 1 roman empire? August just fought for absolute power, Egypt and spain etc were still controlled by romans and by the roman empire but they divided the areas into 3 governed parts. So that would mean he barely conquered anything.
|
On April 05 2013 09:10 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face. Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form. 1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors. 2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being. 3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is. 4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL. 5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack. " I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit. I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh........... 6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh. "If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement. "For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread...... "Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities. Hate on. But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser.
Bah if you're going to keep comparing Caesar to Hitler, claim he could have fixed poverty in Rome, force the morals of the modern world on one living in the ancient world and keep misspelling his name I can see there's no point in us continuing to discuss this. I'll come to Canada and we can argue about this in a pub and end up strangling each other sometime. But at least you can see how point form makes things easy.
On April 05 2013 09:56 Carving wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 00:46 KwarK wrote:
Meiya, the pacification of Spain, the Germanic expansion, the pacification of the transalpine region, the addition of Pannonia and the annexation of much of the near east, notably Egypt, under Augustus makes him the emperor to add the single largest amount to the empire. Admittedly he had a much longer active career than Caesar and Agrippa did most of the leg work but still, in amount of land Caesar comes second. You specified the republic but while 33 BC makes a convenient date for the end of the republic there are numerous others you can use because the Augustan revolution did not bring a revolutionary new constitution and the declaration of empire. I would argue that it is difficult to make the case for Caesar's Rome being republican while at the same time discounting the early Augustan period, it wasn't until many decades later than the consilium principis became a governing executive and supplanted the senate. Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt the Roman empire divided into 3 regions controlled by 3 different leaders but still forming 1 roman empire? August just fought for absolute power, Egypt and spain etc were still controlled by romans and by the roman empire but they divided the areas into 3 governed parts. So that would mean he barely conquered anything.
The second triumvirate was formed in 43 BC (first triumvirate was quite a bit earlier with Crassus, Caesar and Pompey) to fill the power vacuum left by the death of Caesar as his adopted son Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian) and foremost general Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) fought over who was Caesar's rightful heir. Antony and Octavian were the main players in the second triumvirate, and a Marcus Aemelius Lepidus was there as a straw man. Theoretically Rome was split between the three, but Lepidus was rapidly sidelined and forced into effective exile while Antony took control of the rich East and Octavian remained in Rome with the financially troubled Western provinces. As we know they eventually came to blows culminating in the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, after which Antony and his mistress Cleopatra killed themselves and Octavian became undisputed ruler of the Roman world and before long was known as Augustus. Augustus was the sole ruler of the Roman empire as the princeps, or first man, from this time until his death in 14 AD. While this period formed part of what we call the pax romana, or Roman peace, Augustus via his talented generals such as Agrippa and Tiberius fought several major wars against rebellious provinces and governors and barbarian incursions. This included extensive fighting to solidify Roman holdings along the Rhine, especially Dalmatia and Pannonia, and he also solidified Roman control over Egypt as well as putting down various uprisings in Spain and Gaul.
|
On April 05 2013 14:14 Meiya wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:10 Arkless wrote:On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face. Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form. 1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors. 2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being. 3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is. 4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL. 5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack. " I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit. I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh........... 6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh. "If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement. "For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread...... "Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities. Hate on. But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser. Bah if you're going to keep comparing Caesar to Hitler, claim he could have fixed poverty in Rome, force the morals of the modern world on one living in the ancient world and keep misspelling his name I can see there's no point in us continuing to discuss this. I'll come to Canada and we can argue about this in a pub and end up strangling each other sometime. But at least you can see how point form makes things easy. Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:56 Carving wrote:On April 04 2013 00:46 KwarK wrote:
Meiya, the pacification of Spain, the Germanic expansion, the pacification of the transalpine region, the addition of Pannonia and the annexation of much of the near east, notably Egypt, under Augustus makes him the emperor to add the single largest amount to the empire. Admittedly he had a much longer active career than Caesar and Agrippa did most of the leg work but still, in amount of land Caesar comes second. You specified the republic but while 33 BC makes a convenient date for the end of the republic there are numerous others you can use because the Augustan revolution did not bring a revolutionary new constitution and the declaration of empire. I would argue that it is difficult to make the case for Caesar's Rome being republican while at the same time discounting the early Augustan period, it wasn't until many decades later than the consilium principis became a governing executive and supplanted the senate. Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt the Roman empire divided into 3 regions controlled by 3 different leaders but still forming 1 roman empire? August just fought for absolute power, Egypt and spain etc were still controlled by romans and by the roman empire but they divided the areas into 3 governed parts. So that would mean he barely conquered anything. The second triumvirate was formed in 43 BC (first triumvirate was quite a bit earlier with Crassus, Caesar and Pompey) to fill the power vacuum left by the death of Caesar as his adopted son Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian) and foremost general Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) fought over who was Caesar's rightful heir. Antony and Octavian were the main players in the second triumvirate, and a Marcus Aemelius Lepidus was there as a straw man. Theoretically Rome was split between the three, but Lepidus was rapidly sidelined and forced into effective exile while Antony took control of the rich East and Octavian remained in Rome with the financially troubled Western provinces. As we know they eventually came to blows culminating in the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, after which Antony and his mistress Cleopatra killed themselves and Octavian became undisputed ruler of the Roman world and before long was known as Augustus. Augustus was the sole ruler of the Roman empire as the princeps, or first man, from this time until his death in 14 AD. While this period formed part of what we call the pax romana, or Roman peace, Augustus via his talented generals such as Agrippa and Tiberius fought several major wars against rebellious provinces and governors and barbarian incursions. This included extensive fighting to solidify Roman holdings along the Rhine, especially Dalmatia and Pannonia, and he also solidified Roman control over Egypt as well as putting down various uprisings in Spain and Gaul.
They did not die at the same time though. After the war had been lost and no hope was left Cleopatra had Antony told that she had killed herself, Antony killed himself and Cleopatra lived for another year or so and eventually killed herself as well.
|
Smuft: Yes my mistake. Though I'd say the reason it took her that long to commit suicide is because Octavian was specifically trying to prevent it.
|
On April 05 2013 09:10 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face. Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form. 1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors. 2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being. 3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is. 4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL. 5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack. " I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit. I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh........... 6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh. "If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement. "For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread...... "Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities. Hate on. But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser.
you really need to define what you think it means to be a great leader because sofar all you are saying is he was immoral ergo he could not have been a great leader and then fault him for not having a notion of 21st century (or possibly christian) ethics. that is cheating imo. being a great leader does not mean being a saint, neither does it mean you cannot have commited any "crimes" against those who were not of the group of your followers.
a leader leads people towards a common goal, sometimes he units people to accept the same goal, sometimes the goal is set and he shows the way. sometimes there is no goal but what the leader wants and what makes him a leader is that he compells men to follow. Ceasar was a leader in that sense, he was harsh and unforgiving towards his enemies (though 80% of the gauls exterminated i find incredible, please give a credible source?) but he worked tireless to provide the best for those who followed him, and not just the ones closest to him, but also the plain soldier and worker in the field. you forget perhaps that at that time there was no such thing as a global village, communism hadnt surfaced yet and not half the world shared pretty much the same ethical system derived from the word of the books. a bad leader fails in the endeavour he has set, and in that regard hitler was a bad leader, he set his people on a path that lead only to destruction. Ceasar on the other hand did no such thing, perhaps he might have if he was allowed to rule, but really nothing indicates in that direction.
i really think you have a weird perception of what it means to be a leader, not just in our day and age but in the past as well.
|
On April 05 2013 14:36 Smuft wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 14:14 Meiya wrote:On April 05 2013 09:10 Arkless wrote:On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face. Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form. 1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors. 2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being. 3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is. 4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL. 5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack. " I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit. I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh........... 6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh. "If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement. "For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread...... "Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities. Hate on. But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser. Bah if you're going to keep comparing Caesar to Hitler, claim he could have fixed poverty in Rome, force the morals of the modern world on one living in the ancient world and keep misspelling his name I can see there's no point in us continuing to discuss this. I'll come to Canada and we can argue about this in a pub and end up strangling each other sometime. But at least you can see how point form makes things easy. On April 05 2013 09:56 Carving wrote:On April 04 2013 00:46 KwarK wrote:
Meiya, the pacification of Spain, the Germanic expansion, the pacification of the transalpine region, the addition of Pannonia and the annexation of much of the near east, notably Egypt, under Augustus makes him the emperor to add the single largest amount to the empire. Admittedly he had a much longer active career than Caesar and Agrippa did most of the leg work but still, in amount of land Caesar comes second. You specified the republic but while 33 BC makes a convenient date for the end of the republic there are numerous others you can use because the Augustan revolution did not bring a revolutionary new constitution and the declaration of empire. I would argue that it is difficult to make the case for Caesar's Rome being republican while at the same time discounting the early Augustan period, it wasn't until many decades later than the consilium principis became a governing executive and supplanted the senate. Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt the Roman empire divided into 3 regions controlled by 3 different leaders but still forming 1 roman empire? August just fought for absolute power, Egypt and spain etc were still controlled by romans and by the roman empire but they divided the areas into 3 governed parts. So that would mean he barely conquered anything. The second triumvirate was formed in 43 BC (first triumvirate was quite a bit earlier with Crassus, Caesar and Pompey) to fill the power vacuum left by the death of Caesar as his adopted son Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian) and foremost general Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) fought over who was Caesar's rightful heir. Antony and Octavian were the main players in the second triumvirate, and a Marcus Aemelius Lepidus was there as a straw man. Theoretically Rome was split between the three, but Lepidus was rapidly sidelined and forced into effective exile while Antony took control of the rich East and Octavian remained in Rome with the financially troubled Western provinces. As we know they eventually came to blows culminating in the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, after which Antony and his mistress Cleopatra killed themselves and Octavian became undisputed ruler of the Roman world and before long was known as Augustus. Augustus was the sole ruler of the Roman empire as the princeps, or first man, from this time until his death in 14 AD. While this period formed part of what we call the pax romana, or Roman peace, Augustus via his talented generals such as Agrippa and Tiberius fought several major wars against rebellious provinces and governors and barbarian incursions. This included extensive fighting to solidify Roman holdings along the Rhine, especially Dalmatia and Pannonia, and he also solidified Roman control over Egypt as well as putting down various uprisings in Spain and Gaul. They did not die at the same time though. After the war had been lost and no hope was left Cleopatra had Antony told that she had killed herself, Antony killed himself and Cleopatra lived for another year or so and eventually killed herself as well.
SMUFT! still around!!?? return from retirement!
|
I do hope they make more shows with the Antiquity settings. I LOVE Roman history. While it is not 100% accurate, it is still great to watch some of the historical events.
As for the show, It is sad that it is reaching its end. I wonder what they will do with Spartacus (kill him? Or he runs away and live happily? I just can't see the latter happening :O)
It is also funny how Crixus melted that single legion and then got melted after by Crassus ^^ They should have developped more of the Crassus wanting to chase Spartacus vs helping Rome dilemma
|
On April 05 2013 14:14 Meiya wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:10 Arkless wrote:On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face. Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form. 1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors. 2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being. 3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is. 4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL. 5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack. " I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit. I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh........... 6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh. "If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement. "For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread...... "Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities. Hate on. But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser. Bah if you're going to keep comparing Caesar to Hitler, claim he could have fixed poverty in Rome, force the morals of the modern world on one living in the ancient world and keep misspelling his name I can see there's no point in us continuing to discuss this. I'll come to Canada and we can argue about this in a pub and end up strangling each other sometime. But at least you can see how point form makes things easy.
Nice try, but man. You are fucking thick. First things first, not only would I compare some of his traits to Hitler. But MANY REAL historians do as well. Points such as, how he was trying to make the master race (Aryan/roman) and wanted total control of the world, thought he was divine, and had a divine purpose, both also overthrew their current government and established their own dictatorship, both crossed the Rubicon ( One figuratively, and one literally) both loved using propaganda, ETC. And on top of all of that, Caeser being Hitlers idol.......... I mean fuck, did you even try and look? I mean sure, you could say Hitler was just a copy cat. But the similarities are there, regardless if you want to believe it or not.0 fucks are given to spelling errors, you know what I mean so don't try and throw that in as some sort of plausible argument. Once again, your reply was littered with spelling errors so get off your high horse.
Time, once again. Is a moot point.
PS: Don't worry about the drink, stay in Australia.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 06 2013 04:04 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:10 Arkless wrote:On April 03 2013 18:48 Meiya wrote:On March 27 2013 08:46 Arkless wrote:On March 25 2013 07:59 IamVirGin wrote:On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Good guy Spartacus frees thousands of slaves and finds a new love (very hot one too). A lot of people wanted good ending. This is the only reasonable option.
Lol. Or you could read history! :D On March 25 2013 03:47 Sent. wrote:
Caesar doesn't win everything. The whole rape thing was very surprising but I like the idea. It was very unpredictable but at least it wasn't stupid. Tiberius found a way to defeat him and it suits the "dirty" Roman style (I mean how they're showing Roman in the show, not history). No, just no. One of the greatest leaders in european history being raped by an emo boy. Not cool. You are ignorant in thinking they are going to follow history. If they were actually going to follow history to a tee, Crixus, and Gannicus would have died by now, which would mean Crixus never made it even close to the gates of rome. But even if they are, historically spartacus' body was never found. So he may never have been defeated in battle, and did in fact live happily ever after. As far as all you ceaser lovers here are concerned. Being a conquerer doesnt make you a great leader by any stretch of the means. And Ceaser, was NOT a great leader. So stop all this glorifying of the real life Ceaser, because infact he was nothing more than a power hungry, immoral ass hole. Great leaders don't allow their people to live in slavery and poverty, to be raped an killed at their masters will. Great leaders also don't commit genocide to the umpth degree either. Ceaser was an ass hole, through and through. And was really no different then Hitler in the scheme of things. You condemn Caesar and you can't spell even spell his name? There are so many ways you are just bad at history that I don't know where to begin. I'm just going to put this in point form for you because I don't really think you know enough about Ancient Rome to really understand me if I were to put forward a detailed argument as to why you are talking garbage about one of the most influential men of ancient history. 1. His name is spelled Caesar. 2. Caesar was a great conqueror, as you say. This is unarguable considering how utterly thoroughly he smashed the Gauls and added the largest single section of land to the Roman Republic ever in its history, a feat that was never again equaled (though military feats of equal importance did occur a number of times, such as Marius defeating the Germanic migrations in 102-101) and then went on to beat perhaps Rome's next best general, Pompey, with a smaller force in a pitched battle (Pharsalus). To be such a successful military leader, you must (surprise!) be an incredible leader. He was also a very astute politican, or he would never have ascended so far along the cursus honorum to govern Gaul in the first place. It was however common in Ancient Rome for men who held military commands for long periods of their lives to make less patient politicians, and combined with the Republic's rabid hatred for the concept of kingship or rule by one man, which Caesar's dictatorship looked suspiciously like, this explains his assassination by short sighted and ultimately doomed elements of Rome's most malignant political force, the optimates. 3. Yes he was power hungry, in Rome and especially for Senators you weren't a man if you weren't ambitious. 4. He was not immoral at all by the standards of his day, other than his penchant for sleeping with many women (which is normal for Roman men and was used by Caesar as a political weapon to ward off rumours about homosexuality made by a jealous superior early in his career), and in fact lived a life of self control and was no hedonist. Don't force your own morals onto people who lived in a different world. 5. Now you're talking about slavery and poverty? Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, the entire world's economy ran on slaves and to remove slavery from your nation would destroy it completely. Slaves were used by all great nations in the ancient world and even as recently as America who emancipated their slaves in 1863 the nineteenth century, so don't pretend slavery was a moral wrong that anybody was in a position to fix: nobody in the ancient world ever cared about destroying the system of slavery because it was assumed to be necessary: even Spartacus himself is not written as having had any concern with destroying slavery, despite all the good intentions modern idealists foist upon him. As for poverty, blaming Caesar for poverty is so utterly stupid I'm not going to address it, I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself. 6. Great leaders don't commit genocide? Caesar never intended to destroy the Gauls, hence he never committed genocide. He certainly killed massive amounts of them when necessary, but Rome was an imperialist state and if he hadn't done it somebody else would have. For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this? Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop. That's all I really have to say to you: I'm sure you'll reply, and I will read your reply, but it seems quite clear to me that you have nothing to say that is worth hearing on the subject of Caesar or Ancient Rome. EDIT: And I hope to god that Caesar stabs Tiberius right in the face. Here is your reply, in conjuction with your point form. 1. 0 fucks given, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about spelling. Especially considering your reply is littered with spelling errors. 2. No point in this one either, because I in fact already said he was a great conqueror. But, on the second half. Being a great general, and having a mind for strategy does NOT require you to be a great leader what so ever. Formulating battle plans has nothing to do with your moral being. 3. Once again, you agreed with me. A douchey trait, regardless of what era it is. 4. None of your points here are really what I was referring to. If you're willing to crucify someone for simply speaking out against you. Then you are, in fact IMMORAL. 5. This is where we part ways majorly. But for starters, I love how you try and turn it into a personal attack. " I'll just suggest you look into a mirror and take a good hard long look at yourself." Lol, get the fuck out of here with that shit. I never said it was HIS FAULT for poverty (no shit sherlock) BUT when you obtain a position to make real change for the good (which he easily could have) and don't (which he did) then well..... doing nothing is the same as doing the deed yourself. Thanks for the black history month lesson though...........sigh........... 6. Killing 80% of a race, is considered genocide. Sry breh. "If he didn't do it, someone else would" - Fucking cop out joke of a statement. "For the love of god, every empire in human history has done the same thing, and you pick on Caesar for this?" Well........ we are talking about caeser......... Would be kind of weird to just start a rant about Genghis Khan in the spartacus thread...... "Comparing the method, intent or goals of Caesar to that of Hitler is beyond stupid and something I would expect only from a person of your understanding of this subject. It's completely anachronistic and you need to just stop." Thanks again for trying to make this personal again... lol I don't need to stop having an opinion, just because you got all butthurt that I don't think your glorious idol was all that hot. And has alot of common themes with Hitler, and most if not all of the worlds dictators. The time and age is a moot point, in that you are only concentrating on what sets them apart, and not the similarities. Hate on. But on the flip side, I also hope tiberius gets shanked in the face by caeser. you really need to define what you think it means to be a great leader because sofar all you are saying is he was immoral ergo he could not have been a great leader and then fault him for not having a notion of 21st century (or possibly christian) ethics. that is cheating imo. being a great leader does not mean being a saint, neither does it mean you cannot have commited any "crimes" against those who were not of the group of your followers. a leader leads people towards a common goal, sometimes he units people to accept the same goal, sometimes the goal is set and he shows the way. sometimes there is no goal but what the leader wants and what makes him a leader is that he compells men to follow. Ceasar was a leader in that sense, he was harsh and unforgiving towards his enemies (though 80% of the gauls exterminated i find incredible, please give a credible source?) but he worked tireless to provide the best for those who followed him, and not just the ones closest to him, but also the plain soldier and worker in the field. you forget perhaps that at that time there was no such thing as a global village, communism hadnt surfaced yet and not half the world shared pretty much the same ethical system derived from the word of the books. a bad leader fails in the endeavour he has set, and in that regard hitler was a bad leader, he set his people on a path that lead only to destruction. Ceasar on the other hand did no such thing, perhaps he might have if he was allowed to rule, but really nothing indicates in that direction. i really think you have a weird perception of what it means to be a leader, not just in our day and age but in the past as well.
Yes, it is not really fair to expect hard, tough men like Caesar who lived in a hard, tough world to adopt relatively modern systems of morality when they did not even exist. As for the comment on "80% of Gauls", it's an exaggeration. If he had killed 80% of them (which would destroy the province's productivity completely) I find it hard to believe they could have been rebelling again during the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which they were. The majority of his killing was done in the field against extremely large forces of Gauls, so there would have been families to survive most of the male warriors Caesar's armies killed. Naturally, to field forces of tens and hundreds of thousands of warriors as the Gauls supposedly did would require at least a population of several million. I would also point out that Caesar probably exaggerates the size of enemy armies in his writings to make it all sound more impressive, so the figure some historians (not sure who this just seems to be what google says) have come up with of a million slain is likely constructed on exaggerated numbers.
I actually see where Arkless was coming from in that Caesar went into a foreign country, killed their warriors and enslaved huge amounts of them, but this was the Roman way. Of course, killing all those people wasn't the *right* thing to do, but it was the Roman thing to do, and nobody got to any position of prominence in the ancient world (or the modern) without treading others into the dirt, and the Romans got to where they were because they were exceptionally talented at this. This is unfortunately the reality of the Ancient world, and to say Caesar is immoral for doing these things (he is undoubtedly capable of great brutality, though he did attempt to disarm and spare Gauls on several occasions and the more stubborn they were, the nastier he got) is to say all great Romans were immoral. By today's standards that may be the case, but it's not exactly a helpful exercise to just say everybody in Rome was evil (as if that establishes something) because I doubt any of them complained about the dead Gauls and influx of slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
