ROMANS! Which one?
Octavian
29.9% (38)
29.9% (38)
Marc Antony
8.7% (11)
8.7% (11)
Julius Ceasar (The powergrab one)
28.3% (36)
28.3% (36)
Brutus
7.9% (10)
7.9% (10)
Emperor Justinian
8.7% (11)
8.7% (11)
Romulus
4.7% (6)
4.7% (6)
Tullius (I didn
7.1% (9)
7.1% (9)
Marius
4.7% (6)
4.7% (6)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Favorite Roman?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Romans are a damn interesting. From their influences on gaming and popular culture, to the fact that the American constitution and cultural identity. DISCUSS! And we can do other empires y'all like too, I just want ancient history discussion.

From the legends Cincinatus (iirc), from history I've always liked Gaius Julius Ceasar, with Augustus and Trajanus as numbers 2 and 3.

I pick Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all Greek, so I can't pick them.

Also, he died by decapitation. How gruesome is that?

Shut up, he totally counts. >_>

image

Trajan is the best one.Hands down.

The best Romans EVER....

Got to go with caligula, you freaky old bastard you

I would have to go with Polanski, he made some amazing movies.

Rawne1980:
The best Romans EVER....

Well, there's my answer gone. Darn ninjas, gettin' quicker all the time.

Who the hell calls Augustus Caesar "Octavian"? This poll is flawed. Still picked him because, well, he found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble.

Marc anthony's ace in shakespeare but my TRUE fav roman is batiatus from spartacus

What, no mention of Scipio Africanus? Were it not for him, Hannibal would very likely have taken Rome.

Kasten:
Romans are a damn interesting. From their influences on gaming and popular culture, to the fact that the American constitution and cultural identity. DISCUSS! And we can do other empires y'all like too, I just want ancient history discussion.

Rather thin on the ground Republic-wise, aren't you? Though to be fair, too many potential candidates to choose from.

However, this I will ask: which 'Brutus' are you talking about? Lucius Junius Brutus the first consul of Rome? Decimus Junius Brutus the assassin? Marcus Junius Brutus the more famous assassin?

MacNille:
Trajan is the best one.Hands down.

Best emperor? Yes... best Roman or most influential? Debatable... as a soldier and administrator, he was damned canny and knew what the hell he was doing, but no-one will ever know if he had the foresight to realise he was propping up a dying beast that didn't know it was dying yet. If there is one thing he must be credited over all others, though (with the possible exception of Augustus), it is the stability he brought. Unfortunately, I'll be critical here and say that it was easy enough considering how much of a jackass Domitian was and how impotent Nerva was. However, unlike most Roman emperors, his choice of successor was good judgement (on the basis that the adoption was official and Hadrian was declared heir apparent... not sure on that count).

Quaxar:
Who the hell calls Augustus Caesar "Octavian"?

With reference to his post-adoption pre-accession life? Most historians... -_- and twats like me... ¬_¬

Vegosiux:
What, no mention of Scipio Africanus? Were it not for him, Hannibal would very likely have taken Rome.

*cracks knuckles*

Please bear in mind that what follows comes from the.... keyboard of an unashamed advocate of Scipio Africanus. I'd say that if it were not for Scipio Africanus, Hannibal would've just been less unlikely to take Rome...

*ahem*

There is sufficient justification to believe that Hannibal had been doomed to defeat in the broader war by 211BC, through a combination of factors including: his abortive march on Rome; the ineffectual blithering of his brother Hasdrubal in Iberia; the Numidians making noises at each other rather than Syphax simply shutting up like a good idiot he was; Philip's lack of interest in Italy; and Hannibal's own military situation.

Roman public spirit was on a veritable high when Hannibal's army marched up to the walls (camped within three miles) only to turn back around again (Livy reports his cavalry was beaten back by Romans reinforced by... of all people... Numidian deserters). Now, even had the Brothers Scipio been replaced other than Africanus (i.e. if Claudius Nero had been allowed to stay), the situation would have swung back and forth indefinitely in all likelihood in Iberia, that is to say, Hasdrubal, Mago, Masinissa and Gisco would've all stayed south of the Ebro. I consider it a justifiable mistake on Africanus' part that he fought Hasdrubal, with his army facing north.

By this time, Hannibal was penned in Magna Graecia and Bruttium with what amounted to four legions in Sicily, six to eight legions south of Rome and another four north of Rome. What did he have? Never more than fifty thousand spread across his rather loose confederation in the south. Verrucosus' policy of non-engagement would ensure that this number just keeps going down, coupled with Flaccus and Marcellus running around giving as good as they got. It's just a pity that Pulcher is dead.

Speeding forward to 205BC, Carthage ended in Iberia, Nero has done what no-one else managed to do and outwit Hannibal, and hurled Hasdrubal's head over the wall of his camp. He can still fight, yes, he has a veteran army, but he is much more jaded, and his army is tired. Even before Africanus stepped foot in Sicily, there was no way in hell Hannibal could win. What most people fail to realise is that he was in the same situation as the Brothers Scipio in Iberia: you can win all the battles you like, but if you can't hold the land you capture, what's the freakin' point?! And Hannibal's biggest mistake was moving south so soon after Trebbia. Granted, he'd want his frostbitten troops out of the cold asap, but a Cisalpine summer isn't exactly bad... temperate at worst. But he really needed to establish a location wherein he could guarantee the hospitality of the natives (where better than the Boii... Albinus would be quick to add), and send diplomats to the Illyrians, which I'm surprised no-one has ever really picked up on. Parallel to Gnaeus Scipio at Tarraco. After winning Cissa, he marches back north of the Ebro, settles in and starts sweet-talking all the Iberians to Rome's side.

And lastly, Zama. Even if Hannibal had won Zama, his political capital has been destroyed because he was forced to retire from Italia and everyone will be reluctant to have him in command of any war effort that follows. Also, during that campaign of the autumn of 202BC, Africanus had wiped the floor with him. If Hannibal's 51000 had won, they'd be in little position to follow it up, because most of them were dehydrated (prior to battle Africanus' camp was right in the way of Hannibal's closest source of water thanks to his line of march and Hannibal's necessary pursuit) and the October sun was not nice in this part of the world. Also, Africanus would've legged it back to Cirta with Masinissa or Utica to Castra Cornelia which no-one dared attack (here's another strange point). His survivors would've then fallen under the command of either Tiberius Claudius Nero (if he'd arrived at all) or Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus, both of whom brought four fresh legions and whatever else was in Sicily (a few more albeit undestrength legions here and there). So, current chances of Hannibal taking Rome? Right... royally... fuck'd!

Realistically speaking, the turning point was the first battle of Nola: Marcellus shows the world Hannibal is not unbeatable (yes, yes, I know it was a tactical draw, but the mere fact that Marcellus compelled Hannibal to cede the field meant a shitload to the Roman people at the time and was a big reality check for Hannibal so soon after Cannae).

...

Err... sorry, ended up refuting the second thing only there... so... err... another vote for Publius Cornelius Publius filius Lucius nepos Scipio 'Hispanicus' Africanus.

Here's a question for you... is Africanus worthy of the agnomen Hispanicus as well? 'Cos I think he damned well is.

I like the plastic ones.
image

It's the loyalty that gets me.

OT: Nero for sheer insanity. And over used name in media.

Kasten:
to the fact that the American constitution and cultural identity.

I don't understand this part, what do the Romans have to do with the American cultural identity?

Anyway my knowledge of Ancient Rome is slim. Only briefly covered it in my Making of Europe lectures, however next semester I'm doing 'From Republic to Empire' so should have a much larger understanding of Rome.

So for now I'll have to say Augustus, because as far as I know he was the biggest mover in making Rome become the imperialistic power house it's known for.

Sassafrass:

Shut up, he totally counts. >_>

biig american teetees!

MacNille:
image

Trajan is the best one.Hands down.

Definitely, if we're going for actual goodness.

SckizoBoy:

My god man, that was the best read I ever had on this site.
I like to think of myself as a Roman history enthusiast, but that was just fucking great.
I applaud you, good Sir, for you insight!

OT:
Though it is not really related to the really insightful post which I quoted, I'd have to say it's a tie between Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius.

After watching Rome though I'd have to go with Marcus Antonius.
He's just freaking cool.

Cicero was the greatest Roman, as far as we know. Without Cicero, we would have little concept of Roman culture as we idealize and imitate it. Cicero created the notion of Rome that the men who created the modern western world cherished and wanted to recreate. Of course that is just one man's vision but it endured through the conversion to Christianity and gave people a philosophy so universal that they continued to read it. There is a Cicero quote for every situation as long as you know him well enough.

Titus Andronicus.

I'm so clever.

augustus for making it illegal to drop fecal matter on peoples heads

Cicero, because Robert Harris' books make him seem like a swell guy. And he did mind battle with Ceasar+Crassus+Pompey so that means he's just a little under three times as good as any one of them =D

My favorite is Marcus Aurelius, who wrote the book of Stoic Philosophy called "Meditations," which I need to finish reading. He was also that last of the "Five Good Emperors," before passing it onto who son who kind of screwed things up.
Despite what the movie Gladiator says, he was not assassinated for political reasons.

But since Aurelius was not an option, I'll say Awe; True to Caesar.

Rawne1980:
The best Romans EVER....

you win everything ever my good man!

Alssadar:

But since Aurelius was not an option, I'll say Awe; True to Caesar.

image

Ave my amicus, Ave!

Marcus Tullius Cicero for me.

I like the guy's writing and his ideas, very interesting to read. I believe I have two books about him and his life and a few that he's written, and those I take my time to read because sometimes the translations are a little rough and because I want to get what he's trying to say.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus is a close second.

Rawne1980:
The best Romans EVER....

I'm crying that was so funny (and choking on a cracker). I also nominate those romans as well as any romans I command in Rome Total War and every Roman that appears in Rome 2 Total War.

Emperor Hadrian.

A 'Warrior Emperor' whose rule was remarkably absent of any major campaigns, who spent his term visiting nearly every Provence in the empire, reinforcing the borders (even abandoning his predecessor conquests as they were indefensible) and pioneered 'Peace through Strength.' He also is responsible for the rebuilding of the Pantheon after its destruction by fire in 80AD.

Later regarded as one of the 'Five Good Emperors' by Niccolò Machiavelli, due to his patronage of the military and of the arts.

I'm not really an expert on Romans, but I love how they just numbered their kids. Who needs names anyway?

Tacitus, because I enjoy his writing :D

Also it's a great sounding name! And Cicero, while undoubtedly fascinating and brilliant, was kind of an ass. But of the options listed I went for the pater patriae.

Pontius Pilate :P

because in some ways he's one of the most recognisably flawed and human characters in the book and his story features little of the fantastical or transcendental and feels very down to earth and realistic as a result.

Chrono212:
I like the plastic ones.
image

It's the loyalty that gets me.

OT: Nero for sheer insanity. And over used name in media.

Nero was not, in fact, insane, a lot of the stick Nero gets today is actually leftovers from smear campaigns that were enacted during his life, and he was in fact a pretty good emperor, almost entirely due to the fact that he was good at choosing people to do the actual hard work.

The Great Fire of 64 also wasn't his doing, nor did he "fiddle while Rome burned" again this was a lie spread by his political rivals, he actually was personally responsible for organizing a large force of civilians that fought the fire, and he didn't use burnt real estate to expanded his palace, he used the real estate to build more tenements for those that had lost their homes in the fire, and had it built in a way that discouraged the spreading of any future fires.

The whole captive audience thing was true, but I'd sooner attribute that to his vanity than any form of insanity, but according to historical records, Nero was actually a very talented actor and musician, all the people with sore palms had them because they were legitimately applauding him, when playing at a musical contest in Greece, the crowd applauded him so much and so sincerely he freed the entire country from Roman rule, one of the reasons the upper class hated him so much, he was more worried about being popular among the middle and lower classes, he made a ton of rulings that benefited the plebeians, and not many that helped the rich, which is why they spread all kinds of nasty rumors about him.

Sure he may have had his mother killed and all that, and maybe he kicked a few women to death, but most of his "insane" acts were pretty legitimate power grabs, as there were a lot of people who didn't want him on the throne, a lot of that owing to the fact that his father was probably one of the biggest pricks in the entire universe, he whipped up his horse to run over children, he gouged out a man's eyes for criticizing him, and killed slaves for the smallest of offenses, not to mention his mother Agrippina wasn't much better, not to mention his uncle was Caligula, probably the worst emperor.

Belisarius, one of the greatest generals ever to have existed. He was pretty damn successful despite constantly butting heads with the Emperor.

Goofguy:
Belisarius, one of the greatest generals ever to have existed. He was pretty damn successful despite constantly butting heads with the Emperor.

Yeeeeaaah but just about every Roman general ever that wasn't already in running for being emperor butted heads with some emperor or another, it's how Julius even BECAME one, just marched into his recall to Rome with the 13th Legion like "Hey guys. Surrender. Nao." and the Senate and Consuls were like "Sure thing bro. Don't stab us." and then he stabbed only some of them.

SckizoBoy:
Super Snip

I had a feeling I would find you here.

As for me...well, my Roman history is quite weak. I like the little bit I know about Emperor Justinian, even if he couldn't fully recapture the Western Roman Empire.

Virgil. He wrote the Aeneid, and I like the Aeneid. Not much else to add, really.

My favorite is Times New Roman. Fuck you Sans Sariff.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here