@Ryanyarb24 I mean, just imagine if that happened now-it'd be like a Republican General coming back from the Afghanistan at the head of his troops and taking the Presidency by force, while also massacring the vast majority of all Senators and prominent citizens with Democratic views. Sulla, purely militarily, was the ideal Roman general-proud, successful, ruthless, disciplined and somewhat regal...but to slaughter innocents, let alone your own people, is just horrifying.
@Ryanyarb24 Yeah. It depends on who you are and what you believe-some see Sulla as the ultimate Roman, since he was never defeated in battle and remains the only person in history to capture both Athens and Rome by force. I've been soldiering since 2006, until I was wounded and invalided a little over a year ago, so I understand the necessity for ruthlessness-but for god's sake, he didn't just march on Rome, he massacred countless people who had ideas different than his.....
Yes i a familiar with the fact that the dictatorship was not what it means today, then it was emergency power granted to a single man. Thats interesting what you write about Sulla he was a pretty scary looking guy, as shown in his marble bust. I did have the feeling that although a dictator caesar did mot murder like stalin did.
@Ryanyarb24 No, that would have been Sulla. Sulla persecuted even Julius Caesar, as Julius' Uncle Marius was Sulla's greatest foe and Sulla once said, "there are many a Marius in that one" (speaking of Caesar). Sulla not only marched on Rome, he marched on Romans-ordering purges and massacres of any POTENTIAL opposition. Caesar was one of the few who openly defied him....though Sulla spared Caesar because he was impressed and because Caesar's mother had juice with Sulla.
@Ryanyarb24 No, Sulla-the very man who drove Caesar from Rome as a young man-forcing him to flee to Nicomedes of Bythnia as well as get captured by Cilician Pirates-was a Dictator-in the modern sense of the word (the Romans had elected a man to the dictatorship in the time of Hannibal, however they were just a ruler in times of emergency-not a dictator as we now define the word). But Sulla WAS-he ordered mass purges of anyone who's political ideals were different then his...ruthless.
@IndividualParties The only thing we can really use is Caesar's "De Bello Gallico", which was written by Caesar, so there was probably exaggeration. In addition, Caesar couldn't make stuff up as his legates would have probably carried the true accounts back to Rome, destroying some of Caesar's prestige.
@Ryanyarb24 I mean, just imagine if that happened now-it'd be like a Republican General coming back from the Afghanistan at the head of his troops and taking the Presidency by force, while also massacring the vast majority of all Senators and prominent citizens with Democratic views. Sulla, purely militarily, was the ideal Roman general-proud, successful, ruthless, disciplined and somewhat regal...but to slaughter innocents, let alone your own people, is just horrifying.
legioXequestriis 6 hours ago
@Ryanyarb24 Yeah. It depends on who you are and what you believe-some see Sulla as the ultimate Roman, since he was never defeated in battle and remains the only person in history to capture both Athens and Rome by force. I've been soldiering since 2006, until I was wounded and invalided a little over a year ago, so I understand the necessity for ruthlessness-but for god's sake, he didn't just march on Rome, he massacred countless people who had ideas different than his.....
legioXequestriis 6 hours ago
Yes i a familiar with the fact that the dictatorship was not what it means today, then it was emergency power granted to a single man. Thats interesting what you write about Sulla he was a pretty scary looking guy, as shown in his marble bust. I did have the feeling that although a dictator caesar did mot murder like stalin did.
Ryanyarb24 23 hours ago
@Ryanyarb24 No, that would have been Sulla. Sulla persecuted even Julius Caesar, as Julius' Uncle Marius was Sulla's greatest foe and Sulla once said, "there are many a Marius in that one" (speaking of Caesar). Sulla not only marched on Rome, he marched on Romans-ordering purges and massacres of any POTENTIAL opposition. Caesar was one of the few who openly defied him....though Sulla spared Caesar because he was impressed and because Caesar's mother had juice with Sulla.
legioXequestriis 1 day ago
@Ryanyarb24 No, Sulla-the very man who drove Caesar from Rome as a young man-forcing him to flee to Nicomedes of Bythnia as well as get captured by Cilician Pirates-was a Dictator-in the modern sense of the word (the Romans had elected a man to the dictatorship in the time of Hannibal, however they were just a ruler in times of emergency-not a dictator as we now define the word). But Sulla WAS-he ordered mass purges of anyone who's political ideals were different then his...ruthless.
legioXequestriis 1 day ago
so is julius caesar considered to be tge first true dictator, in other words was he the first stalin or hitler or were they more brutal than caedar?
Ryanyarb24 1 day ago
History is nearly always written by those who won.
De bello gallico, was written by Caesar.
4807avh 3 days ago
@IndividualParties The only thing we can really use is Caesar's "De Bello Gallico", which was written by Caesar, so there was probably exaggeration. In addition, Caesar couldn't make stuff up as his legates would have probably carried the true accounts back to Rome, destroying some of Caesar's prestige.
Afrikaanus 1 week ago
How do we know they faced 250,000 gauls? From Caesar, or re their Gallic sources with similar estimates? I was find some of these details suspect.
IndividualParties 1 week ago