Caesar VS Caesar

[Tecibbar]

Not a student of Roman history, but it seems to me that Augustus has made a greater contribution to the Roman empire than Julius. Sure, Julius is a better general, but not one of the best in history. Julius's rein is short lived, and he is arrogent not to noticed the conspiracy against him; on the other hand, Augustus is much more competent in controling the senate, and his law lasted.

Some interested facts I just learned: Julius named July after himself; Augustus named August after himself, he also borrowed a day from Ferbuary, so that August has the same amount of day as July.

 

[luiz]

As you said Julius Caeser was by far the best general, and he was in fact one of the finest in History (I don't see why you think otherwise).

I also tend to think that Julius Caesar was a better man than Octavian, who didn't hesitate to kill the son of his adoptive father to achieve his goals (and he didn't have to kill Caesarion, it was excessive precaution).

The fact that Caesar didn't see the Conspiracy against him also speaks in his favour IMO, as unlike Octavian he did not proscribe anyone who looked a bit suspicious.

All said, it is obvious that Octavian did much more for the Empire because he ruled for much longer, and he was quite an extraordinary person as well. But I still like the original Caesar best.

 

[Mirc]

I have to agree that Octavian did a lot more for the Empire, but then again the history wouldn't have been as we know it if any of them decided to take a different path in life. In a poll asking for the greatest emperor (even though Julius Caesar was not an emperor in fact), Augustus was dominating Julius last time I checked.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think Julius Caesar gets comparatively more attention because of his involvement in actively disassembling the Republic.

 

[Traitorfish]

The fact that Caesar didn't see the Conspiracy against him also speaks in his favour IMO, as unlike Octavian he did not proscribe anyone who looked a bit suspicious.

Which, to be fair, is partly because Caesar's supposed pals knifing him to death in the Senate sort of set a precedent for that kind of paranoia.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Augustus was obviously superior to Julius on the standard of ruling an empire.

 

[Dachs]

Augustus was obviously superior to Julius on the standard of ruling an empire.

He had more time to do it and far better circumstances.

 

[citedon]

Augustus was without question a better administrator and a smart polititian. He had his faults and could be ruthless, but he also was concerned with doing what was best for Rome.

Julius would probably have been a much more enjoyable companion than Augustus. He was a natural born leader and possessed many great qualities. If he had become emperor, I doubt that the empire would have faired as well and for as long as it did under and after Augustus.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

Julius; he was... sparkling

and made his opportunity(from surviving Sulla to the end); didn't receive one out of the blue

about administration... no clue, julius' was too short...

 

[Perfection]

Without Julius there wouldn't be a roman Empire even for a minute. So he wins,

Thus sayeth Perf.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Without Julius there wouldn't be a roman Empire even for a minute. So he wins,

Thus sayeth Perf.

To be fair, the Republic was really over when Sulla marched on Rome, which was before Julius Caesar became Dictator. In fact, I think Crassus was Dictator.

 

[Dachs]

To be fair, the Republic was really over when Sulla marched on Rome, which was before Julius Caesar became Dictator.

Yeah. I blame the Pergamenes and the Gracchi.

In fact, I think Crassus was Dictator.

Not that I recall; he and Pompey ran on a joint ticket at one point (70 BC) and carried the consulship though. They were later reelected while Caesar was in Gaul, leading to that dandy proconsulship that led him to invade Parthia with the attendant consequences.