First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Top 5 Best Roman Emperpors
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Schmooples wrote:




Do you have any idea how many dictators there were before Julius Caesar? It has nothing to do with the later empire - only Julius Caesar's death can be viewed as a link. And dead men can't be emperor after the fact.

Rome had to create an entirely new constitution when it became an empire, just as it did when it went from being a monarchy to a republic. To say you had an emperor in the republic is as silly as saying you had a consul or dictator in the kingdom.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a history major. But mate absolute power is absolute power and Julius Caesar had it the minute they declared him perpetual dictator. It does not matter the title a man uses mate, the fact you have to bow to him is enough in my book. I mean Caesar became a damn title.
17647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Croatia
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Ranwolf wrote:


Nalaniel wrote:



What did you have in mind?


As a poetic touch I am thinking feeding him to a boa constrictor might be best...Might need some bbq sauce though.


That would be fun to watch, but you got to spend more time with me.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Nalaniel wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:


Nalaniel wrote:



What did you have in mind?


As a poetic touch I am thinking feeding him to a boa constrictor might be best...Might need some bbq sauce though.


That would be fun to watch, but you got to spend more time with me.


We could always make it a date, dinner and a show ya know.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Ranwolf wrote:


Schmooples wrote:




Do you have any idea how many dictators there were before Julius Caesar? It has nothing to do with the later empire - only Julius Caesar's death can be viewed as a link. And dead men can't be emperor after the fact.

Rome had to create an entirely new constitution when it became an empire, just as it did when it went from being a monarchy to a republic. To say you had an emperor in the republic is as silly as saying you had a consul or dictator in the kingdom.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a history major. But mate absolute power is absolute power and Julius Caesar had it the minute they declared him perpetual dictator. It does not matter the title a man uses mate, the fact you have to bow to him is enough in my book. I mean Caesar became a damn title.


No, I've just taken years of Latin and have enjoyed learning these things.

That's really not how any of this works. Firstly, he didn't have absolute power - as I said, he was basically just permitted to be consul indefinitely, but also free of legal consequences to his official actions. He couldn't have gotten away with some of the things emperors did. Secondly, the manner of power is very important to what word you use. Otherwise, why not say that Stalin was a king or that Queen Elizabeth a dictator?
17647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Croatia
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Ranwolf wrote:


Nalaniel wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:


Nalaniel wrote:



What did you have in mind?


As a poetic touch I am thinking feeding him to a boa constrictor might be best...Might need some bbq sauce though.


That would be fun to watch, but you got to spend more time with me.


We could always make it a date, dinner and a show ya know.


Yes. Yes! YES.
52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Schmooples wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:


Schmooples wrote:




Do you have any idea how many dictators there were before Julius Caesar? It has nothing to do with the later empire - only Julius Caesar's death can be viewed as a link. And dead men can't be emperor after the fact.

Rome had to create an entirely new constitution when it became an empire, just as it did when it went from being a monarchy to a republic. To say you had an emperor in the republic is as silly as saying you had a consul or dictator in the kingdom.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a history major. But mate absolute power is absolute power and Julius Caesar had it the minute they declared him perpetual dictator. It does not matter the title a man uses mate, the fact you have to bow to him is enough in my book. I mean Caesar became a damn title.


No, I've just taken years of Latin and have enjoyed learning these things.

That's really not how any of this works. Firstly, he didn't have absolute power - as I said, he was basically just permitted to be consul indefinitely, but also free of legal consequences to his official actions. He couldn't have gotten away with some of the things emperors did. Secondly, the manner of power is very important to what word you use. Otherwise, why not say that Stalin was a king or that Queen Elizabeth a dictator?



I have question, What do you know of Marcus Octavius? I only got little information about him in real life..

Marcus Octavius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Marcus Octavius (disambiguation).

Marcus Octavius (Latin: M·OCTAVIVS·CN·F·CN·N, lived 2nd century BC) was a Roman tribune in 133 BC and a major rival of Tiberius Gracchus. He was a son of Gnaeus Octavius, the consul in 165 BC, and a brother to another Gnaeus Octavius, the consul in 128 BC. Through his brother, he was the paternal uncle of Gnaeus Octavius, the consul in 87 BC.

A serious and discreet person, he earned himself a reputation as an influential orator. Though they had originally been close friends, Octavius became alarmed by Gracchus's populist agenda and, at the behest of the Roman senate, repeatedly vetoed Gracchus' programmes of land reform. Gracchus responded by ultimately having the Plebeian Assembly deprive him of his office and eject him from the Assembly's meeting place in 133 BC.[1] This action led to a serious escalation in the confrontation between the traditionalists and the reformers. The action was unprecedented and contravened the mos maiorum (Latin term for "the traditional way of doing things") The Assembly's decision to depose Marcus Octavius, in order to ensure the passing of Tiberius Gracchus' land Bill, revealed the true power that the tribunate and the assembly had, which it did not have prior to 133BC. The power of the Assembly and the Tribune was one of the factors that led to the decreasing influence of the Senate in Roman politics[citation needed], one of the factors that led to the Roman civil wars and ultimately the fall of the Roman Republic.[citation needed]

Our primary source for him is Plutarch's life of Tiberius. According to Plutarch, Gaius Octavius was one of his descendants, thus making him an ancestor of Roman Emperor Augustus.


First time I heard about him was from Movie Anime call Highlander: The Search for Vengeance

Appeared in Highlander: The Search for Vengeance. Marcus Octavius was an Immortal Roman, after the fall of Rome, he dreamed of creating his own perfect utopia; a new Rome. He was the enemy of Colin MacLeod, who wanted vengeance for the murder of his wife.
HistoryEdit
In the year AD 125, Marcus and his troops attacked a Celtic village in Northern Britain, burning it to the ground and killing all the inhabitants. Only Colin survived and swore revenge for the death of his wife, Moya, whom Marcus crucified as he forced her to witness the destruction of her people. Colin fought against Octavius, but was defeated without much effort. Before Marcus could behead Colin, he was dragged to holy ground (Stonehenge) by his horse. Shortly thereafter, Marcus left Britannia.
Malike 003

Marcus fights Colin

For the next two millennia, Marcus tried to re-create his New Rome. He served in many powerful empires like the British Empire and Nazi Germany. Marcus also fought many times against Colin during this time and always easily defeated him. In 16th century Japan, during his travels, he found an newly immortal woman on a battlefield, and took her as his pupil.
The Search for VengeanceEdit

In the year 2187 Marcus resided in a fortress built on the remains of New York City. The city was guarded by Robots and Mortals. Those who were obedient to him lived and worked there under controlled freedom. Marcus also had scientists at his command who were constantly working on a deadly virus they could use to kill the rebels that lived in the ruins of the old city.
Octavius (2)

Marcus fights Colin in 2187

Marcus and his pupil, Kyala, see a Quickening in the distance. Colin, had just beheaded Malike. Marcus suspected that Colin was nearby and gave his guards the order to bring him the man who came to claim Malike's Bounty. Colin, however, escaped.

With the aid of the rebels, Colin fought his way into the fortress and faced Marcus. Marcus toyed with Colin who was eventually thrown off the tower. With help from Dahlia, Colin escaped and recovered quickly.
Malike 2 001

Marcus lost his head

Marcus was ready to implement the final phase of his plan and sent his troops out to destroy the rebels. Meanwhile, he made preparations to release the deadly virus that will wipe out all mortal life in the area.
Again Colin tried to defeat Marcus and got badly injured, but he refused to give up and finally injured Marcus, too. In the end Colin beheaded Marcus, and the subsequent Quickening destroyed the virus.
Sdfg 001
PersonalityEdit

Marcus was obsessed with his idea of creating a Utopian society and believed he was a bringer of civilization. He also had no problem with killing innocent people to achieve his goals. Despite being a ruthless egomaniac, Marcus had a very laid back character, never shouting or showing anger in any situation. One of the few villains who didn't show wrath towards anyone who stood in his way.

Marcus wasn't interested in the Game or the Prize, and only took heads for his amusement. He had one pupil, but used her as his servant instead of letting her go her own way.
29349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 3/12/16
There was this one guy called Caligula. I hear he was a real bundle of laughs.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

JanusCascade wrote:


Schmooples wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:


Schmooples wrote:




Do you have any idea how many dictators there were before Julius Caesar? It has nothing to do with the later empire - only Julius Caesar's death can be viewed as a link. And dead men can't be emperor after the fact.

Rome had to create an entirely new constitution when it became an empire, just as it did when it went from being a monarchy to a republic. To say you had an emperor in the republic is as silly as saying you had a consul or dictator in the kingdom.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a history major. But mate absolute power is absolute power and Julius Caesar had it the minute they declared him perpetual dictator. It does not matter the title a man uses mate, the fact you have to bow to him is enough in my book. I mean Caesar became a damn title.


No, I've just taken years of Latin and have enjoyed learning these things.

That's really not how any of this works. Firstly, he didn't have absolute power - as I said, he was basically just permitted to be consul indefinitely, but also free of legal consequences to his official actions. He couldn't have gotten away with some of the things emperors did. Secondly, the manner of power is very important to what word you use. Otherwise, why not say that Stalin was a king or that Queen Elizabeth a dictator?



I have question, What do you know of Marcus Octavius? I only got little information about him in real life..



I don't know quite as much about many of the emperors as I'd like to, so I'm afraid I don't know much beyond the basics which can be found on wikipedia.

Most of my knowledge is on a few select individuals, the workings of the Roman governments and military, and a few historical periods/events, mainly the Roman occupation of Britain and such.
52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Schmooples wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:


Schmooples wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:


Schmooples wrote:




Do you have any idea how many dictators there were before Julius Caesar? It has nothing to do with the later empire - only Julius Caesar's death can be viewed as a link. And dead men can't be emperor after the fact.

Rome had to create an entirely new constitution when it became an empire, just as it did when it went from being a monarchy to a republic. To say you had an emperor in the republic is as silly as saying you had a consul or dictator in the kingdom.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a history major. But mate absolute power is absolute power and Julius Caesar had it the minute they declared him perpetual dictator. It does not matter the title a man uses mate, the fact you have to bow to him is enough in my book. I mean Caesar became a damn title.


No, I've just taken years of Latin and have enjoyed learning these things.

That's really not how any of this works. Firstly, he didn't have absolute power - as I said, he was basically just permitted to be consul indefinitely, but also free of legal consequences to his official actions. He couldn't have gotten away with some of the things emperors did. Secondly, the manner of power is very important to what word you use. Otherwise, why not say that Stalin was a king or that Queen Elizabeth a dictator?



I have question, What do you know of Marcus Octavius? I only got little information about him in real life..



I don't know quite as much about many of the emperors as I'd like to, so I'm afraid I don't know much beyond the basics which can be found on wikipedia.

Most of my knowledge is on a few select individuals, the workings of the Roman governments and military, and a few historical periods/events, mainly the Roman occupation of Britain and such.


Ok thanks :), I was just wondering why the creator of Highlander: The Search for Vengeance would chose Marcus Octavius as villain, when there someone worse like Nero.. -shrugs-
52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Randompyrate wrote:

There was this one guy called Caligula. I hear he was a real bundle of laughs.



Shhh PV might read this! =0
6662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 3/12/16
What about the Eastern Roman Emperors like Basil II and Leo III?
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Schmooples wrote:


No, I've just taken years of Latin and have enjoyed learning these things.

That's really not how any of this works. Firstly, he didn't have absolute power - as I said, he was basically just permitted to be consul indefinitely, but also free of legal consequences to his official actions. He couldn't have gotten away with some of the things emperors did. Secondly, the manner of power is very important to what word you use. Otherwise, why not say that Stalin was a king or that Queen Elizabeth a dictator?


Stalin was a king, he ruled until he died of old age mate, that's how much power and influence he wielded they might as well put a crown on his head. And Queen Elizabeth the first is pretty much one of the few people who could honestly say they ruled the world. Why you are so hung up on quantifying absolute power I don't know. Julius Caesar is bar none one of the greatest rulers to ever command the legions and people of Rome...well until the you to Brutus part anyway. The Senate may have been the official seat of power mate but it wasn't it's commands or rules the people of Rome followed in Julius Caesar's time. They bowed to the cult of personality that was Caesar until his death and betrayal.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/12/16 , edited 3/12/16

Nalaniel wrote:



Yes. Yes! YES.


Good then, ya ex-admirer will no doubt put on a fine show for us.
Posted 3/12/16
Well. I'm glad you like something and have passion for it.
2144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Washington State
Offline
Posted 3/12/16
In all reality the roman senate had little to no choice the second Caesar brought his army into Rome setting off a rather long series of historical events.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.