374 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Xilizhra wrote...

Agreed about the Wardens wanting to stop the Blight. However, I cannot say much about them, given that the only two we meet are Duncan and Riordan.

And that's where I say that Loghain was paranoid. It was reasonable for him to bar the Orlesians from entering the country; maybe even poisoning Eamon was understandable (not that I like it, but understandable). However, his attempt to wipe out the Grey Wardens and claim that they were responsible for Cailan's death was... not.

Well, according to him, the Wardens were to blame for Cailan's "Strategy? Boring! The Wardens make me invincible!" attitude. Making it impossible for him to get to Cailan. (Note Duncan's muteness during the war council. Had he advised Cailan against fighting on the front lines...) After "The Calling" I don't blame him for mistrusting the Wardens. Was he wrong? Yes. Was it baseless? No.

[KnightofPhoenix]

How did the thread come to Caesar being evil and some supporting a pathetic drunk over a political mastermind, I have no idea.

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How did the thread come to Caesar being evil and some supporting a pathetic drunk over a political mastermind, I have no idea.

Its the internet.

All things are possible here. 

[Augustei]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How did the thread come to Caesar being evil and some supporting a pathetic drunk over a political mastermind, I have no idea.

I dont know how it even reached 14 pages lol. My original post was just me half joking about Anoras terrible sounding speech and basing that as a reason not to pick her... In all seriousness she is a good choice for queen, nothing really wrong with her. But I missed my epic speech =(

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How did the thread come to Caesar being evil and some supporting a pathetic drunk over a political mastermind, I have no idea.

While I too think that Octavian was a genius (Even though the man whose name he inherited is still his superior IMO), the idea of Marc Antony being nothing but a "pathetic drunk" is highly inaccurate. He is portrayed as such by the likes of Burton & Zane. And his image has suffered from it a great deal.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Agreed about the Wardens wanting to stop the Blight. However, I cannot say much about them, given that the only two we meet are Duncan and Riordan.

And that's where I say that Loghain was paranoid. It was reasonable for him to bar the Orlesians from entering the country; maybe even poisoning Eamon was understandable (not that I like it, but understandable). However, his attempt to wipe out the Grey Wardens and claim that they were responsible for Cailan's death was... not.

It does require reading The Calling to understand why Loghain would be so suspicious of them, but I think virtually all of them being Orlesian added to it. It's not like he was that far off about Orlais - Empress Celene did arrange to basically take over Ferelden through a marriage with a weak Cailan.

[Persephone]

XxDeonxX wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How did the thread come to Caesar being evil and some supporting a pathetic drunk over a political mastermind, I have no idea.

I dont know how it even reached 14 pages lol. My original post was just me half joking about Anoras terrible sounding speech and basing that as a reason not to pick her... In all seriousness she is a good choice for queen, nothing really wrong with her. But I missed my epic speech =(

www.youtube.com/watch Have one. Reduces both Anora and Alistair to wannabe monarchs.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How did the thread come to Caesar being evil and some supporting a pathetic drunk over a political mastermind, I have no idea.

While I too think that Octavian was a genius (Even though the man whose name he inherited is still his superior IMO), the idea of Marc Antony being nothing but a "pathetic drunk" is highly inaccurate. He is portrayed as such by the likes of Burton & Zane. And his image has suffered from it a great deal.

I read books about the period, I know fully well who and what Mark Antony was and I am not basing it on movies. Nothing compared to Augustus (nor was Caesar like Augustus) and would have been a disaster for Rome if he won.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 février 2011 - 08:26 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Yah.



Marc Anthony willed a good chunk of land to Cleopatra right when he died?



Not a smart move.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Persephone wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How did the thread come to Caesar being evil and some supporting a pathetic drunk over a political mastermind, I have no idea.

While I too think that Octavian was a genius (Even though the man whose name he inherited is still his superior IMO), the idea of Marc Antony being nothing but a "pathetic drunk" is highly inaccurate. He is portrayed as such by the likes of Burton & Zane. And his image has suffered from it a great deal.

I read books about the period, I know fully well who and what Mark Antony was and I am not basing it on movies. Nothing compared to Augustus (nor was Caesar like Augustus) and would have been a disaster for Rome if he won.

KOP, I wasn't saying that you based it on movies (I know you'd never do that). I simply disagreed that he was nothing but a "pathetic drunk" and that movie depictions often reduce him to that. (As I too have read many books on the period, given that I've been a Caesar nut for 20 years) And yes, had he won at Actium, it would have been a disaster for Rome. Completely agree there. As for Caesar, no, Caesar was not like Octavian. In my opinion he (Caesar) was the greatest general and politician Rome has brought forth in its long history.

[Xilizhra]

Rome, maybe. But would it be worse for more people if Egypt gained in power?

[Persephone]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Yah.

Marc Anthony willed a good chunk of land to Cleopatra right when he died?

Not a smart move.

Not when he died, no. Way before, he was attempting to gain recognition for Cleo's son, Caesarion. (Was that boy Caesar's son? The similarities unnerved Octavian enough to have the boy killed)

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
KOP, I wasn't saying that you based it on movies (I know you'd never do that). I simply disagreed that he was nothing but a "pathetic drunk" and that movie depictions often reduce him to that. (As I too have read many books on the period, given that I've been a Caesar nut for 20 years) And yes, had he won at Actium, it would have been a disaster for Rome. Completely agree there. As for Caesar, no, Caesar was not like Octavian. In my opinion he (Caesar) was the greatest general and politician Rome has brought forth in its long history.

It was a bried hyperbole to show my astonishment at someone supporting him over Octavian. He was a good right hand man, but an incompetent leader by himself.

And I disagree, I think Augustus is greater than Caesar in terms of politics and statecraft. He would easily rank amongst the top 10 or 5 greatest leaders the world had ever known. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, cause this discussion wouldn't go anywhere 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Yah.

Marc Anthony willed a good chunk of land to Cleopatra right when he died?

Not a smart move.

Not when he died, no. Way before, he was attempting to gain recognition for Cleo's son, Caesarion. (Was that boy Caesar's son? The similarities unnerved Octavian enough to have the boy killed)

He is thought to have said: "Two Caesars is one too many". 
Cleopatra claimed it was Ceasar's son and Antony was using him to threaten Octavian. Killing him, even if they were cousins (adoptive brothers), was the smart move.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Persephone wrote...
KOP, I wasn't saying that you based it on movies (I know you'd never do that). I simply disagreed that he was nothing but a "pathetic drunk" and that movie depictions often reduce him to that. (As I too have read many books on the period, given that I've been a Caesar nut for 20 years) And yes, had he won at Actium, it would have been a disaster for Rome. Completely agree there. As for Caesar, no, Caesar was not like Octavian. In my opinion he (Caesar) was the greatest general and politician Rome has brought forth in its long history.

It was a bried hyperbole to show my astonishment at someone supporting him over Octavian. He was a good right hand man, but an incompetent leader by himself.

And I disagree, I think Augustus is greater than Caesar in terms of politics and statecraft. He would easily rank amongst the top 10 or 5 greatest leaders the world had ever known. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, cause this discussion wouldn't go anywhere 

Well, yeah, let's just say that they were both brilliant men. :happy:

One question though: Had Caesar not had the foresight to make Octavian his heir.... Do you think Octavian would still have risen to the top? (Not being sarcastic, an honest question!)

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Yah.

Marc Anthony willed a good chunk of land to Cleopatra right when he died?

Not a smart move.

Not when he died, no. Way before, he was attempting to gain recognition for Cleo's son, Caesarion. (Was that boy Caesar's son? The similarities unnerved Octavian enough to have the boy killed)

He is thought to have said: "Two Caesars is one too many". 
Cleopatra claimed it was Ceasar's son and Antony was using him to threaten Octavian. Killing him, even if they were cousins (adoptive brothers), was the smart move.

Oh, absolutely. Octavian had the one thing Caesar lacked at times : The ruthlessness for such acts. Imagine, if Caesar had had Brutus executed after Pharsalus....

[Giggles_Manically]

There is also the rumor going about that Caesar was going slightly senile and his body was falling apart.



Or the one going around that he KNEW people were going to kill them so set it up that Octavian would be able to easily pull them down for doing that.



There are TONS of theories surrounding the death of Caesar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
Well, yeah, let's just say that they were both brilliant men. :happy:

One question though: Had Caesar not had the foresight to make Octavian his heir.... Do you think Octavian would still have risen to the top? (Not being sarcastic, an honest question!)

Hard to say. There is no doubt that Caesar was crucial for Octavian's rise to powe and yea I consider Caesar picking Octavian as his heir to be a genius stroke. But what would have happened if there was no Caesar?
Well, would there have been a Caesar without say, Marius? Would there have been a Hannibal without Hamilcar? An Alexander without Philip?

I don't know. If there was no Caesar, there might have never been an Augustus. But what Augustus achieved was far from being inevitable and it required much more than just having Caesar's name. He was only 18 when he started his career and he exploted the opportunity. It didn't exploit itself. He knew perfectly well what he was doing. 

We could speculate all day on what would have happened if Caesar didn't appoint him his successor, or if Caesar was born a pleb and not a Juli...etc. Great men might be born with privileges and luck, but they know how to exploit and use them to their advantage. Not many can do that.

Octavian may have needed Caesar, but that does not make him inferior necessarily. For all his brilliance, Caesar was at times naive and reckless. Octavian (surely learning from the lesson) was not and was more moderate and cautious (and more ruthless during the civil war).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 février 2011 - 08:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Or the one going around that he KNEW people were going to kill them so set it up that Octavian would be able to easily pull them down for doing that.

That smells like hindsight. There was nothing inevitable or easy about what Octavian did.

I think Caesar realized that his nephew has potential and made him his heir. But I would very much doubt that Caesar knew he was  going to die soon.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 février 2011 - 08:53 .

[Persephone]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

There is also the rumor going about that Caesar was going slightly senile and his body was falling apart.

Or the one going around that he KNEW people were going to kill them so set it up that Octavian would be able to easily pull them down for doing that.

There are TONS of theories surrounding the death of Caesar.

I seriously doubt the first one, as Caesar was getting ready to set out on another conquest a few days after the Ides. Parthia.

I doubt the second one too. But speculating sure is fun! 

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Persephone wrote...
Well, yeah, let's just say that they were both brilliant men. :happy:

One question though: Had Caesar not had the foresight to make Octavian his heir.... Do you think Octavian would still have risen to the top? (Not being sarcastic, an honest question!)

Hard to say. There is no doubt that Caesar was crucial for Octavian's rise to powe and yea I consider Caesar picking Octavian as his heir to be a genius stroke. But what would have happened if there was no Caesar?
Well, would there have been a Caesar without say, Marius? Would there have been a Hannibal without Hamilcar? An Alexander without Philp?

I don't know. If there was no Caesar, there might have never been an Augustus. But what Augustus achieved was far from being inevitable and it required much more than just having Caesar's name. He was only 18 when he started his career and he exploted the opportunity. It didn't explot itself. He knew perfectly well what he was doing. 

We could speculate all day on what would have happened if Caesar didn't appint him his successor, or if Caesar was born a pleb and not a Juli...etc. Great men might be born with privileges and luck, but they know how to exploit and use them to their advantage. Not many can do that.

Octavian may have needed Caesar, but that does not make him inferior necessarily. For all his brilliance, Caesar was at times naive and reckless. Octavian (surely learning from the lesson) was not and was more moderate and cautious (and more ruthless during the civil war).

I dunno what it is about Caesar. But the man has had me fascinated ever since I was nine. He not only gave his name to all Emperors after him and the words Kaiser/Czar.... He reformed the calendar. His writing is still used at school today. His battle plan at Alesia is the stuff of legend. He was adored by his soldiers (Often for being reckless and fighting on the front lines!) and by the people. His charm, his politics, his way of swaying people... The greatest playwrights and writers wrote about him, the greatest actors have portrayed him. I also believe that his rather tragic death immortalized him. Going out with a bang....er...so to speak.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Caesar is certainly more bombastic than Augustus (for the Romans, the title Augustus was superior to Caesar btw) and at first glance, more impressive. But Augustus oozes of intelligence, pure cunning, a sense of vision and an immense influence and legacy. I lean more towards the latter. But that's just me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 février 2011 - 09:05 .

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Caesar is certainly more bombastic than Augustus (for the Romans, the title Augustus was superior to Caesar btw) and at first glance, more impressive. But Augustus oozes of intelligence, pure cunning, a sense of vision and an immense influence and legacy. I lean more towards the latter. But that's just me.

Oh, no, no, I truly respect both of them. Brilliant men, both of them. Brilliant in different ways, yes. But Rome was lucky to have had them both. If only the Emperors following them could have been half as brilliant!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Some of them were pretty good. But yea no one surpassed those two.

[Giggles_Manically]

Nero is still one of the more interesting emperors to study.



Crazy and egotistical, but still fun to study.