who was more worthy of deification?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-09 09:35am

who should keep his temple?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-05-09 10:08am

Alexander all the way

Ceasar cried at his statue in envy for what Alexander did acomplish.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-05-09 10:14am

BEHOLD OUR BISEXUAL GOD!

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-05-09 10:15am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:BEHOLD OUR BISEXUAL GOD!

??QUE??

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-05-09 10:45am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:BEHOLD OUR BISEXUAL GOD!

Greeks were bi, but alot(inculding Alex) were gay. The Romans, however, were pretty straight.
FIRST ROMAN MAN: Must.....hump.....something....
SECOND ROMAN MAN: Hands off! We're Romans, not Greeks!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 10:55am

Greeks were bi, but alot(inculding Alex) were gay.

Isn't there a fair amount of debate over whether he was bisexual or gay? I've seen things be treated both ways.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 11:04am

I'd honestly say Casear was more deserving.

He was Alexander's equal on the battlefield to judge from the accomplishments. It's just Casear's wars were mostly civil. Had he been allowed to get into the conquering game he would have equalled or bettered Alexander.

And in politics Casear was clearly better than Alexander. Casear laid the foundations of the Roman Empire and was effectively the uncrowned King of Rome. He outmanuvered his foes in the political arena time and again while setting the foundation of Roman Imperium. Alexander's Empire was torn apart after his death.

Add to that Casear was supposed to be a brillianmt orator, poet, and artist I'd say there's no question.

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2003-05-09 12:10pm

Of the two, Caesar definitely shines in the political arena. However, militarily, I think you underestimate Alexander. Caesar may have had some impressive conquests, but keep in mind that he had the support of Rome, and he was fighting comparatively unadvanced, ill-equiped, and undisciplined Galic peoples. Alexander took down the greatest empire of the time and led his army from the front lines.

FIRST ROMAN MAN: Must.....hump.....something....
SECOND ROMAN MAN: Hands off! We're Romans, not Greeks!

The Cartoon History of the Universe is really funny. I really wish he'd make a part III.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-09 12:14pm

Betsy's response upon seeing her first episode of Reign the Conqueror:

"Behold, your small-batched king!"

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-05-09 12:17pm

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Of the two, Caesar definitely shines in the political arena. However, militarily, I think you underestimate Alexander. Caesar may have had some impressive conquests, but keep in mind that he had the support of Rome, and he was fighting comparatively unadvanced, ill-equiped, and undisciplined Galic peoples. Alexander took down the greatest empire of the time and led his army from the front lines.

FIRST ROMAN MAN: Must.....hump.....something....
SECOND ROMAN MAN: Hands off! We're Romans, not Greeks!
The Cartoon History of the Universe is really funny. I really wish he'd make a part III.

He did. From the formation of Islam to the beginning of the Renaissance.
Favorite quote: "Bloody #$^$&* pervy horse"-Mahomed of Ghanzi apon entering India.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-09 12:20pm

You can also look at it this way; what Caesar built lasted another 500 or so years. What Alexander built lasted about 10 seconds after his death.

Alexander's military conquests were very impressive but there was no consolidation nor continuation of the 'empire' after his death. His conquests were empty and hollow because very little came from them. Caesar's exploits laid the basis for him to take charge of an already impressive civilization and then he expand it. He also laid down the foundation for the Caesars for the next couple of centuries.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-05-09 12:32pm

Knife wrote:You can also look at it this way; what Caesar built lasted another 500 or so years. What Alexander built lasted about 10 seconds after his death.

Alexander's military conquests were very impressive but there was no consolidation nor continuation of the 'empire' after his death. His conquests were empty and hollow because very little came from them. Caesar's exploits laid the basis for him to take charge of an already impressive civilization and then he expand it. He also laid down the foundation for the Caesars for the next couple of centuries.

Let's not forget he got laid! Alex had Haphaestion and some harem girls, but Caeser had Liz Taylor!

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-09 12:47pm

Im fairly sure both were bi. . .

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 01:08pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:Im fairly sure both were bi. . .

There have been some suggestions of that but the best sources say Casear was not bisexual. In fact he's rather notorious for cutting a swath through the ladies of uppercrust Rome.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 01:10pm

Caesar made many political enemies who spread rumours that he was bisexual. One must take their bitching with a grain of salt. He was fucking their wives, after all. I don't think they were too pleased.

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2003-05-09 01:14pm

Knife wrote:You can also look at it this way; what Caesar built lasted another 500 or so years. What Alexander built lasted about 10 seconds after his death.

Alexander's military conquests were very impressive but there was no consolidation nor continuation of the 'empire' after his death. His conquests were empty and hollow because very little came from them. Caesar's exploits laid the basis for him to take charge of an already impressive civilization and then he expand it. He also laid down the foundation for the Caesars for the next couple of centuries.

That's very true, though I wonder how much credit we should give Julius himself for that. I think the fact that Rome didn't immediately collapse after his death was more due to 1. the fact that Rome already had a pretty strong foundation of government that continued to go on in the background and 2. the fact that Augustus was also a shrewd bastard who ultimately discredited and destroyed Marc Antony just like Julius did to Pompey.

He did. From the formation of Islam to the beginning of the Renaissance.
Favorite quote: "Bloody #$^$&* pervy horse"-Mahomed of Ghanzi apon entering India.

I just checked Amazon.com, and you're right. I was certain he was never going to make another one, since the last one was made something like 7 or 8 years ago! Even so, I still used to check at the bookstore but I never found it. I have to go find a copy.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-09 01:15pm

Alexander. IMO, Caesar was a political inept who got himself assassinated- Octavian was the one who created the Roman Empire. Noone was prepared for Alexander's extremely early death, all we know is that he had the greatest character shield ever.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-09 02:29pm

Octavian Augustus founded the Roman Empire. It's hard to say what Caesar might have accomplished had he lived, but he took a knife and the Republic fell into full-scale civil war.

Alexander's empire was doomed from the start, but it was a hell of a show while it lasted and it was around for long enough to spread Hellenic civilization to the entire Near East, which in turn impressed the Romans so much that they took it back west with them. In a very important way, Alexander laid one of the foundations of Western civilization. Much as I hate to stiff Caesar, Alexander definitely deserves the title more.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-09 03:29pm

VENI VEDI VICI!

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-05-09 04:11pm

Durandal. Its the hair, baby.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-05-09 04:59pm

I am so waiting for Pressfield to get done with his third book after reading "Gates of Fire" and "Tides of War"

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 06:59pm

IMO, Caesar was a political inept who got himself assassinated-

I don't know how much credence to give it but the Discovery Channel had a special and the theory of a number of researchers is that he in effect staged an elaborate suicide. The theory being that his epilepsy was finally getting the better of him and he wanted to die a spectacular death. The fact that he dismissed his lictors (bodyguards in effect) and ignored a lot of warnings from credible sources give a certain amount of credence to the idea.

Octavian was the one who created the Roman Empire.

Largely by carrying through what Julius Casear had begun. The Roman Republic was over with Julius Casear (even if it was yet acknowledged) what came afterward is largely of his making. The mere fact that Casear picked Gaius Octavious to adopt and make his heir over Marc Antony shows a great deal of foresight on Casear's part.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-09 10:24pm

Julius may have volunteered his life to end his epilepsy, but the Senate still hated him. He would have made a great Dictator for Life, tho, considering how he acted when the people made him Dictator.

On topic tho, I'd say Alex, because he frelled boys and was GORGEOUS.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-05-09 10:33pm

This for the most part is tough to decide, I'd say JC because his empire lasted long after his death, but both were nothing compared to Augustus Ocatavian Caesar.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-09 10:54pm

yeah, Octavian was great, he thought romans were decadent immoral bastards and he killed his own daughter cause she slept around! Man, what an emperor.