One of my favorite historical topics is the Roman Empire, in particular, the "principate" under Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, etc. It was an "interesting" time period, to say the least. Anyway, I'm wondering if people would generally consider all of the leading figures from this time period to be irredeemably "evil" given the fact that virtually every one of them was responsible for slaughtering thousands of people. Anyone who has read Julius Caesar by Shakespeare knows how much butchery was taking place between the waring patricians. But are they truly evil? Or were they just reacting to the circumstances? How would you behave if you were born into such a treacherous environment? Also, do you differentiate between Tiberius as a general or Tiberius as Emperor? Basically, is it less evil for the generals to carry out orders than it is for an emperor to give them?
This might belong more in History then Military. And I would never consider Julius Caeser to have been much of a military leader. He was always much more of a political animal then anything else.
Don't you see, though, how the lines between "political" and "military" can be blurred, especially in Roman times? When Augustus ordered Agrippa to sail on Marc Antony, how was that not the same thing as Eisenhower ordering the US military to invade Europe? Now, you might say that Eisenhower had a civilian boss, the President, but in Roman times Augustus was the President and the Supreme Allied Commander. There was no real practical distinction between his political and military capacities. So, my question is, are these "evil" men, or does the militaristic nature of their existence mitigate the brutality and savagery they engaged in? For instance, is Germanicus the general an evil man for invading and slaughtering the Germanic peoples, or was he just doing his martial duty? And by the way, the forum is "warfare/military" and this is certainly relevant to warfare.
I don't know much about the Roman Leaders you mentioned. I know that Rome had some ....what I consider truely evil Caesars. But it was their actions within their own Roman Society that helps put them in that category. Their insane self-love and drive for self-power made them truely evil people and destructive to anyone around them. Doing what is best for your country, nation, society is totally a different deal. Regarding war...its hell, but not in itself evil. I don't view the allies evil for dropping bombs on civilians during WW2. Or the Germans for dropping bombs on the Brits. Though I think the German government was full of evil intent---the act of invading its neighbors is not evil. I view the political assassinations evil acts but not done by necessarily evil men.
I was considering that angle as well, and I assume you are refering to Caligula or perhaps Nero, both of whom engaged in debauched sadism quite regularly in their private lives, but Tiberius' latter years would give either them a run for their money...But I see where you are going, which is to say that their perhaps their personal, non-military/political lives give us more insight into the character of the man.
In this case, because we are talking about an empire that has been dead for 1400 years (not counting Byzamtium). Maybe mostly because one was essentially a Civil War, the other was not. Gaius Octavius was the first Roman Emperor, and Marc Anthony was one of the leaders of a military dictatorship that opposed the resumption of the Roman Empire. But Gaius Octavius was no more a real military man then his adopted father and great-uncle was. Always a political animal first, he did the same thing Julius had done, and that is do some time with the Roman military as a way to advance his own political goals. You are really trying to compare 2 things that have little to do with each other. General Eisenhower was "Supreme Commander", but he was not any kind of Dictator. As a military leader he was carrying out the orders of the civilian government over him (as well as that of the allied nations). He did not do everything simply because he wanted it done. Actually, at the time that Gaius Octavius took charge of the collapsing Roman Republic, it was shattered. In short, it was dying. The Roman Republic was history, now it was only a matter of which faction takes charge. Gaius and his connection as the heir of Julius, or the Military Dictatorship Triumvirates led by Marc Anthony and Marcus Lepidus. And you also have to understand that he was really the transitional leader, during the period where the Roman Republic died, and the Roman Empire was born. He was a man that was offered the Dictatorship, and turned it down. And he was appointed Emperor by the people and the Roman Senate. And was not an "Emperor" as it later became known. Essentially, the title was created. What he had given by the Roman Senate was the orrices of Dictator, Tribune, Consul and Censor. He was not and never was an "ultimate ruler", since the Senate at that point still had considerable power. If he had truely done something unpopular or unwise, they could still have opposed him and possibly brought the young Empire down. Germanicus once again was a political appointee holding an office, like Gaius Octavius and Julius before him. You have to remember, at that time Commands during a time of conflict were not held by true military professionals. They were political appointments, used to gather support and more riches. If you know about the history of pensioning off retired soldiers, you might get an idea how much money, land and people can be accumulated by a politician after a 5 year period of serving as the figure head commander. And in most ways they were figureheads. The Centurions, Legatus and the Primus pilus were the real powers of the Roman military. There was often some puffed up Civilian who was theoretically placed "in command", but the real soldiers knew that was politics. The professional Officer Corps were the ones that really commanded. And yes, it may relate to warfare. But of a time 2,000 years ago, and has almost no connection to warfare today.
