I give you Turkmenistan’s Saparmurat Niyazov. There are also apparently some Nepali months named for leaders, in the Vikrama Samvat, but I’m not sure if Vikramaditya was alive at the time of the naming.
Well, I think one of the main reason he is often lumped in with those two is the more prosaic - he is similarly ranked as a military genius. And on that plane I don’t think there can really be much argument. His campaigns ranged over virtually the whole of western Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, in every conceivable circumstance and terrain, against often very able commanders ( including former lieutenants ), often outnumbered, frequently against the best military system in the classical world ( his own 
).
So he ranked as one of the greatest military minds in at least western history, he was a great propagandizer of his own accomplishments, he was arguably a better politician than Napoleon ( always overreaching ) or Alexander ( tremendous vision and charisma, but let’s face it - drunken psychopath at the end of the day ) and you’re left with the impression that he may have been far more transformative in the mold of Augustus if he hadn’t snuffed it. Personally I almost tend to look a the career of JC/AC as less separate trajectories, than one extended one. Augustus just grasped the baton extended to him and took off just as brilliantly.
Napoleon, arguably. His partial rationalization of Germany alone, not to mention the Louisiana Purchase loom large. Alexander…well, 100 years after his death, yes. 200? Yes. 500? Not so much. His impact was enormous in the immediate aftermath and for centuries. But the Hellenistic Period in the Near East was ultimately a pretty ephemeral event as you start scrolling up through history. His legend probably was his own biggest accomplishments. By contrast the incorporation and Latinization of Gaul was oddly enough far more lasting, if less impressive than the conquest of the Achaemenid state at the time.
Caesar finally defeated Vercingetorix, but one small village of indomitable Gauls still held out against the Roman invaders!
(In response to Martian Bigfoot and Tamerlane)
Ranking historical figures is hard, if not impossible, especially if they lived over a millennium ago. Being a brilliant and/or charismatic political and/or military leader in your own time is a conditio sine qua non for this status, of course. But a lot depends on if the time, ie political and social circumstances, is right for your ascension to power AND on what happens in the years, centuries and millennia after your death, and how you’re regarded by the general public.
I think we have to conclude that Julius Caesar and Octavianus Augustus were a brilliant combination. None of them would have gained their status as important historical figure if it wasn’t for what the one did before or after the other. Caesar was the brilliant and charismatic military leader while Augustus was the smart politician.
I’d like to stress that if history, (‘removing Alexander/Hitler/Caesar from history’ or ‘what would have happened if Mark Anthony had won at Actium?’) is a nice game to play over a few beers, but you’re definitely leaving the bounds of history as a science. I agree though that it’s never a simple: someone else would have taken his place and done the exact same thing. But that’s the whole reason that it’s verboten among professional historians.
Let’s see what happens if JC doesn’t snuff it. His plan at the time of his assassination wasn’t to stay in Rome and consolidate power. It was to go off and invade Parthia.
Now, no one comes out smelling like roses when they take on Parthia. See Crassus, and then Antony. Later, Augustus is savvy enough to not even try, instead getting the eagles lost by Crassus back through diplomacy, and, always the spinmeister, spinning that as great victory. Maybe Caesar was a big enough military genius that he could have pulled something out of his hat. If anyone could, I guess it would be him (and I suppose that was the fear of his assassins, since they felt the need to stab him before he could get that far). On the other hand, maybe not. Also, meanwhile, he would have have left a potentially explosive city of Rome in the hands of subordinates. Who knows how that would have turned out?
So, maybe Caesar was lucky enough to die just before outliving his cool. Also, at just the right time for Octavian/Augustus to come right the heck out of nowhere to have his own career. That last bit is actually the kind of thing that makes me go a little bit mystical sometimes, and to think that there’s a god of history directing events.
BTW, I seem to be turning into a bit of an Augustus fanboy, and less a JC fan, in this thread. That really wasn’t the plan, and I apologize, but I guess trains of thought go where they want to go sometimes. (Again, if anyone wants to argue, good. I’m not married to this approach, I’m just throwing it in the general direction of the wall to see what sticks.)
Heh. I clicked “submit” on my previous post before seeing this. So, yeah, sorry.
The strange thing is that I’m not really even that big a fan of “what if” history. To be honest, I have more than enough trouble putting actual facts into my head, so I shouldn’t spend time on imaginary ones. Even so, I seem to be playing the “what if” game a lot. I guess it’s a bad habit / guilty pleasure.
Well, ignorance fought here. I thought he was called Julius Caesar because he was, well, a caesar, I didn’t know that the title came from his actual name.
I disagree with those historians. To me, thinking “what if?” is a valid tool for studying history.
If you ask a question like “What if Julius Caesar hadn’t been assassinated in 44BC?” you have to really think about the subject to come up with a reasonable answer. To me, it takes a lot more depth of knowledge to consider what could have happened than it does to consider what did happen.
I suspect that some of the professional historians who declare that what-ifs are verboten are doing so because it’s beyond their capabilities.
To get back to the OP’s question for a minute, there is of course another reason why Caesar is so very famous: He’s just so much fun. His career is about as dramatic and entertaining as history gets. From being abducted by pirates in his youth, to spectacular military campaigns, to an affair with an Egyptian queen, to the Ides of March: It just reads like a great movie script. It really is history putting its party hat on. When you read Roman history and get to Caesar, it’s time to pull up a chair and break out the popcorn. He’s a brilliant protagonist, in a story with a great ensemble cast, a fantastic plot, and a great setting.
Actually, I think a proper movie or TV show is still waiting to be made from that story. And BTW, no, on the whole I’m not really a fan of HBO’s Rome, for a number of reasons. One is that I don’t really like the portrayal of Caesar in it. He’s too serious, too somber, too calculating. The historical Caesar me strikes as much more flamboyant, much more audacious. Yes, he’s a genius, but he’s also a great gambler. Although a gambler of a particular kind: One that trusts his luck the way other people trust their skill. He’s always outnumbered, always up against the odds, and still he always gets away with it. Well, until he doesn’t.
It’s very hard not to like him, even when he’s massacring Gauls and taking down the Republic. Although, obviously, he’s not your typical hero. More like something of a Walter White.
Military historian J C F Fuller once noted that Caesar was a dandy as far as clothes and appearances go but this isn’t unusual in military commanders.
Caesar had a flair that makes him interesting. When he was 25, he was captured by pirates. When they planned to ask for 20 talents, he said that was too low, Caesar is worth 50 talents. While a prisoner he played games with them, composed poetry and told them they were ignorant for not appreciating it. When he wanted sleep, he told them to be quiet. When he was finally liberated, he immediately organized a force to capture the pirates. When the governed hemmed and hawed, he took the pirates out and had them crucified just as he promised them he would, but was nice enough to have their throats cut to give them a swift death. Sounds like a grade B movie and maybe there is some propaganda to it, but if you did a mini-series you could include it and say Plutarch is the source.
Augustus was a cannier politician in building an acceptable form of dictatorship (although after some 70 years of civil wars, it’s hard to condemn Romans for wanting a gilded cage tyrant who brought peace and prosperity). One thing Augustus had was his friend Marcus Agrippa who was a far better general but also didn’t challenge him (whether a low-born Agrippa could have successfully challenge Augustus is unknowable).
It’s a hijack, but Ciaran Hinds’ Caesar and James Purefoy’s Mark Antony were my favorite part of the series ;). The constant historical garbling and timeline issues in the series aside, the JC of Rome would have been almost 50 by the time he crossed the Rubicon, so I’m good with the mature, Machiavellian schemer with his clever slave-servants. And Purefoy’s Antony was just a blast.
But there were plenty of issues with the show and I agree a ‘life of Caesar’ would make a an excellent mini-series. What I really would like to see would be a Wars of the Diadochi series with a gigantic budget. Intrigue, battles, murder and colorful characters galore across almost 50 years. Epic :D.
Yeah, I do think they absolutely nailed Antony, so I’ll give them that.
I actually kind of like Cicero on Rome, too. I mean, he’s not perfect, but that constant nervousness he has about him seems appropriate, like he never knows whether he’s coming or going. Also, Brutus is pretty good.
In my hypothetical show, though, I’ll have more characters, and different ones. (Needless to say, or at least I hope it’s needless, there will be no equivalent of Pullo & Vorenus. Seriously, HBO, you have a fantastic line-up of historical characters to work with, and you waste half your time on made-up ones? That decision just makes my head hurt.)
I’ll include Fulvia, for starters. I know Atia got her personality on Rome, more or less, but still. I have a great scene all worked out in my mind for the siege of Perusia, where Octavian’s soldiers are making sling bullets inscribed with “Fulvia, stick this up your @ss”, and chucking them over the walls. (And, yeah, that means going beyond Caesar’s career. First and Second Triumvirate, like Rome, seems right.)
Also, Clodius Pulcher. He’s too hilarious to leave out. He’s basically the class clown of the Late Republic.
It’s an interesting thing about Augustus that he does what he does without being a natural military man, at all. In the early days, he’s always calling in sick for battles. And, yeah, a big reason why he can is that he has Agrippa as a right-hand man.
Agrippa is probably one of the most sympathetic characters in the whole story. When you read about Augustus, and you know something about later Roman history, you’re just waiting for the moment when Agrippa tries some kind of half-cocked coup. But he never, ever does. And good for him.
Also, since we’re on that, he’s a character that got completely shafted on Rome. So I’ll make sure to amend that.
The thing I least understand about the Rome series is why they made Cato so old. He was five years younger than Caesar, but he’s made up to look a lot older. (Well, the thing I really least understand was how, over the course of 25 years, Vorenus’s kids didn’t get any older, but…)
wiki: Lucius Vorenus was one of the two soldiers of the 11th Legion (Legio XI Claudia) mentioned in the personal writings of Julius Caesar. The other soldier mentioned was Titus Pullo.
So? We know almost nothing about the historical Pullo & Vorenus who are briefly mentioned by Caesar. The characters on *Rome *basically take only their names from them, everything else is fictional. (On the show, they also serve in the 13th legion, not the 11th. In Caesar’s writings, both are centurions. The historical Pullo also apparently switched sides to Pompey.)
Usually Agrippa gets portrayed by an older actor. But yeah, in “Rome” he comes across as shy and unsure of himself, although loyal. They invent a romance with Octavia. It would be interesting if that series hadrun a few more years if they would have him marry Augustus’s daughter Julia, as he did in real life, since Augustus’s two marriages before Livia aren’t mention. Amazingly, all five children that he and Julia had actually looked like him.
I guess the idea is that since Cato is such a throwback conservative, he must be some old get-off-my-lawn curmudgeon, otherwise… the audience will be confused, or something? I dunno.
Of course, it’s just dumb, since the historical Cato is more interesting than that. He’s not even fifty when he dies, and when he first butts heads with Caesar at around the time of the Catiline Conspiracy, he’s in his thirties. He’s not an old fart who remembers the good old days, when every man was a paradigm of virtue, before all the corruption and debauchery set in (no one does, anyway, it’s too long ago, if those days were ever really all that good to begin with). In his own way, he’s a radical. He’s so incorruptible, stoic, moral and uncompromising that he’s almost a caricature. To quote Cicero: Cato thinks he lives in Plato’s Republic, instead of the cesspool of Rome. He’s so ridiculously un-hip, or rather, self-consciously anti-hip, that in a weird way, it makes him the hippest of them all.
Maybe I’m slightly off the mark, but I guess I think of him as the ultimate straight edge kind of guy. (Is that still a thing? It was when I was a kid.)
Which of course is what makes them so very valuable to screenwriters :). I actually think both approaches are perfectly respectable. You can either do a Wives of Henry VIII-type historical drama with just a bit of fudging and some streamlining. Or a Rome-style show where minor, fictionalized characters are central to their own story while witnessing history.
I think Rome was a very good, if flawed, effort. I think your version could work just as well and hopefully some enterprising production will try some day.
ETA: But I think we can all agree that Elizabeth with Cate Blanchett was a historical abomination :D. I guess there is always a bridge too far for even the most forgiving geek. And somehow we seem to have wandered into Cafe Society.
But Elizabeth is one of the best films ever.
I guess I started that, so I’m sorry. We should probably kill that hijack.
Although I’m wondering what everyone thinks of the character of Octavian/Augustus on the show, (And, yes, that’s my name for him now, including the slash. ;))
The cold, calculating schemer on *Rome *is such a different person from, say, the bumbling dad of I, Claudius, and yet both approaches seem at least somewhat plausible. He’s a tricky one. For a lot of the players in the period, you can really get a sense of their personalities, but I don’t think anyone has really figured Augustus out. Which is odd for someone who is that well known. It’s like he’s always wearing a mask.