Who would you prefer to be

His rhetoric for the legitimacy of his claim rested on his relation to caesar. He had a reputation as a coward in the legions because of his ailment and Agrippa did all of his heavy military lifting anyway so it's not like he was going to win that respect back with a brilliant campaign. It's pretty safe to say he would not have created the position of Princeps without that claim.

conquering gaul could not have been easy, regardless of how caesar sold it

ill admit the rest might be horse shit

>your post
you got me, im an octavian fan boy, can you forgive me tho? i made this thread because i want to hear his faults, i need me illusion broken

>ill admit the rest might be horse shit
There was nothing about Caesar's victory over Pompey at the battle of Pharsalus that was "horse shit".

Pompey had Caesar outmanned and outmaneuvered. Pompey was Rome's most celebrated general, and his legions were all hardened veterans. Caesar straight up pulled victory out of his ass

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pharsalus

how correctly did the hbo show portray marc/ceasar relationship?
it looked like anthony knew that ceasar is flawed and will eventually be backstabbed but was ready to follow him to hell anyway out of pure respect

>conquering Gaul could Not have been easy

Ahahahhahhahahahhaha

>t. brainlet

You obviously don't know shit about the Gallic Celts. They were one of Rome's most ancient, feared, and relentless enemies. Even Alexander the Great feared war with them, signing a peace treaty in 335 BC. They introduced chain mail to the world, their iron working was in many ways superior to the Romans (who ended up copying many of their designs), they had roads, walled cities, about the only thing that they lacked with respect to Rome was political unification, which is how Caesar was able to conquer and pacify an entire region with only a handful of legions, by literally writing the book on divide and conquer.

eupedia.com/europe/celtic_trivia.shtml

Romans called them "barbarian" for their practice of head-hunting and human sacrifice, but called it civilization when they did those exact same things in the name of public entertainment.

...

Obviously Octavian. Do you even Virtus?

He loved it tho

gladiatorial combat was not human sacrifice autist and I'm tired of niggers forcing this meme because it detracts from the crisis occasions when rome DID human sacrifice

so it's barbarism when you sacrifice prisoners of war for religion, but civilization when you throw them to lions or make them fight to the death them for the sake of public entertainment?

The Murmillos, Retiarius, and the classical gladiators from Swords and Sandals movies were the rock stars of the gladiatorial world, the rare exception to the majority who were miserable wretches there against their will. A few bored, jaded aristocrats spending shitloads of money to become one of these rock stars doesn't change that. During the height of its depravity Romans were simply rounding up thousands of people for being in the wrong place in the wrong time, were called them criminals and sentenced to death by public spectacle without a trial.

Seneca wrote about a slave gladiator who committed suicide by choking himself to death with the communal lavatory sponge because the toilet was the only place in his life where he was allowed to go unsupervised.

>no one said gladiators were involved
public sacrifice for its own sake was entertainment