Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-10870829-20130717030243/@comment-10906938-20130719213119

I'veDunmerHomework wrote: S Ryan wrote: I'veDunmerHomework wrote: Goldflame33 wrote:

I'veDunmerHomework wrote: They can be likened to each other, but the main difference between the two is that Talos conquered his entire continent to form an empire, Caeser was born into a Roman Republic that already controlled the majority of the ancient world. Also, Caeser didn't really create the empire, he was only made dictator, a title that quite a few people had throughout the Republic. His nephew wasn't exactly emperor when he first took power, it took many years of political machinations and a civil war or two. Outright calling Augustus emperor though, is incorrect because his true title in the end was "Princeps,' or First Citizen. Neither he nor his great-uncle, however ruled alone, as is the case with Talos. They still had to contend with the senate. So, although the model for the Imperials is based off of Romans, and the Empire based off of Imperial Rome, there's far too much of a difference in circumstance and character achievement for there to be an accurate pinpointing of whom Talos was based. Just to name a few it could be: Gaius Marius: created the legion we know of today, Belissarius: reconquered a large part of the empire, Pompey Magnus: widely considered to be the greatest strategian of his time, and Scipio Africanus: considered to be the third or second greatest military leader of all time (Behind Alexander the Great and behind or ahead of Hannibal). Its possible Talos is an amalgamation of some or all of the greatest Roman legates and statesman, or an independant entity all to himself. Also, before I became general the Roman Empire was much smaller. After all, I took all of Gaul and Britain. And while yes, Alexander was a great commander, the deserts that he took were largely unpopulated, meaning less resistance. And, I was a better politician than he was. Caeser invaded Britain but gained no territory for Rome. Trajan was the one who took Britain. Alexander had 50,000 troops when he started his conquest and destroyed armies much larger than his own. He also never lost a battle whereas Caesar was beaten at Gergovia by Vercingetorix. Gaul was very underpopulated for how big it was, there's no doubt that Caesar was a great general and one of the best politicians of his time, but Alexander was by far his superior in matters of war. Caesar didn't add any territory to Rome?? What about all of gaul? In the 8 years he campaigned there he killed a million soldiers and took another million as slaves. He would have conquered Britain but had to return to Gual to take on Vergingetorix (who he crushed). He also defeated the German hordes that were migrating across the Rhine. He defeated Pompey in a civil war in which he was greatly outnumbered and he defeated armies much larger than his in Egypt and Pontus not to mention his early career in Spain where he earned the title of imperator. If Caesar hadn't been assasinated (an act which was done by a minority of senators and was incredibly unpopular with the people) he would have gone to conquer the middle east entirely as he had planned.

It is true that Caesar was no Alexander but he was without a doubt the best of the Roman generals and even Hannibal. He was without a doubt the second greatest general of the ancient world and was also without a doubt the greatest politician.

Sorry, there was some ambiguity in my post. By saying "added no territory" I meant he added no territory in Britain. Its kind of a no-brainer that he added Gaul. Also, I have my doubts that Caeser could've beaten Hannibal. They were both absolutely incredible military minds, so much so that its hard to weigh one over the other. If Caesar and Hannibal had all of the same units and army sizes, then I think Hannibal would win. But, the Romans were experts of logistics, and Caesar would have taken more preparations before the battle.