Life of Viriathus - timeline

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,453
Portugal
#32
If you think Viriathus was a greater threat to Rome than Cleopatra, because he had some ok showings against a few 2-3 legion armies, you need to rethink how you're measuring importance.
Since I think that there are some errors in that reasoning, that “if” is a false presumption, so I am not sure what you think that I have to rethink.

What I could ask is how Cleopatra was a threat to Rome? And when? When she was Caesar’s lover? When she had his child? Or when she was married with Antony? Was Antony a threat to Rome?

Politically at the least Cleopatra was a far more important figure than Viriathus. I think her importance is overstated, but this is a low bar.
Since Cleopatra was a political figure in Rome and Viriathus wasn’t, I can agree with that first sentence. About Cleopatra being “overstated”, that is another ranking that is a personal opinion of yours, so I won’t comment.

Sertorius was a threat to Rome, even if he was a Roman himself; excluding him, when he was warring on Rome in favour of the Spanish people, seems a bit misguided
I don’t know if you are aware that Sertorius was one of the relevant figures that contributed to the Romanization of the Iberian Peninsula. That became one of the most Romanized areas of the Empire.

Most of my bibliography on the theme is in Portuguese or Spanish on paper but online we can see some articles that mention that, for instance see:

https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/GERI/article/viewFile/GERI9393110271A/14512, p. 294 (in English);

or in my mother language: Sertório - general ou guerrilheiro?, p.99 and following.

11 specific names, plus a shorthand reference to a dozen and more others, is clearly "in the ballpark" of 20-30. You want me to name all the notable Social War commanders, or some of the notable Parthian generals, etc? Obviously importance is subjective, but I've explained pretty clearly why I don't much care for the importance of Viriathus.
As I said, and I repeat now, a parade of names, especially without context, is the least relevant thing, even if I couldn’t find the 11 specific names that you mention. I found 9 names (as stated on post #9). Unless you are counting with the 2 that I provided (Caesar and Pompey) or with the 2 that DiocletianIsBetterThanYou later kindly provided (Boiorix and Teutobod ).

Relevant were the questions and request that I made to you on post #21 and that weren’t answered.

EDIT:

You could have at least linked it.
Maybe this one: Rate Spartacus

Apparently is rating in the pool is quite positive, so Caesarmagnus considers that he is overrated by the members of this forum that voted. Maybe there is a thread that rated Viriathus, since Caesarmagnus said he is also overrated. But I didn’t found it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Openminded
Feb 2019
316
Thrace
#33
Since I think that there are some errors in that reasoning, that “if” is a false presumption, so I am not sure what you think that I have to rethink.

What I could ask is how Cleopatra was a threat to Rome? And when? When she was Caesar’s lover? When she had his child? Or when she was married with Antony? Was Antony a threat to Rome?



Since Cleopatra was a political figure in Rome and Viriathus wasn’t, I can agree with that first sentence. About Cleopatra being “overstated”, that is another ranking that is a personal opinion of yours, so I won’t comment.



I don’t know if you are aware that Sertorius was one of the relevant figures that contributed to the Romanization of the Iberian Peninsula. That became one of the most Romanized areas of the Empire.

Most of my bibliography on the theme is in Portuguese or Spanish on paper but online we can see some articles that mention that, for instance see:

https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/GERI/article/viewFile/GERI9393110271A/14512, p. 294 (in English);

or in my mother language: Sertório - general ou guerrilheiro?, p.99 and following.



As I said, and I repeat now, a parade of names, especially without context, is the least relevant thing, even if I couldn’t find the 11 specific names that you mention. I found 9 names (as stated on post #9). Unless you are counting with the 2 that I provided (Caesar and Pompey) or with the 2 that DiocletianIsBetterThanYou later kindly provided (Boiorix and Teutobod ).

Relevant were the questions and request that I made to you on post #21 and that weren’t answered.

EDIT:



Maybe this one: Rate Spartacus

Apparently is rating in the pool is quite positive, so Caesarmagnus considers that he is overrated by the members of this forum that voted. Maybe there is a thread that rated Viriathus, since Caesarmagnus said he is also overrated. But I didn’t found it.

Thank you! Gave him a 10 star :D
 
Oct 2015
5,222
Matosinhos Portugal
#34
Summary of History and Geography of Portugal - 5th year according to the ... of the Center and North that fought against the Romans for almost 200 years. ... in the fight against the Romans were the Lusitanos, headed by Viriato.




But to clarify the origin of the Lusitanians, who lived 2,300 years ago in the Iberian Peninsula ... the largest of the Iberian tribes, with which the Romans fought for many years ». The Lusitanians' struggles against the Romans began as. Pliny and Ptolemy


Commanded by Viriato the Lusitanians resisted for 200 years to the Roman invaders conquering the respect of the own ...


(A25-BIS-DR2: o gene lusitano que só os portugueses possuem . - A25-BIS-DR2: the Lusitanian gene that only the Portuguese possess.)
 
Jan 2015
3,536
Australia
#35
The Spanish tribes, including the Lusitanians, were resisting Rome before Viriathus and I'm sure they'd have continued to do so even if he'd never existed, as they continued to for centuries irrespective of anything he did.
 
Likes: macon
May 2016
5,453
Portugal
#36
The Spanish tribes, including the Lusitanians, were resisting Rome before Viriathus and I'm sure they'd have continued to do so even if he'd never existed, as they continued to for centuries irrespective of anything he did.
The Lusitanians also breath oxygen before Viriathus and continued to breath oxygen after Viriathus death, irrespective of anything he did. Among other things.

Anyway, the Lusitanian’s didn’t continue to resist for centuries after the dead of Viriathus. He died in 139 BC. The wars ended in 94, don’t recall if other victory was registed. During that period Decimus Junius Brutus strenght Rome’s position.
Sertorious (died in 72) was their leader while in the Peninsula and also contributed immensely to their Romanization.
And Julius Caesar in actions probably similar to those that we saw later in Gaul gave the final blows in the decade of 60, a bit more than half of a century after Viriathus dead: Questor Julius Caesar in the Hispania 69-68-67BC (!)

If I recall correctly the next significant Roman campaigns in the Peninsula would be with Agrippa, the Cantabrian Wars (29-19), but already out of the territories of the Lusitanians.
 
Jan 2015
3,536
Australia
#38
Ok, centuries was an exaggeration, but the Spanish tribes weren't conclusively finished off until the time of Augustus well over 100 years later, and the total period of turmoil in Spain is close to 2 centuries. The tribes were rebellious, and to attribute that to Viriathus is silly. He joined an existing rebellion, and after he was gone that existing rebellion continued for a long time on and off, as it had before.
 
Nov 2010
7,594
Cornwall
#39
Ok, centuries was an exaggeration, but the Spanish tribes weren't conclusively finished off until the time of Augustus well over 100 years later, and the total period of turmoil in Spain is close to 2 centuries. The tribes were rebellious, and to attribute that to Viriathus is silly. He joined an existing rebellion, and after he was gone that existing rebellion continued for a long time on and off, as it had before.
Indeed so and I think even Augustus got impacient and left it to the generals (cant remember who).

Funny how in hindsight we always look on people who brought death and destruction to their peoples as heroes. But I suppose we've never heard of the many leaders who did the sensible thing?

And I still don't agree it was anything to do with the history of Portugal, which only formed 1000 years later. Unless you are talking about the history of the 'space'!
 
Jan 2015
3,536
Australia
#40
Rome conquering Spain was the sensible move for them. They could have done it more quickly and efficiently if they hadn't had so many other wars going on at the same time, and so many corruption issues, but they were right to stick with it until they civilized the place. Left alone it would have only become another outpost for enemies to attack them from, and left a gaping hole in their Empire's territorial integrity.