Augur

Is this another April Fools jibe? If not, my congradulations. I am relative new here, but gratuitiously insulting declarations of this type are quite rare on this otherwise well-mannered site. But I think it is safe to say that that latest post of yours is one of the most tasteless and ill-linformed few lines I have seen here. I can't help but ask: who you normally correspond with, and who corresponds with you?

True, True. And when I was a young man I sometimes wishfully gave myself the cognems "The Very Cool Dude" and "The Studly," (close friends preferred "The Idiot"). But, alas, I doubt that any of these (well deserved) cognems will appear on my grave stone, let alone for millenia in the world's history books. Kidding aside, regardless of who first assigned the cognem, what seems most significant and says most about Pompey the man is that it suck. Sincerely, Auger The Studly. PS. Hmmm. Which, of course, raises the question: who was it that first assigned "The Great" to the likes of Alexander, Peter, Cyrus, Herod, Constantine, Gregory, Gadsby and, while we're at it, to all the other, less personal Greats, like: The Great Pyramid... War... White Shark... Wall... Fire... Depression... Barrier Reef... Lakes... Danes... and all the others? Is there an International Cognem Registration Office somewhere that registers and certifies these things? If so, stand aside, and get ready to start calling me Auger The... you know.

A Roman who spent his entire adult life (and an additional twenty centuries) being called "The Great" must have been damned good at something. For Pompey what else could it have been but generaling -- certainly not statesmanship, or the ability to avoid being manipulated by others. Yes, Pompey was a top notch general. The tragedy was that he ended as a reluctant, ineffective tool of the doomed Boni. As someone cleverly punned in another string, Pompey should have stopped while he was ahead, or rather while he still had a head.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Let's see, see. see.

Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it. Such as, for example, when the majority wants to enslave a minority, or perhaps simply to kill it. One needn't look too far to find frightening examples of both. Which is one reason why this life-long greener-than-green liberal found himself siding with the Optimates in this string. Why? Because, by its very nature, a misdirected majority can be far worse than even the most abusive aristocrat. The primary reason is that fully empowered masses have no restraints on their conduct, they usually insist they don't need the aristocracy at all, and often would be happy to elimate it altogether. The exact opposite is true for the aristocrat, for whom the central reality is that its privileges, power and wealth are totally dependent on the continuing control and productive well being of the masses. For the aristocrat, any abuse of power that goes beyond what the masses will tolerate is suicidal. So, for the aristocrat the central question must always be: what is the limit of how much can I get away with? Likewise, if the aristocrat exceeds this limit, the critical question becomes: what must I do, what must I concede, to get the masses back under my control? Thus, for the aristocrat, the genius of the successful use of power becomes an unending game of push and pull, challenge and response. No one played this game with greater skill, and with greater long-term benefit to all, than the Roman senatorial class -- at least until the Gracchi. Thereafter things become dominated less by Populares and Optimates than by

Oops. Obviously it was a big mistake to include the name of the laudable Caesar along with the likes of the monsterous Stalin and Hitler within the same paragraph. My intention was certainly NOT to suggest a similarity between Caesar and the likes of Stalin and Hitler, but to do just the opposite -- to contrast the obviously good vs bad difference between the conspiciously good Caesar and the two very very bad Bad Guy comparisons. The point I was attempting to make (obviously not very well) was that a ruler's "being loved" is NOT the defining factor that establishes that that ruler (Caesar, or otherwise ) is "good." There are many reasons why Caesar was "good," but the fact that he was widely "loved" by the non-Boni factions in Rome is clearly incidental. Why? Because history is filled with nasty scoundrel-demonic-leaders who were also "loved" -- Hitler and Stalin being the extreme examples I used." For those of us who admire Caesar, there are many, many arguments why Caesar was "good." In my view, the argument that this is because he was "loved" is certainly one of the least persuasive. Boo to Stalin and Hitler. Hail to Caesar, be he "loved" or "loved" not.

I too am an admirer of Caesar, but is your suggestion here that Caesar was good for Rome BECAUSE the people loved him? If so, that seems a very slippery slope. Why slippery? Ever take a close look at the ecstatic masses cheering Hitler and Mussolini in their hay days? Or at the weeping, grief stricken crowds trampling each other to death at Stalin's funeral? These monsters were unquestionably, catastrophically "bad" for their countries, but they were deeply loved and admired by their citizens, or at least most of them. (An older woman I knew in Kazakhstan insists she still loves Stalin even though her father was murdered by Stalin). Love may be a "many splendored thing" but when applied to leaders, and especially tyrants, being "loved" is usually a matter of, for the easily impressed: charm; for the pragmatic: bribes and ill-gotten gains; for the faint of heart: terror; for the gullible: a good press agent; and, of course: killing everyone else who may disagree. Tragically, being good often has little, sometimes nothing to do with it. Caesar was loved and was obviously a damned talented and remarkable fellow. About whether he was

Thanks Germanicus, no offence taken and certainly none intended, Zeke. Rest assured, my comments were posted with much collegial affection and a playful smile, and from a firm belief that the best advise is to: Never make sweeping generalizations, particularly about those who make sweeping generalizations. How's that for a sweeping generalization! Peace.

Hmm. Rather a nasty view of the driving motivations of both ancient Rome and comtemporary USA. The position America occupies in this old world must really be giving you an ulcer. Do you hold the same negative views about Rome during the period of its rise and predominance? If so, that is sad. Rome, particularly the 500 years of the Republic, deserves better than that. My suggestion: Drink some milk (for the ulcer) and keep reading, there is obviously much more about Rome -- and the US -- waiting to be discovered.

Nicely posted Ursus, particularly the latter remarks contrasting the

Yes, Cicero. New Quote: "Hasten slowly."

Actually, during the Middle Ages the dominant "super power" was the successive variations of the Islamic Empire, a dominance that eventually, under the Ottomans, obliterated the Eastern Empire. Which may explain why the once proud Constantinople has been called Istanbul for five centuries.

PP, good question, and one that has bedeviled all who have tried to help rebuild that unfortunate place. As far a percentage, the percentage of Muslims is very small, primarily because the percentage of Armenians in Armenia (who are all Christians of one shade or another) is remarkably high. They claim 97%, remarkably homogenious in that ethnically varied region of the world. As for the number of Muslims (all locally referred to as "Turks"), this is obviously very small, which is due in part to still deeply held feelings (some might call it unending virulent hatred) that remains from "The Genocide" (the still denied mass killing of 1.5M Armenians by the Turks during WWI); feelings that were revived by the recent, particularly vicious war fought between Armenia and Azberjian (also a Muslim country but also referred to as simply "Turks"). No, I see little chance of Armenia becoming highly populated by Muslims, ie. Turks. But the real problem in discussing population and demographics in places like Armenia is that no one really knows how many people are still there. When I left (2001) the official population of Armenia was 3.7 million, but informed sources indicated that the real number was probably below 2.0M, and possibly as low as 1.0M. Where de all go? Well, the Armenian Diaspora is a grand and remarkable thing. Hell, there are well over a million Armenians is California alone and much of the world's finest agricultural land, California's Great Central Valley, is owned by them. A smiled goodby salutation when Armenian friends say farwell to each other: "Until we all meet again in Fresno." My sincere appologies to all those who may have little interest in things Armenian.

Having spend a number of years living there I am able to report with some degree of certainly that the first officially Christian country was Armenia, where Christianity "for all" was proclaimed by its king, Tiridates III (A.D. 238-314) in 306 AD, (the locals claim it was 301) and where the main cathederal of the Armenian Church (as seperate from the other seven Orthodox Churches), is located in the ancient, still capital city of Yerevan. The cathederal was build in 304 AD, is still beautiful, and is open for buisness every Sunday, as it has been for 1,701 years running. In Georgia, Armenia's immediate neighbor to the north, Christianity became the official state religion in 330 AD, also well before the official conversion of Rome.

Yes, there is a growing sense of inevitability during the last century of the Republic and it is hard to imagine the tradional restraints and standards of honorable conduct you mention (eg. exile, suicide, etc., etc) to be part of that inevitabilty. But the absense of these "honorable options" is not just conspicious when comparing earlier Rome to our comtemporary times. It seems to me equally conspicious when comparing pre-Cracchi Rome with the Rome in which Pompey, Antony and Caesar played out the final acts. By the last violent decades of the Republic -- after 80 years of outrages by both side -- many of the ancient taboos against abuse of power had been broken, most of the negative precedents had been set, and all of the self-serving, ends-justify-means arguments had been tried and proven expedient. What was to restrain the future generations of Pompey, Cato and Caesar wannabes in their drives to seek and abuse power? Probably nothing -- except that rarest of qualities in the late Republic: self restraint, the ability to resist immediate gains to achieve worthwhile long-term purposes. Fortunately, for Rome and for us all, along came that pink-cheeked, 19-year old boy who was neither expected nor inevitable, but who had a taste and remarkable talent for the long haul.

My hour in Rome: spent on a stroll through the forum chatting with Augustus on May 13, 10 AD, at about 4:00PM. [Thank you P. Clodius. Under the circumstances the conversation would have been a little strained if Agrippa had been there.]

Most Despotic? Hmm, so many choices, so little time. Well, if one eliminates all the totally bizzar private/personal antics (your standard incest, murder, rape, regicide, patricide, matricide, infantocide, torture, buggery, spitting on the sidewalk and the like), the worst Roman despot in a totally public sense is, in my opinion, Diocletian, who's "reforms" acted to permanently fix/limit the future status, lives and livelyhoods of all Roman citizens. Second choice: Constantine I (and those he empowered ) who permanently imposed the religion called Christianity upon all Romans -- and much of the world thereafter.

Nicely punned. But perhaps an even more interesting question, that applies to all the key players in the Republic-to-Empire catharsis, is wheather any of them really had the option to "quit" or to do anything other than what they ended up doing. Did the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey (the G) or Caesar really have such options? Personal motivations and self-justifications aside, most of them found themselves forced to react to circumstances that were dictated by the increasingly irresponsible and/or violent actions of "the other side." I hate to rely too heavily on the old "inevitability of history" argument, but there is a persistant thesis-antithesis aspect to this period that is inescapable, and which makes the synthesis carefully built by Octavian/Augustus all the more welcome and admirable -- and itself "inevitable." Hmm. How this relates in any way to the topic/question of this string -- "good books" -- is known only to the Gods.

OOps, thank you Germanics. The "Pompey" I referred to in my last post was, of course, NOT a Pompey at all, but the elder Marius. I have corrected the post. But what an interesting (and embarassing) juxtapostion: Marius = Pompey Magnus? Where did that curious idea come from? Perhaps it is because, as PP just noted, we today are indeed more focused on the longer term cause-and-effect impacts of the actions of key Romans. If this is true, the common subconcious link between Marius and Pompey could be that, despite there different endings (Marius as hero of the day; Pompey a headless lump on an Egyptian beach), both had once been the "Savior of Rome" and both ended up, in my view, as rather sad and pathetic characters in dramas dominated by others. Oh how we mortals relish the fall of the Gods. Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

To be meaningful it seems to me this string question should ask: who is the 2nd Best Roman Emperor, because the "best" emperior seems so obvious. He is the fellow who created the concept of "emperor" in the first place. The guy who created the imperial infrastructure over which he and future emperors would rule. The practical genius who defined -- over four decades of living example -- what an "emperor" was and what the person holding that title should and should not do: obviously Octavian/Augustas. All subsequent emperors must be measured by how well they met the standards he set. One might just as well ask who, among so many immitators, were the "best" Elvis or the "best" Marilyn Monroe. Who else but Elvis and Marilyn themselves? That said, my vote for the 2nd greatest emperor must go to one of Augustus' successors who had not only inherated and maintained imperial institutions but, like Augustus, someone who had to create totally new imperial solutions to meet new challenges facing Rome -- probably someone like Diocletian or perhaps Constantine I. While, with 20-20 hindsight, I disagree with much of what these two Emperors did, what sets them apart is that both, like Augustus, attempted and were able to achieve fundamental redirections of the Empire itself. .

Quote: "Or is it even more simple in human rationalization... Caesar conquered... therefore Caesar is better/worse, depending upons the era, the social environment of the time, etc. " Yes PP, so true, so true. BUT I think you will agree that the nature of our oh so human cyanicism -- ie, that only might is right and that victory and "winning" defines who is judged good and/or virtuous -- is far less true in our narrow Romanophilic field of study than in others. Does any serious student believe that Sulla or, say, the elder Marius, who both died on top and in bed (or at least of natual causes -- Marius even got his 7th consulship), were the "good guys"? Contrarywise, does anyone seriously suggest that Caesar or, say, the brothers Gracchi, were the villians/bad guys because they were all struck down (ie, defeated) prematurely? Nay, nay. The curiously narrow but remarkably well documented ancient Roman world upon which we have chosen to focus our attentions provides a striking, quite unique clarity about what happened historically and the consequences of what was caused by each of the historic Roman personalities upon whom we focus so much of our attentions. Objectively, the bottom line is that Caesar "lost" and both Marius and Sulla "won" which, as you've noticed, has almost nothing to do with how we evaluate and argue so virgorously about who were the good and who the bad guys in Rome's continuing drama.

Germanicus, Yes, I also find myself wondering how much of our subjective views of Roman events and politics are effected by the comtemporary Roman historical novels and films we are exposed to. I was moved to raise the issue, first, upon reading one of our fellow contributor's who sited as a "historical source" the on-screen portrayal of one of the characters in the I Claudius series. Then, more recently, the same issue came up in the quite heated debate within the "Who Killed Germanicus?" string -- in which Tiberius is both praised and villified by our small group heatedly cross-quoting an even smaller number of ancient sources. Fortunately we all seem to agree on at least a few things: First, that most ancients are more authoritive than most contemporaries (unless, of course, the contemporary is ones self). Second, that the more Roman sources we've read the more we know (or should know) about things Roman. And, finally, that none of the ancients were totally objective, and some were blatantly biased for and/or against key Roman about whom we want draw conclusions. I myself am a strong anti-Boni man, but I have lost track of why that is so. Was it Tacitus or Livy, or Seutonius or Gibbon -- who done it? Or, could it have been Graves' and McCullough's lively pros read while lying on a beach somewhere? What the hell, we are all getting the same basic facts. How we use them to draw different conclusions which we will argue and fight to defend is a delightful and sometimes frustrating mystery. The winner in all such "credability arguments" will always be the one who tells the most convincing and entertaining story.

One additional though or rather a question. To my thinking one of the most insightful historical authors of this century was Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), a Brit who's most famous work was his 10 volume "A Study of History" -- a good part of which was based on his study of Roman and Greek history. I have been surprised that Toynbee's name has not appeared in any of the strings I have read. My question: Is there any one out there who has read Mr. Toynbee or even heard of him?

Beyond the dozen traditionally dominant literary sources of Roman history (Gibbon, Seutonius, Livy, etc., etc.), I sometimes find welcome relief in reading Rome-based historical novels. There are many to choose from and most are trash, but some are beautfully written and a delightful read for the dedicated Romanophile. At least one of these, Graves' "I Claudius" duo, has even been quoted and strongly argued as actual history in these strings. The most recent fictional offering of this quality is a six-book series entitled "Masters of Rome," researched and written over fifteen years by novelist Colleen MCCullough. The series covers the critical period from the rise of Marius to the Battle of Philippi, and provides an earthy, "real world" sense of the people and events that dominated the final struggles of the Republic. Yes, we all know the events and chronologies surrounding the historical individuals named Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Octavian and the rest, but to read them in a well crafted human context, with meat on the bones, is a delightful experience I recommend to all. But be prepared, McCullough is clearly pro-Caesar, anti-Boni from the get-go, and with a six-book total of nearly 5,000 pages, she does a good job of convincing anyone to join Caesar in his trip accross the Rubicon. Alas, if only we had that option. The books, in the order they were written and should be read, include: First Man in Rome (1990) The Grass Crown (1991) Fortune's fovorite (1993) Caesar's Women (1995) Caesar (1997-99?) The October Horse (2003) An excellent read.

P. Clodius/Primus Pilus, gentlemen please do not rank me among the many Tiberius bashers, quite the opposite. I have always taken Tacitus