Favonius Cornelius

Ah lucky one...I'd love to see some rural Russia first hand. Hell I'd like to see any of Russia first hand, but I guess I'll have to wait a bit.

This is so true, but not all have the excuse of abuse. The rest are just scum. A true leader does more than what he asks of another.

Wow I had no idea Roman history was so big with the ladies. I'll have to brag about my knowledge of the times at the next party I go to.

I think one of my downfalls is I rely on other authors, particularly modern, to tell me the tale of the ancients, rather than read the ancients themselves. I hope to rectify this some day, but my life what it is I barely have the time to read anything, and all this can only be a hobby. I think I'll withdraw my post (you can delete) because I honestly don't have the time to dig through Livy to back up my ideas, and don't even have a specific enough knowledge of the text to have general ideas on where to find what I am looking for. Anyway, if I'm going to put that much work into a thing, might as well do it on one's own than surrender my libertas and resource to a tyrant!!

Primus I'll respond to your post in the other thread here so as not to clutter it with administrational posts. I'll strive to provide you with as much direct reference as I can when I get home later, but the ideas I mention are all exactly in those three books I provided with some of my own interpretation. The very nature of ancient history is such that we have to interpret often in our own way, fill in blanks as it were. Things like Scipio's realpolitik view of the east is more or less my own amalgamation of various input. I guess I am not clear as to where the lines are drawn between being able to interpret the past in such a way, or where we must stick absolutely to what is recorded for the purposes of this exercise. Great leaders do not always reveal all that is on their mind before they die, so you are left with trying to figure out their objectives. In fact most of the recorded history and reference which we cite is exactly another man putting in his opinions of times before him. If there is no room for personal input, I

The one thing I can tell you about the Berbers and any ancient people's who claimed the coasts of Africa: they constantly raided them. Actually the term Berber is something that came much later, the various tribes were individually named, everything from 'Numidian' to 'Lybian' to 'Mauritanian' and so on. The Phoenician's who colonized Africa mixed in with them considerably and were used by Carthraginians (pure blood Phonecians in the major cities) considerably through the Punic Wars. The 'Berbers' also raided Egypt from time to time, but their tribes and numbers were vastly too scattered to do much conquest any time any where. I seriously doubt there is any connection with these peoples and modern Lebanon, and I can only imagine why you are asking. Heh, this is a total crackpot thread after Cato got his book answer.

In response to Cato's thesis, I believe that it is correct to point out the prevailing themes which mark the political jockeying of the time. Those of the phil-Hellenic group, and those conservatives which chose to reach back to the agrarian values of the past, which can be seen as the son of the political battles between plebeians and patricians in the early days of the republic. In practically all time periods however, one can boil away the fatty rhetoric of posturing statesmen to witness the realpolitik of all political climes, this Scipio-Cato loggerhead being no exception. Politicians take on ideology in part because they believe in it, but you can witness the most remarkable flexibility in these stances when it comes to push and shove, when the gloves come off and you see both sides have the same bare knuckles. It seems questionable the extent of opposition Scipio received from the anti-Hellenic group, seeing as how their unity was varied. Further you can see the flexibility of Scipio's own positions depending on the situation. At first Scipio supported Flamininus in his pro-Hellenic policies, then later his attitude changed when his political opponents drove Hannibal to the court of Antiochus. Scipio's eyes were to the east because to the east lay the prime military dangers to Rome after the fall of Carthrage. A sensible military mind would see how open to influence the lands of Greece were with despots like Philip of Macedon and Antiochus of the Seleucids, constantly looking for an exploitable opening. If either were given the chance to exploit, it could cause a situation for Rome from which it could not recover so soon after the devastating war with Hannibal. It was a matter of military policy, creating a buffer state out of Greece, and it was necessary to understand the Greeks to do that. While Cato probably had real convictions about his ideology, Scipio never really had any exceedingly pro-Hellenic attitude until an anti-Hellene caused him political woe. Scipio probably found an easy opposite polarity by aligning himself with Hellenists which suited his geopolitical goals, thus gathering them around him to the end result of greater political support, enough to make himself larger than life in the Roman conscience, creating an irony out of Cato's strident conservative efforts. Indeed everything about Scipio's actions in his political life leads one to conclude he was a realist. Only a realist could affect the unorthodox maneuvers in Africa, or form his geopolitical realization that Rome must control and come to terms with the lands around it to survive. The anti-Hellenists wished for a more limited role of Roman policy: force Hannibal out of Italia, force all nations out and leave them to their lands. Fabius the 'Cunctator' and his support of this policy comes under suspicion of being guilty of his own past than a true believer of the conservative outlook. He knew he could not win against Hannibal in the field, therefore his policy was one of a siege and not ideology. If Cato was so politically inclined with his ideology, then he must have allowed himself to be very distracted with his focus on pointless social themes such as the Oppian law and his censorial activities. Cato too opposed the idea of a Scipio marching in decedent Africa, but then later found it suitable to monotone 'delenda est Carthago' in years later. In the end, the positions of each man and the shifting factions which formed around them was a blend of realities; geopolitical, ideological, and personal, with an overarching theme of that which is expedient. 1. H.H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World. 2. Friedrich Munzer, Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families. 3. Richard E. Mitchell, Patricians and Plebians.

I'll be very impressed if someone can throw in some archaeological data.

The post I made thus far was in my own words, but as I predicted we are batting around quotations from various books. I'm still unclear as to what form this is suppose to take; personal input, resource extraction, both?

I think this is the biggest problem that keeps the US system from being 'perfect.' Our system is bipolar, and in addition to that lobbies have enormous amounts of power. Ultra-capitalists will tell you that is a good thing, they will tell you that going with the money will always in the end benefit all. If that were the case then we'd all be in perfect health while we chain-smoke, eat fast food that we picked up with our hummers. Death to lobbyists. So, what happens when the power that these corrupted politicians hold is transferred closer to the individual? See now, in the Roman Republic this would be an issue, because these statesmen had so much more power in their offices. In the American Republic however, the checks and balances are quite good, enough such that if a man runs for office and the money teet of outside interests is cut off, he's left with performing the functions of his office with decisions that are the best for his constituency. All officials are still elected. With money you can warp that with countless methods. Without that money, you are left with doing what is right for the people for their support, which is what they are bloody suppose to be doing. Sure, somewhere down the line some shady bastard would thwart this setup, and then some rambunctious bastards like me will whine about it until an equitable balance is found, and the cycle continues.

The rivalry between Cato and Scipio can be said to be the beginnings of the kind of political instability which led to the fall of the Republic in later years, and both men represent reoccurring and distinct Roman political ideologies. On the one hand, you have Marcus Porcius Cato, who by backing the powerful Fabius patrician clan is clearly marking his loyalty with the aristocratic core. One can see how a plebian like Cato would wish to do so, for the aristocratic clique in Rome most often dominated by the patrician families made it difficult for any new man to advance his career. Those who generally work through the senate and the great families are known as the optimates. On the other hand you have Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, born into one of the most powerful patrician families. He had no need to prove his right to rule the Roman people. Couple that with youth, energy, brilliance and ambition, and you have a man who's interests may actually conflict with the interests of his peers in the senate. For men such as Scipio who's political platform may put the boni viri at unease, the use of the power of the people is most useful, through the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the assemblies of the people. In these arenas the opinions of the senate and the aristocracy means less, the appeal of a man to the masses more. Men who generally use this route of political influence are termed populares. 1. H.H. Scullard: History of the Roman World

I do believe that shirt has more than one meaning...

Octavius...Antiochus? I figure one of you ground breakers should start things off and give us some examples in your first topic, to give us a taste of your vision...

I have this fear that these threads will boil down to a back and forth of copy-paste of these cited sources as people strive to be as legitimate as possible. In the end, little discussion, more quotation.

I'm ready to give it a try, but I'm wondering how the cited sources aspect will pan out. Should we consider all resources to be equal? I guess that's up to the tyrant to decide. First time around I suggest Ursus or Primus for Moderator.

I think this is the biggest problem that keeps the US system from being 'perfect.' Our system is bipolar, and in addition to that lobbies have enormous amounts of power. Ultra-capitalists will tell you that is a good thing, they will tell you that going with the money will always in the end benefit all. If that were the case then we'd all be in perfect health while we chain-smoke, eat fast food that we picked up with our hummers. Death to lobbyists.

Yup Cornelii are best. I'm surprised no mention of the Fabii however. This family held considerable power, perhaps almost total power, for much of the early Republic until the defeat at Veii. Even after that time, with their family so depleted, the sole survivors carried awesome auctoritas due just to their illustrious name. Remember, marriage and adoption between patrician families was frequent, and used as a method of preventing family names from dying out. Many of the great names carried by men in the late Republic actually carry no true blood of the original family.

It is possible that they just made it up ya know...

I got me a pint of Boddington's, a loyal dog at me feet, a loyal and beautiful woman in me bed, and more Roman history than I can write in a life time; what more can a man ask for?

I'm waiting with baited breath for someone to give someone an offer they can't refuse.

Exactly, and for that my firend, know that not all Americans follow this course in their hearts. Not a day goes by when I do not question and regret the decision of our Cold War leaders to place faith and nuclear power in Israel.

Sometimes in order to convey the true extent of belief or feeling in a thing requires an unforntnate amount of assertive language. And to that I say let god sort them out.

Heh heh, I know, I agree with you. For all we know, a campaign supporter was the one who handed out that plate, Cato could have known nothing about it. You have to admit though, objecting to such a practice could easily fit right in with many of other of Cato's hardline antics.

I mean, I just read that paragraph you posted about his military record, and one thing that stands out is his willingness to go beyond the norm in order to follow the letter of the law, and to emulate the life of a honest Stoic Roman, perhaps even to the point of absurdity. This plate sort of contrasts from the extreme life of Cato we read about seems like...

I suppose so. Depends though, on how many of those he handed out. There have been magistrates who manipulated the grain dole, condemed by the jury for election year bribery...