Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Roman Republic

Rate this topic


Praxus

Recommended Posts

I was having a debate with someone about who was the better man Cicero or Caeser. I of course said Cicero. My argument was that Cicero was the greatest proponent of Individual Libery. He countered it by claiming that the Republic was a Aristocratic Oligarghy and Cicero was a corrupt aristocrat who was worst then ceaser. What do you guys/gals things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about the Cicero vs. Caeser issue, but it seems that bringing up the fact that "the Republic was a Aristocratic Oligarghy" is irrelevent. It could be a dictatorship as long as it respected individual rights, i.e., not totalitarion dictatorship. It just happens to be that the 'mechanics' of a representitive, consitutional Republic is more conducive to maintaining protection of rights, once established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted on this issue under the recent thread of which Pre-Renaissance civilizations contributed the most to individual liberty.

I presume your friend was not an Objectivist, or even a libertarian, as I cannot imagine someone disposed toward liberty in any way taking the side of Caesar.

Caesar has been glamorized over the centuries in much the way of a Napolean or an Alexander, but would one argue that those were defenders of individual freedom?

The main difficultly that arises when one evaluates Cicero is that by the time he rose to influence, the Roman Republic was in decline much as the United States is today. One of Rome's most important formative stories was that of Brutus deposing the Tarquinian kings, and the structure of the Republican government was built on the premise that Romans would never again allow themselves to be ruled by a king. By Cicero's day, however, those principles had been eroded (largely by the influx of non-native religious views, and by the softness which the riches brought through their military success had allowed) and Roman government was corrupted by demogagues who played to the "masses" with bread and circuses much as the Democrats do today.

Cicero successfully put down a pre-Caesarean attempt to overthrow the Republic (the Cataline conspiracy) but eventually the military leadership (Caesar, Pompey) overshadowed what was left of the Senate leadership, and when Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalia the end of republican control was almost complete. (That is also the episode from which the play Cato was taken, which which popular during the American Revolution, in which Cato commits suicide rather than give in to the rule of Caesar.)

Caesar tolerated Cicero due to Cicero's popularity, but Cicero refused to be incorporated into Caesar's plans, and encouraged Brutus to emulate his ancestor and depose Caesar when Mark Antony was on the verge of having him crowned king. Cicero's series of speeches known as the "Philipics" were aimed at motivating the Senate and the people to resist Antony's own ambitions to dictatorship after Caesar had been eliminated.

Eventually Cicero was beheaded at Antony's orders and only when Cicero's faction was completely put down was the "empire" safe and the Republic gone forever.

Here are several excerpts from Cicero regarding liberty that no fan of Caesar could match:

Cicero Philippics phil. 2.chap44

The name of peace is sweet, the thing itself is most salutary. But between peace and slavery there is a wide difference. Peace is liberty in tranquillity; slavery is the worst of all evils,--to be repelled, if need be, not only by war, but even by death. But if those deliverers of ours have taken themselves away out of our sight, still they have left behind the example of their conduct. They have done what no one else had done. Brutus pursued Tarquinius with war; who was a king when it was lawful for a king to exist in Rome. Spurius Cassius, Spurius. Maelius, and Marcus. Manlius were all slain because they were suspected of aiming at regal power. These are the first men who have ever ventured to attack, sword in hand, a man who was not aiming at regal power, but actually reigning. And their action is not only of itself a glorious and godlike exploit, but it is also one put forth for our imitation; especially since by it they have acquired such glory as appears hardly to be bounded by heaven itself.

Cicero Philippics phil. 2.chap46

Do you never think on these things? And do you not understand that it is enough for brave men to have learned how noble a thing it is as to the act, how grateful it is as to the benefit done, how glorious as to the fame acquired, to slay a tyrant? When men could not bear him, do you think they will bear you? Believe me, the time will come when men will race with one another to do this deed, and when no one will wait for the tardy arrival of an opportunity.

Decide on your conduct. As to mine, I myself will declare what that shall be. I defended the republic as a young man, I will not abandon it now that I am old. I scorned the sword of Catiline, I will not quail before yours. No, I will rather cheerfully expose my own person, if the liberty of the city can her restored by my death.

May the indignation of the Roman people at last bring forth what it has been so long laboring with. In truth, if twenty years ago in this very temple I asserted that death could not come prematurely upon a man of consular rank, with how much more truth must I now say the same of an old man? To me, indeed, O conscript fathers, death is now even desirable, after all the honors which I have gained, and the deeds which I have done. I only pray for these two things: one, that dying I may leave the Roman people free. No greater boon than this can be granted me by the immortal gods. The other, that every one may meet with a fate suitable to his deserts and conduct toward the republic.

On the philosophical side, Cicero is well known as an exponent of natural law, and one of his most famous formulations was one with which Thomas Jefferson would have identified:

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting, it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions… there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law

will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no debate between Cicero and Ceaser as to which one was the greater champion of liberty. The only person one could possibly compare Cicero with would be Cato (the Younger). Cicero is widely acknowledged by conservative scholars as the greatest of the Romans in his defense and undestanding of liberty (especially for a man of that time).

In any bookcase dedicated to freedom, liberty, justice, and individual rights, Cicero's works would have to be included. He is one of the giants of the ancient world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Praxus,

The man you were talking to was reciting postmodern/marxist dogma, but in this case he even got his facts wrong: Cicero was not an aristocrat at all. He was a plebeian by birth and rose to his position through his power of persuasion.

There is one speech where he defends the rights of the plebs to occupy a position of power based on their characters and achievements.

To top it all, Caesar was the bringer of dictatorship - while Cicero was one of the last defenders of liberty and the republic.

Caesar and Cicero had great respect for each other, despite their differences, but Caesar's heir, Augustus, knew that he had to eliminate Cicero if he ever wanted to have absolute power. He had him murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cicero was not an aristocrat at all. He was a plebeian by birth and rose to his position through his power of persuasion.

I agree with your post. I'd just like to correct one thing. Cicero was not a Plebeian. He was born into the Equestrian order which was a class of Romans who owned land and business enterprises but were not old and distinguished families like the Senators. When he reached the Senate he was reffered to as a 'new man' which meant that he was one of the first of his family to be a member of the senate. In short, he did come from money but just not an established, aristocratic family; ie the Julii, the Cornelii or the Metalii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your post. I'd just like to correct one thing. Cicero was not a Plebeian. He was born into the Equestrian order which was a class of Romans who owned land and business enterprises but were not old and distinguished families like the Senators. When he reached the Senate he was reffered to as a 'new man' which meant that he was one of the first of his family to be a member of the senate. In short, he did come from money but just not an established, aristocratic family; ie the Julii, the Cornelii or the Metalii.

Yes, you're right. The point is that he was not an aristocrat, a Patrician. He did not exploit his power, and was not granted it by birth:

Cicero was born and raised in the Italian provincial town of Arpinum (Arpino), seventy miles east of Rome. The Arpinates had been citizens of Rome for nearly a century, but its residents were still viewed with careless disdain in Rome as "new men," without noble ancestors, breeding, or background. No single fact in Cicero's life is more important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caesar helped to improve the Roman economy, by forcing landowners to hire freemen as a third of their workers. If you have studied Roman history to any extent, you'll discover that there were masses of urban poor who were miserable and desperate. Slavery was not beneficial to the Roman economy, in addition, slavery is one of the most extreme violations of individual liberty. By forcing landowners to hire freemen, he helped to reduce the demand for slaves. He cut the number of people dependent on state welfare from 300,000 to 150,000 (welfare reform, always a good thing, right?).

Caesar also massively expanded citizenship, thus enfrachising people. He expanded the right to vote to the people of several provinces, including much of Gaul. He did away with the corrupt tax system (the tax collectors of the day were extortionists and kept most of the money) and instituted an effective way of collecting taxes. He also instituted debt reform, ending usury. And no, I don't mean he punished the venture capitalists of the day, lenders back then were worse than back-alley loan sharks are today, and what was common practice back then would be considered highly illegal, not to mention, extremely unethical today. He lowered interest rates, thus spurring investment.

Caesar restored rights to all those who had had them proscribed by Sulla when he had been dictator some 40 years before. He even protected the Jews, a people very much persecuted throughout history.

The men who assassinated Caesar were nothing more than aristocratic oligarchs. They weren't interested in peace, freedom, or liberty, as they proclaimed as they ran through the streets covered with his blood, they were interested in nothing more than preserving their own power, positions, and privileges.

This was his response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was his response

And Hitler built VW's and autobahns, and Mussolini ran the trains on time, etc etc etc.

All of these arguments sound just like a committed modern Democrat/socialist, and there's no real reason to waste breath on someone of that disposition.

But all of this produced some good, because there's now a thread here to let those who come across it who may not know about Cicero's story that there is much to admire in his story, and gosh knows there aren't such an abundance of historical figures of his magnitude that we can afford to forget his example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Hitler built VW's and autobahns, and Mussolini ran the trains on time, etc etc etc.

All of these arguments sound just like a committed modern Democrat/socialist, and there's no real reason to waste breath on someone of that disposition.

But all of this produced some good, because there's now a thread here to let those who come across it who may not know about Cicero's story that there is much to admire in his story, and gosh knows there aren't such an abundance of historical figures of his magnitude that we can afford to forget his example.

But he isn't a Democrat, he supports Bush more then I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've wrestled with this too. When you study Roman history, time and again you will encounter historians who will shower you with examples of the great accomplishments of Ceaser and especially Agustus who I have heard referred to as the best political administrator of all time. He is often compared believe it or not to the Founding Fathers under the argument that the reforms he instituted established the base of a political system that lasted for four centuries.

I don't know enough history to make the proper evaluation here. All I can say is that, from my study of the period, no other political figures can be compared to Cicero (and maybe Cato) in their explicit defense of liberty and rights. Were Ceaser and Agustus positive influences? All I can think of as answers is that whatever good they established, it was built on a foundation of quicksand; namely empirial tyranny.

And lastly, Praxus's quote is common amongst *conservative* historians believe it or not. Leftist historians would probably denounce everything associated with antiquity (with the exception of their love affair with that egalitarian, communist paradise called Sparta) and especially Cicero precisely because he is so fundamentally interconnected with the development of individual rights which they despise.

I find that the proper evaluation of historial figures is as difficult and can generate as much acrimony (even amongst Objectivists - try to start a Civil War thread and see where that goes) as trying to evaluate art (and sepecifically movies). I think because there are so many elements that make up the total picture and giving them all the proper moral weighting is a tremendously difficult task. But I'm interested to see where this thread goes. I'd love some clarity on evaluating Roman history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would follow. Ceasar-admirers tend to lean to the right, more than the left. This is a good reminder that the right would be your master just as readily as the left.

Well stated, Inspector! The Caesar-worshipers and military types do seem to follow the pattern of of also liking Napolean, Alexander, etc. To some extent the admiration of their MILITARY skills is understandable; but on the other hand you don't often see the same bunch talking up Scipio Africanus or Pompey or even George Washington for their military skills, and it's probably no coincidence that those were the "Republican" generals.

And can't was also hazard a good guess that this particular Bush supporter also agrees with Bush's criticism of the 527's and campaign finance reform? Those who support a vote for Bush on this forum usually are quick to point out his failings -- those who are willing to look the other way on his more egregious faults are almost as scary as the Democrats, and that's where Leonard Piekoff's position is very understandable.

PS -- Speaking of admiration for the military, I sent in my first contribution to the SWIFTVETS today! At least THERE -- it seems to me -- is an ad-hoc group worth supporting. I won't give a penny to Bush, but I'll do what I can for the SWIFTVETS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well stated, Inspector!  The Caesar-worshipers and military types do seem to follow the pattern of of also liking Napolean, Alexander, etc.  To some extent the admiration of their MILITARY skills is understandable; but on the other hand you don't often see the same bunch talking up Scipio Africanus or Pompey or even George Washington for their military skills, and it's probably no coincidence that those were the "Republican" generals.

This is so true. Modern commentators seem to have forgotton that Rome in fact had a Republic for at least 450 years. The example of Rome betraying her legacy and adopting tyranny is almost universally overlooked or minimized. Intersenting to note here that a movie is being made of Hanibal and the 2nd Punic War. It is titled 'Hanibal' and stars Vin Deasel and the screenplay is being written by David Franzoni who also wrote the screenplays for 'Gladiator' and 'King Arthur'. I am curious to see how Scipio is portrayed in that film. I wonder if they will show him as being a virtuous Republican general defending his people or if they will instead glamorize and romanticize Hanibal. We'll see next summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that the main character is Hannible, I highly doubt they will portray the Roman Republic as the good guys. I find it far more likely that they will protrary the Republic as some evil villian that rapes and pillages carthaginian land. Very much how movies depict Americas move westward.

Scipio Africanus

Off topic but did Africa get named over Scipio?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that the main character is Hannible, I highly doubt they will portray the Roman Republic as the good guys. I find it far more likely that they will protrary the Republic as some evil villian that rapes and pillages carthaginian land. Very much how movies depict Americas move westward.

Off topic but did Africa get named over Scipio?

You're probably right but Franzoni does have a love affair with Roman Civilization. He glorified Maximus and his latest movie 'King Arthur' is actually more a story about the fall of Western Rome than it is a retelling of the Arthurian Legends. The hero was an idealistic Roman Legionaire. So if Franzoni is true to form he may show Scipio in a similar light. Although what the studios influence will be is anyone's guess and I would not be shocked if the whole thing is told from the liberal multiculturalist perspective; glorifying 'North African Carthage' and villianizing European Rome, or showing Rome as the 'imperialist agressors' just like 'Bush led America'. You get the picture. If that happens I will lose all respect for Franzoni for being a puppet of the Hollywood Left. From his previous movies he has demonstrated a Classical predisposition. I hope he doesn't betray it.

As for Scipio Africanus and the subsequent naming of Africa. Scipio's true name was Publius Cornelius Scipio. He was given the name Scipio Africanus after the victory at Zema. Africa as a name already existed before Scipio. Perhaps the continent was named 'Africa' because I believe that was the name of the North African Roman province. The region in France, Provence, gets its name from the Roman word 'Province' which is what they called the area know as 'Galia Cis Alpina' (Gaul this side of the Alps); simply 'the province'. So Africa might be similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right but Franzoni does have a love affair with Roman Civilization. He glorified Maximus and his latest movie 'King Arthur' is actually more a story about the fall of Western Rome than it is a retelling of the Arthurian Legends. The hero was an idealistic Roman Legionaire. So if Franzoni is true to form he may show Scipio in a similar light. Although what the studios influence will be is anyone's guess and I would not be shocked if the whole thing is told from the liberal multiculturalist perspective; glorifying 'North African Carthage' and villianizing European Rome, or showing Rome as the 'imperialist agressors' just like 'Bush led America'. You get the picture. If that happens I will lose all respect for Franzoni for being a puppet of the Hollywood Left. From his previous movies he has demonstrated a Classical predisposition. I hope he doesn't betray it.

Please see "John Adams & The Spirit of Liberty" by C. Bradley Thompson for a view of the Carthaginian constitution. Apparently, Adams believed that the Carthaginian constitution (at one time) was the closest in the ancient world to America's. It encouraged commerce over all else and got a bad rap from ancient historians because commerce was considered "low and base."

I will have to read a history of that time to verify this for myself. But it was striking to see another historical fact requiring a more vigorous integration.

I am also partial to Franzoni, but if A is A....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some links on the Carthaginian constitution. Carthage is part of the classics. Franzoni should just tell the story without injecting the mutliculturalism, as Argive99 rightly pointed out. It seems they're on a good track already - Vin Diesel is not a "slanging" American - he always strives to maintain clear, upright speech tones and inflexions.

1) The Greek historian Polybius is quoted here as writing:

The government of Carthage seems also to have been originally well contrived with regard to those general forms  that have been mentioned. For there were kings in this government, together with a senate, which was vested with aristocratic authority. The people likewise enjoy the exercise of certain powers that were appropriated to them. In a word, the entire frame of the republic very much resembled those of Rome and Sparta. But at the time of the war of Hannibal the Carthaginian constitution was worse in its condition than the Roman. For as nature has assigned to every body, every government, and every action, three successive periods; the first, of growth; the second, of perfection; and that which follows, of decay; and as the period of perfection is the time in which they severally display their greatest strength; from hence arose the difference that was then found between the two republics. For the government of Carthage, having reached the highest point of vigor and perfection much sooner than that of Rome, had now declined from it in the same proportion: whereas the Romans, at this very time, had just raised their constitution to the most flourishing and perfect state. The effect of this difference was, that among the Carthaginians the people possessed the greatest sway in all deliberations, but the senate among the Romans. And as, in the one republic, all measures were determined by the multitude; and, in the other, by the most eminent citizens; of so great force was this advantage in the conduct of affairs, that the Romans, though brought by repeated losses into the greatest danger, became, through the wisdom of their counsels, superior to the Carthaginians in the war. 

If we descend to a more particular comparison, we shall find, that with respect to military science, for example, the Carthaginians, in the management and conduct of a naval war, are more skillful than the Romans. For the Carthaginians have derived this knowledge from their ancestors through a long course of ages; and are more exercised in maritime affairs than any other people. But the Romans, on the other hand, are far superior in all things that belong to the establishment and discipline of armies. For this discipline, which is regarded by them as the chief and constant object of their care, is utterly neglected by the Carthaginians; except only that they bestow some little attention upon their cavalry. The reason of this difference is, that the Carthaginians employ foreign mercenaries; and that on the contrary the Roman armies are composed of citizens, and of the people of the country. Now in this respect the government of Rome is greatly preferable to that of Carthage. For while the Carthaginians entrust the preservation of their liberty to the care of venal troops; the Romans place all their confidence in their own bravery, and in the assistance of their allies. From hence it happens, that the Romans, though at first defeated, are always able to renew the war; and that the Carthaginian armies never are repaired without great difficulty. Add to this, that the Romans, fighting for their country and their children, never suffer their ardor to be slackened; but persist with the same steady spirit till they become superior to their enemies. From hence it happens, likewise, that even in actions upon the sea, the Romans, though inferior to the Carthaginians, as we have already observed, in naval knowledge and experience, very frequently obtain success through the mere bravery of their forces. For though in all such contests a skill in maritime affairs must be allowed to be of the greatest use; yet, on the other hand, the valor of the troops that are engaged is no less effectual to draw the victory to their side.

2) And Aristotle writes:

The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government, which differs from that of any other state in several respects, though it is in some very like the Spartan. Indeed, all three states---the Spartan, the Cretan, and the Carthaginian---nearly resemble one another, and are very different from any others. Many of the Carthaginian institutions are excellent. The superiority of their constitution is proved by the fact that the common people remain loyal to the constitution. The Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant. Among the points in which the Carthaginian constitution resembles the Spartan are the following: The common tables of the clubs answer to the Spartan phiditia, and their magistracy of the Hundred-Four to the Ephors; but, whereas the Ephors are any chance persons, the magistrates of the Carthaginians are elected according to merit---this is an improvement. They have also their kings and their Gerousia, or council of elders, who correspond to the kings and elders of Sparta. Their kings, unlike the Spartan, are not always of the same family, nor that an ordinary one, but if there is some distinguished family they are selected out of it and not appointed by seniority---this is far better. Such officers have great power, and therefore, if they are persons of little worth, do a great deal of harm, and they have already done harm at Sparta.

    Most of the defects or deviations from the perfect state, for which the Carthaginian constitution would be censured, apply equally to all the forms of government which we have mentioned. But of the deflections from aristocracy and constitutional government, some incline more to democracy and some to oligarchy. The kings and elders, if unanimous, may determine whether they will or will not bring a matter before the people, but when they are not unanimous, the people decide on such matters as well. And whatever the kings and elders bring before the people is not only heard but also determined by them, and any one who likes may oppose it; now this is not permitted in Sparta and Crete. That the magistrates of five who have under them many important matters should be co-opted, that they should choose the supreme council of One Hundred, and should hold office longer than other magistrates (for they are virtually rulers both before and after they hold office)---these are oligarchical features; their being without salary and not elected by lot, and any similar points, such as the practice of having all suits tried by the magistrates, and not some by one class of judges or jurors and some by another, as at Sparta, are characteristic of aristocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Zeus: Thanks so much for those links on carthage. This is why it is always important to have all the facts. I have read in various sources that Carthage was far more commercial than Rome and the greatest commercial civilization of antiquity. Cartheneginan merchants were legendary. However, Carthage gets a bad rap for its early history of human sacrifice which I believe by the time of Hanibal was rarely if ever practiced. I have often thought about writing Objectivist historian John Lewis what his interpretation of the Punic Wars were. He specializes in the history of antiquity. It seems the war starts over broken treaties and a desire for a hedgemony over the western Medeteranian. So the motives seem bad on both ends. But Hanibal stayed on the Italian penninsula for close to 20 years and through his military victories he killed one out of every four Italian men of fighting age. He supposedly had a deep hatred for Romans. The Romans therefore feared for their very lives and in their minds were fighting for survival. The fate of the vanquished was brutal in ancient times. So I really don't know who to praise and who to condemn. It may not be that simple.

The third Punic war on the other hand which resulted in the total destruction of Carthage always seemed to me excessive. Cato the elder's famous 'Carthago Delende Est' and the war which resulted has received many differing historical treatments. It has been praised as an example of a necessary pre-emptive strike (which is relevant in our day and age). It has also been treated as the start of Roman imperialistic expansionism as they destroyed the Greek City Corinth in the very same year (146 BC). I'm all for pre-empitve attacks but to my knowledge, Carthage was no longer a threat at that time and they were such a productive nation. I honestly don't know.

Anyway, thanks again to Zeus for doing some research. To me, Roman history is a fascinating subject, especially since there are so many parallels with America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this guy I'm argueing with said that Caeser was positive for individual rights because began to limit slavery and he expanded citizenship. Whereas Cicero he claims never spoke out against Slavery.

First thing: I have heard and read a number of solid historians say that there was no challenge to the institution of slavery on philosophical grounds in the ancient world. There were many slave revolts (ie Spartacus), but there was no challenge to the institution. So to use that against Cicero is unfair. Even Aristotle wrote a defense of the institution although there is debate as to exactly what he meant when he used the term 'slave'. There was no abolitionist or civil rights movement in 44 BC. While I have read that the Ceasers did extend Roman Citizenry to more of the Latin peoples, I believe they did this partially for pragmatic purposes; to placate angry mobs of latin non-citizens and to obtain a bigger population from which to draw forth legionaires for the Roman army (I actually believe much of the expanded citizenry dates back to the times of Mara). So this argument against Cicero and for Ceaser seems week to me.

Second: I think a mistake can be made to judge Rome as simply 'Republic' versus 'Empire'. The problem with the republic was that it was so corrupt. It also had a huge class warfare issue that it was never able to resolve. The republic had actually been in decline for close to 80 years by the time you get to the 1st Triumverate (The period in Roman history know as the 'military dynasts'). There had been a mini civil war between the Plabeans and the Patricians and there had been the coup by the despotic tyrant Sulla (who killed Ceaser's uncle I believe). So there were major systemic problems with the republican structure by the time of Cicero and Ceaser. Historians will always tell you that after Julius Ceaser and especially after Agustus, the Roman world was far better administered and far less corrupt. Thats why I said in an earlier post that these men did benefit Rome but they did so on a foundation of quicksand. They established an empire based on the rule of a single man and a large corruptable beauracracy. It took four centuries, but these failings eventually swallowed Rome.

Again, as I said, it is very difficult to arrive at a propper moral evaluation of many historical figures (especially ancient) because there are so many factors that have to be analyzed. But that being said, Cicero's legacy as the quotes provided by CICEROSC showed is one of the defense of liberty and rights. I don't see how the same could be said for Ceaser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Zeus: Thanks so much for those links on carthage. This is why it is always important to have all the facts. I have read in various sources that Carthage was far more commercial than Rome and the greatest commercial civilization of antiquity. Cartheneginan merchants were legendary. However, Carthage gets a bad rap for its early history of human sacrifice which I believe by the time of Hanibal was rarely if ever practiced. I have often thought about writing Objectivist historian John Lewis what his interpretation of the Punic Wars were. He specializes in the history of antiquity. It seems the war starts over broken treaties and a desire for a hedgemony over the western Medeteranian. So the motives seem bad on both ends. But Hanibal stayed on the Italian penninsula for close to 20 years and through his military victories he killed one out of every four Italian men of fighting age. He supposedly had a deep hatred for Romans. The Romans therefore feared for their very lives and in their minds were fighting for survival. The fate of the vanquished was brutal in ancient times. So I really don't know who to praise and who to condemn. It may not be that simple.

The third Punic war on the other hand which resulted in the total destruction of Carthage always seemed to me excessive. Cato the elder's famous 'Carthago Delende Est' and the war which resulted has received many differing historical treatments. It has been praised as an example of a necessary pre-emptive strike (which is relevant in our day and age). It has also been treated as the start of Roman imperialistic expansionism as they destroyed the Greek City Corinth in the very same year (146 BC). I'm all for pre-empitve attacks but to my knowledge, Carthage was no longer a threat at that time and they were such a productive nation. I honestly don't know.

Anyway, thanks again to Zeus for doing some research. To me, Roman history is a fascinating subject, especially since there are so many parallels with America.

No problem, Argive99, the pleasure is mine. Thank you for the information on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also said that since voting is not a right what rights did Caeser take away?

Both the voting and the slavery comments are simply out of context. Caesar was no more interested in abolishing the institution of slavery than he was flying to the moon. He was interested in consolidating his power against the Senate and the middle classes by increasing the numbers and influence of those who would oppose them -- nothing more, nothing less.

Is the Democratic party the party of individual freedom because they want to add to the voting roles every felon and every illiterate they can find?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...