History Books.

[Primus Pilus]

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.

 

Agreed, though we, as much as anyone still define history by our own core beliefs, but I think we tend to look upon the events from a perspective of what they meant at the time and the effect they had on the world. We are less concerned (I think) about what is good/bad or right/wrong in the study of history, but instead focus properly on an events impact.

[Augur]

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.

[Germanicus]

No worries - yes - Marius and Pompey - both the very definition of - forgive the pun "quit while you're ahead"

[Augur]

Yes - Marius and Pompey - both the very definition of - forgive the pun "quit while you're ahead"

 

 

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.

[Primus Pilus]

Yes they had a choice, albeit one that doesn't make much sense to our modern sensibilities. Any of them could've fallen on the sword in the Roman tradition of preserving ones diginity. Is this realistic, or would it have been the best thing for the 'state' at any given time? Perhaps, perhaps not, depending on the who and the when, but they always had a choice even if that choice meant exile or death.

 

However, I do agree that the course of the late Republic/early Principate was an inevitable march of progression, that might not have offered much different results regardless of who the players were.

[Augur]

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.