The Amazing August

We have read about a lot of "leaders" in the Roman Republic/Empire over the last three weeks, but none have impressed me as Octavian/Augustus has. Especially if you think of the examples of the so called leaders arounds him. Many of them brilliant in their own right, but with few exception of all them greedy for either or wealth. Tiberius being an exception. But Octavian, despite what seems to be a Roman tradition of avenging your family for the wrongs against them, even at a young impressionable age, he was willing to go after what was rightfully his, but violence was not the first thing he turned to. I was amazed that despite all he knew about Antony he would set aside his personal feelings for an amicable resolution. Not always for the sake of peace, he knew the value of biding his time while he gained knowledge, experience, or support, whichever he lacked at that given moment. But he knew when it was time to step forward. How hard it must have been to watch his sister being treated the way she was by Antony, but he waited until the time was right to defend his sister and the Rome he loved. I was also impressed that despite the environment of greed and power and revenge he grew up in, he was able to conquer lands/people, and gain great wealth, without it going to his head. He remained humble. Giving to the people what he needed yet holding back what he needed to secure his position. He didn't squander, yet gave freely. He enhanced without pomp and parade. Brilliant. And yet the article several times referred to Augustus as not particularly brilliant, but instead surrounded himself with brilliant people. I would have to disagree. Just the fact that he understood the value of surrounding himself with brilliant people was in and of itself brilliant. He knew he didn't know it all, couldn't know it all, and couldn't do it all. He did know and understanding the need to preserve the appearance of the Republic to satisfy the people loyal to the old way of life (including himself), while recognizing the need to progress. He completely understood the tragedies of the past leadership and the unjust influence and coercion. He knew he needed to some how protect the leadership against such further tragedies. He just didn't know how. He understood how easily man could be corrupted. But now how ensure against it. His inability to come up with a timely solution eventually, and rather quickly, destroyed the Roman he tried so hard to create and protect.

The roman sense of duty is amazing to me. After reading the first section of reading "The Roman Kingdom" I did a little follow up reading into the Rape of Lucretia. Why? Well over the last couple of months I have been reading a historical fiction serious about the Roman oppession of the Jews shortly before and including the ministry of Christ. The author has gone to great detail about the history of both the Romans and the Jews. Drawing from the Roman side he talks about the "familia," the role of the father, the wife, and the children, and how strongly the felt about their duty. He relates the story of a husband that because of certain acts was required to commit suicide. The husband was struggling with this, so his wife, being the proper roman wife, showed him the way. Yep, she stabbed herself, and before dieing, told her husband basically "see, that wasn't so bad." I apologize for not having the story reference readily available, it is a three book series, and I have not recrossed the reference at this point. But you can see that same duty in the reading with the rape of Lucretia and how she killed herself after laying it out for the men what must be done to satisfy duty and honor and how each of those men immediately took up that challenge. I'm sure it was that same sense of duty that caused them to conquer neighboring lands for the sole purpose of maintaining security for their familes and their government. Unfortunately, the desire for power and greed gets to the best of us, and what started out as a somewhat understandable conquest turned into such lingering turmoil and blood shed.

Wikipedia Article - Spartacus

I knew very little of Spartacus, other than it was a movie about some guy. I have hear the phrase “I am Spartacus” but never knew what it meant. So when I came across the “war of Spartacus” in our reading I decided to follow up on it. I must say, I really know little more now than I did then. The article has conflicting information. No one is really quite sure where Spartacus came from. Was he Greek or was he Thracian? He was apparently once a Roman soldier, but from why? There is no doubt he was a slave. There is no doubt he kept the armies of Roman at bay for quite some time. There is controversy over whether it was his intention to fight and plunder as much as they did or if he acted upon the wishes of the hosts that followed him. One thing is for sure. He is viewed as a hero. As a survivor. An inspiration to many in whatever struggles they are experiencing. However, not everyone we make a hero truly desires the title, and it would be nice to find some information that I could be sure was accurate and complete. The article was 1193 words long. The terms I originally googled were War of Spartacus - the result, Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus#References The actual title of the article “Spartacus” The disambiguation link referenced the original of the name Spartacus, films, musicals, and novels based on the story of Spartacus. The discussion link spent a great deal of time on Spartacus’ origin. There is mention of a few insignificant items like grammar usage, video games, and the meaning of the phrase “I am Spartacus.” But then returns to the argument of his origin and the changing of the article without factual backup. The first change was made to the article in September 8, 2008, with the last change on December 19, 2002 The total number of edits 147 There are 13 references, 3 external links Although on the discussion there was mention of “further reading” admittedly I could not find no such information All in all, no I would not recommend this reading. I felt it was generally uninformative and confusing.

Tenacity

If I could use only word to describe the Greeks it would have to be tenancious. Starting with their politics, they just kept trying and trying. Most of the time building on what they had, sometimes stepping back and starting over, but always desiring to improve and conquer. The same could be true about their miliary efforts. Despite repeated defeats and set backs, they continued to try and try and try. Sometime moving forward, sometimes stepping back to start again. And in the end, they did not come out the winner, but they still kept going. Never bowing their heads and giving up, but instead continuing to look for new ideas. And thus dawned the age of philosophical thinking. Again, ever revamping. Sometimes moving forward and sometimes stepping back, but never giving up. Propelling their influence into modern day. But what have we done with their example? Forward thinking, I think we're giving up on it. We speaking of being opened minded and yet we are slowing drawing the walls in around us with all that is "politically correct." We claim freedom of speach, and yet stifle that right with "that's not politically correct." If a thought reaps an action, then are in fact stifling our thoughts when we limit what we say and how we say it. Don't get me wrong. I very much believe in respect others, their beliefs, their cultures, etc. But when I don't even know how to properly address another ethnic group for fear of using the wrong word or phrase and offending someone, how much freedom of speech, thought, and expression are we allowing. Will we soon be like those who condemned Socrates? On the flip side, if we were in Socrates shoes, would be confident enough in our thoughts to defend them to the death? What have we done with the lessons we have learned from the Greeks?

I think every "citizen" of a democratic nation should read "The Athenian Origins if Direct Democracy." As Aristotle said, "He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin . . . will obtain the clearest of view of them." Admittedly I am not as politically involved as I should be, too busy is my lame excuse, but I thoroughly enjoyed "The Athenian Origins if Direct Democracy." I can't imagine what it would be like if every citizen was “intimately and directly involved” in our political, judicial and military systems. Or, having a government representative from a geographical area small enough that everyone really knew him/her. Such an intimate society would create a balance between justice and mercy because each person would naturally emphasize with one another and yet completely understand the need of fulfilling one's duties in order to keep order. From a political stand point, what an opportunity it would create. We'd have greater representation "of the people, by the people" if we had one representative for every 5,000 citizens (women included of course). I would think we'd defini9tely trust our leadership more than we do presently. Let's make it personal. Guessing the size of Meridian to be about 36,000 they would have roughly seven representatives. If these representatives met in a "council" with representatives from other communities, and a representative from this group was chosen for every 50 initial representatives, was chosen to represent the first council in a "higher" council, how much better would the wishes of the people be heard. Like the citizens of Greece, how much better informed and involved would we as citizens be. I would have to say though that's all I admire about the Spartan city/state. The Athens city/state makes much more sense to me. It is important that our societies are ever learning, growing, and improving on what we have. Over all the Athenians understood that, each new leader attempting to improve on what they already had. Beginning with Solon. Although is methods were not perfect I believed he put Athens on the right path. Sometimes we have to start over in order to move forward. By forgiving the agricultural debt he did that. I found it interesting that his system excluded people who did not own productive land, i.e. merchants, when he himself was a merchant and considered himself poor. e-classics.com/solon.htm Although our reading portrays Pisistratus as a tyrant, it is said Pisistratus was a "popular ruler, reducing taxes, helping the poor and disabled, united Attics, and beautifying Athens with new buildings." in2greece.com/english/historymyth/history/ancient/pisistratus.htm His ability to increase imports financed waterpipes to the city, he is believed to have aided in the first written versions of Homer's work, and built the first library in Athens. in2greece.com/english/historymyth/history/ancient/pisistratus.htm He built on Solon's idea that a man could work his way up to achieve political leadership. (this is a contradiction in the reading. "He [Solon] ...passed constitutional reforms ...based on their annual agricultural production rather than birth." It is later stated that Solon based his ability to hold political office on birth.) Finally, even Pericles, while removing Pisistratus' son from power and moving Athens to a more aristocratic state, kept some of Solon's and Pisistratus' political base and continued to build Athens reputation for being the educational center. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles And although the Spartans eventually ended Athenian democracy, its influence is definitely seem today.