Polybius seems to have psychologically unconsciously channeled the glorious mythology of Rome’s birth, through Mars, and a Vestal Virgin, and Twins, who, raised by wolves, led other wild youth into the Juvenal Glory that might pass for the emergence of the Roman Republic; Aggressive and Wild, as such Dominance, a model for Hegemony and The Imperial: (Polybius unconsciously channeled) the mystery of The Republic’s Emergence onto Grecian Compass, with the mystery of where Romans came from, and how they took over. He ignores Romulus, and focuses on finding the date Rome became a real threat to Greek Politics; which he calls, her emergence as a world power. In some ways, this is a vain and annoying, Greek historical perspective. (sexually abused bully and straight a, school) (Think about the similarities between wild youth and imperialism. Conquering Western America, brought with the wild west. Roman Consolidation of Gaul brought yearly armed opposition, The U.S. in South America, and Communism in General, imperialism, in general, creates wildness, senseless conflict, more damage; True maturity, is nothing like the imposition of imperialism. This New World Order, is imperialism, not order, wild excess, dominance, imposition; there is no order to it; even the order of the rich benefitting from the poor is ridiculous. There is an order to the taxing of our resources. We live in an ordered world. The order is the beyond, governing here. Thats the way the order is, thats what the order is. Thats what we live in, what we have to accept)
For example, it is annoying, Polybius praises the Roman policy of killing soldiers who leave their posts, as innovation and genius and superior, to the more common and fearful practice of either running or giving in, or hoping the attack stops, as you are not into fighting back. This is a very rank attitude. Survival is worth less than winning. It makes war bloodier and less safe. We may classify the psychology of his history on the Roman Republic’s press into Sicily and beyond Italy, as taking on the North African Carthaginians, who ruled Spain, large parts of Sicily, and mediterrian islands like Corsica. This undoubtedly irked roman tendencies of expansion further. Carthage, with its navy, had much more influence over Grecian affairs, than Rome. Polybius saw Carthage defeated to Rome. Who he prefered, can we say, because History chose the right answer for him, vexing as that loss of free choice may be.
His introduction praises Historical Record, without mentioning how History contradicts Earth and Truth. He is praising the record of Sacrifice on Earth. He writes that the way to learn is from the past, even though history is historically formulaic, and seems to repeat itself often. Surely Historians can not say History is Formulaic because The People don’t know History, for that would be the Job of Historians. Rome keeps expanding, Spartans and Athens continue to feud, democrats and republicans, continue to feud, America extends it foreign Policy. Nothing changes, yet there have been Historians all along the way. Yet how classical is the expression, the greek bonne motif, of Historians condemning the Ignorance of the People. Yet the anxiety of the Greek enjoys these subtle colorings, delighting in confusion, foil. Historians faulting The People for Ignorance, rather than Historians for failing to communicate History, feels like an old anxiety. The success of a Historian, should be measured by his transmission of powerful knowledge to the People. But here, The Greek, is measuring the success of a people.
“The only method of learning to bear with dignity the vicissitudes of Fortune, is to be reminded of the disasters suffered by others” While this necessarily reminds us Recorded History, has always had low standards at best; it is by no means vital and a necessary therapy to dealing with one’s contemporary History. Psychologically, such claim is little. In point of fact, tragedy is tragedy, and stands on its own; whereas improving society, benefits from Historical Comparison. I herald classical history as offering improvements upon the Present. And yet, think again, the troubles we and every age suffers, should we look to Heaven, and see those whose problems lasted longer: Is that not the nature of The Mind? That all apart are in it together, and able to bear because they see others bearing it? Strength does come from competition. Our eyes see ourselves, yet to see another going through same, must be very therapeutic.
Moreover, what is obscured here is that Unrecorded History had higher standards than Recorded History: That History, which led to today, continually encroaches upon the Tribal. That this Greek World and History in general, a record of sacrifice and stupidity, story and creation, vehicle and demonstration, game and automatic, requiring grains of salt and truth, to salve: This past History, as some comfort, as if the Peloponnesian wars, makes our Iraq intervention more acceptable; this is irrational, ridiculous Greek thinking we are reading, or if you prefer, it is Polybius selling History, as something it substantively and absolutely is not. At best this is some buy-in to classicism; but at worst, it is the opposite of what it claims; History is something so convoluted and manufactured, understanding such is essential to understanding the Greek metaphysical creation of History.
The theory goes that in pagan times of Tribes, actual ancestors, genetically linked to their present tribe, decided the fate or history of their tribe in negotiation with the remnants of other tribes on earth. The movement Greek and History symbolizes, is away from this simplicity, to a much more extensively, and not openly, sacrificial History, through elaborate designs and means of Society, whose form a great deal of earth’s human, has been locked into since. As far as I can see, this is due; to how little the universe is, compared to Earth. It is senseless, so we make ourselves senseless. Somehow this is desired, and yet, not enough. Relate to the Sense, Earth, is one of the greatest things around; humans and life, far surpassing our nearby gorgeous planets. Saturn might mark our solar system, but Earth would have its own consideration.
The transition, of course, involves the satisaction of conflict extending about, if one can believe, a time, where some tribes were less sacrificed than other tribes, indeed, wonder whether secret favored tribes can be today. That we know nothing about, because we are the sacrificed tribes. Now, rationally, this does not seem true, yet pagan tribal times, such as this race war, of Romans, who seem to have come for the north, and North Africa, battling for Europe, may have had ways of deciding, what is decided today, that was more complicated and involved.
His history involves from 264bc to 146bc, and he was born around 200bc. The Romans attacked the leading Greek Power, of Perseus, described in surviving volumes of Livy, and Polybius particticipated or was embedded in that war. To Livy, Perseus was described as a very wealthy King, through the mines he owned, and traveled about trying to defeat the encroaching Romans, with lots of gold and silver, with which to bribe local armies into fighting with him, one of the weaker enemies of Rome, compared to Sammites, Vulcans, Etruscans, especially Gauls, Sabines and Carthoginians, and Germanic Tribes.
In his history, “it is precisely the elements of the unexpected which will challenge and stimulate everyone alike”. Now there is something Greek, to the unexpected. Certainly Fortune has dealt me personally a great tragic unexpected blow, and 9/11 was totally unexpected by the public, as has been Arab Spring, and even the nature of Obama and G.W. Bush, unexpected in their lack of transparency and seemingly doing the biddings of evil influencers in their court. Using surprising shifts of fate, as an organizing mode for History, though, is different. In History, and personal life, hindsight shows how and why, the unexpected happened; and the account and cause, secrecy, both of the criminal out of necessity, and the warlike, out of evil code, as well.
Polybius in his introduction wonders what government Rome had that enabled it to be the dominant power on earth, in 53 years. “Is any task more important, than to acquire this knowledge?” So Roman might, to Greek might, is unexpected to him, the twist of fate upon Greek Life, and unexpected because Italy is far from Greece. Likewise, there is almost an insidious envy of a roman government that apparently achieved what Greek Confederacies long failed. And that Roman form was a republic, and form America is based on, Polybius sings a shadowy paean upon the moral ambiguities and liabilities of America.
Graciously referring to Roman Dominance as a “spectacle” he necessarily compares it favorably to Persian Hegemony, and Spartan Hegemony. For the Persians failed outside of Asia, The Spartans only ruled 12 years, and Alexander, ruled a compliant Asia, without challenging Sicily or European Tribes, which would have been harder tests.
Historically the culture of the Roman Republic was steeped in military domination. News of Rome’s ascendancy in Italy was not reported in Greece, obviously, until her conflict for Sicily, with North Africa. So we must ask ourselves, do we truly know everything? What is unreported to us? Rome’s quality for expanding their interest is true. What are those qualities? A history, pointedly moving away from tribalism; over time, moving away from paganism, to sacrifice through history, through state, not tribal domination. It is probably Rome’s republican nature, dwarfing and impressing, the Greek way of city states and confederacy; much the way, in the decade between breaking from England, and The Federal Constitution, we had a confederacy, overawed, into Republican Understandings, causing the fascination and corbain to Rome.
Polybius refers to Italian Celts. Livy, to the best recollection, did not mention them. I have heard of the British Celtic Tribes. Is this gap some Greek reference to the Romans migrating to Rome from Britain; alongside their brother Tribe, the Celts? The first Romans were known for being blonde and red-haired, who, in peaceful agreement, soon merged with The Sabines; a merger which consolidated and increased Roman power. Look at the statues, in Rome, their faces are like us, like the faces in medieval paintings, western qualities, even if classical times had sculpture prowess and not painting.
Livy’s research and development, refers to the yearly annals Rome kept that marked History with pomp and circumstance, and, sometimes stories of people who heard stories from their grandfather; as well as accepted renditions of stories; But Polybius, was not only a statesman, and power concentrated in him through his influential Greek and Roman contacts, as today’s culture concentrates power or prestige, compactly, in a very small percentage of individuals, high doses, in something very little; in the entertainment industry, politics, academia, trade; Polybius was like that, he knew people, and traveled, and also per coda of the powerful performing at the fronts of wars, not only lived through the encroachment and ascendancy Rome upon Greece, but experienced firsthand campaigns between the two on the other side of the Adriatic, against powerful Greek kings, disputing Roman Hegemony, and failing, per this or the other.
So he has this Greek kinetic quality, visceral, sensation-oriented, (Look, he was so taken aback by the rapid roman growth, he felt compelled to write about it, some Greek ode to Roman Might, a culture supplication, a Greek supplication hoping for Roman kindness; the way people diplomatically bring presents to people they hope like them; even though presents are functional, and Polybius’s account, possibly guilty of pandering; yet who can fault those petrified in the roman shock waves?) And yet this periperiatic, panoramic, searching for inner harmony, questioning divinity itself, movement of Polybius’s account, is a Historical Anxiety, Creation; perhaps more so than human itself; leaving us to hope it is the broad breadth of a total comprehension of History, more likely to offer a human feeling, or metaphysical relation; than individual, isolated bloody accounts; For the Greek View of History, and Plays, come heavy with annoying level of violence, and annoying level of bemoaning the violence that happens anyway; Symbolizing the sacrificial, inhumane issue of History.
Polybius starts by talking about some things already encountered in Livy’s volumes; such as the Roman encroachment on Greek political senses were symbolized, enacted, through their conflict with the Carthoginians for Sicily. This conflict mandated the Romans to build their Navy, enabling them to cross the Adriatic and attack the Aegean mainland. Their naval dominance, according to Livy, was secured by building a long mast with a spike that folded out on top, but it wasn’t a mast, it was a pole, and they’d straighten it up, then tip it over when they got near an enemy boat, which could sink the ship, and let the men run across the pole to the enemy ship, where Roman hand to hand skills could be tested.
Herodotus also employs this brand, of, the very simple solution, as to why something happened; particularly, Herodotus’s moral of the story, as the orient might rejoin, is the Greeks won the last decisive battle against the Persians, because the Greeks had armor, and the Persians, leather. Now I doubt Polybius is going to have simple brush strokes. But he does first write about how Sicily for a long time had divided and shifting allegiances to both the north African, and the Roman league; and he writes about the relatively well-known historical fact of Hiero, who is described by Livy as one of the greatest faithful useful helpful rulers to Rome; whose City of Syracuse, was second only to Rome, and maybe Carthage, because History also records Carthage as second or maybe better, than Rome; Polybius does not glorify Hiero like that; being a contemporary.
Polybius is refreshingly simple in referencing the several tribes and divisions within Sicily. This tribal practice generally means one tribe stayed in one area: And inbreeding, normal. That is the major difference between then and now.
Polybius writes of Roman Genius and Might, consistent with Historical Propaganda instilling visions of Roman Superiority, morally ambiguous a claim that may be, and yet; He writes of a defeat or two; of Carthaginian Sicilian Forces, getting their act together and shoving the favored Romans back. And he writes about a very long siege of a Sicilian Port Town, where the supplies were stored, and what has to be understood here, is that sieges were so popular then, because they were easier on the soldier, than battles. In other words, it’s hard to escape the reality, no one wants to fight: Unless one understands the Léger main of Grecian ways to landscaping the lawns of battle, with gods and goddesses representing different battalions, and higher ideals somehow represented, by Troy, and The Hellenes, say.
Polybius’s description of the warfare on Sicily is coolly unique and relevant; in his basing of divisions or regiments moving per accordance with Supply Towns. They fought over, conquered, reconquered and moved on to the next, Supply Towns. This is an important Grecian Way of trade and import facilitating their necessary diet upon the sparse dry world of Attica, of Imports, causing craft and skill to trade for the food Attica could not grow, step farming hills, and lord knows doing what for irrigation. The primitive, or ancient, or classical supra structure of food organization, was overtly primal enough, to step aside from History’s Senselessness, and feed the people, however that was arranged, sophisticated ways and means, there wasn’t abundance, back then; that simplicity, was a structure, that limited History’s imposition.
There were laws in ancient Greece about this, to show you food concerns stood out. If you traveled abroad, Greek law required you carry back some grain and food. When Ships of Grain came in, and this will show you the vulnerability of Attica, the Ships of Grain, could sell their grain, for what the market would bear; yet those who then distributed in to the Greeks, very limited in the profit they were allowed to make.
My understanding of the town by town battles for Italy, in ensuing the Punic wars, were they followed a north south or east west route; Hannibal went where he wanted, and the romans chased or followed him cautiously. Here in his account of Sicily, Polybius asserts the contested towns were supply towns. Sicily is also very complicated, because it is a three sided island, and while yes certain towns and their neighbors were for Carthage, others, Rome, it’s much more complicated than that, because each town had pro-Carthage and pro-Rome factions; Thus alliance was about particular factions ending up on top, as much as Roman or Carthage armed might.
Into the mix is also a famous story about a Roman division gone bad, rogue, outlawed, condemned, doing things in Sicily that ultimately conflicted with Roman Policy. But there is a new anecdote here, to me, that Hiero, who seized power in Syracuse through a uniting of brigand and proper elements, worried about mercenaries mutinying, led them to a battle, to purposely wipe them out in, through attacking a nearby tribe.
The first issue of that Punic war, out of the Sicilian conflict, was whether to be able to fight the Carthaginians, who controlled most of Sicily, through a tribe there, The Campanians, the problem being, that tribe was guilty of immoral conduct in their foreign policy, and any value of their strategic alliance, would be lost in Roman compromising of morals. This is what America debates, whether to support Bin Laden against the Russians; Whether to support a militaristic right wing, in South America. But the Campanians sent envoys and made offers of support to both Carthage and Rome, to see which offered the better deal. People say the red state blue state issues are about values, and allegiance, but they are about sensibility, different sensibilities. Of course, though, it was the idea of plundering Sicily, that economic boon, that got the necessary votes in The Roman Senate to send support to the Campanians and protect them, and take what they offered and more. Livy, concerned with projecting a moral storyline, never explains Roman expansion as Greed. He does accept campaigns pay for themselves with plunder; here Polybius is saying otherwise, that the people voted for Greed, much the way Athenian Assemblies would decide the fate of captured leaders of islands foolishly loyal to the Spartan League. Greek History is composed of corruption of the people and democracy, while Roman History, relentless expansion.
Hiero starts out allied with Carthage. “Allies” doesn’t mean natural friends united in a just cause, like in world war two; nor can one side of warring parties not be composed of allies: “Allies” means peoples not necessarily friend, but rivals, aligned for expediency, by undesirable situation.
Burkhardt makes the hard to see, but obvious point, that no Greek inventions held up over time, that Greek Thought and Creativity was overrun by Judeo-Christian near east cultural qualities. Pagan ways, oracles, myths, plays, overrun by Christianity and Statism.
Polybius’s concern, with where Rome begins, to the Greek, where the roman dawn, finally reveals what rising Rome is; is the clipped polite Greek accent, supplicatory, trying to be a good influence. Yet while Polybius teaches battles must be about the supply towns, that if out of several towns, one is where the supplies imported tend to arrive, that is how contested towns are chosen. Logically, besieging a town with no supplies, will not concern nearby towns, whereas sieging a town with supplies, will. But really the overarching lesson a written vehicle conveying a warning or story of what Rome is capable of, to those farther away. The teaching about trade routes is very unconscious, not highlighted, though a mode History often conveys in.
But there are firm reasons why the Greek thought didn’t fight back and survive. Tribal pagan experimental, less culture, more controlled culture, less encroaching, distance, ability; too large a ship too wield against government media dominance without tribal good things like ceremony or holy meeting grounding in truth.
Polybius has short chapters on the charactor of Hannibal, and Scipio, and chilling military customs, such as conscription, which are more familiar with me than The Battles for Sicily. It was very interesting to read that by this time in Roman History, an infantryman must serve 16 years in the military by age 46, and calvarymen, who were wealthier, 10. A minimium ten years service was required for public office, you could begin at age 17. This chilling detail of Roman Conscription; such ordering of men to appear each spring, and towns and cities and tribes under some dominion, required to supply so many, on their own, being at an appointed place in Spring; this is a greek dramatic focus on the anxiety of war. There is an atheistic obscuring of the I think obviously Sacrificial Design of History through warfare; and regardless how it is one thing to write something, and another for it to happen; those moments of conscription, are chillingly told. I think a truer propoganda, wouldnt attribute roman might through cold conscription, but the two are rightfully linked by Polybius.
The amazing capacity of Hannibal is also surmised. It is obviousLivy got his description of Hannibal, from Polybius. It is delicate issue, the public portray of Hannibal, so important over a large area, and he took on Rome, out of Pride, and could have won. Cannibal
Polybius charactorizes the Roman Rise upon the Greek Consciousness as “Unexpected”. Even though he preaches learning History should empower a resistance to its formulaic follies, so perhaps, seeing the rise to the west, like the rise from Persia, Rome wasn’t hard predict. Thus, we ask, is History today, unexpected, or formulaic. Polybius inplies History has an innate unexpected quality worked into it; yet students of History, shouldn’t find things unexpected. Arab Spring, mirrored Praugue Spring. Dissatisfaction with Romney Republicans, a tradition of weak republicanism. A black president, breaking the color line, like Jackie Robinason.
Let’s move on to a chapter 2, as Polybius, to set the stage, for whatever grand lies ahead, depicts Roman involvement with Illyria, which is above Greece, and modern day Yugoslavia, I believe, the story he tells of the pretext for Roman involvement from across the way in Italy, some two hundred years before Christ, gives up the opportunity for discussion.
It starts out with the overconfident Aetolians, being surprised by, but still fighting, the Illyrans, and despite confidence and self-esteem, were defeated. Polybius echoes to his harkening theme of the unexpected, upon the vain and comfortable and skilled Aetolians, as History, unexpected; like my life where I find suspicion over my mother’s death and apparent loss of fortune; entirely unexpected, I very like the Aetolians; to a theoretical point of being despised by those made to crime; It is in this context Polybius starts a story, like he just did previous, a story regarding Sicily, battling between Carthaginian and Roman surrogates. Polybius reminds us, “We are no more than mortal men” Expect gods to rule us.
Another Greek hallmark is shared, next in this story; A leading king of the offending alliance, is so pleased, he drinks himself to death. Insofar these characterize Greek events; so mine strange fate, a Grecian Urn; of Grecian Design; defined as of the mind; of the mind controlling the subjective; so that Crime, is done; and if you’ve read Greek History, like the demise of the Aetolians, Crime, was the core of Greek Politics; attainable only by mind controlling the subjective.
Then the story has Greek Mysongony, a leading Queen, mistakenly lets her victorious fleet pirate and scare about; and they rally at an island with a wealthy protected town, make a deal with a detachment of 800 gauls paid to protect it; and walked off with a lot of loot. The mistakes my mother made; were we to learn; was not relaxing with drink enough; or truly knowing what the Kingdom of God was enough; In the process of Polybius drawing the lesson of The Epirots, who lost their town, making a stupid mistake they can only blame themselves for, hiring these gauls, who had been banished from the entire of Italy by the Romans, for they deserted from the Carthaginians, after the Carthaginians found them stealing what they were supposed to protect, and making deals with the enemy; And upon deserting to the Roman side, and doing Roman bidding, they continued their ways; so that as soon as the Punic War 2 ended; that gallic contingent banished on a ship never to return to Italy, anyway; and yet somehow the Empirots hired them to protect their wealthiest town.
How could the Epirots be so stupid? The mind controls the greek, the greek mind as they say. How could the gauls be so stupid and brave to bandy around like that? They are the cultural relatives of the Greeks; with purposeful less subjective; as evidenced by their lack of fear; and willingness to gamble. I see a distinct compensation for Greek uptightness, with Gallic lovability.
The story then goes, that now the entire region of Illyria, was in fear, of the new liscence given mauradeurs and brigands. Previous, the greeks would attack and steal crops, like Herodotus writes, they would steal women and queens, and this a much less measure than war; but now, people were worried about their lives, not their crops.
One must see the nature of thievery to this, as a part of political pattern of Greek History today; One might notice a thievery to our courts today; that’s a greek trait; and the greek culture of talking about greek issues, greater than what America, and hence us, might cover. The Epirots, then make another mistake; rather than complain about being looted; or just be thankful their lives spared, The Epirots, as the violated compelled forward by faith in the fall of the violator, patti hearst, stockholme syndrome like, send an army to help the Queen randy about, threatening; and this Polybius says, makes no sense, is folly.
And this was how Roman influence crossed the Adriatic; the pretext for hegemonic expansion of The Roman Republic, was now these ships went around stealing from Italian merchant ships five fold, and whereas before, the Romans always ignored the complaints of these merchants off the eastern shores of Italy, now they sent two top politicians to look into the matter.
Then these special envoys seeking to stop her sieges and preyings, upon greek towns and Italian merchants, mouthed off to the Romans, saying brigands and privateers, were not traditionally stopped here. The Romans politely answered the point of the state to protect against injustice. This flipped the queen out enough to try to assassinate them on their way to their boat. When the Romans heard about that, they detached some legions.
To understand the Greek mind, Burkhardte writes, like the modern world, the Greeks were healthy, lived a long life, thrived in old age, (as did my mother). Thus the submission, seen on earth today, of the subjective to the mind, perhaps correspondent to material comfort; though too much, at times, and not enough, some other ways.
It’s taking a little while to enjoy the style of Polybius. Chapter One, or Book One, was about what went on in Sicily and Rome and Carthage, both huge players on the world scene, went at it. While there is a concise schema of events in Sicily related, the next chapter is about Roman involvement across the Adriatic, how the Romans got there, what was the pretext. And it’s similar to book one in format, a long story, with many tidbits, about what led to Romans having to cross the Adriatic to instill Roman order. It’s a greater, less complicated story, than the story about Sicily, maybe because it involves Greeks, and Polybius was Greek, and nearer to home in Illyria, than Sicily, no doubt. So the form starts to be long stories of intricate, and news worthy, plots and narratives.
Let’s cover some Greek issues, relevant today. What is not discussed in History and Politics and Justice, is hard to be discussed by People, because it is not covered by their culture. And this is a focus of Greek culture. The Romans, like the courts today, will search for a pretext to be mean to do you, ultimately, subversively in the name of imperialism, statism, reduction of pagan tribal ways. And in that sense, we are mere Italian Tribes, waiting to be overcome, or forced to work with Rome, in their Future expansion and ways. And yet, as I pursue my mother’s death, and she was a good kind active special and uplifting woman; not without faults, but diligently working on those faults, and waiting and hoping for breaks and improvement, which routinely came, over the years, as reward to her concern and diligence; and I feel the courts, which like ancient Greece, and perhaps democratic machines, is far more organized crime, than Justice; in that way, of earth, a planet, flying round the sun, spinning, exposing itself to the universe, and the universe demanding a price, compelling the kingdom of god, which pagan tribes might have dealt with incarnate, that now we don’t.
And as I feel the court, scouring my filing for pretexts, like the romans, to advance and anilhate my efforts, they find nothing, because I try to be godly, and have learned you don’t gain through anger, but diplomacy. But nor to they take and construe fodder, and that is because they recognize me as Roman, in a way; that I follow the code; of knowing the system is sacrificial, and evil, and those who play in it, like myself, require a negative self-identity. They see that negative self-identity in me, that awareness of how horrible things are, and I more like a colonialist long ago who made it in Gall with the tribes, than someone anti-roman. Likewise, there were a few Italian Tribes, like the Etruscans, who it seemed, had something on the romans, and were able to secretly control Rome, as an erstwhile, estimable, meritorious Tribe, and I feel that as well.
The more I focus on the sun and moon, and Earth reflecting outerspace at night; which were ancient occupations, the more I see the balance of everything, transcending, any matters. And this sense of balance, hinges from the balance of the one amazing thing; the sun hanging in the universe like that; earth’s not plummeting, is our weights attraction absorbtion by the much greater sun above; but how does the sun just hang there? Is there some weight to the space, supporting it? But that kind of simple palpable focus, transcends little things, into a general roman understanding, the sun and earth and moon going around earth, is the greatest thing; that assholes don’t want to be assholes, and it has something to do with the earth moon and sun.
War is somewhat like the Greek night, and actually a way to sacrifice, we’ve incorporated as History. The Roman take on war, is necessary evil. The Greek take, with it’s city states and islands, seem more about crime, than plunder. Yet the crime aspect is secret, and not addressed, but just underneath and a motive; Like Judges today, so, are unknown, as agents to a totalitarian mode of sacrificing judiciary, ignorant of the kingdom of god, truth, enabling crime, and yet they are completely controlled by mind to be such. Totalitarian order, claims crime to facilitate its order, but is run by The Kingdom of Heaven; and discounts subjectivity, and ability, of individuals, who, as I say, are not about to discuss, what their media doesn’t. Thus crime is secure in its secrecy, as the removed domains of reporting, to not cover them, being removed, being easy to be controlled by higher power, or Creation, that writes History. It is that order throughout, and not secret bogeymen, who still need to be marshaled by Truth, Spirituality, that control the crime to the Illyrian, the Romans came to complain against, and their envoys, threatened; which in itself, sounds pretextual.
The Illyrians, under their queen, then with ships, besieged Corcyra, and deviously attacked empaudaus, pretending to be a merchant ship; but despite their guards being slain, they rallied and drove the Illyrians off, who then shipped to help the siege of Corcyra. Both attacked towns complained to the Aetolian League, and The Achean League, and those two states unites and sent ten ships. This plan failed, as the Illyrian allies, who sent them ships, and the acheans battled to a harmless draw, the Illyrians attacked fiercely, ramming ships together so as to jump on the enemies ships, and with superior numbers, take the ships. So the corcyrans gave in, the Illyrians controlled their own, and the illyrians took off to resiege empaudorous.
At this point, the romans took off with 200 ships and a land army. They went to Corcyra, which was delighted to see them, and the man the Illyrians had put in charge of their garrison there, had already offered to give in to the Romans; So the Romans were quickly able to add Corcyra to a list of islands friendly to the romans. Epidamnus soon followed, as the seiging Illyrans took off and fled, upon learning the romans were coming.
Many towns off the Adriatic there, gave in unconditionally to romans, a few held out and were defeated, one caused a lot of damage to the roman forces. Still the Romans roughed up the privateers, and gave amnesty to Illyrian soldiers loyal to the man who gave up Corcyra upon running its garrison, Demetrius, and put Demetrius in charge of the area. Tribes placed themselves under the protection of Rome. Queen Teutna fled to a well-fortified interior city. The end result, was due to a brutish queen, Rome now protected most of the tribes on the other side of the Adriatic and islands therein. Of course, with the pretext or actuality of History about, one can not blame individuals, and yet one tries to promote the morals and savvy that keeps romans from furthering their hegemony. The queen quickly made a deal with the romans, to keep only a few choice places, and limit her ships to certain distances and might. Polybius says the all the greeks were happier now, for the roman influence now at hand, as they all disliked the illyrians. Corcyra is a huge long island off the northern coast of Greece, and Epidaumas, is a much smaller island close to shore, about 75 miles north; off modern day Albania, or Yugoslavia.
Now having concluded his tale off the eastern Adriatic, Polybius spends a page or two on Spain; mainly to say it was controlled by Carthage, of North Africa. While Greece, the hellenes, had some islands in the meditarrean under Carthage control, as was Sardinia, Corsica and a good part of Sicily, Carthage never took over Mainland Greece, or Italy, except during Hannibal’s 20 year invasion, which is still coming up, being led up to, by Polybius; who says the Romans let Spain go, regretted not increasing their influence there, and had to do so as to focus on the warlike Galls, or Italian Celts; and secure northern Italy, before being able to influence Spain; so they concluded a treaty with Carthage, whereby neither side was allowed to cross a river, armed. This let them focus on the galls, to Rome’s North, out of Northern Italy, the alps, and southeastern France. Spain, I say, is different from Italy and Greece, then, by virtue of the African hegemony imposed. Modern day Greece, is a very polite place; Modern day Italy, is rough, tragic, but there is a rich system to learn, that is worth a lot, and Italian understanding. I have not been to Spain, but a willing to bet, if it is substantively different than Italy and Greece, it is for that reason.
A little further note though here on Illyria: When the illyrians took empidanmous, or Corcyra, I forget at moment, notes here for future edit; they stationed a garrison there, to rule the place, and put Demetrius in charge, who sold out to the Romans, and later, put in charge of a large portions of lands in the eastern Adriatic. Conquering, then establishing a garrison, was commonplace back then. If one walled city lost to another power, that power established a garrison there as part of the peace treaty. Things were peaceful, there was a garrison, if there was no danger of losing the city back to its people, through solid alliance, the garrison left. And this should have been the model for Iraq, if we ever really had to go there; in that sense it was a greek war about making money, then a roman war designed to effectively increase alliance into a United States true order. For really, our military example, encouraged the militarization of the Shiites and Sunnis, against each other; perhaps through a defense industry, through an outlet of bagdad, spreading its wares quicker, with the U.S. military so there. Really, Iraq would have been so happy to have seen us go, that we could have left a garrison there, rather than a whole army, and the arabs would have behaved more as we wanted, out of the threat of our returning if they didn’t. With us gone, there is an incentive to behave so we won’t return. With us there, things are so demeaning and gung ho, there is little incentive to behave in our interest; the threat of our occupying our land, is not something to avoid with good behavior; the occupation thus is demoralizing enough, to cause further war. Regardless of the ethics of the Iraq war, and there is little, the stupidity it led to, is further condemning of any claim to righteous foreign policy. We should not finally establish it was an unjust war that shouldn’t have happened, we should establish, it caused a civil war, and made things less secure and orderly, the opposite of its errant calculation; or the design of defense industry all along to sell more weapons to warring parties of Iraq.
According to Livy, Rome goes on to war a Macedonian ‘evil” king, who is able to be effective in a criminal, not military way. He controls wealthy mines north of Greece, and large amounts of silver travels with his conquering army, so it is not just his army, but his ability to bribe, and buy short term mercenaries, that made him dangerous. Thus, this selling out of the garrison by Demetrius, and the suspicious way he ended up in power shortly after the 200 roman ships sailed around; that never happened in the over 40 books on Livy’s Roman Republic; garrisons were debated, as the Romans often won; And the people had a say, on whether the newly conquered deserved a garrison or not; but garrisons were never lost to deceit, that I can think; and almost universally served their purpose, or on occasion, overrun by the people of the walled town; Thus the roman garrison policy works, and the greek garrison policy a joke in comparison, certainly here; because the Greek Culture has an undercurrent of crime, and the evil of money, and treachery of bribes; whereas the Roman Culture, is about domination, effective foreign policy, which while surely may contain crime, is not the surface and focus of Roman history and culture. Things are a little more above board, and at a level, more what they seem to be. This Greek effeteness, is a touch of Greek mind, whereby dealing with crime, to turn the tables to Truth, and rectify, at least as an individual; is a way different than the straight out seeking of salvation and rescue, one hopes is possible in an orderly society. And certainly the latter may be more endemic to tribal living; whereas the imposition of History and State upon Greek tribes, is then more logically consistent with crime; whereas Roman imposition, is just less turgid and factionalized and cleaner.
Now Polybius starts to talk about the galls, how they had to be subdued before they could take on Carthage; how they purposely strove to avoid a situation of several wars at once; They as you may know, sacked Rome in 386bc, etching a fear of galls in roman mind, for some years; they failed to take the capitol, on a hill in Rome though, where the romans holed up, and eventually left. They were known as bigger, and longer haired, and wilder, and more prone to drinking and eating too much. Livy says they left Rome to return, because they stupidly burned down the granaries in stupid celebration taking the city; thus both sides didn’t have enough food; and that because of the warm weather they weren’t used to, they got sick. Polybius writing a hundred years before Livy, in 125bc, doesn’t mention those reasons, saying they left as their homeland was vulnerable to other attacking gallic or venetian tribes. It is also confusing, that Livy does not refer to Italian Celts, but galls, through and through, whereas Polybius mentions both tribes, as different, and overlapping, and it is confusing. That the Celtics had several tribes in several regions of Europe, may indicate a certain masterminding enemating from them; wheras the galls were of northern Italy and beyond. I see the galls, literally speaking, as compensating for the uptightness of Greek Culture; should you find their vicious class warfare, omission of tribes, and philosophy of disproving, love of boys, per Plato, uptight. The author of history seems to say, I made the Greeks uptight, I made the Spartans more conservative than the Athenians, I made the Romans, while big government and state regulation, easier, than Greeks, but still pocked with the inferiority of the dominating power; as evil expansion, and conquering tribes, not good for a true spirit, of people; And so they made the galls, to compensate for the greeks; the galls, used as mercenaries by Carthage and Rome; the galls, who Ceasar and Livy describe as loveable hill billy large long haired rowdy hippie, prone to vice and gambling; Polybius, as the more uptight Greek author, describes them here after listing the various names of their principle tribes.
“They lived in unwalled cities and had no knowledge of the refinements of civilization. They slept on straw and leaves, ate meat, and practiced no other pursuits than agriculture and war, their lives were very simple, and they were completely unacquainted with any art or science. Their possessions consisted of cattle and gold, since these were the only objects they could easily take with them whatever their circumstance and transport wherever they chose. It was of the greatest importance to them, to have a following, and the man who was believed to have the greatest number of dependants and companions around him was the most feared and powerful of the tribe.”
While warring is always inexpliquable, only explained by higher power; a statement the greeks make when their Trojan warriors represent various gods; agrarian simplicity is wonderful. The last part, about the greatest entourage commanding the most respect, is consistent with Livy and Ceasar, who add that they did not believe in heridatary wealth, the merit of present generations, must come into play; and he who is most successful, deserves, most respect; and success to them meant, making the place better, by solving conflicts and running things well; an essentially nonhereditary, authoritarian agrarian polity. Literarily, their agrarianism, contradicts the urban and cultured Greek way. At some point soon, they scoot around the Adriatic to attack Greece, but are unsuccessful.
Agrarianism counters greek and history
Polybius describes the Italian Celts as landing in Italy, terrifying gallic tribes, and making alliances with them, before sacking and holding Rome for a while; whereas Livy says it was the terrifying galls that came swiftly down from the alps upon Rome, before the Romans knew what was happening. Polybius says 30 years later, they advance to the alba river, and the Romans wouldn’t fight them, because the Romans weren’t ready. But 12 years after that, it was tried again, and the Romans had advance word and so marshaled their allies, who were naturally roman allies as well in shared fear of the Italian Celts. Polybius also further distinguishes between Italian celts and galls, saying the latter would raid the former, out of jealousy for their prosperity. Livy may say the Galls, not the Celts, invade Rome, because one of the mysteries is where the red haired and blond haired romans came from. Regulus and Romulus were raised by wolves and fathered by mars, and took over the local people into kingdom, but really, where did those expanding people come from? They were white skinned. Might it have been one of the celtic tribes? And if so, they would have had the karma to dominate rome initially as they did; attributing such to the galls, the polybian distinction between prosperous celts and their jealous gallic allies, might give away something to close to home for Roman historians to reveal. Polybius writes, “However, twelve years later, the Celts made another attempt to invade in force. and this time the romans had intelligience of their attack. They mustered their allies and marched out confidently to meet them, for they were eager to engage them and fight a decisive battle. The Gauls took fright at their enemies advances, and meanwhile dissensions broke out in their own ranks; finally, as soon as darkness fell, they made off for home” Careful reading shows the Gauls taking fright, and the Celts having internal dissensions; and yet such disorder is similar and linking; and Livy, does not distinguish between Celtics and Gauls, attributing it all to Gauls.”After this alarm, they kept quiet thirteen years, and then as they saw the power of the romans growing fast, they concluded a formal treaty with them, and faithfully observed its terms for thirty years”.
Distinguishing between Celts and Gauls, is an important act of Polybius, as he then notes, the gallic tribes threatened the Celts, the celts bribed and manipulated them to ally with them in war, and the galls raided Italy to their south, without the Celts, as well. The Celts had intermarried and were kin to the Galls, by this generation, and Polybius cites the dissension and disunity from the drinking and gorging that follows returning home from plundering. And soon the Galls went to far, killing a roman envoy, violating truces, and the Romans took them, and established their first colony in gallic land.
In the Roman world, you could “sue for peace”. Which, as gallic anger subsided to Roman might, the galls did. Suing for peace, obviously is where the defeated, go to the victors, and ask what it takes to get along with them to a peaceful future; I;m not sure the greek world had this easy diplomatic tradition. Where crime is involved, you can’t ask criminals what it takes to get along with them; they may take further advantage of you and mistreat you further, which is not an effective suit result at all; or feel so bad about what they did, they remain removed from you, much the way America’s officials and media are removed from the people, signifying a facilitation of crime; whereas in Rome, the tribes, over thirty of them, had a say through the coda; or rather, one nation could ask another, what peace takes, and there’d be an answer, it would be considered fair, and upheld, without treachery; yet with the theme of crime, and control of mind that enables crime, one can not sue for peace without the resulting expectant being remorse, and apology for mistreatment, and an almost Christian bowing to the oppressed and hurt; and thus the roman propaganda is consistent with suing for peace being about an essential righteousness of both parties, whereby the pretext for conflict is upheld and justified and facilitates peace; whereas crime per se, exposed as such, makes that hard; without a conversion that would take one outside the box of History.
Polybius says they no longer feared the galls, and were seasoned athletes for their gallic conflicts, that manifested easy victory over remaining distant tribes that dared encroach them. The galls went on to cause trouble in Grecian areas, to no success, and then were peaceful 45 years, but then became headstrong again. Upon further demise from then warring among themselves, the Romans took the land they had taken from the Semones, and divided it up among the Roman People, previous it had been controlled by the wealthy few, and when this shift happens, the upper class Polybius says it was quite demoralizing, as when the rich controlled it, there being a few rich, it was mellow, but when it was divide up among a many people, the increased intensity of activity, had a negative effect on Rome, the more outright, less covered up, dominion of this land, the negative spirit of imperialism, more apparent, and this is a moment, as Polybius looks for moments, whereby, Rome begins its decline in spirit and morality.
Now the gauls organized for Rome, out of fear of further expulsion and even extermination; though Rome had an admittedly gentle policy for a warlike people, of making allies of the conquered, and not effecting the autonomy of their policy making, or who their kings or senators were. But seeing the Roman people moving into their terrority, may have had this effect. This galvanized many northern tribes against Rome, and this preoccupation kept the Romans from dealing with the Carthaginians taking over and ruling Spain. Yet it did militarize them and their numerous tribal allies, into a census of 700,000 infantry, and 70,000 calvary, to be applied to the even larger looming conflict with Carthage; and yet Hannibal, soon came into Italy with only 20,000 men, and lasted twenty years.
So a great battle between the galls a celts and romans and their allies was fought. Polybius makes note that the romans were motivated by the plunder the invading galls had amassed so far; yet upon a final and difficult victory, the romans returned the property taken by the invaders, to those it was taken from. Likewise, as America had guns, the Indians, arrows, and per Herodotus, the greeks and armor, and the Persians only leather; so in this battle, the roman swords were able to cut and pierce, while the gallic swords, only cut.
From here Roman policy could righteously and ably seek to control the po valley of northern Italy, and they began invading celtic and gallic territory. And the romans were good about making allies with some celtic and gallic tribes, while dealing with the remaining unfriendly ones massing and raiding against them. These northern tribes worshipped the goddess of war and victory, Minerva, and Polybius goes on, the romans were learning that the blades of the galls dulled after the first blow, and bent and had to be straightened out by the foot against the ground often, and this gave courage to Roman soldiers. So the Celtics sued for peace because slashing swords had no effect at super close range, whereas piercing swords worked. The tide having turned, the romans denied peace, more gallic defeats followed, and thus the only option, complete submission, rather than a negotiated peace treaty.
Polybius concludes this chapter, pointing out how reckless and uncalculated the galls were, so that civilized people should not fear the onslaught of barbarism, but know it is not made to last long, but seem initially furious; and in soothe, this is how I feel about crime upon me and mine; the longer time heals, the calm and reason are the only paths to prevail; fury and plot, stiffness and rigid control, does not last long; the romans seemed better organized and thoughtful, or so Historians have said. In this sense, foolish foreign policy ventures, are doomed to failure, through the unexpected, through coming upon the reasonable and determined. The Gauls went on to attack Greece unsuccessfully in Polybius’s time, and that, he said, is added important to the reason for this part of his history, as he sets the world stage for conflict with Sparta, detailing events in Sicily, across the Adriatic, to the north, via Celtics and Galls, now turning to Carthaginian affairs in Spain.
Herodotus, and Polybius, unlike Livy, don’t just write about the Persian War, and the Punic Wars with Carthage, but its context of the world. 70% of Herodotus sets up the scene of the Persian War with histories of Persia and Egypt that led up to the invasion of Greece. So Polybius, over 200 years later, first has a chapter about Sicily, and a chapter about across the Adriatic, and a chapter with a history on the galls, interspersed with two two page updates about the ongoing carthiginian statement in Spain, aka, Iberia. Whereas Livy, writing a hundred years after Polybius, wrote a few hundred short books on the History of Rome, of which 42 survive, and He does nothing to set the stage, focusing fairly strictly on what the republic is going through. There is an increasing crescendo and intensity to the momentum of Roman Centuries, whereas ye old Greeke World goes back and forth, to and fro. They unite to defeat the Persians, then turn shortly and fight each other; they are city states, a league of professional polities, bent more on historical entertainment, than historical statement. Late in the game, after colonizing a part of Italy less reached by Rome; the Achean League forms, grounded in Equality, to all states that join, and Free Speech; these cultural sophistries, are sophisticated enough, to defeat the galls through a cultural rule of History, demonstrating the galls, as a possible lovable, but definitely second- rate power. When one controls writing, and is favored by the gods, removed, so history is controlled by that culture; why the leading class of galls would march on Greece, or war exist regardless, bespeaks metaphysical compromise, at some faint, and scary, level.
Anyway, I too, would essay a worldly style a better spirit would let to this situation, whereby I include the Isreali context, to the further southeast of Greece. I mean, you gotta ask the lord, lord, what do I gotta do? And the Lord said to me, you know you got to know there’s something living in your brain, and it ain’t you. So then I go to my brain, and I look all around, and I see my brain is everywhere, or ok, maybe not everywhere, but more than enough around me, and wherever brain is, brain lives, and it’s clear, the brains, where they are, are clear, and you gotta wonder, just what the heck is going on to be in all those brains, so all faint and clear; And then I realize; Everyone’s brain is everywhere, And something lives there, and it’s faint, and near death earth.
So allow me a little perspective: here, The Isrealites, hiking from Egypt and construction, to some land promised by a leading cloud, they gave a tent to; had 12 tribes. And the Romans, though they added more, and started with less, are regarded as having around 30 tribes, comprise it. In today’s world, the Jews are like the last tribe in the sophisticated era.
Yet the Roman Era, the republic, to the west of Plato, surprisingly, had a political system, whereby, per federal checks and balances, the tribes of Rome, had a say in ratifying policy, and correcting legislation; Each tribe had one vote. Each tribe would meet and discuss its vote and aye and nay on the subject. In today’s world might this translate to different nationalities counting as tribe?
The Old Testament, which can be construed as primarily a history book, maybe more a literary history, or a history with creative beginnings open and meant for interpretation, while Roman History mentions its tribes; generally, I’m not sure the old testament history cites the jewish tribes registering votes upon Jewish policy, though maybe this is referenced once or twice; Judeasm, like History, focuses on the leading actors, the celebrities, of politics, government, fame, and the people, or tribes, if we know, relegated to the background, subject, at length, and absent, closer; Therefore Jesus may be seen as giving cause to organize and gather and discuss what’s truly up in some ancient context of peaceful assembly. People gather round Jesus preaching; but the point is, they stand for reasoning together, when they come together, around Jesus; Indeed, the Romans are taking over Isreal, because the Isrealites did not make their people happy enough, to resound against the romans; It can be said, the Jewish People, of the old testament, not their kings, and prophets, come across as docile, as someone’s whose History is written for them, and this age of writing pointing them in the direction of literary analysis, reason, and the kindness provided via detachment therein. The Romans triumph in their state activism, upon the vulnerable languid quality of sophisticated culture; as they have conquered the pagan worshipers of the phenonoma.
Salvation through Judeasm is possible; the natural interpretation of literature creates a thinking people; Knowledge becomes aquainted with public good; and so we see how we may free ourselves from the yoke of history, by simply reasoning together; even though Jesus only offers a service on the subject, like some kind butler explaining how and why things are so bad.
The Old Testament did not demonstrate the checks and balances of tribal recourse; it’s antagonists, more Hollywood-like demonstrating the moral qualities of Literature, as History; and son seen by Jesus, conquered by Rome, and perhaps He, offered as a sacrifice to Rome, alongside, his homeland. Jesus wasn’t able to save Isreal from Rome; And hailed as a spiritual hero; subtley sympbolizing obeisance to the state and removed, to the written, not the talking, that’s long gone; when people got together to be serious, not party.
I believe the twelve tribes are most referenced traveling looking for the promised land; when the manassas tribe hailed staying on the side of the river bordering Isreal.Before the tribal system was the Patriarch System; where Patriarchs, like Abraham, had dependents and organized cattle, and migration, and managed land; for hundreds, if not thousands, but rarely more; grounded in leadership and a natural merit, though obviously, subverted for evil as possible; or good, in those envelopes of Lord opening; so these patriarchs wandered about the middle east, between Egypt and Persia, I guess, their own stake of History; but they never were “real” history, because the prime difference between a Patriarch and a King, was Kings war, sacrifice through war; Patriarch’s while differing, don’t seem to war each other; kings do.
While Gall had a patriarchal system that respected the dependants and numbers of clients and helpers, determining some hilarious merit of status; because these leaders of each generation; formally competed with each other; in context of bettering gall, and here are each and all within one tribe; one tribe would have competing factions or frats or friends, as you call it; whereas in a truer patriarchal system, there patriarchs are complete enough to not withstand competition from within, except to sucession; whereas in the gallic system a tribe would have competitors that went on for life; and this latter system led to kings, ruled removed people, more removed, through a “king” uniting many factions, naturally susceptible to History, and the will behind it, How and Why, God, Creators, History.
I believe in The Kingdom of Heaven, and it’s funny they call its existence, “mind-like” because, The Kingdom of Heaven is actually brain like; that is what is all over earth and within; what lives in brains, is many; and so one today revealed always living near me; the point being; understanding is no more than understanding something lives in the brain, and the brain has many ripples and veils, and brains are all over earth, and can not be conceptualized as merely within individual heads; for their powerful chemicals enable through vision, the connection of what is, to brain, so extends brain beyond the head, sensory organs.
The powerful Greek sense of the unconscious, of differing consciousnesses, dualistic kin of perception, aware of the sympathy, from the kingdom of heaven, and knowing it controls this foolish world; so seeks some unfolding of brain whereby the investment in History opens up and reveals more and more space on earth as of some total giant brain, though really an organization of brain.
Burkhardte, asks, what are the greeks so conceited about? What are such great things said about them? They’ve invented nothing, yet are venerated beyond belief. First, let’s say, it is the nature of their city-state polity, that kept Greek History going up and down like a stock market; whereas the Roman steady ascendance, starts to shadow Greece, and Polybius, looks into the matter. Then let’s say, the great things ascribed to Athens, come from the subjugated, and examples are shown. Then of course, the conceit is an archetypal quality crime requires, a vanity, of tight control by mind intent on crime.
Athens was great for taking in foreigners, requiring trade to compensate for thin soil and steep slopes; they venerated those who died for them in war, via funeral orations; Whereas the Carthaginians memorialized their war dead by hanging black banners on their city walls; and you can see which psychology was more successful. But one has to laud the greek intellect of Polybius on three counts; He makes no scruples about revealing powerful information; the wonderful thing classical histories do; in his revelation that the decision which town to siege, is based on which town stored the most food. This I never figured, and makes perfect sense. Then, he blames the Gallic Invasion of 386bc on The Italian Celts, who were a rich man’s gall, whereas Livy, a hundred years later, seems to claim gallic tribes on toto, wreaked such havoc on Rome. Likewise, he conspicuously differs twice from Livy in this story, insofar regarding that Polybius claims The Italian Celts, and the gallic tribes, gave up the siege of The Citadel, where the last Romans were holed up on a hill, because the Venetians, were taking advantage of the opportunity of the 7 month absence; but Livy says the Galls stupidly burned the granaries where the grain was stored, and so were too low on food; because they tend to over-celebrate. And that the second reason the Galls left, was the Roman latitude was so much warmer, than the alps, that they got sick.
Polybius is also to be commended on adherence to the Herodotian model of History Books; whereas as much as the known world is possible, is raccounted to set the stage for the telling of what the History Book, precisely purports to be about. Thus only 30% of Herodotus is about the Persian war, the rest sets it up with tales of Persian history that caused Xerxes, and that includes 200 pages on Egypt as well. Polybius talks about the Romans straightening out Illyria; and The Galls attacking Illyria, and The situation of Carthage in Spain, and the ever complicated Sicilian Situation, and how Greek Colonies in Italy, had some issues; all to be combined to set the stage for the battle between the two greatest world powers so far; indeed, the point of city states avoids this kind of conflict.
Of course The Athenians had penchant for executing their own government officials, The Roman Republic pointedly averred. And also for deciding the fate of captured enemies abroad; whereas Hannibal, famously set his prisoners free, so no hard feelings. The warlike nature of Athens, chose to venerate its dead in funeral orations, thus creating a land people died for culture. How can you improve something people died for? Look at Carthage with its funeral black flags; regretting death, thus open to change and reason; so the perversity of Athenian Politics. The notion Athenians, were the ideal, was never far from the Athenian, psychologically justifying foreign policy; Thus something very stiff about the Greek, whose historical will, pushed on a general, group will; that made Athens like a ship, to sail together, requiring many in unison, and not individual freedoms and tendencies. Experience is dictated by the mind, this is more admitted or reflected by Greek Culture, and second rate powers such as Gall, even Persia, defeated. And empathy, in general, omitted.
The nature of bad foreign policy in the ancient world, was that it doesn’t stop, it keeps going, it plays upon fears, or is tightly controlled, and removed from the people, who must obey it. They were venerated by the submissive through passionate sophistry. Burkehardte cites excessive litigation bring down Athenian culture; yet isn’t lawsuit where change comes from? Wouldn’t that have been the means for a reform of uptight Athens?
Hume writes in history of England, that either The Gauls or the Italian Celts, moved to Briton and became the Britons. So he was aware of the difference and issue of Italian Celts and Galls. Where Livy says the galls are all gall, Polybius says the Italian Celts were superior, and leaders; But Hume says it is unknown which move to Briton, and unimportant; siding with Livy in glossing over that distinction. “all ancient writers agree in representing the first inhabitants of Britain, as a tribe of the gauls or the celtae. Now the Galls were most favorite, just north of Italy, for from there they pushed off to ascend to the meteoric fame of sacking Rome and besieging the citadel. But apparently they arrived in Northern Italy, not from being pushed north by the Romans, the way the etruscans were pushed to fertile Tuscany, but from the france area; to the east were the gernmanic tribes, and to the west, the Iberian tribes, prey to North Africa. Apparantly, perhaps pointedly then, History is saying the Germanic tribes did not move to Briton, the gallic tribes did; the Germanic tribes then possible manifesting the destiny of scandanavia to their north.
Where Livy romantizes as does Ceasar, the galls into these lovable fools; Polybius, is more condescending; and Hume dismissive all together snobbily of second rate barbarian powers whose history is so impulsive as to teach us nothing about order; which strikes me as quite the cozened thing to say; false, predatory; And yet Polybius, in defining History as unexpected, per color of Roman expansion; surely somewhat accounts for the impulsive and second rate. Hume says the galls divided up naturally into tribes, and relied on cattle, forest huts, and nomadicism, wore animal skins, and liked to war. From here some insight is surely spread, upon where the Romans came from, inquired into earlier; the anthropology, where one tribe or group comes to a land, multiplies and divide. Maybe Romulus came about ruling a people who separated from the origin due to reproductive over population, even designed for the history of sacrifice; pointedly, like whites, raised to a contorted violent history-vehicle of sacrifice.
“The Britons were divide into many small nations or tribes; and being a military people, whose sole property was their arms and their cattle, it was impossible, after they had acquired a relish of liberty, for their princes or chieftains to establish any despotic authority over them. Their governments, though monarchial, were free, aswell as those of all the Celtic nations; and the common people seem evern to have enjoyed more liberty among them, than among the nations of Faul, from whom they were descended. Each state was divided into factions within itself. It was agitated with jealousy or animosity against the neightborig states. And while the arts of peace were yet unknown, wars were the chief occupation, and form the chief occupation, and formed the chief object of amibition, among the people.”
This is a slightly Athenian bent, with snobbery to the barabarian; and a people, who freed from great authoritarianism, still like to war, and kill. Whereas, one would think, liberty, and its enjoyment, naturally counter the will to war; today’s liberals, while complained of; have no desire to put to death conversatives, and very content, it seems, to let them live, should they be converted or reformed or regulated; but it seems the Athenians and brits, much more warlike than today’s liberals; even while both suffer the difficulties of their age.
See, the Athenian Game was setting up democracies, and those democracies being crooked, controlled by their Athenian founders, or facilitating crime, for proper forms. But the greeks were city states, and so ebbed high and low, much away from the culture of ever growing super powers like Rome and America. People forget how easy it is to control democracies, and barely may remember kind monarchies as superior to crooked democracies; let along flat out tribal pagan society with as little state and history as possible; for these latter conceal sacrifice through war; and lack of safety; wheres the point to the physical today, is to discuss these things.
Here the justice system carries out an immense amount of sacrifice; hard to break; not protecting anything; being alienated from spiritualities, that secure. But lets see how America, Rome and Greece or Athens, are similar. Do they execute officials. In Athens did, sometimes all of them, because they knew closest and first hand, how vulnerable placing power in the few, makes these men to crime. It’s easy to control people and society, so because we have been altered, to be controlled, for design above; it goes on, because we are not. There’s a consciousness to the kingdom of heaven, that knows, this, but not to the artificial world. The Roman Republic seems purposefully designed to protect officials from executed by angry people. The people and tribes, might have had more freedom, yet less expression—in structure different to taxed Athenians, of corrupt officials, in idealized or propagandized democratic polity. Certainly the liberals of today are not string em up and kill em down; there are no crowds demanding death to enemies of the state, beyond Bin Laden, perhaps; if anything the conservatives, are perhaps more frustrated with liberals than vice versa, if only because the liberals are on automatic; yet if conservatives are more bloodthirsty than liberals; when the Spartans, conservatives, more peaceful and let live, than liberal Athens; we may see something. And if Rome, there was the right to jail, fine, and even execute the worst officials, that was an important part of the Roman Constitution; that it is not right for senators and consuls to go unchecked, for crimes of power to grow and foster; thus historians make a specific point, that there was very little executing public officials in Rome, I’ll roughly say not even one a decade; and yet in Athens, executing a dozen a year, well, that was a bad year; but their policy was to execute officials caught of crime; and create a system that facilitated crime; through regulating prices, and catering to foreign merchants, for instance.
Now lets turn to comedy. Does the American State allow teasing of itself? Yes, on late night tv, everywhere media is about; Same in Athens; in fact, Athenian Comics differ from Leno and Fallon, in that they also tease the people and populace; for being emasculated by the powerful. And this is an interesting take; the Athenian comics would yell at those complaining about the 1%t that the 99% are weak and its their fault and they have no balls nor brain regarding how to get out of this situation. In that sense a greater comedy ruled Athens, “official” and yet it took on the people, provoked rebellion, and …….Rome had no great comic sense; kind of staid and warlike, whose chief moral purpose be to be moral; after all the immorality of Greece and other excessively sweet and sticky civilizations.
Now lets briefly look at self veneration. Rome historically venerated itself, as its people looked upon itself morally ambiguously; this is a prime reason why the people of rome were seen as superior to the powerful, and its domestic history and story of that anthropology; played out in Sparta v Athens and Republicans v Democrats; and yet the people, of Rome, ironically till they got to much power, were fairly acknowledged as superior morally, like America today. Athens certainly venerated itself as the greatest place in Greece and history, and that pride a big part of its downfall; the hubris of Greece, is just Athens falling to due its miscast self images, probably due to lying about its homosexual, pedophiliac axis. For those things are much worse or bad, only if lied about. Thus duplicity and vanity; not one’s own self opinion. And America venerates itself through its land, that it has lost through lack of care, in centuries, and most notably in NYC due to its media empire, clamoring to itself in constant reinforcement of its magnitude and stupidity, famously venerates itself; nor is NYC not a city to love. And I love NYC as do all I know. But Let’s note the history that venerates Athens, and the media town fame of NYC–while derived from architecture, art, and sophisticated political culture–embed a value in the removed quality of media and history; contrasting less statist, more tribal societies, where decisions were closer, if not in the hands, of the people, and media much less necessary and apparent, to spread the news of the few; like the old testament historical focus on kings and prophets, rather than the people, as if they all did what the kings said without debate; or whether the lack of covered debate, and structure of Jewish society, reflects the inability of humans to control history, and we are primarily pawns for the negative designs of history.
And lastly let us ask are good people kept down? Let’s note a few things about Athens. Burkhardte laments, with some poignancy reflecting his own times, how Athenians could become rich through law suits; the sign of an unfair criminal justice system. One would the Justice system be where truth enemates from. This being a world of lies, currently, when I wrote this, the justice system be the first corrupted, yet still the nexus and locus entrusted with sanity and ethics. So it must be very strange how crazy this world is. The notion, of totalitarianism, is consistent with heaven and earth, the physical world, bound up in some contract, which to free itself from, the courts make logical opportunity as an investment in critical searching; yet vulnerable to crime, and so Athens, and criminals must consider the control of themselves by mind to vehicle of society’s design. Justice should start to realize the fallibility of history and corruption of society; starts from an admission of wrong, the state is hard to do; not apprehending its own corruption, as psychologically beyond the consciousness that takes in History; even more is aware of little or nothing, better to do the insensible work of state, within the structure of society.
They don’t understand it can be done quietly; is more an issue of mental health; for the crime, Athens possessed, right under the surface of officialdom; quite like today, no one reasonable could want to subject themselves with; this quest for money, without regard for mental health, and logic, and what would and must be experience, the lack of natural organization to society, makes each a mental health victim. Everything is wrong, this can be clearly seen, yet the state and media, history, has all the power, and is the most ignorant enemation, of many agencies, domains, that transmit and express, what is wrong. So the mind clearly expresses what is wrong through the state apparatus, or media, and media is everything expressive, and these forms and faces these expressions go through, pointedly designed to lie and not know, and thus reform never happens; yet it would be through the courts; if judges and principals, where the worst parts of lies have run, can recognize the need for this discussion, see it is in all interests; and move through; but the lack of this catalyst is evident in Athens and American vexing, strict legal system, that has not reduced crime: The bottom line is seens as business the system has not reduced crime, where the business model is to grow every year, or barring market increase, decrease the work required to meet market, every year, through increased skill, knowledge and facility. The business of justice then, would be to lower crime every year, and to lower the costs of lowering crime every year. That this safety we seek to guard, is not reduced, at least on paper, shows something is clearly wrong; cleaning up community would involve community circles, people talking about security, the issues criminals go through, and how to facilitate harmony becomes an active concern of all. That can not be broached, the absence of community activity, is necessary for the design facilitating crime.
So these systems keep down good men. The better brothers are swindled by judges in totalitarian mind league of making the world worse. The finer charactors not trusted because they wouldn’t submit to the biddings of the organization hiding behind them, or even know those demons are fiction upon earth, for totalitarian design, not free, or even subjective will, but the will of History. In the roman republic, the separation of Plebes and patricians, with separate parts of the city, the activity of the many tribes consolidated by Rome, allowed avenues through merit into the tribes, but effectively kept the good from ending the yearly wars, as the powerful, rising through the society of Senator Families, and esteemed venerated lines dating back to the founding; this conservative aristocracy ran things as some group whole with a perennial concern of order at home, and imperialism, just about as much as possible, very view years, if any, except for the reign of their second king Numa, no wars for over 40 years, there was a war, a short one, often enough, every year with some tribe, that then would be added to the number of tribe loyal to Rome; whose original tribes were the romans, named after Romulus, under who the first walls were built, and they soon made an alliance with the Sabines, and then, in their age of kings which lasted five kings before the senate took itself into prominence, the Tarquins. Today, the meaning of those words are not studied.
Burkhardte complains in Athens, how the system kept down the good men, and thus the viscissitudes of Athens, its falls into disgrace, its rises, through the great personalities that sustained it, Pericles, Themestones; arguing for war, and admiral.
I often wondered if atheism was grounded in some psychology relating to the druid pagan frequent sacrifice of animals and more. I have recently been commending liberals for responding well to a poll, that showed none of them were in favor of executing conservatives. Indeed, slanderous it may seem, conservatives, so frustrated by liberalism to vitriol, more rancorous than ye olde atheists incessantly not getting anything beyond what is on paper. Yet say we lived in pagan tribal times, where sacrifice of animals and more, combined with routine duties of the state, and theoretically necessitated regardless? Say some people have to die tonight, say; then would democrats vote to make those sacrifices republican if they could. I’m well apologetic for the black humour here, seeking merely to explain how liberal Athenians, liberal enough to gay relations with teen agers be a norm; liberal enough to regulate the price of bread, and at the same time trek to Delphi to ask questions, relax a week or three, and get a poetic answer, but that was Hellenic culture rising out of Greece, despite statism, and statisms use of sacrifice as normal rational thinking. The romans wouldn’t go to war without seeing if the sacred geese ate, or to battle rather, without killing something, and see which way the entrails spilled as called by specialists in the profession of interpreting spilt entrails; Obviously the highness of Greece and rome, is versed in leaving a religious culture, and unknown by history, for a statis history, that leads to todays lack of safety. Yet as soon as liberals accept sacrifice of animals as a key to health in a dark universe of mortal terror, they cease to be atheists; may still rally violently against conservatives, but out of a liberalism grounded in pathetic yet true, sadness over the sacrfices, over the necessity of sacrifice, rather than there being nothing more than earth’s physique, the contemporary irrelvance of the universe, causes atheism, but liberalism still exists with an awareness of the dark might of the universe, in the form of obeisance to what that metaphysic requires.
And then let us say the world in Athens, officialdom contained and concealed crime, as does western justice systems. Ok, so no one in their right mind would want this, this is a phenonoma of metaphysic not free will, shows we are dealing with god, or how god controls man, than anything else purported, which purport is designed consistent with this control, not choice. Now we look back at Athens and say, yea crime was rampant they dealt with crime a lot, they would execute their officials, but the next batch, be just as bad. Now we look at America, and the problem isn’t as recognized, nor punished with death; but recurrent, not stopping, structured in, by constitution, unrecognized by media, and so festering prevalently. Yet when History is able to say this about the west, its judiciary, then history will say this is the dominant feature defining Society. Yet we don’t know it.
When does America become defined by a criminal judiciary, as Athens has become known so, Burkhardt’s The Greeks, and Greek Civilization. And how could Athens be known as such to its people, and incapacitated, managing its reforms to reform so?
Its widely accepted judges today are corrupt and side for side with more power and overly punish without reform and crime continues, because the whole system and due process is alienating, and wrong or not manifested and there are easier more natural ways to reduce crime and treat problems, grounded in truth, in truth of the kingdom of god frankly, a truth we require more education about; now the Athenians knew the nature of the officials, and many played that game; and the media of Athens knew, and they’d execute officials, and things wouldn’t change; the way we elect new politicians and things don’t change right; but here today, we don’t address our judicial structure, where criminals of the worst sort, can hide behind power concentrated in few judges; yet if the media became aware of it, it would be addressed; and yet unlike Athens, we’d have to realize right, the point is not raising the punishment to execution, but addressing the structural problems causing such. Thus it is amazing the media or consensus was enough to address the issue, without correcting it effectively, merely leving harsh punishments, to no change in the culture, as ironically, our legal system essays today.
The Athenian prosecution of crime in the judiciary and government; and structurally, you see our constitutional structure purposefully designs a system that can’t work; government can’t police government. The Judiciary, such a dominant set of government, can neither protect, nor reform itself: And it hasn’t. The Athenian prosecution of vast government corruption, had to have been thwarted, by never getting past condemning the officials, to the criminals and organized structure that logically lies behind government, and tells and threatens government what to do. When we end judicial government corruption, and the veneer of government over crime; the officials will have to tell us who is behind them. That has to be a logical conclusion; judges wouldn’t do these crimes their power enables for themselves, they have to have been co-opted long, and placed in power to do such bidding; of network and rings existing in behind the scenes world of crime, where diplomacy and détente, of greater allegations. Do get behind the officials to the crime ring; officials must be seen as victims, coerced; whose lack of revelation behind them, lie in the mystery of the organizations that hide behind government. The mind controls everything; the kingdom of god easy to move by faint organization. So to reach the nefarious behind the fronts, and those accepting blame; they need to understand the sympathy, and be explained the craziness of this situation no one chooses; that probably breaks upon communication and subjective; then they can lead us to the behind the scenes apparatus, or more so, what the apparatus is doing and stop further damages.
The Romans at least created the institution of Tribunes, in return for striking soldiers returning to their command, as a specific judicial check upon the crime and corruption of senators and presidents. To be sure, the depth of crime is not cited, nor in the background, nearly as much as in Greek History, and to be sure, the roman history nor its annals, discusses criminal networks behind the scenes that control senators and the families, and even the lines of those descended from the original senators, which the romans placed such stock in.
WE must say the Romans did not venerate themselves. Historians venerate them for not venerating themselves. Their state was capable of achieving diplomatic peaces, and ending conflict through international police actions; but the people themselves, though with a pride from military victories, saw themselves appropriately with moral ambiguity.
In America, and Athens, because these civilizations have states grounded in a lie about humans and earth; and so whose business, abetted in dominating factor by media and news, engaged in negative, destructive mechanisms; there is no true honesty, and therefore, the sense of work isn’t true; and you see this societal value upon not truly working, but getting paid more to do something arguably less necessary. Work and physical labor, goes from healthy, wholesome positive experience, to something else; and the dreamy days of office work drift on without memory. America deals with a Mexican issue, by their hoarding of restaurant and landscaping jobs, in time of tight economy; while the Athenians importation of Grain, contingent upon foreign growers, gave the whole critical trade unto the hands of foreigners, and somehow our hotels and convenience stores, owned by people who did not go to school here. So what was the point of our going to school? Enabling further subjection? Being an object of teachers, rather than subjective capable of managing motels well enough to thwart those with some strange need to leave their country we can’t relate to; or hold as starving, when this isn’t studied or verified, or addressed as the problem; good work is being subjucated, that is the point, of this world of several levels of consciousness, and reality.
We have to conclude, the nature of these physics can signify a society not grounded in merit, but complaisant to criminal, deviant immoral order; which also must be tied to deviancy, and sexual abuse that can’t translate over the schism between God and Man, and State and People. Corrupted people are wanted and needed and created, to produce the order, crime dictates; even as the record of history doesn’t record the undercurrent of crime, to this day, it can come out, in future histories of America, and yet that this hasn’t come out, and basic natural treatments, totalitarian suppressed, by definition by higher power, easily ordering history and society; what is its metaphysical make up? The Legal system, in Athens, Burkhardte is grounded in exploiting the immoral to further immorality, and why Athens, such a taxing unpleasant place; crime runs the world, through the court system; the courts system would court truth; it makes no sense this goes on; so something more is at play; what is it? The mind running Society, as it does, maintaining the Kingdom, as it does; yet somehow, I have the chance to stop it, and save it, and this is my story, or case summary, if you will.
work, my story, 92, 2003, true? intertwines, others, systemic want people who do bidding of criminal hire criminal, yet good people would know, come out, not a big deal per se to people on earth, just to control. Something talk would reconcile, and is just an added part, to an already tight control, from where resolution of the whole may come. Sister, 92, mean no ill, can talk about, would.
Something Greek about this; Different fraternities of the kingdom of heaven, fraternities of form; OK and Greece, one of the last links to the universe; so as we float around the universe, well, we cant get the metaphysical control, from outerspace, to leave, and end the projection of lies. The Greek civilization is superior to the Roman Republic, in its more extensive culture. Also, the system of Italian tribes in Italy, absent of, before, and concurrent with, The Roman Republic: is similar to the city state system; the tribes, seemed to recourse senate systems, though not universally, and have the old senate v. good monarch issue. But is it possible something come up upon earth, after certain times on earth? Is there something we harken to in Greece, that may save us, or reveal control, through older mind, whereby a new era begins? There is a violence to Greece, we see in The Boston Marathon. Indeed, Marathon is a greek reference. And here’s a kicker. We all remember where we were when 9/11 came. I was to pick up my mother at JFK at 2pm, her return flight from Europe, was diverted back to the continent. I was in my basement reading a History of Greece by Edith Hamilton, and saying to myself how violent it was; to a point of unpleasant; differentiating between History and Actuality. And now I am reading and really enjoying writing about Polybius, and there is terrorism at the Marathon. And it is the same behind the scenes, irrational forms of violence, the tragic greek history engaged greeks in. The sacrifice of lives through other than war. Is there a connection between me readiing Greek History and Terror? Also the earth sign is chilling. And the lack of safety in our world, designed for nontribal times, is evident and manifested. So this is something to work through and get to the bottom of;
Also, the corruption of my family, and officials, may be consistent with sexual abuse and start young; and a hallmark of an upper class; preposterous as a situation, yet ordered, as History, secret history, a history this way, the lack of safety, which is important to; where the lack of merotcracy is consistent, even as undesired by earth, and the thinking; so thought is limited, a precious commodity and yet, contradicting the official way, difficult to assert, or if presented with, necessarily adhere to. So I asked my closest friend from HS, who I’d done multi-night hikes and canoe trips and numerous smaller hikes, and work projects, whose father taught there, for it would explain my siblings apparent corruption; if my friend, who had anxiety issues more apparent after his divorce, is he knew of any abuse there; for it actually seems widespread. I messaged him. I hadn’t seen him in a year and a half, being bogged down myself, and his strict father, may have not allowed my phone to connect to his, so I messaged him via facebook. Half a week later, he went missing, it was in the papers, his sister and mother reached me wondering if he’s shown up at my house. They said he got upset and ran out into the January night, and apparently jumped from a high pedestrian bridge; though that would be impulsive, and not suicide; Though they searched the Delaware the next few days, his body was found not far, three months later. Was there something afraid he would talk to me? Yet what is the harm there? I’m reasonable, not zealous, wouldn’t hurt anyone, forgiving, enlightened: is it talking would change the situation and convert people away from the metaphysic that makes em this way. In other words, people kept from me and honesty, because then they would go good, and it is not people, but their control, that wants them not good, so it is a control issue. Yet the system designed not to point out the obvious crooks. Was his anxiety making him a liability to others, handlers? He could have stayed and worked with me; he would maybe have talked to me, we would have worked this out without police or law, but communication, compassion, diplomacy, reason. Likewise, my family is caught up in this historical nature. Lets remember if constitutions concentrate power and so make officials vulnerable to control by criminals, if government does not police itself per constitutional structure; this would have come out; in reason, no one is at fault, there is something to work out. His death is quite disturbing. Does it send a message to others? Yet who would not want being honest with me, even laying down the real politic. I’m not going to push against might. Is it fear by the universe? Something Greece harkens to? And then, while getting a bead on all this; the boston marathon happens; marathon a greek term; and me in a legal one.
You might say what makes Athens and America similar, and different than other centuries, is our toleration of humour at us, or at politicians and power. Other centuries, were much more solemn. Some countries still are. In Athens and America, it is generally accepted that getting into politics is a way of getting rich; and statistics bear that out; it is known officially; and yet the criminals who exploit this system; and theoretically could manage and handle officials, their family, and finances; this does not come up to light, though a logical, and known extension. We know politicians get richer, through unethical behaviors, through criminal manipulation of officials; and yet we rarely condemn those criminals, but the officials are the fall-guy.
The concurrence of the marathon tragedy, my friend’s death, weighed together on my mind, combining together, seemed to have the same feelings, the same source, of irrational metaphysic; and that coupled with my ex-girlfriend tramping off to a best friend’s house, there since, and having trouble talking about it, prone to sneaking around, because she has a double life, I think, that this experience with my friend, were she to happily relate it to me, could help her talk about that, which she terribly wants to do. The swift conversion of anyone to corruption, rapidly creates this culture of secrecy. The slightest pressure, makes things Hard to talk about. Right things aren’t done; they get convoluted. This is a middle class value on love, unattainable.
Polybius sets the scene for the upcoming second Punic show down, or rematch for larger stakes than Sicily, by showing how diplomatic Rome is, to better prepare for war: Subdue Gaul, Help across the Adriatic the merchants oppressed by pirates and enabled brigand privateers; for which Polybius references Rome’s naval prowess, for what was intentionally a training naval expedition, sending 200 ships, upon a waterway, whose greatest powers, had few more than twenty ships. How they made a peace treaty with the Carthaginians, regarding rivers, beyond which no armed men from the other side, allowed.
Polybius talks about events in Greece, right before the second punic war, a nature of Greek war, between the Achean League and a Spartan King, demonstrating relations between Macedonia and Greece; which Polybius thinks is important enough to include in his classical contextualization of History with the inner rings of world history. Thus you see a fissure of Greek Spirit, as well, as if the rumblings of one world refracted off the horizon beyond the Adriatic.
Yet it is easy to liken The Second Punic War to George Bush’s Iraq war; in that everyone in Carthage, and most of the reasoning world, was for leaving the Roman Republic and Iraq, as alone as it was; But Hannibal, was Texan, rounding up support and pride to invade the evil flaunting roman republic, whose diplomacy consists in keeping us, from truly controlling Sicily, or Iraq, even though we have the far superior navy. No one could stand up to George W Bush, and no one could stand up to Hannibal. They both claimed the ventures cause pride. They both had fathers who were presidents of their country, and they both singlehandedly brought this venture to war to the fore, when more pivotal challenges lay elsewhere, ignored. The difference, though, between Saddam Hussein and The Roman Republic, was that the Roman Republic saw this coming. As soon as Hannibal’s inherent hostility violated a technicality of the peace treaty, Rome told the Carthaginian Senate, to hand over Hannibal, and a little money; and we are at peace. Hannibal, like GWB, was too powerful to just hand over. Never the less, this is as fine a sense of the art of roman diplomacy seen, consistent with saving the Adriatic, pacifying Gall, and seeking peace with Carthage, tho there is some contradiction there. Saving the Adriatic, and pacifying gaul, makes more sense preparing for war with carthage, than anything in its own right. And still, this peace offering, of peace for Hannibal, and a little gold and silver, does on the outset seem peaceful, with something tough backing it up, you don’t want to mess with.
And yet the cult of personality, is what was behind this war; whereas the fight of personalities between Saddam, and W, really both men lacked genius and considered third or fourth class officials, perhaps, as stories goes; whereas the cultural difference between Carthage and Rome, were values at odds, and in a most problematic way. Hannibal hated Rome, perhaps because it defeated his father; like W.
Back then, through city state tradition of Hellene I believe, there was some international policy, and enough small states, so that a popular leader on the outs with his native land, would logically be hired and feted by another competing land; as Spartan Kings advised Persian Imperialists; without seeming beyond the pale of political character at all; rather as within the pale of logically uniting political interests, and showing a whole world capable of getting along, even as war breaks out within it.
Thus, when Hannibal’s war had brought Rome to the brink of carthage’s wars, after 17 years of scaring Italy and Gall, Hannibal conveniently retired as the guest of some island tyrant, who too, was going through a questioning of allegiances to Greek, or Rome or Carthage. And there is a famous story here, that Hannibal entrusts the king, saying when he was twelve, he put his hand on the shoulder of the victim about to be sacrificed, though I am not sure about the shoulder, and swore his allegiance to fight Rome until his death. This impressed the king; but what is psychologically greek about this story, is the light it shines on the consciousness that back then, sacrifice of human victims, was natural logic, back then. Thus Chrisitainity’s concentration of sacrifice in one real man, coupled with more submission to History, to what History, or Greek Creators want, is exactly what the transition of classical time to today, was about; power placed in History, Sacrifice covert, under the cover of individuality, the amiguos superiority of material comfort, and also, less physical health.
Carthaginian images are similar to Roman Republic Images, except in light brown. Carthage leading men had gravitas. Othello, a bit what they are all like. Their names all start with ‘H”. Hansrubal, Hannibal, Hamilcar: They are heridotory, like the republic. They treat war somberly, like the Romans, and hang black flags on their walls to honor their fallen soldiers; rather than politicizing the war dead, as Pericles and ? did in Athens; in light of Carthage, the loss of soldiers, immoral, and Athenian patriotism through eulogy of war dead, questionably warlike and effective, and making Rome, a compensation for Greek impetuity, and galls, for their uptightness. One old wise Cathaginian Senator makes a famous plea to avoid war, that image of he old man against war against images of Rome’s ambiguous peace treaty, to give it time to prepare for war, like Stalin, buying Time, with Hitler. Hannibal may be seen in Roman History, as an impetuos, if strong twit, wasting precious resource upon unnecessary violence, and Rome’s suppression of such invasion, moral, even as Hannibal’s spirit converted Italian towns with ease. One could characterize it as the ambiguous morality of Rome, versus the ambiguous gravitas of Carthage. The diplomatic determination of Rome, versus, the impetuos and charismatic order of Carthaginian appeal. In today’s world you might practice for turning brown for tomorrow’s with gravitas. The Roman army, and Carthaginian Navy, the Roman Diplomatic Order, and Carthaginian Wisdom.
It seems the tribal system, north of the equator, conspired for a few to achieve hereafter life in the mind. And the Greeks submission to historical examination, resulted in more than a few; who then have a control, and say, in History. As we look for a translation of betrayal, into mind, one sees a cold bluey saucer like sphere, evoking Jupiter and the cold distance, justifying betrayal; whose absecence surely links well to others. And we try to grow ourselves by rearranging out scales; a cold glimpse, then warm feeling.
The clues and feelings to Greece, can include, pagan “homosexuality” excessive codification or complexity of the simple, crime, as opposed to successful war, a corrupt party of the people, perversions of democracy and assembly, perhaps excessive education or community regulation? Separation of power from people, Idolization of what is wrong, claims of greatness towards what really isn’t.
In terms of power, the less known by History, the out of scenes, and thus more able to power, though the nature of government of heaven so unknown, we may imagine have greater benefits if such is possible in the absence requisite for this scenario. Thus the galls lost in their marching along the Adriatic to northwestern Greece and their famed Achean League; yet second rate powers have to be respected in what balance, justifies what respectability and grace; for the greeks were not graceful, but sophisticated, trained, or coerced, depraved, or enabled wrong.
Polybius writes, “The Carthaginians bitterly resented their defeat in the war for Sicily…and they were further provoked by the affair in Sardinia, and the indemnity they were required to pay.”….”After they had subdued the greater part of Spain, they were ready to seize any opportunity for retaliation against Rome.” Upon the choice of Hannibal as General, of Spain, Hannibal, tackled the leading tribe of Spain, and all the other tribes, bowed down before him and gave tribute; which Hannibal then wisely passed on to his soldiers, as they passed that winter in New Carthage.
However, as that generousity had his soldiers love him, the farther tribes, and submissive tribes, as tribes do, rallied round against Hannibal and Carthage, the following Spring. Larger cities, weren’t as easy to subdue and had to be sieged. Yet, as a few gave him chase, he pivoted on a river with elephants, the barbarian tribes failed the water, and he chased over a hundred thousand of them north, forever scared to come south and harass him, again. Sagentum, was the crucible town, Rome dominated, whose taking, Hannibal knew, would provoke Rome; so he planned cautiously for this.
Rome, purposefully encouraging war of not, ignored the continuos envoys from Sagentum, and their reports of growing Carthaginian power, yet when Hannibal returned to New Carthage, the new capital of Spain and further Spain, he found a Roman delegation there, asking him to keep his hands off Sagentum. Hannibal rose to the implicit threat of these envoys, claiming to represent the true Sagentum people, who had lost a few of their leading men, thanks to corrupt Roman arbitration of a conflict. “The Carthaginians, he warned them, would not overlook this treacherous act of seizure, for it was an ancestral tradition of their to take up the cause of victims of injustice” Rome portrayed itself officially this way, in clearing the Adriatic of privateers, standing for government as allowing free trade. “At the same time, he sent home to Carthage asking for instructions on how to act in view of the fact that the Sanguntines, were relying on their alliance with Rome to commit wrongs against some of the peoples who were subject to Carthage”
Polybius makes several points, here. 1) Realizing Hannibal was not speaking honestly, they sailed to carthage to entreat the senate to avoid war. 2) The Romans expected the war to be fought off Sangentum, not in Italy 3) If Hannibal had just said, the Carthaginians just want Sangentum, and a remittance of their debt incurred when at a disadvantage, the Romans would have had something honest to stick their teeth into and deal with; by not even being real, the statesman Polybius, says the Hannibal condemned his lot to war. For frankness and honesty may avoid war, as lying and lack of good faith, and false pretext, ensure war.