I have a scholarly hobby; writing about books by ancient historians; Because the people were bred for war back then, the way we are bred for the kingdom of god now; because a seige is a metaphor for being able to go in and out of the kingdom of god. So ancient historians provide metaphors and aid to our own lives. So Sallust’s Jugurtha, as all ancient historians, has theatrics in it, is literature about the battle between black and white, African and European; racial wars disguised as the subtlety of Ancient Rome V. Carthage. Untill N. Africa, under the city of Carthage, invaded Sicily around 175BC, and Rome was forced to build a navy just to go to Sicily, North Africa had the fastest sailors around. Africa was a great naval power. Ancient Rome was a great army. The blacker people alleged to control the southerner parts of the world, the white people aimed to control the northern part. The fear and confusion of such immoral governments went to war again. There was war every year for centuries in Ancient Rome. While we fathom war or frequent war back then; that is hard to fathom,
Thus the stereotypical image of the black guy as army; is simply not true. The Africans were known as a navy; not as an army. Hannibal was exceptional because he guided an army of naval people; when he guided a band of mercenaries united under Hannibal against Rome, to land in Spain and march to Italy. Lots of people of every color went along with Hannibal. Yet there are many different colors in Italy as well. There is the sense the Romans are whiter than the native Italian Tribes, for the Romans were not native, and more into modern government; same way there numidians might seem like ehtiopians who are blacker. Yet areas around Rome, before Rome conquered them, from the Etruscans to the volscuns to carthage and twons in north Africa had similar polities of two classes, assemblies of people, and councils or senates of nobles.
Yet whiter skin ultimately was black skin, but moved north and became whiter over generations. Thus white skin has always had a mythological mystique to it, as something that came from blacks, but is totally different now. I think the point is that it is like everyone is the same color; yet color does make a difference, and is ignored in that regard; Yet insofar civilized society comes from whites; to a degree; and civilized society so is nothing humans would assent to; and thus the kingdom of god is controlled to create western civilization; Is the black on the material side less in control than the white? And is it true, blacks control the south? For to the north, lie the gauls. So to the north of Rome, were these big stupid vain yet good Gauls–to the south, the entirely different enemy, the Carthaginians, or Numidians–entirely different in character, lighter, skitzophrenic, treacherous, mercenary, living in desert and sun not swiss alps, better ship builders.
Now I get confused if the numidians, N. Africa was called Numidia back then, are the darker or lighter Africans; I thought they were darker mercenaries who were good cavalry riders with Arabian horses from Ethiopia, but it seems they were lighter skinned morocco like people; their whiteness being explained by Sullust as the descendance from the navy Hercules was leading in Spain when he died, I section became Armenians, and another something else, and the third settled and became nomadic in N. Africa. In any event, the funny thing about the Numidians, according to both Livy and Sallust, is that they were notoriously disloyal; they started on Hannibals side, and by the end of the second punic war, half had joined the Roman side. So after Rome took over N. Africa, to punish Carthage for its third aggression culminating in decades of war, and forcing Rome to build a Navy; Because a Numidian King, Massina, allied with the Romans against the Carthiginians, N. Africa was divided into a small province of Rome, and a larger Numidian Kingdom ruled by Massina.
Well, Massina’s son had a nephew, Jugurtha, who hunted wild beasts, and became a hero fighting with Rome against some Spaniards; turned out very bad in the end, and the Ancient Romans brought him to Rome in chains; possibly a racist imagery, but consistent with all the deserters brought back to the Roman general, in chains, as part of the peace treaty. So putting bad people in chains was commoner back then. My notes are about the story, for the whole story is over many years. The romans couldn’t just catch him, because rome was getting decadent them and their soldiers were bribed when they went to n. Africa. To catch jugurtha for killing his uncles children, on by sneaking into his house at night, the other after a long siege of a city loyal to the older grandson.
Sullust is an upper class guy with a dramatic literary, view of morality. He misuses the word “soul” not understanding the soul is of the hereafter, he is talking to the character of those here. Yet he tells a fair tale much better than his upper class pretensions and philosphics.
Rome was a reich a thousand year government; such length and practice of the staying in the same area at the time, manifested in parties where one wore masks of their dead ancestors. Part of the appeal of Massina’s domination of his kingdom, for he was beloved as a wise and just, nonviolent, King, was that because the Roman Empire was so strong, he easily kept his might, because he was a true friend of the Roman empire. This way he was able to appear strong and dull to the Roman Empire, going along with its bidding as required; and then be the Numidia at art, skitsophrenically playfully, ruling his kingdom with famous lightheartedness. So it would see the key to a friendly regime in another continent, would be to keep in charge, but he secretly be very good to his being; while all we see is his loyalty to us; and that he is loved by his people.
Rome was the authority back then, states submitted to them, as they do here to America; thus state government should be very good to their people; and if such goodness contradicts the federal government, the federal government must not find out. That is how the monarchy has evolved into a diluted form of republican government. My definition of Republican comes from Machiavelli, who described as the unification of diverse regions that might not be so naturally unified. So Jugurtha started out loved by his people, for hunting wild beasts, and pro roman, as he helped them in Ancient Spain; Yet when he came back, he soon wanted more than one third of the kingdom he inherited, and killed to rule all of Numidia.
The Senators back in Rome, did not care, because they were bribed by Jugurtha’s envoys artfully, because Rome back then was becoming immoral as it stretched its morality over a larger and larger place. Even when they sent an army, the general who went was a notorious bribe-taker, and he just effected the army down there at the time to be so as to take bribes all the time; so the romans lost that round of war to bribes, not warfare.
The second guy who the romans finally sent down, Mettelus, was a no nonsense moral guy who marched the army around, was vigorous and diligent in asserting spirit in the army, cured his troops of corruption without hurting anyone; and so they went after jugurtha who they defeated in a close battle.
However, it is customary, for when the numidians lose a battle, to run away and not reunite, go home, they were mercenaries, paid to do a battle, not too concerned about the next one.
When Jurgatha was in the roman army with roman aristocrats, unscrupulous ones told him he could kill to get the whole kingdom, which would benefit from him, and Rome would not care because Rome could be bribed. Yet The leader of the roman army took jugurtha aside at the end of the war and told him to win the friendship of rome, not its individuals. Yet this side of advice did not hold up well in jugurtha, yet in the beginning of the book you wonder if he is good or bad, like darcy in pride and prejudice.
Ancient historians also have the funny habit of making up speeches of historical figures as if they have been verbatim recorded, which stenography didn’t back then. So the historian assumes the tone of the character and makes arguments in dramatic fashion. There also seems more opportunity to make speeches on the street and gain listeners.
They also had a practice of many servants. Often I wonder what I could get done, with many servants.
Who would have been better for the Numidian people, Carthage or Rome? Would it matter? Is this a true victory, or mere might? Jugurtha seems foolish, and realizing he needed to bribe rome to make these killings work, as soon as possible. I think the morale of the story is an implication of hunters, as ultimately, bad people.
Even though Africa had humans before Asia and Europe, we consider Africa like western civilization, because it is to the west of the orient like Europe. Nor do we know much about how orientals ended up in Asia?
The metaphor of a soldier, and an army, as sacrificing their movement for the will of one brain humanizes soldiers as functionaries of societal will.
The second brother was killed when the Italian colonists who were protecting in a town besieged by Jugurtha; When Jugurtha was called to the roman provinve to the east to explain his actions; The Italians were so confident Rome would take care of everything, or had taken care of everything, that they made the second brother surrender himself in good will to jugurtha, who then tortured the poor guy to death, illustrating the treachery the Numidia is notorious for.
Yet treachery may be ironic; things happen for a reason, treachery doesn’t really hurt, acts of violence do, so there is a difference between the treachery of jugurtha, and the condign he inflicts upon the other king. One is precipitated by treachery, but not the treacherous act itself, which is lying about it being ok.
Some say the bribery recognizes a tricky trait to the Numidia, akin to treachery, in its lighthearted treatment of serious issue. Bribery was why this affair wasn’t over in a few months. And in todays world, there is a lot of bribery; when the few have much power; such as a few councilmen over a town; or when a judge controls an issue. Which was what my case was about and experienced, when I said local officials abridge free assembly; and violate the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to state or people. Yet the lack of press I got, could not be attributed to bribery, because I sent out many many press releases everywhere. This demonstrates that as bribery is the demonstration of a false love for a specific result, so it is done by the mind, the bribery of mind by mind, plays out to the press issuing the vehicle of the mind; and illuminating bribery to be a false love, by the mind.
There were good things about the Roman Empire; evidence of greater democracy and liberalism in the form of frequent and important public meetings/free assemblies; the necessity of the people to ratify treaties and declarations from large assemblies in piazzas of Rome. And vehicles through which the Roman people may create laws.
But Rome was entering a time of assisinations, and proscriptions, where bounties were put on the heads of the loyal opposition. Because, for all noble ideals, constant war is the government oppression of the people, which in turn creates an official conscience unable to deal with issues wisely, because such wisdom would turn his confusion and fear towards the light, and confusion and fear is the product of ill management upon management.
So even though the roman people had the legendary tradition in early rome of leaving the city, if the ruling class grew so bad; that these ideals can exist alongside an unacceptable government, and do. By the same token, let us discuss whether good exposes the people themselves, let alone officials and the powerful, to their own unholy ways? If all this is the mind, the mind must reveal itself a little more to go on.
As the two christian classes ideally be the kingdoms of heaven and god, so the two class system quite common in ancient time. The three class system we are reminded, only came around recently.
Eventually Mettellus gets Jugurtha’s top guy Homilcar to convince jugurtha to give in, picking up the treacherous habits of his opponent; whose diplomacy involved lying about wanting to fight; lying as he wanted to and lying about not wanting to.
Also where do the soldiers come from, there is something skitzophrenic about war. Look how many blacks do not readily admit their jail time, but so many hippies meet white people that do. Yet look how dully we admit that blacks may control the south. Or prone to conspiracy theory in face of god and heaven?
The thing is the kingdom of god, and the kingdom of heaven and the dominance of the universe are lied about and purposely obscured by media; though good religion offer faithful testimony to the truth. And what drives the point home, about projecting truth and not lies, in that in todays world, the representation in the media seems to require ending the life of human beings in the The Kingdom of God. Thus if truth is promoted and amplified over lies, the press exposed as being the facility for a misrepresentation of earth by a higher power, these nightly killings can stop, and we can live in a simpler world of truth. When we wonder why the truth is not written by higher power today, I can only see the darkness of the universe, and feel such must be taken up by us; because we are able. And with a concerted unified effert, truth can win over lies; which would be great.
In other words, as this war in north Africa was the kingdom of god represented in history as war; so there is great exageration to history, but also killing as fabricated evidence such history is true. The precision and methodology to the representation of western civilization is almost breathtaking. It shows that the press and media is what most needs to be confronted and exposed and defeated; rendering our free press, ironically, quite enslaved, but to God.