• =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98The_War_That_Made_the_Roman_Empire=E2=80=99_Review=3

    From (David P.)@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 6 12:20:18 2022
    ‘The War That Made the Roman Empire’ Review: Turning the Tide of History
    By Arthur Herman, April 1, 2022, WSJ

    Though still cleaning up the mess in Italy, Octavian held a strong
    hand: Italy was the home of Rome’s legions and its manpower reserves.
    All he needed was a cause with which to unite Romans and Italians
    under his leadership. He found it in Antony’s relationship with
    Cleopatra: It was not exactly a formal marriage but obviously had
    a sexual as well as a political dimension.

    It is worth noting that there were no libel laws in ancient Rome.
    Anyone could accuse a public figure of anything—cowardice, alcoholism, murder, incest, bestiality. A Roman politician like Antony was supposed
    to take even the most lurid charges with good grace. But Octavian tapped
    a vein of misogyny in Roman culture—and affronted a Roman-noble ideal—by portraying Cleopatra as a temptress and whore and Antony as her sexual
    slave. Octavian claimed that, under her influence, Antony intended to
    move the empire’s capital from Rome to the east.

    The strategy worked. In 32 B.C., the senate in Rome declared war on
    Cleopatra and stripped Antony of his consulship and military command.
    But there was even more at stake. Mr. Strauss notes that, for Octavian,
    the most worrisome threat came from the boy Caesarion. “If Caesarion
    was a flesh-and-blood Caesar,” he writes, “then Octavian was back to
    being merely Gaius Octavius, a minor member of a prosperous but provincial Italian family.” Octavian would have to not only crush Antony and Cleopatra but annihilate her son.

    Preparing for Octavian’s assault, Antony faced two choices. He could
    adopt an aggressive approach and use his superior navy to launch an
    invasion of Italy. Or he could wait on the other side of the Adriatic,
    in the Gulf of Corinth, to lure Octavian and his second-in-command,
    Marcus Agrippa, into attack. He chose the second plan—a blunder. His opponents, Mr. Strauss tells us, especially Agrippa, understood naval
    warfare far better than he. Octavian’s ships swept in and trapped
    Antony’s fleet in the narrow entrance to the Gulf of Ambracia at
    Actium. After months of stalemate, Antony decided to risk everything
    with a battle at sea.

    The Battle of Actium—involving over 600 ships and 40,000 men—forms
    the centerpiece of Mr. Strauss’s story. His account captures the
    hideous confusion of ancient warfare at sea: “a cacophony of shouts, trumpets, and battle cries set to the pounding rhythm of oars; the
    whoosh of catapults and the crash of ships; and, everywhere, the
    screams of the dying.” After hours of fighting with no result, “the attackers approached Antony’s ships from many directions at once.
    They shot blazing missiles, hurled spears with torches attached to
    them, and used catapults to shoot pots filled with charcoal.” The all-
    wood triremes lit up like kindling as their crews were immolated or
    drowned. Still, Antony’s ships fought long enough to allow both Antony
    and Cleopatra to sail to Egypt to fight another day.

    It took a year before Octavian felt strong enough to launch an
    invasion of Egypt. Facing death at Octavian’s hand, and believing
    rumors that Cleopatra had taken her own life, Antony committed
    suicide. The rumors were false. Cleopatra managed to meet the
    triumphant Octavian long enough to beg for her children’s lives
    before choosing death herself. We still don’t know exactly how she
    died. If it was from a poisonous snake bite, Mr. Strauss says, it
    was more likely that of a cobra than the asp of legend.

    Octavian spared Cleopatra’s children—except for Caesarion, He had
    to die to secure Octavian’s position as “the August Caesar,” or
    Caesar Augustus, as the senate eventually dubbed him. For all his
    ambition, Augustus understood that Rome had for too long ruled itself
    and its possessions by a sleight-of-hand, pretending that it was still
    a republic of farmers perched on the banks of the Tiber and led by a
    cluster of noble families. Decades of civil war were the result—all
    because Romans wouldn’t face the reality that they weren’t a city-state anymore but an empire.

    Julius Caesar was the first to see this reality clearly. He had
    grasped that Rome needed a broader base of leadership and support,
    even as its noble families fiercely opposed him in the name of
    liberty. His namesake and heir did better. A new governing elite
    drawn from across Italy came into being, graced with impressive
    titles and powers, though Augustus kept the key powers for himself.

    After annexing Egypt, he made sure that its governorship was a
    reward for loyal service, not a new power base. The victory at
    Actium, Mr. Strauss argues in this splendid book, allowed Augustus
    to build an empire that lasted for nearly 500 years. The price was
    the destruction of the man who dared to oppose him, along with the
    woman for whom he had risked everything.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-war-that-made-the-roman-empire-book-review-actium-mark-antony-cleopatra-turning-the-tide-of-history-11648826419

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From El Castor@21:1/5 to imbibe@mindspring.com on Wed Apr 6 13:04:35 2022
    On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:20:18 -0700 (PDT), "(David P.)"
    <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:

    The War That Made the Roman Empire Review: Turning the Tide of History
    By Arthur Herman, April 1, 2022, WSJ

    David, posting yard long articles is not the way UseNet works, an no
    one is going to read them. Please just make YOUR point in a
    relatively brief statement, and if appropriate post one or two BRIEF
    cites supporting your point.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From (David P.)@21:1/5 to El Castor on Wed Apr 6 23:04:04 2022
    El Castor wrote:
    (David P.)" wrote:

    ‘The War That Made the Roman Empire’ Review: Turning the Tide of History
    By Arthur Herman, April 1, 2022, WSJ

    David, posting yard long articles is not the way UseNet works, an no
    one is going to read them. Please just make YOUR point in a
    relatively brief statement, and if appropriate post one or two BRIEF
    cites supporting your point.
    --------------
    In another newsgroup, someone else responded like this:
    Thanks for posting this, looks like a good read. I was just this
    morning reading Seneca's ancient assessment of Mark Antony:

    "Those who could never be defeated in battle have been vanquished by
    drink.

    What was it that destroyed Mark Antony, a man of noble character and exceptional talent? Was it not drunkenness that drove him to foreign
    habits and the most un-Roman vices? That, and his love of Cleopatra,
    which was only increased by wine. It was this that made him an enemy to
    the state, that made him a lesser man than his enemies. It was this
    that made him cruel, when he used to have the heads of leading statesmen brought to him at dinner—when amid his elaborate feasts and the splendor
    of kings he would view the hands and faces of the proscribed. Even
    though he was loaded with wine, he thirsted for blood. It would have
    been bad enough if he had been drinking as he did such things; that he
    did them when already drunk is still more intolerable.

    A devotion to drink generally does bring cruelty in its train, for one’s soundness of mind then becomes flawed and uneven. Just as long illness
    causes people to become peevish and difficult and prone to take offense
    at the slightest thing, so continual drunkenness causes the mind to
    become brutish. For since they are frequently not themselves, the habit
    of insanity becomes ingrained, and faults acquired under the influence
    of wine thrive even without it.

    In your speech, then, tell us why the wise person ought not to become intoxicated. Show us by examples, not words, how ugly a thing it is,
    how unreasonable its demands. The easiest course is to prove that when
    our so-called pleasures get out of bounds, they become punishments
    instead. For if you attempt to argue that the wise man is not affected
    by large amounts of wine, that the upright character of his mind
    persists even through dissipation, then you might as well conclude that
    he would not be killed by drinking poison, would not be put to sleep by
    a sleeping draft, and would not vomit or expel the contents of his
    bowels after taking a dose of hellebore. But if his
 gait is unsteady
    and his speech is slurred, why should you consider him to be drunk in
    one part of himself and sober in another?"
    ---Seneca, Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 83 63-65 AD
    --
    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From El Castor@21:1/5 to imbibe@mindspring.com on Fri Apr 8 08:51:38 2022
    On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:04:04 -0700 (PDT), "(David P.)"
    <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:

    El Castor wrote:
    (David P.)" wrote:

    The War That Made the Roman Empire Review: Turning the Tide of History
    By Arthur Herman, April 1, 2022, WSJ

    David, posting yard long articles is not the way UseNet works, an no
    one is going to read them. Please just make YOUR point in a
    relatively brief statement, and if appropriate post one or two BRIEF
    cites supporting your point.
    --------------
    In another newsgroup, someone else responded like this:
    Thanks for posting this, looks like a good read. I was just this
    morning reading Seneca's ancient assessment of Mark Antony:

    "Those who could never be defeated in battle have been vanquished by
    drink.

    What was it that destroyed Mark Antony, a man of noble character and >exceptional talent? Was it not drunkenness that drove him to foreign
    habits and the most un-Roman vices? That, and his love of Cleopatra,
    which was only increased by wine. It was this that made him an enemy to
    the state, that made him a lesser man than his enemies. It was this
    that made him cruel, when he used to have the heads of leading statesmen >brought to him at dinnerwhen amid his elaborate feasts and the splendor
    of kings he would view the hands and faces of the proscribed. Even
    though he was loaded with wine, he thirsted for blood. It would have
    been bad enough if he had been drinking as he did such things; that he
    did them when already drunk is still more intolerable.

    A devotion to drink generally does bring cruelty in its train, for ones >soundness of mind then becomes flawed and uneven. Just as long illness
    causes people to become peevish and difficult and prone to take offense
    at the slightest thing, so continual drunkenness causes the mind to
    become brutish. For since they are frequently not themselves, the habit
    of insanity becomes ingrained, and faults acquired under the influence
    of wine thrive even without it.

    In your speech, then, tell us why the wise person ought not to become >intoxicated. Show us by examples, not words, how ugly a thing it is,
    how unreasonable its demands. The easiest course is to prove that when
    our so-called pleasures get out of bounds, they become punishments
    instead. For if you attempt to argue that the wise man is not affected
    by large amounts of wine, that the upright character of his mind
    persists even through dissipation, then you might as well conclude that
    he would not be killed by drinking poison, would not be put to sleep by
    a sleeping draft, and would not vomit or expel the contents of his
    bowels after taking a dose of hellebore. But if his? gait is unsteady
    and his speech is slurred, why should you consider him to be drunk in
    one part of himself and sober in another?"
    ---Seneca, Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 83 63-65 AD
    --
    A brief reply ... PLONK.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)