Primary source analysis
- 1. Adams !1 Cole Adams Dr. Hurley HY 110 29 April 2016 Primary Source Assignment Rome Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 114-119 The source begins by praising Pompey for his military exploits. It tells tales of him con- quering the greatest king living, as well as many nations, including the Iberians, Arabs, and Jews, just to name a few. The source speaks of this being the first time that anyone had ever conquered a territory so large with as much insurrection as Pompey had faced. It did appear that Pompey took one particular stance as far as treatment of the nations he faced. He was very fair to them. He did not take an exorbitant amount of exploits, only what was fair. He also did not treat the opposing militaries poorly. He only took prisoner the high commanding officers and kings, of which he later sent most home. Pompey greatly rewarded his soldiers for their loyalty and ser- vice. He gave them bonuses, taken from his military exploits. He also sent many of them home, a move which, according to the source, made him extremely popular among the Roman people. When Pompey returned, he was greeted by many people. First, as he approached the city, the youth population greeted him with shouts of triumph. Then, as he came closer and closer, more of the men and elderly greeted him, and they were positioned based on how far they could walk. Finally, as he is now in the city, the Senate greeted him, they gave him shouts of acclama- tion and adoration. They proclaimed him great, as no one had accomplished what he did. Pom-
- 2. Adams !2 pey’s triumph extended the Roman rule all the way to the Euphrates. As he conquered, he rebuilt several cities. His reign over the area was established rather peaceably. The generals and former kings were returned to their native lands to govern under the guise of the Roman empire. The ambitions of prominent men, such as Pompey can lead to conflict and even civil war. As Pompey began conquering, you can see his ambition. His victory is characterized by opu- lence and excess. He even eludes to another great conquerer of yesteryear, by donning what was believed to be Alexander the Great’s cloak. This hunger for power could easily drive someone to go to extreme links for the name of victory and fame. Sallust: Depravity in Late Republican Rome After the reign of Sulla, the members of the upper classes of Rome seemed to believe that civil war was looming. They didn’t believe in the stability of the Roman government any longer. This gave them an outlook of bleakness, as there seemed to be no other option. This caused them to conduct themselves in a manner which was rather malign. They were losing their wealth and power, so they did not really care what came from their actions. They started behaving like dogs, giving no regard for others. Catiline saw this and took advantage of it. He convinced them to join his insurrection. He wanted them to help in his overthrow of the Roman state. He convinced many of them to join his efforts and his cause. In brief, Sallust describes Catiline as a terrible person. He is personified as one who be- longs with dogs. There is an instance described in which he was about to marry a Vestal Virgin, but she doesn’t want a step-son. So, in what was a brutal act, he had his son murdered on the spot in order to appease her. All of his associates and friends were described as rascals and enemies of the state. His friends were shown to be doers of wickedness, who care only about their self-inter-
- 3. Adams !3 ests and betterment. His mind was not at peace with the gods or with man. It was said that his spirit was tortured, that there was something going on in his mind. I definitely found these accounts to be suspicious. The writer really doesn’t have anything positive to say about Catiline or his associates. This account of who he was as a person could certainly be exaggerated. Many of the things described seem to be a little unbelievable. Sallust might be exaggerating due to who this person is. This guy is a traitor against the state. He tried to violently overthrow the Roman government, so Sallust’s view of him could be distorted. Since his insurrection went to shambles, he would only be remembered as a crazy miscreant who is the equivalent to human excrement. Letter to Cicero Cicero is beginning his campaign, but his campaign differentiates itself from many others in the fact that Cicero is a Novo Homo, or a new man. He didn’t come from a wealthy family or have ancestors with a particular political inclination or prowess. In this regard, he should have been at a disadvantage. However, despite his relatively new entry into the political arena, he ac- tually has many advantages. He has a record to run on, despite being new to the game. He can point to previous accomplishments and use that as evidence that he knows what he is doing. He is also an excellent orator. He knows how to move an audience with words. This is a skill that automatically places him in an advantageous position. given the level to which the Roman peo- ple respected excellent comunication. He also has the support of many people how are involved in the game of politics, in fact, the person whose very job he is running for has pledged his sup- port. In addition, many bureaucrats and businessmen have fledged their support to Cicero.
- 4. Adams !4 In order to emerge victorious, Cicero must be “all things to all people.” He does this first by welcoming all who regularly come to his house or socialize with him as friends. He must ap- peal to all of those who walk through his door in order to attain the support of all those who have not. He must also craft a message that is equitable for both the business class and the rural farm- ers. Both are necessary to win. The source also outlines three types of people and how Cicero should approach appealing to them. First, there are “morning callers.” These are causal undecid- ed people. The goal in reaching them is that they would visit one of his speeches in the morning, having plans to attend many more, but, upon hearing his, they would immediately yield their support to him. The second is those who “escort you to the forum.” To appeal to this group, Ci- cero should tell them that they are the best, and he should always venture to the forum at fixed times so that way the escorts will be ready. Lastly, there are those who always attend his speech- es. To these, the message should be one of gratitude, as well as sort of harsh. It is suggested to him that he should tell these attenders to support him completely. If they are to always attend his events, they must do so out of loyalty and respect, not out of other, more malign, reasons. There are definitely connections between Cicero and his campaign and modern-day politicians. They both have to appeal to all people. The modern day example of this would be on the campaign trail. As a presidential candidate travels from state to state, their core stump speech might be similar in content, but the rhetoric used, such as jokes, references, and promises, is go- ing to look different throughout the country. In New York, the speech is going to have a quip about New York accents and be centered around economic policy and education. In Kansas, a joke will be made about being in the center of the country and that Kansas City BBQ is truly the best, and the policy will be focused around farmer subsidies and land grants. Cicero might have
- 5. Adams !5 core beliefs and a platform, but he talked about and focused on different things with different people. Plutarch’s Life of Caesar Julius Caesar is perhaps one of the greatest examples of a good leader from throughout history. When examining his personality, there are two subcategories that must be established: Caesar in a moral sense, or his character, and Caesar in the light of public opinion. Caesar’s moral compass was virtually nonexistent. He lived his life in the way that would best profit him and give him the most glory. When he was captured by pirates, they demanded twenty talents for ransom. He was actually disgusted by this and demanded they be given fifty, seeing who he was and how great an accomplishment capturing such a powerful man was. Once he was released, he returned to the pirates’ ship with an impressive armada, and he captured the pirates and had them imprisoned. He turned it over to the praetor for their prosecution. However, when the speed of their trials were not to his liking, he came down, retrieved the pirates, and crucified them. He also spent time with his men, often doing things that men of morality and ethics would not do. Now for the question of Caesar’s likability. Overall, he was extremely well-liked. The pirates who captured him were very amused by him. They liked to listen to him speaking and telling stories. He was also very well-liked and respected among his men. Someone who would go out of his way to spend time with lowly troops was bound to win over popular opinion. Cae- sar, despite having almost no morals and being a terrible person, was adored by the populous. Caesar as dictator was not bad at all. Since he was appointed dictator for life, it could be seen that both the senate and the populous really liked him. His leadership ability was proven time and time again. His demeanor as dictator seems to be well-meaning on the surface. He gives
- 6. Adams !6 many honors to both his soldiers, and even to some that he fought against. He appealed to the public by being as common as possible. He didn't want a body guard. He saw it noble that he shan’t be living life as though he is about to die; he would rather just die when the time came. As far as his character as a person, it is largely mixed, both positive and negative. As he gained pop- ularity, people started resented him and seeing how he used those around him and the entire Ro- man populous to attain what he wanted all along (House of Cards style). As he gained fame, he started losing popularity and favorability.This proves the idea that public opinion is a two-edged sword: as you gain support of many, you lose the support of many more. Plutarch’s Life of Antony As I examined this primary source, the more I drew a comparison between Antony and Cleopatra and Frank and Claire Underwood. Cleopatra and Antony’s time together was spent plotting political moves and how to win back the rest of the empire. Although, thanks to the con- niving of Cleopatra, there was also furious love-making. Cleopatra wanted to have children by Antony, in the hopes that one of them would succeed him. She slept with him and spent time with him only to eventually best him. This is seen in the soliloquy that Plutarch tells. She made him look a fool. However, she did play to his ego. She would give him compliments and rewards of certain kinds. She would rave about how great a military leader he was, and even how good at fishing he was. This was all in an effort to win him over, and, cunningly, bring about his demise. Upon examining the mess that is the suicide situation, one can easily surmise that their relationship can not be regarded as healthy. Cleopatra lied to Antony, telling him that she had killed herself. She knew what response that would elicit. She knew that the next thing Antony would do would be to take his own life, yet she cared not. Then, when she found out that Caesar
- 7. Adams !7 Augustus had no intention of including her children in the rule of the empire or even in his will, so she backtracked. She sent word to Antony, as he was bleeding out, mind you, that she in fact was alive. Then he was carried over to her. They have this moment that would have the harmo- nious string music resounding in the background if this were a romantic comedy. Cleopatra real- izing her mistake, professes her love for Antony, but, tragically, as she first develops true feelings for this man, his movement stills and his eyes softly close (fade to black). This is a nice moment, but it hardly justifies their train wreck of a relationship. Cleopatra has been using Antony since the start. What Antony thinks are true feelings of passion and a de- sire to be with him is nothing more than a clever ploy conceived by Cleopatra. His intentions may have been good starting the romantic relationship, but hers certainly were not. For her, it was nothing more than a simple hook-up in order to make something for her children, which, when you think about, is sort of sweet. It shows the lengths a mother is wiling to go through to provide a good life for her children. However, the ends do not justify the means. I do not think that Cleopatra ever loved Antony, and it was a one-way-street for her to use for personal gains. Greece Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution Throughout the history of the Greek state, there have been many attempts by many men to take control of the Athenian government through some form of tyranny. This is the case with Pisistratus. He was well-known for his military conquests and exploits, and his name carried a great reputation throughout the city-state. However, the Athenians were extremely adamant that they did not want a tyrant; they wanted to rule themselves, not be dictated by another person. However, Pisistratus had a deep desire to be tyrant, and he had many goals he wanted to achieve
- 8. Adams !8 while tyrant, so he tried to become tyrant many times. He first convinced the people that he needed a bodyguard. This motion was passed, and as he received protection, he used these “club- bearers” to seize the Acropolis. There was significant opposition to him receiving a guard, but the opposition faded away. Pisistratus lured the people near the Acropolis, so they could hear him talk. In doing this, the people’s arms were confiscated, and Pisistratus was then declared tyrant. There were also many power struggles during his reign. He was deposed many times. However, he would always manage to find his way back to the position of tyrant. Despite the connotation that such a title has, there were many tyrants who were actually fair and just rulers, and Pisistratus was an example of one of these. He was a well-liked and well- respected man. He was liked by both the common people and the aristocrats. For the commoners, he implemented many policies that benefited them. He gave money to the farmers and other low- er classes. He did this with the intention of helping to scatter people from the city, and give Athens a greater food supply by increasing the number of farmers. He did implement a 10% tax. When an aide asked an older farmer his thoughts, the farmer expressed his distaste of the tax, not knowing who the man was. Instead of charging this farmer or punishing him in some way, Pisis- tratus rewarded him by giving him tax-exempt status. He was a friend of the people, and his ad- ministration accomplished much good for them and posed little harm. Pisistratus was also a friend to the upper class and aristocrats. He did very little for them. This may sound like a negative thing, however, what it really means is that he left them alone. He let them continue what they were doing and he did not get in their way. Aristotle also says that he gave them assistance financially as well. They, of course, would be extremely grateful for that. Aristotle recounts a time when Pisistratus was charged with homicide. As he was preparing
- 9. Adams !9 to make his defense in trial, the prosecutor walked away from the case out of fear and respect for him. He was beloved by everyone, despite how temporary and interrupted his reign as tyrant was. Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus Overall, the life a Spartan boy could be described as extremely difficult and rough. This rough life began at conception. The fathers were told by the state that they must rear children. Then, as the child is born, it was inspected by elders. If the child was deemed healthy and sturdy, then he was allowed to live. If he was weak or deformed, then he was left in the wilderness to die. This process was further refined by bathing infants in wine, rather than water. It was be- lieved that the wine would rid the Spartans of any epileptic children. Then, as the boy grows up, he is assigned a tutor. At seven, he departs from his family to be raised in a military barracks. The children in the barracks were treated rather harshly. They also studied some, but they only learned to read and write just enough to communicate. The leadership didn’t dare allow for the reading and writing of pleasurable things, for those things are superfluous and distracted from the main goal: war. As they learned fighting and sportsmen skills, they were closely watched by elders. The stronger ones were made leaders, and the weaker ones were told that they had to become stronger. Meals were skimpy and non-filling, however that was the intent. The goal in doing this was to force the boys to feed themselves. However, thieves who were caught were brutally pun- ished, usually by flogging. But, that was not the reason why getting caught was so feared and admonished. The Spartan boys were taught from a young age that they needed to protect their valor and honor above anything else. The source recounts a boy who stole a fox and hid it under
- 10. Adams !10 his tunic. It began to attack his bowels, and the boy eventually died. He would rather die than admit to stealing and lose his honor. The point of this style of upbringing was to raise a troop of excellent, well-disciplined fighting machines that could protect the Spartan state and keep the honor of the people as a whole. The goal of being raised together with all the other boys was to emphasize the fact that you are not special. You need to join together, get in line, and obey orders. Otherwise, you are not honorable and you like other things more than Spartan victory. In emphasizing only the qual- ities that would make the boys good fighters, many other qualities of life were forsaken. The boys could not enjoy writing and reading in the scholarly sense, as many Athenian boys had the pleasure of partaking. They also lost any real sense of a childhood. Their growing-up was charac- terized by scavenging for food and fighting to be the best, when childhood should be about play- ing with friends and not worrying about life. The boys lost their sense of boyhood; from the time they joined at age seven, they were indeed men of war. Alexander the Great Alexander the Great was perhaps one of the greatest military conquistadors ever to have walked the face of the earth. During his time, he was able to amass the largest empire ever seen up to that point in history, and only one (the Mongolian Empire) has since surpassed it. But what about Alexander as a man? He was an excellent leader. He worked extremely closely with his men, and his leadership style inspired many. But, there was a flaw. He could never have too much territory. He could never leave something unconquered. His love for fame and fortune eventually was what led to his and his empire’s demise.
- 11. Adams !11 Alexander’s relationships at first seemed to be alright. The source recounts when Philip passed on buying a horse because it was too unwieldy and uncontrollable. Alexander saw why the horse was behaving the way it was. He immediately trained the horse with grace. His father was moved to tears of joy. His son would make a great king someday. Immediately, Phillip had Aristotle begin tutoring Alexander. Alexander did excellent under Aristotle’s tutelage. He re- ceived high remarks for his thinking and learning. Alexander became extremely intelligent. Then, Phillip took another bride. There was some talk that he might have kids by her and make one of them his successor. Alexander couldn’t stand it. He wanted the throne that was rightly his. Phillip and Alexander got into a drunken disagreement, but, luckily for them, they were too inebriated to do anything rash. But, this starts the idea in Alexander’s mind that he must live a better life than that of his father, and conquer more. The rest of his life is spent trying to be better, but, in his mind, he never can be. This is why he pushes his troops as hard as he does. He wants to keep going through In- dia to prove to his (now deceased) father how great he is. Some striking phrases he proclaims to his men include that God Himself has set no limits on what they can do. Divine intervention has set them in a place where they can conquer as much as they want. He also makes the appeal that they have already gone very far, and there’s not that much left. If they just go a little bit further, they will have it all. He also makes the promise to them that they will receive fame, glory, and riches for making it all the way. They too, can be great if they follow him to the end. He also warns those who want to go back. Those who stay will be the envy of those who leave. You can stay and achieve excellence or you can leave with relatively little.
- 12. Adams !12 This speech coupled with Alexander’s style of leadership and his upbringing demand an answer to this question: is Alexander really great? Does he deserve the title that the history books have so graciously bestowed upon him? My first inclination is to look at the vast amounts of land that Alexander brought under one king. The amount of land and the diversity of the people is ab- solutely impressive. Based solely on his military exploits, it only seems right that Alexander de- serves the title of great. He’s attained what no one else previously had. Because of this, Alexan- der is Great. However, the mighty must fall, and in the same way, Alexander’s greatness does not come without limitations. Although history and many, many excellent men have attributed the title of great to Alexander, he will never be able to call himself great. His ambition is too much for him to actually be content with the massive empire that he has established. He will forever want more land, so that people will remember him as better than his father, and he will never re- alize that those people actually do.