Viewing Thread:
"Who's your favourite historical figure? Here's mine"

Once more, I find myself reasonably bored. So, in the interests of keeping me sane, I'm going to tell you a story...

This is the story of the Poor Oppressed Victim and the Big Bad Roman Emperor. Just to somewhat confuse matters, they're both the same person. Tiberius (or to give him his full name, Tiberius Claudius Nero; bit of a mouthful...) gets something of a s****y deal in the history books. He's now known (when remembered at all) as an Olympic standard sexual pervert and sadist. And I suppose there's a grain of truth in that, but in the interest of striking a blow (or taking a blow; any offers? Any at all?) for historical fairness and showing off, it seems only right to give the opposing view. And besides, with luck you'll find it entertaining.

So, Tiberius was born in 42 BC to Claudius Nero and Livia, a stultifyingly awful woman and poisoner extraordinaire. In attitude, she wasn't a million miles away from her namesake in The Soprano's. He was born in what would politely be called interesting times, and realistically called incredibly scary times. Three gentlemen named Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had just finished using the Roman Republic as the battleground for settling their long running game of one-upmanship (it was really rather silly;
"Caesar, the noble Pompey has conquered the Greeks and Armenians!"
"Hah! I'll see those countries, and raise him...conquering Gaul and the Britons! How d'you like THEM apples? What say you Crassus? Crassus? Oh...some Syrians seem to have rinsed his mouth out with molten gold...").

Unfortunately, 3 other chaps named Octavian (or Augustus), Lepidus, and Antony enjoyed the game so much that they carried it on. Rome degenerated into a bloodbath, with high society and the foremost Roman Citizens being especially at risk from the mob (it was sort of like the prototype version "I'm a Celebrity; Get Me Out of Here!", with rather more worrying penalties than putting ones hand in a box of centipedes).

Each side attracted supporters, and each side took great pains to cause great pain to the other team. Unsurprisingly, living out the first years of ones life in constant fear of being A: Brutally murdered by the nobles of Rome, B: Brutally murdered by the people of Rome, or C: Being handed over by ones own mother to be brutally murdered instead of her, had rather an adverse effect on the young man. He became quiet, sullen, and surly; think of Kevin the Teenager in a toga and you've got the right idea.

Livia, being wonderfully devious, not only ended up on the winning side of the Roman Civil War, she married the captain of the winning team, the Emperor Augustus (aka. the bad guy from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra). Tiberius was now the Emperors stepson. Huzzah for him, you may think; time to relax, to try (and fail) to build up a wine cellar. However, there's nothing like not knowing whether today will be the last day of your life to put a total dampener on ones celebratory mood. Tiberius wanted a peaceful life out of the public eye and (more importantly) the public lynch mob. He had married a lady named Vipsania, to whom he was devoted, and was spending much of his time studying Greek mythology and literature. If, he reasoned, he made it clear that he had no ambitions beyond academia and raising a family, he'd finally be safe from the assassin's knife.

And if he had a mother who didn't make Margaret Thatcher look like Snow White, he may have been allowed to do so. Livia wasn't satisfied with being the Cherie to Augustus' Tony. She wanted to be the Hilary to his Bill. And she wanted to start a dynasty of Emperors that would guarantee her immortality (literally; she wanted to be made a Goddess in the Roman religion. Not even Thatcher ever went that far...). Guess who her only child was? Yup. So, despite the fact that she and her confidants had used him as the butt of insult after insult during his life, Tiberius found himself being used by his mother as a means to an end for the next 30 years.

Firstly, he was forced to divorce his beloved Vipsania and marry his stepsister Julia (of whom historical records show that she was the first person to have been the subject of the comment "I wouldn't say she was easy, but she had a mattress strapped to her back"). Then he was dragged from his books, and signed up to the army. On the plus side, his elevated status meant he commanded armies rather than fighting in the front line. On the minus side, he had to fight the inhabitants of the Balkans.

In what was an eerie foretaste of every century to come, the people of the Balkans were doing their very best to kill anyone and everyone who wasn't a member of their tribe. Tiberius showed himself to be a superb military commander via the medium of annihilating anyone who crossed them (though curiously, Tiberius' army was once trapped in a valley, and the enemy commander allowed him to withdraw instead of ambushing and destroying the Roman army. I rather thought that was the point of warfare...). However, in deference to the fact that Tiberius did NOT want to be there, he was a strict general who was harsh with his troops. "Let them fear me, so long as they obey me" was his maxim.

Meanwhile, back in Rome, Livia was keeping herself busy. Tiberius' stepbrothers, stepsisters, and anyone else who could be a rival claimant to the Empire succumbed one by one to the numerous cheese and arsenic parties thrown by the evil queen. Thanks to Livia, some were poisoned, some were starved to death, some were exiled, and still others were just plain, old fashioned murdered. The upper classes of Rome were slowly thinned out, and it was all done in the name of making Tiberius the Emperor.

He returned to Rome in the midst of this, where the plots and machinations resembled an Eastenders storyline with additional orgies and murders. He loathed Julia (apparently, he felt that the woman one returns home to shouldn't have vaginal scars and rectal stretchmarks...). He was also afraid for his life; Livia was not the only powerful person who wanted a specific candidate installed as Emperor. With the dark and fearful memories of his childhood still haunting him, the last thing Tiberius wanted was to be put in a position where he was the target for ambitious men.

So he asked Augustus for permission to retire from public life to Rhodes, where he intended to devote the rest of his life to books and studies. Augustus, who had never really like his grim-faced stepson (he used to make jokes about Tiberius' slow chewing movement; I suppose if the Emperor makes a joke then everyone finds it funny) was only too happy to send him away from Rome. Livia, naturally, was furious at this uncharacteristic show of defiance. As a petty revenge, she spread stories about Tiberius' supposed sexual perversions (just how bad does one have to behave to be considered a pervert in a society where orgies were a social occasion?!).

Rhodes didn't provide the sanctuary the Tiberius had hoped. He still feared for his life; now that he was out of the public eye he could be easily disposed of. And he found that the Greeks poked fun at him and his dour manner. After a few years of unhappy retirement, he returned to Rome and public life, a rather more bitter man than he had been when he left.

By this time, Tiberius was the only realistic heir to Augustus. Sensing this, Livia poisoned Augustus (he was ready for her and only ate food he prepared himself; she however was ready for him and poisoned some figs whilst they were still on the tree. What a cow, eh?) and had Tiberius installed as Emperor. He became the one of the few people to receive supreme power who didn't want it. However, he had spent a lifetime acquiring grudges against those who made fun of him, those who questioned his intellect, and those who had looked at him in a bit of a funny way. He was to be Emperor for 23 years, and by the time he died, not one of those people whom he bore a grudge against had died of natural causes.

At first, he was a slave to Livia's will. He was Emperor, but she ruled. Gradually however, he weaned himself away from her control, and by the time of her death he was pretty much his own man. Although he never felt entirely safe at Rome, he began to appreciate the benefits of power. He also developed a rather fun sense of humour. He delivered every speech and every statement in a deadpan manner, but would intersperse them with surreal and bizarre jokes. No one was ever sure whether he was joking or serious, and people were afraid to do laugh in case it was the latter. . I always imagine him to be a bit like Jack Dee at this point. Well, Jack Dee with the power of life and death over millions anyway. Okay...so maybe it's just me that appreciates his sense of humour! He, however, found their uncertainty and subsequent insecurity hilarious .

In all of this time, the Empire remained secure and stable. He was a fair Emperor to the people (he castigated any governors who set their taxes too high), though the whispers and rumours started by Livia et al never really died away. After 12 years of his reign, he decided to go on a little holiday to the island of Capri. He never came back to Rome for the remaining 11 years he was Emperor. He felt completely secure on his island, and so in the lap of luxury and with absolute power at his disposal, he began to enjoy himself.

I don't doubt that some of the enjoyment was gained from shagging anything with a pulse. By this time, Vipsania had died and he felt no need to restrain himself. He also harboured a hatred of the Empire itself. He never wanted it, and it had ruined his life. But by the same token, it allowed him to get revenge on those who had wronged him (you wouldn't have liked to have been the Greek scholar who had insulted Tiberius back in Rhodes...) and it afforded him a measure of security.

That said, his paranoia was still ever present; a fisherman surprised him on Caprii with a huge fish that he had caught and wanted to present to the Emperor. Tiberius had him beaten with it (inspiration for Monty Python's 'Fish Dance'?), jabbed and poked with crab claws, then threw him off a cliff. All in all, he was not a man to get on the wrong side of.

When he died in 37 AD, he was a mess of contradictions. The paranoia that haunted him from his childhood was now being inflicted on others in the form of treason trials, which saw many innocent people die. He wanted desperately to be a good person, but the disappointments of his life led him to become bitter and twisted; he cheerfully had his own son starved to death, allowed two thugs (Sejanus and Macro) to rule on his behalf. Above all, he hated Rome and it's people. By this time his maxim was "Let them hate me, so long as they obey me". His final revenge on Rome was to adopt the fiercely insane Gaius Caligula as his heir. He said that he was nursing a viper for the bosom of Rome. Caligula's time as Emperor is legendary for it's cruelty and barbarity.

But still, I find myself pitying Tiberius. He wanted a quiet life and because he didn't get it, he made damn sure that no one else did either. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make him a beast. It makes him endearingly human.

And thus concludes probably the most whistle-stop treatment that the life of Tiberius has ever been treated too. Now what do I do to stave off boredom?!

Belldandy wrote:

> Yada yada. You seek to excuse terrorist actions as justified because
> of legal actions taken against them.

Exactly when did I 'excuse terrorist actions'? Please explain.

unknown kernel wrote:
> A nice story, but not quite accurate. The US didn't just leave the
> Taliban alone, it was showering the regime with gifts. In May 2001
> the Bush administation gave the Taliban 43 million dollars - hardly a
> pocketful of loose change - as a reward for paying lip service to the
> American 'war on drugs'. And, yes, Bin Laden was enjoying the famed
> Taliban hospitality at the time; and, yes, all those human rights
> abuses we liberated the Afghans from were ongoing at the time. Was
> giving a brutal regime $43 million (not to mention the rest of the
> 'aid packages') leaving it alone? Or was it offering succour to the
> very people we were told to hate six months down the line?

So, whilst accurate, this anti war account falls down on one thing, lack of alternative options. Say we didnt throw in our lot with the Northern Alliance, instead we deploy tonnes of ground troops ourselves, would that please you ? The NA we're the only resistance to the Taliban that could hurt them, and they were willing allies. So what if the Taliban received aid ? How is that relevant to attacking them ? It isn't, just a fact. I mean, you don't like attacking them, you don't like giving money to them, you don't like leaving them alone, what do you suggest, surrender to them ? Iraq was once our ally, but not now. Things change. Human rights abuses are still occuring, but they aren't as bad as before, you cannot deny it is a change for the better.


> And 'never again'? Please. Remember how Islamic fundamentalism
> gained such a foothold in South Asia? That flawed idea of 'my enemy's
> enemy is my friend': the jihadists hated the Russians, therefore they
> were good and we gave them arms; then they hated us, and they were bad
> and we killed them.

Again, allies change, Germany was once our enemy, but now partners us in NATO, chaging times mean changing alliances.

>No, of course we didn't: they
> hated Bin Laden and that was enough for us.

Damn right it was. After 9/11 the priority was to destroy Al Queda and the Taliban, as fast as possible, the NA were in the right place, at the right time, now that mission is past halfay the priorities can switch to aiding Afghanistan return to a sense of normality, bit by bit.

>And the situation in Iraq
> is the same: a clique of ex-military defectors - whose only beef with
> Saddam is that they are not Saddam themselves - jockeying for the
> position of US annointed post-Saddam dictator. Who knows which of
> these unholy alliances will blow up in our faces in ten years time?

No one, but faced with mounting evidence that the current situation could blow in our faces a lot sooner it is far better to remove Saddam. I do wish you'd share your crystal ball with others..... no one can predict the future with certainty. Had it not been for 19 men, then Al Queda would still have a hold on Afghanistan, and history would be different. No one saw that coming BUT there were plenty in the US, and Europe, who prevented eliminating key players, and Osama himself, at certain times in the past, under the guise of anti war sentiment. Well look where its led us.

> All I know is that at some point there will be some blowback, and the
> ones who bear the brunt of it will be the same ordinary people -
> Americans, Afghans, Kenyans, Balinese - who are suffering the
> consequences now. The sainted Dubya will be safely ensconsed in his
> bunker.

Yada yada. You seek to excuse terrorist actions as justified because of legal actions taken against them. Terrorists have no justification except in their screwed little minds. Those who will bear the brunt will be the terrorists and those countries who support and aid them. As I've noted, the switch to targeting peripheral targets shows the pressure these groups are feeling, targeting Western cities/instalations has suddenly gotten hard, as the arrests of tens of cells across the world prove. The only way to win this war is not appeasement, or changing policies in the face of terror, but total destruction of terrorism. Sure, you can say if we kill one terrorist we inspire two more. Fine, we'll take them out as well, and we'l carry on until they stop, because anything else is pure surrender.

~~Belldandy~~

Belldandy wrote:

> Iraq is important because we left the Taliban and Al Queda until
> they hit us badly. We left them alon, by and large. Never again.

A nice story, but not quite accurate. The US didn't just leave the Taliban alone, it was showering the regime with gifts. In May 2001 the Bush administation gave the Taliban 43 million dollars - hardly a pocketful of loose change - as a reward for paying lip service to the American 'war on drugs'. And, yes, Bin Laden was enjoying the famed Taliban hospitality at the time; and, yes, all those human rights abuses we liberated the Afghans from were ongoing at the time. Was giving a brutal regime $43 million (not to mention the rest of the 'aid packages') leaving it alone? Or was it offering succour to the very people we were told to hate six months down the line?

And 'never again'? Please. Remember how Islamic fundamentalism gained such a foothold in South Asia? That flawed idea of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend': the jihadists hated the Russians, therefore they were good and we gave them arms; then they hated us, and they were bad and we killed them. Did we take into account the brutal record of the Northern Alliance before we jumped into bed with them? Did we remember that they had raped and pillaged with such impunity that Afghans at first welcomed the Taliban? No, of course we didn't: they hated Bin Laden and that was enough for us. And the situation in Iraq is the same: a clique of ex-military defectors - whose only beef with Saddam is that they are not Saddam themselves - jockeying for the position of US annointed post-Saddam dictator. Who knows which of these unholy alliances will blow up in our faces in ten years time?

All I know is that at some point there will be some blowback, and the ones who bear the brunt of it will be the same ordinary people - Americans, Afghans, Kenyans, Balinese - who are suffering the consequences now. The sainted Dubya will be safely ensconsed in his bunker.

Unbeliever wrote:
> A couple of brief points:
>
> 1) If the USA are not after oil, why did they blueprint plans for a
> massive pipeline through Afghanistan BEFORE they attacked it on the
> "war against terrorism"

Think you'll find a coalition attacked actually, and that the plans existed before but could never be used because the Taliban/Al Queda threat. A pipeline will bring money, and greater independence for Afghanistan.

> 2) Would there have been a gulf war if Kuwait was rich in turnips? I
> doubt it...

I agree with you, Saddam would never had invaded would he, because he was after oil as well....which you've conveniently forgotten.

> It looks like Bush Jnr want to carry on his father's legacy of
> starting wars left, right and centre. Why attack Iraq when the war
> against the Taliban hasn't been concluded?

The conventional war is concluded. They have no country, no government, their resources are under threat and destroyed, thousands are dead, hundreds more in captivity, they are reduced to attacking peripheral targets such as Bali, and those in Kenya. The war is being won. Iraq is important because we left the Taliban and Al Queda until they hit us badly. We left them alon, by and large. Never again.

In addition, this weekend the Whitehouse has again made clear the response that will meet ANY use of a weapon of mass destruction against the Unisted States and her key allies - total overwhelming ahnilation up to and including tactical nuclear weapons. rIraq, on conventional weapons, cannot match an allied force. WMD's could give Saddam an edge if he is given the chance to use them, and this will result in wholesale destruction of Iraq and it's population. I don't want that, no one does, which is why I'd much rather see the threat removed now, and as surgically as possible, rather than waiting until the next 9/11 style attack.

And, as a matter of point, it was not the previous President Bush which left the war in the Gulf unfinished, but the UN, who forbade allied forces to make the final push into Iraq - a task that would have been stupidly easy to do with the Iraqi army nearly decimated with the exception of elite units.

~~Belldandy~~

Amen Brother.

Men afraid to see mates in case their woman gives them stick. Men not playing video games and instead watching soaps for a "quiet life"

Balls.
This isn't women-hating, despite my "witches" comment. This is me standing up and saying "No more".
We're emasculated, feeble caricatures of males. You see us in miserable herds in department stores seeking out each other's downcast eyes and giving that nod all men understand.
You see us gathered in groups, smoking or looking in electronic shop windows as our "better halves" go into Dorothy Perkins.
But when we go into a games shop or HMV? Within 2 mins they're by your side saying "Found what you wanted?" when you only wanted to look.

Pathetic.
Take back your balls and be proud of being male.

Couldn't agree more. A mate of mine recently ditched the bit... er other half and lo and behold he's now talking about going to Ibiza for Christmas. When he was a couple he wasn't allowed to go out with male friends and he'd even come down to my home town (when I was there) and not tell me he was around. So he'd be down for a week and would not see his so called bestest pal. Instead he did what SHE told him to do. Wuss.

Now he can see the error of his ways and he's looking to get back with the real men, who don't let a girl dominate your life so pathetically.

Girl's ideas are always wrong, flawed or boring as history proves. We invent television they come up with Take a break, we invent the combustion engine they come up with Bella.

And they have the audacity to call us stupid. Surely they must realise that they would never get to watch their precious soaps if man hadn't been so resourceful and intelligent.

If they didn't have bajapppas, I'd have nothing to do with them.

Because all women are evil witches and most blokes these days are emasculated freaks too scared to act in the natural, genetically programmed manner in which we should?

Poke this "sensitive new-age man" fairy-tale down the drain along with your "Women are From Pluto and Men are from Sperm" books and "Bridget Jones' rampant stereotypes"

I'm reclaiming Male Pride back from the simpering cluthes of pathetic "New Man" types.
I like meat. I like fire. I like a woman with no clothes on. I like my mates and video games. I like watching porno movies. I like smoking.
You can tut-tut and shake your head, that's cool.

Just don't glance wistfully as this unreconstructed male as your fella brings you home a poem he wrote before discussing the horrors of women's rights in the 1990's.
I won't listen because I'll be bashing the crap out of my drums, smoking my cigarettes and acting exactly as intended by male dominant genetic programming.

Men rule.
Deal with it

*thumps chest, tears off t-shirt and howls at the moon*

Insane Bartender wrote:

> because we're both smutty reprobates?

shesh MEN!

:p

Rosalind wrote:
> Why does a conversation with you to always turn into Women bashing of
> some form :S

because we're both smutty reprobates?

SHEEPY wrote:
> i expect my
> dinner on the table when I get back

I'm good at theat bit :D

I love cooking for my lovely Ogre