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?!

Goatboy wrote:
> Boedicia

She lead her people into a massive trap where they were all slaughtered. Sure she managed to gain control of a few towns, but she didn't keep them, or her life for very long after that. She never had any chance, she was just on a revenge mission for the raping and killing of many of her people. But she took it way to far by getting the rest killed of too.

well thats what i think anyway.

Just read the post on the cigar chomping cowboy Bush and I have to agree with Light here - Bush has no conception of what he's doing. He's usually advised what to say by people behind the "public eye".

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"

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

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?

I could go on, but I've got a feeling that people are going to argue like hell over this. Well, that's good. Other opinions are always good.

Boedicia

A woman, English and a scrapper.
Bet she was a hairy lezza though

In times of peace prepare for war, in times of war prepare for peace.

A quote to be echoed by the Romans some 500 years later, when they coined "Si vis pacem para bellum" - If you want peace, prepare for war.

The Art of War did incredible things to Japan, as the Daimyo's of the time studied it religiously in efforts to take control of the country. The fact that all of the Daimyo's did so, rather than just one, led to a fierce period of civil war.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> My favorite historical person is Sun-Tzu, author of the Art of War, a
> man who decided that there was more to war than mindlessly hurling
> bodies onto the battlefield.

"When preparing for peace, plan for war. When perparing for war, plan for peace"

Or words to that effect. My dad gave me a copy of "The Art of War" about 6 months ago, and I found it to be riveting.

My favorite historical person is Sun-Tzu, author of the Art of War, a man who decided that there was more to war than mindlessly hurling bodies onto the battlefield.

Belldandy wrote:
> S*d it;
>
> *Star Wars - still in development, and unless you have the clearance
> then I doubt you know the full details of it, and some tests have been
> successful.

Then....neither do you? Do you?

>Why the hell are you against a potential weapons system
> that could prevent nuclear war ? Or are you one of these "it'll
> start a new cold war" idiots ? Deterring nuclear missiles wil not
> remove the threat, or lead to proliferation.

Here's why;

Ahhh, Dubya! He’s like a kid with a new toy sometimes. I refer to Dubya's Son of Star Wars initiative that he's so very keen on. From what I understand of it, the idea is to develop a national shield against ballistic missiles by the use of a network of better and faster missiles. If we discount for a moment the fact that he's a Texan and therefore loves guns and weapons of all kinds, we can examine whether or not it could actually be a good idea.

We have been living in the shadow of nuclear weapons to a greater or lesser degree since the end of WWII. One would have thought that something that reduces this threat would have been welcomed with open arms. Instead, it has been greeted with a reaction bordering on the use of arms. The best reaction has been from the UK and Canada who have given very diplomatic responses along the lines of "Thank you for consulting with us about it, and seeing as whatever we say isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to what you're going to do, we may as well try and stay on your good side".

Since the idea was first mooted, Dubya has done his best to sweeten the pill somewhat. He has promised that he will cut the US stockpile of nuclear weapons, and has hinted that the defence system would not just cover America, but it's allies as well. He has also, however, disregarded the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, which is the basis of many of the major arms control treaties since then. It banned the use of defensive systems, thus establishing a balance of sorts (i.e. No-one would start a nuclear war as nobody could hope to win it). If he ignores the treaty, then why should any other nation pay attention to it? Could this lead to all of the other nuclear nations (Russia, China, and India) not aligned with the US to try and increase their nuclear capabilities?

There seem to be two points of view here; there is the view that the development of a defence against nuclear missiles is a very good thing (this is the view of America). Then we have the view that it is very much not a good idea for one nation to have a defence against it when no one else does (the view of the rest of the world).

So what do we make of each argument? As I am hardly Dubya's biggest fan, I'm sure you'll have a rough idea of what I think of all this. However, as nuclear war is one of my biggest bugbears then I feel I owe this issue a fair hearing.

Firstly we have the American point of view. The line of thinking seems to be that the safety of their citizens is paramount. This is a laudable motivation, of that there can be little doubt. However, it is not a particularly far-seeing or well thought out idea. With a defensive shield, the American public need never worry again about a nuclear attack by a hostile nation. However, despite what a large number of Americans might think, there is a world outside of the US and they are rather upset at the idea that another country could deploy a weapon of mass destruction against them without the satisfying knowledge that vast numbers of Americans will also die in a blaze of nuclear fire.

It is rather high minded of the Dubya administration to assume that they have the right to create a worldwide problem in order to alleviate a domestic one. And if we think about it a little more, one has to wonder whether it does actually address the main threat to America, and whether it is actually creating more problems than it solves. Firstly, is there actually a danger of an ICBM based nuclear attack on the US? Russia has it's own problems and there has also been doubts raised as to the maintenance of their missiles. They can hardly launch an attack when they'd have to fire their missiles using catapults. China has never struck me as an impetuous sort of nation, so the odds of them attempting to launch a surprise attack on America are low at best.

Certain elements of US intelligence and military already acknowledge that the biggest threat to national security comes from multi national terrorist groups (like multi national supermarkets with Semtex) and cyber terrorism. Neither of these are likely to be launching missiles soon. The former is feared for the possibility that they will use "suitcase bombs" (portable bombs carried by individuals; they can carry nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry) and the latter because they have the power to paralyse the US computer networks. The Son of Star Wars offers no protection from these threats.

Moreover, if we look at the views of the rest of the world, we can see that it has the potential to create far more dangerous problems for the rest of us. If one powerful nation has the ability to destroy another with minimal fear of reprisal, how long will it take for America to start and impose its will on the rest of us? Hollywood has already done more than it's fair share to educate us that America is the best damn country in the world (they won the second world war you know, and they captured the Enigma machine). It is quite natural for people to think that if their way is the best, it is right. Therefore everybody who holds a different view is wrong. Could anyone imagine what it would have been like during the Spy Plane crisis if the missile defence shield had been in place? Would the US have been quite so conciliatory?

Also, Dubya has hinted that America's allies will also receive the benefit. This is a curious statement, and it is one that puts me in mind of The Godfather offering protection to those who promise to somehow further his own aims. Are we going to be getting this free of charge? Or are we going to have to jump to whatever tune the US government decides to play? (Not that that's a new situation for we Brits; Kyoto treaty anyone?)

Under a more benevolent leader, perhaps the objections wouldn't have been quite so great. But Dubya (perhaps through no fault of his own) has a reputation as a leader who does not pay any attention to the wishes of others. Thus far, he has been very single-minded about pursuing his policies (the only real setback he has suffered has been the derailment of his plans to provide a funding boost for evangelical church educational programs) and he has only made any pretence of modifying policy when he needs to tread carefully. He's hardly going to worry about upsetting Europe, Asia, or anywhere else in the world if he knows that we can be railroaded into agreeing with US policy due to fear. Maybe I am being a little paranoid, but anyone who has studied history will see time and time again that a position of absolute power does indeed corrupt. The missile defence would give America that absolute power. I think perhaps we should stop looking at Dubya as an ignorant hillbilly and perhaps give some thought to just where he is leading not just America, but all of us.



>
> *Bush - you're a moron if you think he wants to grab the oil for
> America, do you have ANY understnading of the Middle East ? I can just
> see the few allies we have there really loving it if that was the aim
> ! Which it isn't. If Iraq did not have oil there would be no problem,
> we'd leave him alone, but Iraq has oil, which makes it a threat. I'm
> assuming you know why this is.

Heh. Ahh, Belldandy; so desperate to throw people off the scent of how empty your arguments are that you'll resort to pretty much any level of insult. What you've done there is made a statement - "He's not after the oil and if you think he is you're a moron" - and failed to back it up. You're very clearly hoping I'll leap straight in with the "I'm no moron! etc etc" line that you seem to have a real need to provoke in people. And thus, I'd miss the fact that YOU HAVEN'T COME UP WITH ANY ARGUMENT AS TO WHY IT'S NOT ABOUT THE OIL. Do you see?

I, however, am happy to say that the recent economic troubles that have beset all world markets have led all major economic powers to seek a shot in the arm. We were reasonably sensible; aiding the Govt in Sierra Leone has given us a share of the Diamond mines there. The oil spivs of America are less subtle. And if Saddam is the threat, who was it who ordered the Sept 11th attack? (Please note: Before you wade in with more "You're an idiot! USA!! Ra-ra-ra!" irrelevancies, the CIA have gone on record as saying that there is no provable link between Saddam and Al-Quaida)



>
> *Due process - still stand by that. Who cares what nationality they
> were, they were terrorists first and foremost ? Of course if you care
> about terrorists then go ahead.

*L* Yes, it's the patented Belldandy "If you don't agree with what I say 100% then clearly you want terrorists to bomb everywhere with impunity!". Suddenly it becomes clear why Dubya, that tower of intellect, is one of your heroes.

The reason terrorists are terrorists is because they do things such as plant car bombs or blow people up (pay attention here as it gets complex) WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF A NATIONS LAW. Which is exactly what America did in this instance. Do you see? Or will you be too busy thinking of ways to call me a moron to respond?

Seriously Belldandy, people like you with their Manichean sensibilities and supernatural ability to stick their fingers in their ears whilst yelling "La la la I'm not listening. You're an idiot for disagreeing with me" are the wet dream of Al-Quaida, Dubya, and any others who want to polarise the worlds opinion into right and wrong.

Have a nice day

Light

One of my favourite historical figures is Gandhi. "What do you think of western civilization?" "I think it would be a good idea." Best put down ever.

I also like Ho Chi Minh, Abraham Lincoln, Kwame Nkrumah, Odysseus (even though he wasn't real), Herodotus (who was) and all the nameless revolutionaries who saw off imperialism once, and will do so again.

S*d it;

*Star Wars - still in development, and unless you have the clearance then I doubt you know the full details of it, and some tests have been successful. Why the hell are you against a potential weapons system that could prevent nuclear war ? Or are you one of these "it'll start a new cold war" idiots ? Deterring nuclear missiles wil not remove the threat, or lead to proliferation.

*Bush - you're a moron if you think he wants to grab the oil for America, do you have ANY understnading of the Middle East ? I can just see the few allies we have there really loving it if that was the aim ! Which it isn't. If Iraq did not have oil there would be no problem, we'd leave him alone, but Iraq has oil, which makes it a threat. I'm assuming you know why this is.

*Due process - still stand by that. Who cares what nationality they were, they were terrorists first and foremost ? Of course if you care about terrorists then go ahead.

Cheers.

~~Belldandy~~

As much as I'd like to correct you, I really can't be bothered Light, so just post what you want eh ? Lifes too short to argue this endlessly.

~~Belldandy~~