Must we destroy Carthage?

[Patroklus Murakami]

I've noticed for a while that Beathan uses the following signature line: 'As Cato ended every speech with, "Carthago delenda est," I end every post with "Repeal the Judiciary Act." ' and thought I'd google it just for the hell of it. I found an interesting reference [url=http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/p ... l:35qpeack]here[/url:35qpeack].

In summary, Cato was an obsessive Roman senator and elder statesman who ended every speech with "Carthago delenda est", meaning "Carthage must be destroyed." The motivation appears to have been Roman jealousy at Carthage's resurgence following the First and Second Punic Wars and a fear that, in the long-term, Carthage would be a threat to Rome. Cato was well-respected with a prestigious reputation in the 150s B.C.E. and his persistence (he repeated this phrase endlessly, even at dinner parties) wore people down over time.

In the end Cato got his wish (though Rome probably didn't go to war just to shut him up !) leading to the Third Punic War, described as "a brief, tawdry affair, unworthy of the heroism of the previous conflicts. If ever there was a war that could be called unnecessary, this one would qualify." The destruction of Carthage that ensued became legendary.

What's the point I'm making? I think I'll leave it up to people reading this to draw their own conclusions. There are many interpretations possible. But I think I have an idea for the theme for our next sim....

[Publius Crabgrass]

Is your point that Colonia Nova wasn't built in a day?

[Beathan]

Pat --

Yes, you have the reference right. However, to be fair, you probably should not limit your discussion to enemies of Rome in general and of Cato in particular. Cato was, it must be acknowledged, annoying in his single-mindedness. However, Carthage was a real danger to Rome -- and had risen from ruin to challenge Rome's very existence after its defeat in the first Punic war. The Third Punic War was a pre-emptive affair, but was motivated by Carthage's decision to rearm and attack one of its neighbors in violation of the Versailles-like treaty that ended the Second Punic War. It was no more unnecessary than a war fought by Britain under Chamberlain in defense of Czechoslavakia would have been. It was, however, as short and one-sided as such a war would have been in 1938. I think that history and millions of dead have fairly judged Chamberlain for his decision to take the high, hard road.

With regard to the Third Punic War, it gave Rome its empire. Africa and Spain were brought into the Roman fold through the war. Western civilization grew from these roots -- and could not have done so but for the unity of government under Rome funded by the wealth of the former Carthaginian states. I think that we must, to be fair, recognize the Third Punic War, taudry as it was in the event, to have been, nonetheless, one of the great achievements of Mankind in its consequences.

I note only that the Judiciary Act -- a bad idea carried out in a woeful manner by people who mean well but who should know better -- will be much more like Chamberlain's foreign policy than like Cato's. Eventually, we will move passed the Judiciary Act, repeal it, and set to work figuring out something better. That something better will be well-worth having. That something better is well-worth having right now.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Beathan":3bd1fa98]Pat --

Yes, you have the reference right. However, to be fair, you probably should not limit your discussion to enemies of Rome in general and of Cato in particular. Cato was, it must be acknowledged, annoying in his single-mindedness. However, Carthage was a real danger to Rome -- and had risen from ruin to challenge Rome's very existence after its defeat in the first Punic war. The Third Punic War was a pre-emptive affair, but was motivated by Carthage's decision to rearm and attack one of its neighbors in violation of the Versailles-like treaty that ended the Second Punic War. It was no more unnecessary than a war fought by Britain under Chamberlain in defense of Czechoslavakia would have been. It was, however, as short and one-sided as such a war would have been in 1938. I think that history and millions of dead have fairly judged Chamberlain for his decision to take the high, hard road.

With regard to the Third Punic War, it gave Rome its empire. Africa and Spain were brought into the Roman fold through the war. Western civilization grew from these roots -- and could not have done so but for the unity of government under Rome funded by the wealth of the former Carthaginian states. I think that we must, to be fair, recognize the Third Punic War, taudry as it was in the event, to have been, nonetheless, one of the great achievements of Mankind in its consequences.

I note only that the Judiciary Act -- a bad idea carried out in a woeful manner by people who mean well but who should know better -- will be much more like Chamberlain's foreign policy than like Cato's. Eventually, we will move passed the Judiciary Act, repeal it, and set to work figuring out something better. That something better will be well-worth having. That something better is well-worth having right now.

Beathan[/quote:3bd1fa98]Splendid oratory! But you won't be surprised to hear that I draw rather different conclusions from the story!

Must we destroy Carthage? No, let us seek peaceful coexistence, let us learn from our non-Roman neighbours, let us engage in trading goods and the exchange of ideas. (While maintaining the necessary arms to annihilate them if they ever *really* become a threat). Who knows, might history have turned out rather better if the Romans had taken a less martial tack?

[Beathan]

Why not? It worked for Chamberlain for a few months. The Barcar family all took oaths to work unceasingly for the destruction of Rome, but they may not have meant it. I'm all for peace in our time.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Beathan":wbb7uq6k]Why not? It worked for Chamberlain for a few months. I'm all for peace in our time.

Beathan[/quote:wbb7uq6k]Now, you really are Godwining the thread there . Are you seriously comparing your single minded determination to dismantle the Judiciary Act with the struggle against Hitler? And are you really comparing my defence of the decision of the Representative Assembly (after four months of intense discussion) with appeasement?

I assume that was a cheap, throwaway response and so won't be offended.

[Beathan]

It was a cheap throw-away, but I think that this thread as a whole is a cheap throw-away. After all, when before has a person's tagline deserved its own thread?

However, I am already on record with the test "What would Hitler do?" (Although, following Book, I should have asked "What would Milosevic do?")

Obviously, the stakes are very, very different (thank God). However, logic does not cease to apply, or apply differently, depending on stakes. Logic is abstract, as is prudence. All I am doing is applying prudential logic.

Beathan

[Fernando Book]

[quote="Beathan":1dzwgsv2]After all, when before has a person's tagline deserved its own thread? [/quote:1dzwgsv2]

Perhaps Ashcroft's, since his personal motto has became that of the Judiciary.

From the Code of Procedure draft. The same seal is in the low hall of the Pretorium.

[img:1dzwgsv2]http://neufreistadt.info/Code%20of%20Pr ... ddb9a5.png[/img:1dzwgsv2]

[Beathan]

Yeah --

But it seems that Ash does not mean it. After all, we are supposed to look to what Ash meant the Judiciary Act to say rather than what the Act actually says.

Personally, I like the Aristotlean motto. I also acknowledge that it is not as pointed and prickly as my tagline. That said, we must recognize that one of the major sources of heartburn in this community is that, although it claims to be impersonal, the judicial system sure has a lot of Ashcroft's personality in it.

Beathan