|
|
Post by Dominique Martin on Nov 3, 2016 2:01:50 GMT
In book four Mithridates writes to Arsaces asking for an alliance. What's interesting about this though, is that Mithridates isn't just pleading or bargaining. He advises Arsaces, telling him to think about what is best and most honourable for Arsaces' people. He encourages Arsaces to make up his own mind and not make decisions off of other people's opinions. This is something that I think needs to be encouraged today. So often we are put under peer pressure or society'sstandards. Part of me really admires Mithridates because of this, but another part is wondering if this was just his way of gaining trust.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Nov 3, 2016 17:46:14 GMT
First and foremost, can we PLEASE stop moralizing and relating what we read to modern day? It is vitally important to focus on the texts and understand them on their own terms. Yes, the long-term goal is to better prepare ourselves for living in the the modern world, but it's unfair to compare these texts and their supposed morals to modern day . . . in fact, most of the time, such comparisons don't make sense at all, given the immense differences in time, place, context and contingencies which exist between the two situations.
Instead, I wonder if we can probe Mithridates' speech for something else: why does Sallust include this speech, that of a non-Roman, in his text? What can we learn about Roman history from it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dominique Martin on Nov 5, 2016 1:53:36 GMT
I think the significance of including Mithridates speech is that it reinforces Sallust's earlier point. That Rome is at a loss for virtue. Mithridates pretty much says that the Romans had no virtues and only wanted wealth and power. Because of their greed they started wars and lost many alliances. Were they not so greedy and had more for morals they probably could've achieved a lot more. Sallust is showing that Rome was so corrupt even other countries could recognize it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Nov 7, 2016 6:33:24 GMT
OK, pretty good: "Sallust is showing that Rome was so corrupt even other countries could recognize it."
the only weakness in this argument is that it assumes that other countries knew and cared about Romans' corruptions . . . probably they had an entirely different set of world-views than the Romans.
Don't you think it's odd that Sallust included a non-Roman in his text? And what is this bozo talking about . . . . forming an alliance against Rome? Why? What's so dangerous about Rome? There's something really big going on here: Mithridates is on the outside looking in, and even he can see it: Rome's nature as greedy and bellicose: "So dude! We better join hands in resisting Rome or we'll both suffer, because Rome won't stop conquering."
Pretty strong/admirable words from an enemy . . . no wonder Sallust included them! It also goes to show why Rome had so many enemies: when Rome's bellicosity wasn't starting wars, foreign nations were worried that they had to start a war with Rome in order to survive against Rome!
|
|
