Freedom Strike
|
IMDB rating: 3.30 Plot: National security is in jeopardy when terrorists seize an Iraqi nuclear reactor and threaten to attack American soil. Spearheaded by ace Tomcat pilots, the U.S. launches a surgical strike in a hell-for-leather effort to stop the assault. |
Actors: Dudikoff Michael,Loc Tone,Anthony Jay,Coster Nicolas,Karen James,Fairman Michael,Roman Frank,Harper Ron,Holland Sean,Van Patten James,Monroe Bill Langlois,Putch John,Kadi Nicholas,Drama,Action,
In Ancient Rome, would you have been pro-Caesar or pro-Senate?
OK–Let’s say you are a Senator in BC 44, in Rome.
You are an aristocrat with no familial ties to any of the major players at that time–Brutus, Cato, Cicero, Antony, etc. Your colleagues have informed you they are plotting against Caesar. They implore you to join, and they make a stirring argument about your "responsibility" to strike down tyrants and maintain the freedom and rule of law that make the empire so great. But Caesar has not been cruel as a dictator, and he is popular among the masses of plebian Romans.
What would you do? Warn Caesar, which will make you a snitch and hated by everyone, including Caesar himself perhaps? Or join in the conspiracy and get your stab on? Or just "call in sick", to the senate, or whatever they did back then? (the temporary easy way out, but you’ve probably be killed later on)
I would have sided with the Senate.
Chris S | Feb 05, 2010
Well, the point was that the Empire, strictly speaking, didn’t yet exist, and those senators who participated in the plot were hoping to maintain the Republic and restore the Senate’s powers. They didn’t want a dictatorial king or emperor, they didn’t want power concentrated in one person’s hands.
With that view I would have sympathized, without being able to approve of murder. I think I’d have to warn Caesar of the plot while at the same time warning him that the course he was following would probably get him killed in the end.
Not, I think, that anything I did or said would have ultimately have made any difference. Rome was pretty much inevitably on the path to becoming a monarchy again, in my view.
Lili | Feb 05, 2010
- Now the Romans really had no reason to conquer northern and central Europe; the people who lived there, the Germans and the Celts, were a tribal, semi-nomadic people. The province of Illycrium provided enough of a territorial buffer to defuse any threat from these people. But Julius embarked on a spectacular war of conquest anyway. In a series of fairly brilliant campaigns, Julius added a considerable amount of territory to the Roman Empire in northern France, Belgium, and even southern Great Britain, subjugating the Celts in all these territories. When he had finished his conquests, however, the Triumvirate had dissolved. Crassus had died in a war against the Parrhians in the Middle East, and Pompey had turned against Julius and had roused the Senate against him. The Senate declared Julius an enemy of the state and demanded that he hand over his generalship and province. Julius, however, decided on a different course of action. His troops were fiercely loyal to him; so in 49 BC, Caesar ordered his troops to cross the Rubicon River, which separated his province from Italy, thus committing a grave crime against the state. The Civil War started the minute the first of his legions had finished crossing the Rubicon.
Now the Romans really had no reason to conquer northern and central Europe; the people who lived there, the Germans and the Celts, were a tribal, semi-nomadic people. The province of Illycrium provided enough of a territorial buffer to defuse any threat from these people. But Julius embarked on a spectacular war of conquest anyway. In a series of fairly brilliant campaigns, Julius added a considerable amount of territory to the Roman Empire in northern France, Belgium, and even southern Great Britain, subjugating the Celts in all these territories. When he had finished his conquests, however, the Triumvirate had dissolved. Crassus had died in a war against the Parrhians in the Middle East, and Pompey had turned against Julius and had roused the Senate against him. The Senate declared Julius an enemy of the state and demanded that he hand over his generalship and province. Julius, however, decided on a different course of action. His troops were fiercely loyal to him; so in 49 BC, Caesar ordered his troops to cross the Rubicon River, which separated his province from Italy, thus committing a grave crime against the state. The Civil War started the minute the first of his legions had finished crossing the Rubicon.
The Historian, is back!… | Feb 05, 2010
Stick by Caesar. Simply because he restored order and expanded the Roman possessions- meaning he was good for the country.
not necessarily "snitch" to anyone. Just bring a sword- and a few friends- to the Senate.
I might also become a bit ambitious- like let caesar be killed and then kill his murderers on the spot… and then - reluctantly of course - accept a Consulship "for the good of the people and the preservation of the Republic"…
(… insert evil laugh here…)
cp_scipiom | Feb 05, 2010
I’d side with Caesar and warn him. The issue was not only personal self interest but the good of the country. The 1st century BCE republic was an outmoded detriment. It was designed for a small city state not the new Empire. As previous decades had shown, the voters were irresponsible and opted to protect their interests rather than deal justly with provincials, or even old allies. The social war erupted because Rome wouldn’t even grant full citizenship to its Latin allies. Proper government, hence stability, required an end to the republic and a more authoritarian system. The conspirators were pushing against the tide of history; they were attempting to keep a dinosaur alive when its disappearance was overdue. By 44 BCE the Republic was not only obsolete it was already dead. Ironically the assassination of Caesar proved that. Killing him didn’t restore the republic. Others like Octavian simply tried to replace Caesar. In the end, the Republic stayed dead and the line of emperors went on and on.
Tim D | Feb 05, 2010
