Open Letter To Scott Brown

Congratulations on an incredible, not to mention improbable, victory. There's always a Republican on the ballot in places like Massachusetts, or here in San Francisco, but 99% of the time, he's nothing more than a quixotic hobbyist taking on an entrenched machine. In football, they like to say that any team can win on any given Sunday, but sadly it doesn't work that way in much of American political life. That's why your victory is so satisfying, especially for those of us who live in places where voting Republican is a thankless endeavor. For all that, though, I only have two words for you:

"Earn this!"

There are a lot of people in your state who broke with years, if not decades, of voting patterns that engrained them with the idea that voting for Democrats, and especially Kennedies, was as much a part of Massachusetts as rooting for the Red Sox. You need to show those people - there are thousands - that voting for a Republican is not a vote for Tom Delay-style corruption.

"Earn This!"

Don't fall in with the prima donnas like Lindsay Graham, looking for an opportunity to preen for the NY Times editorial board by denouncing the bedrock principles of your own party. I know you're from Massachusetts, so no one's expecting you to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. We can forgive the occasional pro-choice vote, and the like. But, there are some things that are off limits: no denouncing judicial nominees from your own party, no tears over "torture," no card check, no stimulus, no Keynsian deficits, and no amnesty.

"Earn This!"

The eyes of the political world will be on you for the next couple weeks, so watch what you say. That means no Birther crap. No "jokes." And, no musing out loud about bizarre proposals like, say, putting poor kids into orphanages

"Earn This!"

On a personal level, this is no time for partying or a mid-life crisis. Don't go on any walks along the Appalachian Trail. Don't hang out at bars without your wife. Don't go to David Vitter's place to "hang out." We will find out faster than you realize. You ran for a seat in the Senate. There will be a lot of people watching, and some of them will be watching only because they want to see you fall. Don't give them the rope with which to hang you.

"Earn This!"

Most of all, don't get too comfortable. The man you are replacing held your seat for 47 years, through a combination of incumbency, family ties, and his own brio. You are already facing another election in 2012. Don't think that the voters will go back to lazily re-electing incumbents by then. The defining characteristic of American politics in the early 21st century is engagement. We may live in a fractured media environment, but voters are keenly aware of what their political leaders are up to; much more so than I can remember 15 or 20 years ago. There's not too many places where you can hide in public life, which means you will have to be a better man than the one you are replacing.

"Earn This!"

Plutarch's Lives: Aemilius Paulus

Plutarch is effusive in his praise of Aemilius Paulus, comparing him favorably with the great Timoleon. Reading about Aemilius, it is hard to see what Plutarch is so excited about. He did not resolve any great controversies. He made no great speeches. His personality does not shine through as do others in Plutarch's Lives. However, Aemilus' achievements on the battlefield were great. He won wars in Spain and in the Alps. Most important, he led the Roman conquest of Macedonia, which solidified Rome's status as the Great Power of the ancient world (and gave it access to the wealth of Greece). Clearly, this is what excited Plutarch's admiration, but Aemilius did not win this war so much as he successfully exploited the many mistakes of his adversaries. Really, Aemilius' greatness lay not in himself, but what he represented: the Roman Republic (not the Empire!) during its rise to glory, when it was as much a liberator as it was a conqueror. In fact, Plutarch spends as much time describing Roman military tactics, and Roman social customs (especially that of the Triumph) as he does describing Aemilius' life.

Aemilius was born into a family that claimed to be decended from Pythagoras. One of his ancestors was Lucius Paulus, probably the only Roman who emerged from the Battle of Canae with his reputation intact. Aemilius' father was Scipio the Great. With such a family heritage, Aemilius was destined for some sort of leadership role in Roman life. He entered public life as an aedile. Soon after, he also became an augur, a priest expert in the interpretation of migratory birds. As was discussed in the life of Numa, Roman religion was as much a science as it was a matter of faith, and Aemilius took his religious studies very seriously. All the while, he was also rising through the ranks of the Roman army where he took to the discipline and rigor of army life as much as he took to the austerity of the priestly life.

Aemilius married twice, in the meantime. With his first wife he had two sons who continued the family's run of greatness: Scipio the Younger and Fabius Maximus. When Aemilius divorced their mother they were both adopted into other noble families (Scipio by Scipio Africanus, of course). Aemilius had more children with his second wife, but none were as accomplished as the sons he gave up for adoption.

Aemilius made his reputation as a military leader during a war in Spain. At that time, the Romans were fighting a larger war in Syria against Antiochus the Great when barbarians (Gauls, I assume) invaded Spain and quickly conquered it. Aemilius fought two battles against the invaders, defeating them both times and killing 30,000. According to Plutarch, the Spanish were so greatful, they willingly swore oaths of peace and fidelity to Rome, thus becoming a province of Rome.

Aemilius next fought and won a war against the Ligurians, an Alpine people who lived in the northermost parts of Italy. The Romans had fought wars against the Ligurians in the past, but had always left their cities and fortifications intact because their location and war-like nature made them a good buffer between the barbarians to the north and the Roman lands to the south. This time, things ended differently. Although outnumbered 5 to 1, Aemilius defeated the Ligurians in battle. Either through this defeat or through Aemilius' skillful diplomacy, the Ligurians seemed to have realized that the days of fighting the Romans as equals were coming to an end. They delivered their navy and fortifications to the Romans for destruction and swore oaths of loyalty to the Romans.

Despite these triumphs, Aemilius' career went into temporary eclipse. Although he stood for consul, he was not successful. He retreated to his religious studies and dedicated himself to the education of his children. Aemilius came back to public life after the Romans had fought a long war against the Macedonian king Perseus. Macedon was, of course, not the same nation it had been under Philip and Alexander. In fact, the Romans had routed Perseus' father in battle and freed much of Greece from Macedon's grip. Still, Macedon remained a wealthy nation with a large military and proud heritage. Perseus was hardly an admirable figure. He was mercurical and craven. While known as a warrior, he was not particularly resolute in battle. Nonetheless he had defeated three Roman armies sent to conquor Macedonia. This threw Rome into temporary disarray, as the generals Perseus had defeated were veterans who had fought and won wars against much tougher oppoenents such as Antiochus. They finally selected Aemilius to lead a final push against Perseus.

Aemilius sailed to Macedon and quickly established a beachhead under Mount Olympus. He found the Macedonian army both well prepared and in disarray. Perseus had spared no expense in equipping his men and horses. He had also made extravagent promises to some of the mercenaries he had hired. As the Romans approached, however, Perseus began looking to his pocketbook, rather than his logistics. He stopped paying some of his more expensive (and best) soldiers, who quickly abandoned him. As Plutarch pointed out, this was an immensely stupid move, as the money Perseus "saved" was a trifle compared to the vastness of his actual wealth. The result was a weak Macedonian army, and a treasury that was preserved, not for Perseus, but for the Romans.

After some preliminary maneuvering, the Romans and Macedonians met at Pydna for their final confrontation. At this point, the Macedonians had already lost a couple of minor battles (one of which was lost when the Romans surprised a sleeping Macedonian divison). These setbacks had rattled Perseus, who virtually lost all hope in victory. Still, he had many advantages. For one thing the battleground he had chosen was perfect for the phalanx, the Macedonians preferred method of fighting. The Macedonians would have the advantage in numbers. They also had the advantage in the lay of the land, which featured two rivers that could be used to trap the Romans. And, the macedonians had the advantage of desperation; they were fighting to protect their homes and families. Plutarch writes that, when Aemilius and his army marched up to meet the Macedonians, they paused to admire and contemplate the Macedonian battle array.

The battle began with the Macedonian phalanx holding the Romans at bay. There was controvesy in the ancient world regarding the question of Perseus' role in the battle. Many stated that he had fled the battlefield before the battle was joined. Others said he was off the field after falling off his horse. Perseus seems to have claimed that he was late to the field because he had paused too long while making an offering to the gods. Regardless, it is clear that - on the day that macedon's fate was decided - its king was nowhere to be found. Aemilius, meanwhile, directed the Roman attack himself. sensing the weaknesses in the phalanx and sending his men in to make pinpoint attacks that eventually broke the Macedonians' line and led to the swift and bloody end of the battle and of the Macedon kingdom that had once conquered the known world.

Perseus fled, naturally, along with his family, his treasury, and a band of Cretan soldiers who were protecting their interest in the treasure more than they were protecting Perseus. Eventually, the Cretans fled with Perseus most valuable possessions, including items that had belonged to Alexander the Great. Desperate, Perseus struck a bargain with a Cretan ship's captain for transport out of Macedon. The Cretan took Perseus' remaining valuables and then sailed without the king. At this point, Perseus gave up and surrendered to Aemilius. He caused such a scene with his begging and lamentation that Aemilius grew annoyed, thinking the display of cowardness would reflect badly on his victory.

Aemilius thus returned to Rome in triumph. Macedon and Greece were now firmly in the Roman orbit, having pledged to obey Roman law and pay Roman taxes. Plutarch writes that the wealth that was realized from this conquest was so great that Roman citizens did not have to pay taxes until the time of the first war between Caesar and Antony. After a lifetime of service to Rome, Aemilius was granted the honor of a Triumph, an event that Plutarch describes in loving detail (actually, his description of Perseus' children, who had to march in the Triumph and who were destined for a life of slavery, is a rare look at the fate of those whom Rome conquered).

Having won his war and had his Triumph, Aemilius had earned his place in Roman history. Plutarch states that Aemilius remained in Roman politics, where he maintained the affection of the common people, even as he always sided with the nobles' positions on the issues of the day. His son Scipio, on the other hand, tended to make populist plays for favor, which caused Aemilius a certain amount of annoyance. While thus engaged, he came down with terminal illness that finally killed him after lingering for several months. He was buried with much pomp, with his funeral bier borne by Spaniards, Ligurians, and Macedonians who had never forgotten his forbearance when he conquered their lands.

Plutarch's Lives: Timoleon

Plutarch begins the life of Timoleon with a short little essay describing how writing his "Lives" helped him improve his own life. Rather than take inspiration from "low company," Plutarch could look to the great men he was profiling as examples for him to follow in his own life. It is no surprise that Plutarch would state this so explicitly at the beginning of Timoleon's Life, rather than Pericles'. Timoleon's life was a combination of noble behavior, wars of liberation, and selfless sacrifice. Indeed, the only reason he is not better known is surely because he was from Corinth, rather than the Ancient World's glamor cities of Athens and Rome. Athenian democracy, for one, would have been greatly improved by a Timoleon in its government, rather than a Pericles or Alcibiades.

Timoleon was born into a noble Corinthian family. From an early age, he was marked out for leadership both in battle and in politics. Regardless of this early fame, he remained a modest and self-effacing man, as well as a great warrior. However, Timoleon had a brother - Timophenes - who was rash, impetuous and headstrong. He was also determined to become absolute ruler of Corinth, which had the reputation of having the most stable democracy in Greece. When Timoleon learned of this plot. He begged his brother to desist. When Timophenes refused, Timoleon killed him. While this act saved Corinthian democracy, it proved so emotionally jarring to Timoleon that he withdrew from public life for 20 years.

Timoleon returned to public life was brought about by a letter sent to Corinth from Sicily. At that time, Sicily was beset with internal and external enemies. The island had been ravaged, depopulated, and destabilized by the Pelopponesian War. The tyrant Dionysus ruled as an absolute monarch over the city-state of Syracuse. Other Sicilian cities were similarly dominated by tyrants and monarchs. Some Syracusans had looked to the Leothine king Hicates to drive out Dionysus. However, Hicates secretly allied himself with the Carthaginians who coveted the island. After the carthaginian navy appeared off the shores of Sicily, the desperate Sicilians wrote to Corinth asking for help in ridding their island of these menaces. The Sicilians wrote to the Corinthians because of the two lands' cultural affinities, the Corinthians' reputation for fighting wars of liberation, not conquest, and the Sicilians' belief that the Corinthian democracy would provide the most stable potential ally. It is telling that Athens, the so-called birthplace of democracy failed to meet any of these criteria.

At the meeting where the Corinthians discussed the response to the Sicilians' pleas, some unknown soul suggested Timoleon as the best person to save Sicily. It is not clear why the name of someone out of office for 20 years would be put forth for such a mission, but Timoleon accepted the post. He put together a small expedition comprising 1000 men and 10 ships and began crossing the Adriatic. While the Corinthian expedition had been putting to sea, Hicates and the Carthaginians had managed to defeat Dionysus in battle and had managed to besiege him in the impregnable Citadel of Syracuse, the symbol not only of the oppression of the Sicilians, but also the place that the Athenians had been unable to conquor during their own invasion of Sicily.

A Carthaginian fleet set sail on a bogus diplomatic mission to intercept the Corinthians at the town of Rhegium. Timoleon quickly realized that the Carthaginian diplomats were merely trying to delay him long enough to allow Hicates to extend his grip over Syracuse. Working with the Rhegians, Timoleon engaged in some fake diplomacy of his own. They convened a disputatious town hall meeting to "thoroughly discuss" the Carthaginian proposals. While the issues were debated at lengh, the Corinthians slipped out one by one, with Timoleon leaving last. They were safely at sea before the Carthaginians realized what had happened. Plutarch chortles a bit over Phoenicians complaining about being cheated!

Timoleon and his small force landed on a sliver of land where they made contact with some allies. Hicates marched to meet Timoleon's force, but Timoleon surprised them in their camp and put Hicates division to flight, leaving behind any stores and weapons. Dionysus was impressed enough by this that he secretly approached Timoleon and surrendered the Citadel to him. Thus, with a relative handful of men, Timoleon quickly found victory in battle, enough stores and allies to sustain his army, and possession of the impregnable Citadel (which remained besieged by Hicates). Timoleon sent dionysus into exile in Corinth, where he spent the remainder of his days living modestly (in glaring contrast to his ostentatious lifestyle as absolute monarch of Syracuse) and arguing vociferously with the Corinthians.

Hicates meanwhile began to rely more upon his powerful Carthaginan allies. He called in a force of ships commanded by Mago, which joined the siege of Syracuse. Mago's force was so large (60,000 troops, according to Plutarch) that the Sicilians saw this as the fatal hour when Sicily would fall to the barbarian hordes. A task force of Greeks from Rhegium and other greek colonies in Italy made their way over to Sicily, where they joined with Timoleon. with about 5,000 troops under his command, Timoleon marched to relieve the Citadel.

While Mago had superiority in numbers, he was a cowardly man and feared Timoleon's reputation as a warrior. During an eel fishing expedition outside Syracuse, Timoleon's men encountered some Greek mercenaries fighting for Mago. They asked how these men could fight for Mago, when they had to know Carthage would not be satsified with Sicily and would evventually look to conquor Greece. This set off enough tumult in Mago's camp that he became convinced his army was on the verge of mutiny. Mago simply packed up and left, taking his troops and his ships with him. When Timoleon and his army appeared in their battle array the next morning they simply laughed at the suddenly empty horizon, denuded of ships and men.

Hicates remained in his position beseiging the Citadel. Indeed, his position in Syracuse was nearly as impregnable as that of the Citadel. Timoleon divided his small force into three parts and carefully and systematically took down Hicates' defenses without any Corinthinans dying in action. Syracuse was finally liberated and Hicates escaped (Mago, for his part, was executed by the Carthaginians). The story of Timoleon's liberation of Sicily spread quickly through the Greek world, making him a legend in his own time.

having saved Sicily, Timoleon next set about restoring it to greatness. His first act was to destroy the Citadel which, for all its military utility, was also a symbol of the tyrannies that had bedeviled Sicily. Next, Timoleon sent out word to the greek world that Sicily was now a safe and welcoming place. Many Sicilians, especially Syracusians, had gone into exile, and many of these returned. Many other Greeks, attracted by the promise of bountiful farms and good trade also moved to Sicily. Within a year of the defeat of Hicates, Sicily was again a vibrant prosperous land with democracy, not tyranny as the ruling order.

The Carthaginians, however, made one last attempt at conquoring Sicily. Lacking a Greek ally, they simply landed a huge force of 70,000 men and began marching on Syracuse. Timoleon again had a small force - just 4,000! - to stop the invasion. Even his greatest admirers believed that timleon's famed luck had finally run out. It didn't help when Timoleon and his men encountered what they considered a bad portent - a mule train carrying parsley, of all things (a bad omen because parsley was used to adorn sepulchres). Nonetheless, Timoleon's luck was with him. He encountered the carthaginan army while it was crossing a river. timoleon attacked the smaller half, killing several thousand and putting the rest to flight. Timoleon again found himself in possession of an immense store of enemy booty.

Hicates and the remaining Sicilian tyrants, however, found common cause and joined with the remaining Carthaginians to defeat the Corinthians and the free Sicilians. This last alliance of tyranny failed to gain much traction. They were easily defeated piecemeal. The Carthaginians left Sicily for good. The local tyrants were deposed and either killed or sent into exile. The traitor Hicates was executed along with his entire family, including his wife and daughters (Plutarch identifies this as the one blot on Timoleon's career). With this, the era of war and tyranny in Sicily came to an end and a lengthy period of prosperity and political freedom began.

For his part, timoleon did not return to Corinth, but lived his remaining years out un Sicily. He did not seek any sort of official role, but lived in semi-retirement. But everywhere he went for the rest of his life, the Sicilians hailed him as their great hero and deliverer. His advice was eagerly sought out. He was always given seats of honor at banquets, the theater, or in the assembly. When his eyesight failed, Sicilians eagerly carried him about on a litter. When he died, his was a state funeral with the cortege passing over the former cite of the Citadel.

Plutarch's Lives: Coriolanus

Coriolanus is remembered in our time (when he is remebered at all) thanks to Shakespeare, who told Coriolanus' story in one of his lesser known tragedies. By Plutarch's (and the Bard's) telling, Coriolanus' tragedy was this: while he was a brave and honorable man with much greatness in him, his arrogant personality was ill suited to the demands of politicking in a republic. While the Romans respected and admired him, they did not love him and by the end they were actively at war with him. In the end, Coriolanus - who exemplified many of the best aspects of the Roman character - died the lonely death of the exile.

Coriolanus (nee' Caius Marcius, Coriolanus was a name given later) was born into a noble Roman family and came of age during the transition period between the last of the Roman kings and the birth of the Republic. In fact, Coriolanus first joined the army and fought in battle during the final campaign against the exiled king Tarquinus. Coriolanus was recognized early on as having an aptitude for battlefield tactics and strategy, as well as being personally brave. He also showed himself to be one who was never content to rest on his laurels, and always looked to improve himself and prospects. What set him apart from his fellow patricians, however, was his integrity.

Having established the Republic, the patricians in the senate found the transition from rule by decree to rule by the consent of the governed difficult. The Romans found themselves bedeviled by the same issues that Solon confronted: the demand from the common people for the forgiveness of their debts. After an increasingly hostile debate, the plebians essentially went on strike, refusing to participate in a military call-up when war was declared against the Volscians. Coriolanus led the faction arguing against the forgiveness of debts, vehemently arguing that the behavior of the common people was near treason and would eventually lead to the destruction of Rome once the plebians learned they could vote largesses for themselves out of the treasury. The timeless lament of the conservative! Coriolanus did not win the argument and, for his vehemence, came to be seen by many as a something of an anti-democrat.

The war against the Volscians, however, proved to be coriolanus' greatest moment. He participated in the siege of the city of Corioli. He not only distinguished himself in battle, he led a daring raid that captured the city. He then interrupted the plundering and ordered his men to march to the aid of a second Roman contingent fighting some distance away. Coriolanus rode up, still covered in the blood and sweat from the battle of Corioli and immediately swept into the center of the action, playing a significant part in the Roman victory. For his signal bravery and leadership, Coriolanus was given the name "Coriolanus" to memorialize his victory at the late siege. He was also offered 10% of the spoils from the expedition, but gallantly refused this. For this he was, for once in his life, acclaimed by the common people.

Upon returning to Rome, Coriolanus stood for consul. However, the old controversies between the patricians and plebes - and Coriolanus' opposition to the demands of the people - reared up again. A number of tribunes of the people generated several controversies causing sedition and unrest in the city. The patricians were approached by a city that had been ravaged by a plague and sought to become a Roman colony through repopulation by Romans. The Coriolanus' faction in the senate thought this would be the perfect way to get rid of the rebellious elements in the city, but the plan blew up in their faces when the tribunes began telling wild tales about the patricians plotting to exile varous citizens. The common people also began agitating for government controls on the price of corn, another thing that Coriolanus was against. When a large shipment of corn arrived in Rome, the senate saw this as a temporary way out of the controversy, but Coriolanus argued against distributing the corn at below-market prices.

At this point the relationship between Coriolanus and the people reached its breaking point. Coriolanus was not corrupt or venal. All agreed that he was a noble and honorable man of integrity. He was acclaimed throughout the city as a brave warrior, and exemplary leader. Moreover, he was well regarded for his willingness to sacrifice his own financial and personal interests for the sake of Rome. In fact, this is what caused his rupture with the people. just as he sacrificed for Rome, he expected the people to do so as well. Further, he repeatedly warned in public speeches and in private conversation that the Republic would not be able to survive if the patrician class sought favor from the plebes by granting them their seemingly bottomless demands for wealth from the treasury. Plutarch (and Shakespeare) quotes at length from Coriolanus' speeches on this theme. While he was have been correct in his analysis (certainly the annual disbursement of corn came to be an expensive entitlement that drove Rome into fiscal disarray), he was making an unpopular argument in as impolitic manner as possible. Despite his greatness of character, Coriolanus came to be despised. Finally, he was placed on trial and sentenced to permanent banishment.

Having been exiled, Coriolanus traveled to the land of the Volscians, where he raised an army and began to march on Rome. The Romans found themselves out-generaled by Coriolanus, and the city was in danger of conquest. The Romans sought to placate Coriolanus, but his anger at his banishment was still hot. He declared that he would not withdraw unless the Romans returned the Volscians' wealth and made them Roman citizens. After much debate in the city, Coriolanus' wife and mother, who had remained in Rome, went to him as supplicants and begged him to leave Rome in peace. Coriolanus' anger was finally quelled by the words of these women. He removed the Volscian army from the field and retreated. While the Romans acclaimed Coriolanus for his forbearance, the Volscians were furious. Once he was back in their kingdom, Coriolanus was executed after a short show trial. His family was allowed to mourn him, but he was deprived of the funeral honors that would have normally been his due.

Coriloanus' story is one that has plenty of contemporary resonance for modern-day conservatives who are wondering how best to get their message out. In a word: whatever Coriolanus did, do the opposite! He may have been correct in arguing that a republic should always be careful in its public expenditures, lest the electorate vote increasing subsidies for themselves until the treasury is empty (this is a fundamental conservative position. I believe this is one of the earliest articulations of this basic problem with republican government, so Coriolanus' story should be seen as a totemic conservative). But, Coriolanus' charmless arrogant manner of arguing his position persuaded no one. For all of his greatness, his complete failure in the arts of persuasion was his downfall. Plutarch explicitly compares Coriolanus to Alcibiades, noting that Alcibiades' powers of persuasion were so strong, he was able to return to rule the Greeks even after he had made war against them. 

Plutarch allows that Coriolanus was handicapped by the basic unpopularity of his positions - a politician can always win votes by promising cheap food and the forgiveness of debts, after all. But, plutarch also notes that there were plenty of Roman politicians who managed to put across the Coriolanus position in a much more persuasive manner. As Ronald Reagan could have told Coriolanus: it's the singer, not the song, that is often the most important.   

Plutarch's Lives: Alcibiades

Throughout the tumultuous political life of Golden Age Athens, the Athenians were highly suspicious of politicians who demonstrated any sort of tendency towards favoring an oligarchical or monarchial government. And yet, the most successful Athenian politicians learned that they could rule like an aristocrat while mouthing the platitudes of democracy. Pericles was the master of this, but Alcibiades was the most opportunistic and kingly, even as he professed to act on behalf of the People. In fact, with his arisocratic airs, lavish lifestyle, and decadent personal life, Alcibiades was nearly a proto-type for the emperors of Rome. The Athenians, for their part, would come to regret their choice of Alcibiades. Not only did he lead them into some of their worst disasters in the Pelopponesian Wars, he even betrayed Athens itself.

Alcibiades was born into a wealthy family that claimed to be descended from Ajax. His father was famous for outfitting a galley and dying heroically in battle. From an early age, Alcibiades was a man of wild contradictions. He was one of the wealthiest men in the city, and never let anyone else forget this, often using his money to humiliate his rivals. He also had an obnoxious personality and was personally cruel to many around him (Plutarch tells the story of Alcibiades cutting off his dog's tail, which adds to the portrait of a malicious young man). However, Alcibiades also had rare gifts that drew people to him. Pericles took a special interest in him, as did Socrates. In fact, Socrates took it upon himself to act as a sort of mentor to Alcibiades, a relationship that Alcibiades apparently sought out. The two served together in battle, and even saved each other's lives.

While Alcibiades was cruel, spoiled, and obnoxious, his skills as an orator, military man, and politician led him to the front rank of Athens' political class. Alcibiades also had a way of appealing to the Athenians' baser instincts. He never failed to expend large sums on public spectacles. More important, Alcibiades indulged the Athenians' thirst for foreign conquest, something that Pericles' had to use all of his fomidable skills to dissuade. Alcibiades, in his favorite role of playing to the crowd, became Athens' leading politician by promising to lead an expedition against the city-state of Syracuse on Scicily, an ambitious undertaking for a city the size of Athens. The invasion of Syracuse was as much a distracton from the struggles of the Pelopponesian War, as anything else. Moreover, there was a large faction that was dead set against it.

Regardless, Alcibiades set out with a large fleet and army on an expedition that would prove ruinous to Athens. The invasion was not just expensive and far-flung. Syracuse was a Greek colony and a democracy, so Athens was in the position of attacking fellow Greeks and democrats, a position that lowered its standing in the Greek world. Further, the Athenian leadership was split into two parts with alcibiasdes at the head and Nicias as second in command. Nicias had actually led the opposition to the war, but the Athenians sent him as a compromise candidate to act as a check on Alcibiades, another disastrous decision. As it turned out, Alcibiades was recalled to Athens, leaving Nicias in charge of the doomed mission.

Once back in Athens, Alcibiades was put on trial for blasphemy, a charge Plutarch indicates was pure politics in action. Alcibiades was found guilty and ostraciszed. In doing this, the Athenians were exiling their best military commander at the height of a two-front war. Whatever his personal failings, the athenians would quickly regret his loss. Alcibiades traveled to Sparta itself, where he threw in with the Spartan side in the Greek civil war. During his time in Sparta, he impressed his new friends by living like a Spartan, playing up his chameleon nature which allowed him to ingratiate himself with whomever he was trying to impress. He also managed to seduce and father a child with his Spartan benefactor's wife. And he assisted the Spartans in their war against Athens.

Having seduced and abandoned the queen of Sparta, Alcibiades was forced to flee. After traveling around Greece, he returned to Athens, where he immediately took command of a naval squadron and quickly earned credit for himself by leading the athenian navy to victory in a minor battle. Alcibiades, it seemed, was back on top. However, his time - and that of Athens - was nearly at an end. A Spartan fleet led by Lysander defeated the once-proud Athenian navy, bringing the Pelopponesian War and the Golden Age of Athens to an end. Alcibiades escapsed capture, but Lysander ordered him hunted down and killed. Alcibiades was tracked to his mistress' house where he died in a hail of darts.

Plutarch's Lives: Fabius

Fabius is an unusual ancient hero. He led Rome's defense against Hannibal in the years when the Carthaginians ravaged Italy. And yet, as a politician and general he counseled the Romans to forbear from meeting Hannibal in open battle, a policy that often left him on the outs with his peers and the voters. And yet his persistance, and the persistance of the Roman people, would lead them to victory over a general who was their superior in every way. But, as Napoleon, Robert E. Lee, and Rommell could tell Hannibal, victory in battle does not mean victory in war.

Fabius was descended from a family of Roman nobles who claimed to be descended from Hercules (smirk). As a child, Fabius was notable for his quiet temperment. In fact, he was so quiet that many thought him to be stupid. When he went out into the world, however, the Romans quickly discovered that his quietude was due to his even temper and stoic spirit Fabius quickly earned a reputation as a deliberate thinker, and wise head. He also earned the reputation of a warrior, both in his training regimen, and on the battlefield. He made his reputation by driving an invading army - the Ligurians - out of Italy and into the shadows of the Alps from which they never returned. This was, however, his one unambiguous battlefield victory.

Hannibal invaded Italy soon after, and quickly won a great victory at the Trebia River. While Hannibal ravaged Tuscany and threatened Rome, the city was thrown into an uproar. The people asked Fabius, who was already advanced in years, to strategize the best manner to repel the invaders. Fabius' chosen strategem, which he would follow throughout the years that Hannibal was in Italy, was not what many had hoped for. Fabius had quickly discerned Hannibal's tactical skills, and realized that the Romans could not hope to defeat the Carthaginians in open battle. Instead, Fabius proposed to shadow the Carthaginian army, conduct a low-level campaign, and wear them down gradually. While Hannibal had the advantage of arms and generalship, the Romans would always have the advantage of fighting on the home soil while Hannibal was hundreds of miles from any sort of relief. Many Romans, however, failed to embrace this strategy, as they preferred to try to defeat Hannibal in a single battle, rather than let him march around Italy.

Flaminius was the first Roman to fail to heed Fabius' strategy. Flaminius led army to meet Hannibal, and was immediately beaten at the battle of Lake Thrasymene, one of the most dramatic battles in history with a Roman army pushed into the lake and slaughtered, while an earthquake raged around the armies. After this defeat, Fabius was temporarily vindicated and named dictator for the duration.

Fabius took his army out into the field and began shadowing Hannibal. Hannibal's men, and indeed many of Fabius, thought he was little more than a coward trying to avoid a fight. Hannibal quickly realized what fabius was up to, and determined to draw Fabius into battle. The armies engaged in a large-scale cat and mouse game that finally found Hannibal trapped in a canyon with his army and 2000 head of cattle. To escape Hannibal waited until nightfall and then ordered his men to tie bundles of sticks to the cattles heads and light them on fire. The cattle were led out of the ravine. The Romans, thinking Hannibal was coming out to meet them, stood in the path of the approaching herd. But, when the burning wood reached the top of the cattle's heads, a stampede began which through the Romans into confusion and allowed Hannibal to escape.

The Romans, already suspicious of Fabius, were not impressed with this outcome (it didn't help that Hannibal didn't destroy Fabius' farm when he burned part of Tuscany). The voices in Rome who demanded quick action against Hannibal were again ascendent, and Fabius was stipped of his disctatorship in favor of a hothead named Minucius. Minucius and Fabius each led divisions in search of Hannibal. While Miucius heedlessly sought a battle with Hannibal, Fabius kept his army in abeyance, and kept an eye on Minucius. Inevitably, Minucius was drawn into a trap and his army in danger of complete destruction. fabius, however, rode to the rescue and drove the Cartahginians from the field. Plutarch quotes at length a speech he gave to Fabius in which he apologized to the old man for insulting him and promised to follow Fabius' strategy of attrition, rather than confrontation.

This still did not convince the Romans of the utility of Fabius' strategy. Varro was the next to promise a quick victory against Hannibal. Instead, he led a huge Roman army into what was probably Rome's greatest defeat at the battle of Canae. Plutarch and others have written that 50,000 Romans died that day, an incredible figure for an age when fighting was done mostly at close quarters. This would be the last encouter the Romans would have against Hannibal's army. Once again, the Romans turned to Fabius who patiently counseled that the Romans should defeat Hannibal through attrition rather than destruction.

Hannibal lingered in Italy for several more years, foraging and marching, but never able to enter Rome. Finally, the Romans took the battle to Carthage, sending an army commanded by Scipio to attack the Carthaginian homeland. He quickly won a series of battles and fought his way to the gates of Carthage itself. Hannibal was recalled to lead the defense, and was finally deafeated. Not surprisingly, Fabius had opposed Scipio's original plan to invade Carthage, as this was a turning away from the successful war of attrition. However, after Scipio began winning and Hannibal was recalled, Fabius became even more adamant that Rome continued to be in grave danger and that Hannibal might come back at any time. By this time, Fabius was a very old man, and many of the Romans thought he was finally losing his faculties. As it happened, Fabius died soon after Hannibal's final defeat.

Plutarch paired Fabius with Pericles, and the contrast is illuminating in its way. Pericles is one of the brightest lights of the ancient world, a man who led his city-state to its greatest glory. And yet, his leadership quickly left his city bankrupted by vast public works projects and ravaged by war. For centuries after, Athenians would boast of their power and cultural cache, and yet - but for the brief decades of Pericles' rule - these boasts were empty ones. By contrast, Fabius lacks the heroic cast of Pericles. His strategy off avoiding fights is not likely to end up in the curriculum at West Point. Yet, in the end, it was Fabius who accomplished his one overarching goal: saving Rome. In doing so, he also helped put Rome on its path to greatness and near-global hegemony. While he lacked Pericles' glamour, his fellow Romans could turn to one another and say, "despite everything, he kept us safe." It is the eternal question of effective leadership: the visionary versus the hedgehog. As between Periclean Athens and Fabian Rome, the heart says choose Athens, but the head says stick with Rome.

Plutarch's Lives: Pericles

Pericles is one of the best known personalities from the ancient world. The glorious parts of his biography are well known to even casual students of Greek history. His was one of Athens' leading lights during its cultural heyday. He was a gifted orator, a skilled politician, and the possesor of a first class temperment. He expanded Athens' wealth and power through carefully planned conquest and trade initiatives. Most important, he organized and directed building of the great temples and public works of Athens - from the Parthenon on down - that defined the Golden Age of Greece. For the average politician down to modern times, Pericles has been an example of what can be accomplished in public life. But, history and Pericles' admirers have tended to gloss over how his career ended: with Pericles dying of the plague at the beginning of a war that would see Athens destroyed and its Golden Age ended almost as soon as it began.

Pericles was born into a family of nobles. His father was a much-honored general, and his mother was descended from the Clisthenes, who had ended the tyranny of the Pisastratus line, and helped establish Athens' government. Pericles was born to politics, and was given the best possible education. He was taught by, among others, Zeno (of Paradox fame). However, his greatest teacher was Anaxagoras who taught Pericles not just philosophy and reason, but also mental discipline, which allowed Pericles to remain serene even as he was buffeted by the whirl of Athenian political life.

Pericles entered politics earlier than he would have planned. At that time, the great divide was between those who favored a pure democracy and those who leaned more towards an oligarchy dominated by the elite. The worst thing one could be accused of would by the harboring of secret monarchial tendencies. In fact, at the beginning of his career, Pericles was believed to be a dangerous person with dictatorial tendencies. His own inclinations were to support "the few and the rich" as Plutarch puts it, but Pericles saw that the path to power lay in appealing to the Athenian masses. Pericles was nonetheless criticized in Athens and elsewhere as leading "an aristocratical government that went by the name of democracy."

Pericles originally came to power after several of his rivals in the Old Guard were banished for 10 years. The banishments arose because the elites who ruled Athens were reluctant to ascede to the common peoples' demands for foreign conquest and redistributions of public money. Pericles came to power promising to redistribute Athens' wealth and to expand its power through war. Having obtained power, Pericles never really gave it up. He won applause for leading a series of military conquests against other Greek city-states. He increased the fees that citizens could earn for performing public service work. He sent out expeditions to colonize the Aegean region. He set up a system for redistributing athens' wealth among the common people. And, he becanme adept at dsitracting the people with banquets, processions, shows, and the like.

Pericles lasting achievement was the construction of the architectural wonders that made Athens famous in his day and immortal in ours. For Pericles, the grand constructions were not just a way to show off Athens' power and wealth, it was also a vast public works project that allowed him to employ virtually the entire population of Athens' tradesmen. Plutarch spends considerable space describing the persons and materials who built Athens' temples. But, Plutarch also points out that, while these public works elicited the wonder and admiration of Pericles' contemporaries, by Plurarch's day they were the only evidence of the power that Athens still emptily boasted of having, and that its lost wealth was no romance.

Pericles' last political rival was Thucydides, who led the small faction that decried the massive expenditure of public funds, and the havoc this expenditure caused in the state revenues. Thucydides gathered enough support that he and Pericles finally faced off in a contest to see who would banish the other. While Thucydides may have had the better argument Pericles was the better orator and had the good will of the people behind him. Pericles prevailed and Thucydides was banished.

With this final challenge to his power gone, Pericles is said to have adopted a more regal political persona and approach. pericles still sought to persuade the people to follow his dictates, but increasingly Pericles' policy simply became Athenian policy. After experiencing a century of rough-and-tumble democracy, Athens was ruled by Pericles decade after decade. He would still stand for election every year, but these became formalities; Pericles had no rivals. In many ways, his rule was an admirable one. He did not grow wealthy (much to the annoyance of his children) and made a practice of annually divesting himself of his wealth. He was known to shop in the public markets shoulder to shoulder with his fellow citizens. He was as much an intelectual as he was a leader, taking on the slightly younger Socrates in debate. And, while he indulged the Athenians' love of spectacle, he tempered their repeated demands for foreign conquest, counseling that Athens would become wealthier through trade, rather than through empire building. To that end he negotiated favorable trade agreements around the Aegean and ensured that Athens military remained focused on affairs in Greece, rather than in Carthage or Tuscany, where some of the more militant Athenians wished to go for conquest.

The end of Pericles' career saw disasters as great as the glories he had accomplished at the height of his powers. Things seemed to take a turn for the worse when he called on Athens to attack the island of Samos. The initial attack was repulsed an the athenian army destroyed. Pericles led the siege against the samians, eventually taking the island and levying a heavy fine for their resistance. At the same time, Athens impeded an expedition by Corinth against another Greek city. Athens also found itself competing for power with the Spartans to the south. Athens attempt to establish its hegemony over the Greek world, as well as its arrogant attitudes of the athenians, gave rise to the enmities that would explode into the Pelopponesian War.

At first, Pericles seemed to be able to keep hostilities from spreading into a wider war. However, the Athenians found themselves drawn in nonetheless. Plutarch suggests that Pericles actually encouraged the drumbeat of war to distract from his own impending impeachment for misusing public funds. Regardless of the cause, Athens quickly found itself under seige with a plague ravaging the athenians from the inside, as the Spartans ravaged the coutryside on the outside. Pericles, a shadow of the man he had once been, died of the plague along with many of his friends and countrymen. The Athenians would quickly regret his loss, as Pericles' successors led the Athenians into defeat and destruction in war, and cultural and social decay at home.

Because Athens' Golden Age coincided with his rule, Pericles is one of history's immortals. However, his story is also important in the manner it demonstrates the promise and perils of democracy. Most politicians in representative government are (if you haven't noticed) calculating opportunists. The only thing that separates them from courtiers in a royal house is the fact that they have to stand for re-election at regular intervals. Pericles was that rare thing in a democracy: a visionary who could motivate the electorate to greater heights of economic. political, military, and cultural power. But, Periclean Athens fell afoul of the factor that has ruined democracies since then: the discovery by the voters that they could vote benefits for themselves from the public purse. Pericles, for all of his other virtues, was only happy to oblige them-turning his re-election campaigns into a succession of promised give-aways. Athens could not keep up, and when it turned to conquest and trade war to find new sources of funds, it found itself embroiled and eventually ruined by the Pelopponesian War. Worse, because Pericles had been in office so long, and so many of his rivals driven into exile, Athens had no one to take his place.

While the life of Pericles does not quite achieve the level of tragedy, it certainly leads one to melancholy reflection over the quick fading of glory that is a recurring theme in human events.

Plutarch's Lives: Camillius

Camillius was a Roman general and politician who lived through a turbulent period of Roman history that saw Rome driven nearly to extinction by invasion from without and sedition from within. While not a particularly beloved figure, Camillius was the indispensable man of his era; the one to whom the Romans turned to again and again during their hours of peril. For his achievements in the battlefield and in the Forum, Camillius was known as the "second founder of Rome."

Camillius came from a Roman family of no distinction. He joined the army and gained early fame through displays of personal bravery on the battlefield during Rome's frequent wars. What set him apart from other soldiers early on, however, was his skill at securing peace after the turbulence at war. In one of his first initiatives as a politician, he vigorously worked to marry off war widows to new hsubands, and secured the financial care of war orphans.

What made Camillius' career, however, was his role in ending the siege of Veii, a Tuscan city that the Romans had been besieging for 7 years, and which was the equal of Rome in size and magnificence. While the Romans were at Veii, they were also beset by invasions from the Faliscans and Capetans. Camillius was first tasked with the job of ending those invasions, which he did. He was then given command of the army besieging Veii in the 10th year of the siege. Using a combination of frontal assaults and underground sapping operations, Camillius finally broke down the walls of Veii, and entered the city. While watching his men plunder the wealth of the Tuscans, Plutarch reports that Camillius wept and prayed that, should the visissitudes of fortune cause Rome to have to suffer for this triumph, that the weight of such a change in fortune would fall on his shoulders, rather than on that of Rome. Camillius' prayer would soon be answered.

Having conquered Veii., Camillius returned to Rome in triumph, and at the height of his personal power. He would soon lose that power in the tumult of Rome's dysfunctional politics. Camillius made a number of politically maladroit moves. He entered the city in a chariot drawn by four white horses, an honor reserved only for gods, and which no man before or after him claimed. Camillius then attempted to extract 10% of the plunder of Veii from each of the soldiers under his command, a demand he rescinded in the face of a near-mutiny, but not after losing the support of his own army.

Most important was his role in an odd controversy that dogged Camillius throughout his career: Rome's plebian class, which saw Rome as becoming increasingly crowded as its wealth and population grew, proposed to divide the population in half and send one-half to live in the now-abandoned city of Veii. Rome's patricians, including Camillius, hated this idea, as they did not like the idea of dividing Rome in two when Italy was still full of kingdoms that never ceased invading and ravaging Roman territory. The controvery was never fully resolved, but would flare up when the Roman people became restive. Camillius took the lead role in arguing against the proposal. He did so in such a vehement manner that he finally lost his political offices, and was formally exiled from Rome.

Almost as soon as Camillius went into exile, the Romans faced an invasion from a nwe enemy who would prove to be one of the recurring forces in Roman hisory: the Gauls. The Gauls invaded Italy for the first time, looking for plunder and land. They quickly headed towards Rome. The Romans organized an army to meet the Gauls, whom the Romans regarded as a barbaric rabble. Without Camillius' skills as a general, however, the Romans were as disorganized as the Gauls. The Roman army was defeated in battle and nearly destroyed, and Rome lay helpless before the Gauls. The Romans abandoned the city in a panic, taking even the vestal flame with them. Some priests and elderly patricians remained in the forum, seated on ivory chairs, where they were slaughtered by the Gauls. A few hardy souls fortified themselves at the top of the Capitoline Hill. The Gauls looted what was left behind, burned the city down, and then laid siege on the Capitoline hold-outs.

The fleeing Romans took up residence in Veii, and then sent for Camillius, whom they persuaded to return as their leader. Camillius led an army back to Rome where they found that the Gauls were in disarray. They had failed to take the Capitoline, but had been turned back by the small band of soldiers there, led by a man named Manlius. The Gauls had exhausted themselves plundering the surrounding countryside, and had been made sick by months of living among the ashes of Rome's burnt-out buildings. Camillius' army swept into Rome, and defeated the Gauls in a great slaughter.

Camillius then turned towards rebuilding Rome. He led the effort in relocating and rebuilding Rome's streets, while also making sure that the old Roman tombs and temples were placed properly. He ensured that the vestal flame was re-lit. He also tamped down the recurring controversy over moving back to Veii. For these efforts, Camillius became known as the second founder of Rome, as he had not only resuced Rome from the Gauls, but also rebuilt from the ashes to which it had been reduced.

Although these days saw Camillius in his glory, he never had a moment of repose. Rome continued to be subjected to repeated invasions, including one in which the Romans had to fend off three armies at once. The Gauls also invaded again. But this time, Camillius led the army against them and defeated the Gauls in a great slaughter. Pltarch states that, after this victory, the Romans developed a kind of fearlessness that lasted for generations, as they came to see themselves as able to defeat any foe in battle, even one that had previously conquered them.

While Camillius' military career was one triumph after another, his political career saw equal amounts of tumult arising from the simmering tensions between the patrician class and the plebian class. Camillius faced a seemingly endless array of rabble rousers who attempted to curtail or even overthrow the patricians and Camillius. The greatest threat came from Manlius, the hero from the siege of Capitoline, who ingratiated himself with the poor by promising to pay their debts should he be granted power. Manlius' sedition grew so dangerous that he was put on trial for treason, but it proved difficult to convict a man whom everyone agreed was a hero because the courts were located within sight of the Capitoline. Camillius solved this problem by relocating the trial to a place out of sight of the Hill, and Manlius was promptly convicted and sentenced to death. The Romans were masters of the ironic execution, so they executed Manlius by pitching him off of the Capitoline, the scene of both his greatest triumph and greatest shame.

Camillius never retired from public life, as the Romans always had an invasion or political controversy to contend with that only he could lead them out of. In one of his last political acts he faced a political rebellion led by Stolo, who demanded that one of the consuls be elected from the common people. At this time, Camillius was an old man with no desire to be exiled again. He laid down his offices, and Stolo was triumphant with one consul henceforth elected from the patricians and one from the commoners. In the short term, the patrician class was beset with laws intended to redistribute wealth, and prevent any oe person from owning more than 500 acres of land. However, Stolo himself was found to have violated this rule, was punished accordingly, and the era of radical egalitarianism came to an end.

Camillius was returned to office one last time. Again the issue of commoners being elected consul was raised. This time, however, Camillius led the effort to create a grand bargain between the commoners and the patricians to make permanent system of electing one patrician consul and one plebian consul. This finally created peace between the two factions who had fought throughout Camillius' career. Camillius led the construction of a temple of Concord to mark this occasion, which turned out to be Camillius' last public act. A year later he died in office from a plague that swept through Rome.

Plutarch's Lives: Themistocles

Themistocles (T) was famous as Athens' political leader during the second Persian invasion of Greece, which included the Battles of Thermpolae and Salamis. Like Churchill, T was a war-time leader who could motivate the Athenians to endure hardship and sacrifice in a war in which they faced overwhelming odds against a tyrannical foe. Also like Churchill, T was not particularly well loved by the voters, and he was quickly turned out of office and exiled soon after the great emergency passed. While a visionary leader, T was also an arrogant rascal with a hint of corruption about him. Born poor, he died wealthy, despite spending virtually his entire career in public service. T was also not above passing bribes or faking prophesies and portents to accomplish his goals. His was an ambiguous legacy. Nonetheless, he is an exemplar for the Great Man theory in that, in a time of crisis, he came to the fore to lead his people to victory and glory. 

T was born in obscurity to a poor father who was not even an Athenian (!), but came from an outlying village. T's ambitions and talents were such that he quickly ingratiated himself with Athenian aristocracy. Like many men of humble birth, he first made his mark in athletic contests, persuading some young aristocrats to join him at the wrestling ring at Cynosarges. T also began a rigorous course of study in rhetoric, philosophy, and politics in preparation for a political career that he dreamed of even as a child. While other young men studied more genteel arts, T pursued sagacity and wisdom. In later years when people joked at his inability to play the lute, he would retort that this was true, but that he had the ability to take any obscure city-state and make it glorious.

After completing his studies, T embarked on his political career, immediately aiming for the highest offices he could attain. T's greatest skill was in the art of persuasion, by which he moved the Athenian masses and aristocracy to accede to initiatives that were often inimical to their short-term benefit. T's earliest success came with his creation of Athens' naval power. Before T, Athens had been a land-based power focused on agriculture. While this served the insular Athenians well, T noted that the most powerful Greek city-state was Aegenita, which flourished through international trade and maintained military supremacy through its navy, rather than its army. T saw that Athens' future glory lay on the sea, rather than on the land. He also saw - in the post-Marathon era - that Athens could better defend itself on water than on land. 

T was alone in trying to establish the Athenian navy. He had to overcome philosophical hurdles - the Old Guard saw Athens very character as defined by the land, and never forgave T for turning Athens to the sea - and practical: navies are expensive. To pay for the navy, T had to use the proceeds from Athens' silver mines, which had previously been distributed among the populace. T thus had to persuade the Athenians to sacrifice their annual silver payments for the seemingly ephemeral goal of obtaining naval supremacy for the sake of trade, rather than their preferred mode of rural living. He also had to persuade them to prepare to meet their rivals in war at sea, rather than on land, even though Athens greatest glories had been obtained in combat between standing armies. 

It is a testament to T's political skills that he was able to accomplish all of this at a relatively young age. T was and remained a controversial figure in Athens after this. Many believed he had changed Athens' essential character by resorting to the ocean. T did not help matters through his own arrogant behavior. Throughout his life T enjoyed making great displays of his wealth, especially in public events such as the Olympics and the annual playwriting contests. This caused him to be the object of great envy and annoyance by persons at all levels of Athenian society, which did not bode well for his future prospects. 

The invasion of Greece by Xerxes quickly brought T back to the fore in Athenian affairs. T was not a warrior, but he was a great war-time leader. On the one hand, T had to hold together a fractious coalition of Greek city-states, which often fought at cross purposes, and even made separate treaties with the Persians. On the other, he had to quell his own people, who became panicked with the increasing reports of sacked Greek cities drew closer, and who would have preferred to rush into action, rather than resort to the sea. T instead wanted the Athenians to abandon the city and escape to the island of Salamis, where he believed the navy would be better capable of fighting Xerxes on an equal footing. To persuade the Athenians to abandon 

the city, T resorted to every stratagem in the realpolitik bag of tricks, including the manipulation of temple priests to suggest that the gods had already fled to Salamis. T also bribed certain of his naval commanders to keep his rag-tag navy together. While T's actions were inarguably necessary under the circumstances, they only added to his bad reputation, and came back to haunt him when peace returned. 

The Athenians moved en masse to Salamis, and the Greek and Persian navies faced off in the narrow straights. The story of the Battle of Salamis with the smaller Greek ships sinking the much larger Persian ones while Xerxes watched from the heights is one of the great tales from the ancient world. But, while the Persians were defeated in battle, they did not lose the war at that time. Xerxes army still had the ability to ravage Greece. T wanted to send the navy to the Hellespont to destroy the Persians' bridge into Greece, but cooler heads pointed out that this would only make the Persians fight more desperately and destructively. Instead, the Greek's arranged to have a message "accidentally" fall into the hands of the Persians that would make them think this was the plan. When Xerxes heard that the bridge might be destroyed, he ordered a general retreat, rather than continue his costly invasion. 

In the immediate aftermath of the war, T established the Athenian port of Piraeus and began construction of the wooden walls between Athens and the port. T also traveled around Greece assisting other city-states in the reconstruction of their defenses. He also took a leading role in the council of the Amphictyonians, where all of the city-states came together in a sort of pan-Greek assembly. While T was doing this, his leadership in Athens came under increased attack as his political enemies attacked T's ethics and governing style. T did not help matters by responding to these attacks by arrogantly reminding the Athenians of his past glories in an increasingly haughty manner. 

Eventually, the Athenians voted to banish T, a common event in the careers of many of Athens' leading citizens. In T's case, his exile became permanent after he was falsely implicated in an obscure intrigue against the government. T made his way to Asia Minor, which was then ruled by the Persians, where T threw himself on the mercy of Xerxes (or Xerxes' son. Plutarch admits the historians were divided on this question), reminding him that - although he had led the Athenians in defeating the Persian invasion, he had also contrived the strategem that allowed the Persian army to escape. T had to use his entire bag of rhetorical devices, but they proved enough. The Persian king granted T the wealth of 5 cities as a show of gratitude for T's "service" to the Persians. The Athenians never forgave this, of course, and neither have classical historians.

T thus lived out his day in luxury and repose. The only condition was that he would have to assist the Persian king if the Greeks ever presented a problem in the future. T seems to have assured the king that he would do so. However, when the Greeks induced Egypt to rebel against Persian rule, the king came for T and demanded that T come to him to help   strategize against the Greeks. Rather than submit to this order, and forever sully his name, T gathered his friends for one last meal, at the end of which he drank bull's blood (mmmmmm) and died a suicide. The king admired T even more after this and continued to support T's children and friends in a splendid manner. 

As T was controversial in his lifetime, he was controversial in death. Plutarch relates several stories about the location of T's tomb. He states that the Persians T lived among erected a sepulchre in  their main square, where T's progeny continued to live and prosper. Many in the ancient world believed that the Greeks had robbed the tomb and scattered T's aches, but Plutarch states that these stories were merely rhetorical flourishes inserted into Greek tragedies about T's sons. It was also widely believed that T was buried on a promontory overlooking Piraeus where he could overlook the teeming harbor of galleys and merchants whose very existence at that place was due to T's vision and leadership. Plutarch relates that this is told in the authoritative book on Tombs by Diodorus, but admits that it is a theory based on conjecture, not evidence. Plutarch also relates that the honors shown to T in Persia were still extant in his lifetime, such that an acquaintance of his from Athens - also named Themistocles - was able to take advantage of them. 

Plutarch's Lives: Poplicola

Poplicola was a Roman aristocrat who played an instrumental - though not exclusive - role in Rome's transition from a kingdom to the Republic. Poplicola also represents a transition moment in Plutarch's narrative, where the mythic tales of quasi-historic figures like Romulus and Theseus give way to that of a straight narrative of historic events involving purely human drama of war, politcs, greed, and ambition. 

Poplicola was a member of Rome's early nobility, and a descendent of Valerius, a man known as one of the original peacemakers between the Romans and the Sabines. Poplicola was originally known by the name Publius Valerius ("Poplicola" was an honorific bestowed after he attained a leading role in Roman affairs). Before he began his political career, Poplicola was a wealthy lawyer with a reputation for eloquence, honesty, and generosity. Poplicola came to prominence as part of the opposition to the tyrannical rule of Tarquinius Superbus. He joined with Lucius Brutus and others to overthrow the tyrant and send him into exile. However, when the time came to elect a pair of consuls to replace the king, the Romans chose Brutus, but passed over Poplicola for a lesser man, Collatinus.

The Romans quickly came to regret their choice.  Tarquin continued to foment trouble from exile, allying himself with some nobles, including the sons of Brutus, to plot a return to power. The plotters were overheard by a slave named Vindicius, who was initially torn as to whom he should report news of the plot. Although Poplicola was out of power at that time, Vindicius chose him as the safest person to whom to trust the news. Poplicola immediately sprang into action and went to see the two consuls. Brutus quickly recognized the need to protect the nascent republic, but Collatinus was equivocal. The plotters were brought before the consuls and a crowd of angry Romans (who had no desire to see the return of the rule of kings). Brutus first disposed of his sons, refusing their pleas for mercy and surprising the Romans by ordering the people to judge them, thus indicating that Rome would be a city of laws not men (they were immediately and gorily put to death). The Romans were so impressed by this and other acts that Brutus was widely credited with having a greater share in the creation of Roman government than Romulus himself. The rest of the plotters were summarily dispatched, but Tarquin escaped to fight another day. 

Collatinus fled the City after all of this and the Romans gratefully elected Poplicola to serve as consul alongside Brutus. Vindicius was freed and made a citizen of Rome for his service. Eventually, the romans came to call a perfect manumission, "vindicta," the root of our vindication. The Romans seized Tarquin's castles and wealth, which had been seen as stolen from them. Tarquin persisted in plotting his return, allying with the Tuscans who raised an army to attack Rome. Brutus and Poplicola led the Roman army against the invaders. After a pitched battle, the Romans were victorious, but at great cost; Brutus was killed. Poplicola returned in triumph and spoke a moving funeral oration for Brutus, thus beginning the Roman tradition of funeral orations upon the deaths of prominent men. 

Poplicola then began setting up the legal and political institutions of the republic. In this he was influenced by Solon's example, especially with regard to setting up a system of electing leaders by popular vote. Poplicola first doubled the size of the Senate, and also appointed the replacements for the dozens of Senators killed in the war with the Tuscans. He set up an appeals system for litigants. He created an office of the treasury (the quaestors), so that no man could attempt to control or loot the city's wealth. He eased some of the criminal punishments laid down by Tarquin, but retained the death penalty for treason. Poplicola also engaged in several calculated acts of humility - including tearing down his magnificent villa - to show that the Roman people that its leaders should not engage in shows of ostentation. It was at this time he obtained the name "Poplicola," meaning "people lover." 

While Poplicola was reforming and redirecting Rome's government, forces outside the city were gathering to do it harm. Tarquin allied himself with the king of the Clusiums, Porsenna. Porsenna invaded and fought his way to the gates of Rome where Poplicola led the counter-attack, but was grievously wounded. Rome was almost taken, but was saved by a single warrior who held Porsenna's forces back at a bridge, thus allowing the Romans to regroup. Porsenna then laid seige (in the meantime, the Tuscans invaded from the south, but were fended off). 

Plutarch relates that the Romans tried to lift the siege by sneaking 300 warriors into Porsenna's camp to assassinate him. The assassin was caught, but impressed Posenna with his bravery by thrusting his hand into a sacred fire without flinching. Porsenna was supposedly so impressed with this that he freed the man and became much more sympathetic to the Roman cause, but Plutarch indicates that this is little more than a legend. Poplicola then prevailed upon Porsenna to act as an arbitrator between Rome and Tarquin. Tarquin haughtily refused to be judged by anyone, even Porsenna (his ally!), and Porsenna imposed a peaceful settlement between the Romans and Tuscans, while finally chasing Tarquin from the scene. For this the Romans erected a statue of Porsenna outside the Senate. 

Trouble next came from the Sabines. Initially, the Romans routed the Sabines in two battles, led by Poplicola's brother. The Sabines then allied with the Latins, but a Sabine named Appius began speaking out against war and finally led a rebellion against the Sabine leadership. Poplicola, in the classic manner of statesmen throughout history, secretly allied himself with the Sabines' fifth columnist. On Poplicola's invitation, Appius finally led 5000 Sabine warriors and their families to Rome, where they were made citizens. This effectively neutralized the Sabine threat, but the invasion went forward anyway. The Sabine army was easily destroyed, and Poplicola returned to Rome, once again, in triumph. Poplicola died soon thereafter, and was buried and mourned with the highest honors. 

Plutarch's Lives: Solon

Solon was famous in the ancient world, and ours, as the law giver for Athens. He is the third of Plutarch's "law givers," after Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius. But where the previous two set up systems that would seem inimical to modern sensibilities, Solon's provided for the political and legal foundation of a liberal democracy whose principles are still vital today. Further, the issues and interests that Solon had to balance in his career - dealing as he did with equality, justice, and economic competition - were the sort that we still wrestle with even now. 

Solon, like the others in Plutarch's early lives, was a man who lived at the dawn of written history, so his biography is sketchy, with the usual unconfirmable legends mixed in. The legends, however, are of the "George Washington and the cherry tree" variety, rather than the fantasies associated with Theseus. Solon was born in Athens to a family of modest wealth and influence. He was cousin to Pisastratus, a man who would be Solon's foil throughout his life. The men were political rivals, but Plutarch states that the two had a life-long affection for one another such that their disagreements never boiled over into the sort of bloodletting that was common among the ancients. Plutarch also hints very broadly that the two loved one another in the "Greek way," if you catch my drift. It is difficult to pinpoint Solon's era. Modern historians seem to place him around the seventh century BC. However, Plutarch places him in the time after the Trojan War, suggesting that Solon was a contemporary to the sons of Ajax, and that Homer even included an oblique reference to Solon in the Catalogue of Ships. 

Solon's career was as a traveling merchant, a position in disrepute both then and now. Plutarch feels compelled to point out that plenty of worthy ancients were merchants, including Plato who funded his travels by selling oil in Egypt. Solon's work provided him with two things: experience with the broader world and a reputation for honesty. Solon became known first as a poet (Plutarch quotes extensively from his works, in fact most of Solon's poetry survives only because of Plutarch's quotes). Solon started with witty bromides, and practical wisdom, but then began adding more serious political fare. Solon - with his mercantile background, good humor, literary skills, and political genius - was a sort of Athenian Ben Franklin. 

Solon's first foray into political matters came about when he got involved in Athens' low-intensity war with the Megorans over possession of the island of Salamis. The Athenian king had become frustrated with the war and banned any discussion about it. Solon, sensing that the mood on the Athenian Street militated in favor of war, wrote a poem called "Salamis," memorized it, and then ran out into the street yelling it at the top of his lungs, pretending to be crazy to escape punishment for discussing Salamis. George Bush probably should have tried this tactic. Somehow, this proved to be decisive in persuading the Athenians to settle things once and for all. Once the island was taken, Solon was a hero and became well regarded for his wisdom and sage advice. 

Solon quickly became embroiled in the leading controversies of his day. Athens had recently emerged from the tyrannical  rule of Draco. Athens was riven by both economic rivalries, and disputes over how best to rule the city-state. Athens was divided into three parts: (1) the Hills, mostly poor folks who favored a democracy; (2) the Plains: a wealthy area that favored an oligarchy; and (3) the Seaside, an economically mixed area that also favored a mixed form of government. The rivalries threatened to boil over into civil war.

Economically, Athens was troubled by a very modern problem: the poor people in the Hills had become indebted to the wealthy people of the Plains, such that they lived lives - figuratively and sometimes literally as debt slaves. There was also dissension over the distribution of arable land, with a few landholders owing most of Athens farmland. The Hills wanted debt forgiveness and land reform, while the Plains saw both as little more than the theft of their rightfully owned property. The Athenians gave Solon absolute power to resolve these disputes, and reform the laws of Draco to create a more just society. The Athenians reposed such power in Solon because he had already proven himself trustworthy and modest. 

In resolving the economic controversies, Solon essentially decided in favor of debt forgiveness and against the land reform. Plutarch states that some sources said Solon ordered all debts forgiven, while others say he simply reduced the interest rate. Solon also changed the law so that so man could sell himself into slavery to pay his debts. In deciding thus, Solon angered both the Hills and the Plains, who each lost something even as they also gained. The Seaside, who seem to include Solon's own merchant class, seemed to gain the most because the stability in Athens political scene improved their trade. 

Solon then set out reforming the system for choosing leaders, so that Athens could avoid another tyrant like Draco. He established a four-tiered system, where one's economic standing would determine the offices you could hold. However, all citizens were allowed to sit in the assembly and on juries. 

Solon eased some of Draco's harsher criminal laws. Draco had made a wide range of crimes -  from stealing cabbages to murder and sedition - punishable by death. Solon reserved the death penalty for homicide, sedition, and blasphemy, and ameliorated the others. 

To liberalize and expand Athens' economy, Solon enacted measures intended to encourage work and thrift. He passed a law relieving children of the obligation to care for their aging parents if the parents had failed to teach them a trade. Solon changed the law of wills, so that people without heirs could leave their estates to friends or others of their choosing. He limited the dowries women, so that families did not go into debt. He also limited Athens' exports to olives and olive oil only. 

Solon wrote his laws on a set of stone tablets, and ordered that they be binding for at least 100 years. Plutarch claims that the remnants of the tablets were still in Athens in his lifetime. Solon then resigned his commission and travelled the Mediterranean. Along his way, he visited the court of Croesus, where Solon engaged in a famous conversation where he told Croesus, despite his great wealth, he was not the happiest man he had ever met because his happiness was only a temporary function of his wealth, and might be gone tomorrow. The tale was witnessed and recorded by Aesop himself, but Plutarch states that he believes that this is a legend, yet it was so widely believed, he felt compelled to include in his tale. 

Solon returned to Athens and once again became embroiled in Athenian politics. The same rivalries of the Hills, the Plains, and the Seaside were roiling the city. The Hills were led by Solon's cousin, Pisastratus, and he carried himself as a populist "man of  the people" type. Solon was inevitably asked to mediate the dispute. After meeting with the leaders of the three groups, Solon quickly realized that his cousin was little more than an opportunist seeking power, yet he did not betray him, but instead counseled him to govern honestly, if he were to govern at all. Pisastratus finally created enough destabilizing conditions that he did become tyrant of Athens, but in his reign he did try to seek the approval of Solon.

Solon finally retired to a life of leisure. He had intended all of his life to write an epic poem about the history of Atlantis (called the "Atlantic Island"), but abandoned it because he knew he would not live long enough to finish. Plato took up Solon's work, but also didn't finish, so that whatever real history of Atlantis that might have been known to the ancients is gone forever. After his death, Solon's ashes were scatted on Salamis, the scene of his first triumph. 

Plutarch's Lives: Numa Pompilius

Not exactly a household name now, Numa was known to the Ancients as the law giver of Rome. As with others of the earliest of Plutarch's Lives, the extant information about Numa is limited, with much of his life shrouded in legend. Thus, like in the life of Lycurgus, the reader learns more about the society and culture Numa helped to establish, than about the man himself. 

Numa was a Sabine, and a contemporary of Romulus. When Romulus died, the people of Rome were little more than a disputatious rabble, still divided along the tribal divide between Romans and Sabines. However, they had suffered enough under the last tyrannical years of Romulus' reign that they made an effort to find a moderate ruler who could unite the city's warring factions, and bring stability to Rome. They decided to hold a vote between two nominees: a Sabine nominated by the Romans and a Roman preferred by the Sabines. Numa, a Sabine, won the vote and - after some initial reluctance - became the second king of Rome. 

Numa was an unusual ancient king in that he was a scholar and mystic, rather than a warrior and conqueror. Numa did not add any territory to Rome's dominion. What he did was set Roman culture on a path towards greatness. He did this by instituting many of Rome's religious practices and festivals, which he saw as providing a means to impress upon the Roman masses a sense of wonder and awe for the universe. Plutarch claims that Numa was a disciple of Pythagorus (of Theorem fame), a belief apparently widespread in Rome, but unlikely as the two men lived a century apart. While Pythagorus is known now as a mathematician, he was known to the ancients as a mystic and philosopher whose innovations in geometry were directed more towards a religious end than a scientific one.

A prime example of this is the story of Numa's creation of the vestal virgins. Plutarch writes that they were among the most essential elements of Roman religious practice because they were tasked with keeping the vestal flame lit. For the Romans, fire (read: the sun) was the essence of life, and the vestal flame was a symbol of pure holy fire. Numa lit the vestal flame using a technique derived from the Pythagorean Theorem. The flame itself was kept in a circular room with the flame in the center, and the circular walls representing the manner in which the Earth circled the fire/sun. The basic mysteries of Roman religion were thus dependent on their knowledge of astronomy and geometry. 

Plutarch also credits Numa with instituting the 12-month, 365-day calendar. Before Numa, the Romans had used  a 10-month calendar, devised by Romulus, which began in March and ended in December, with two blank months in between. (this was apparently a typical characteristic of ancient calendars, which were used primarily to regulate the growing season) Numa created the months of January and February, and then instituted the practice of beginning the year in January. Numa's calendar wasn't perfect - the solar and lunar cycles eventually became decoupled from each other, requiring further tinkering, for example. However, it was an improvement over what came before, and was the basis for the calendar we know today. 

To quell the endless fighting between the Romans and Sabines, Numa divided the Romans into divisions based on their employment, creating guilds for the various occupations. This reduced violence in the city by causing people to focus on business rivalries, rather than blood rivalries. To alleviate the overcrowding and underemployment resulting from the large numbers of poor people within Rome's walls, Numa divided Rome's rural areas and assigned each of the urban poor to lots. His idea was to put people to work and improve their character through the bracing life of a farmer, who must remain attuned to the seasons, the weather, and the vagaries of nature. 

These were Numa's major innovations. He was also a benevolent ruler whom the Romans admired for his sense of justice, and for the peace that he brought with him during his reign. At his death, Numa asked that he be buried in one casket, and his writings and mathematic works be buried next to him in a second casket. The Romans did so. generations later, the Romans inadvertently dug the caskets up. The one containing Numa was empty, but the Romans found voluminous writings in the other. These writings were burned with the Roman leaders believing that the Roman people should not see their contents. Such was life in the ancient world, where the learning of one generation was easily lost by the carelessness of its successors. 

Plutarch's Lives: Lycurgus

Lycurgus was famed in the Ancient World as the Law Giver of Sparta. He was credited with creating the unique social and political structures that made Sparta a military power in its day, and a source of fascination for classics scholars and military historians ever since. While Athens is admired as the birthplace of democracy, and of western civilization, Sparta has drawn interest for its austerity, its military skill, and the regimented way of life it was able to maintain for generations. 

Plutarch, however, is quick to point out that there was very little extant information about Lycurgus, and it was unclear whether he even existed at all. Thus, Plutarch's "life" of Lycurgus spends much more time describing the social and political practices he instilled in the Spartans than it does actually telling the life history of Lycurgus. Plutarch's description of Sparta is quite detailed. For those who find democracy to be too noisy, and a market economy to be too messy, Sparta's austere, self-abnegating egalitarianism seems a welcome alternative. However, reading Plutarch, one comes away more disturbed than impressed with Spartan culture.

As Plutarch describes it, the bare bones of Lycurgus' were all that was known of him. He was apparently born into a royal house, but the era of his birth was unknown. The ancients did not even know what century he lived in with some making him a contemporary of Hercules, and others seeing him as a contemporary of Homer. There was agreement that he traveled around the Mediterranean, including rumored trips to Egypt and Spain. During his travels, he was exposed to different styles of government and political philosophies. Returning to Greece, Lycurgus ended up in Sparta, where he began using his powers of persuasion (supposedly his biggest gift) to talk the Spartans, then ruled by a conventional king, to make radical changes to their society. 

The first change was to create a senate that would act as a buffer between the king and the people. Lycurgus saw the senate as crucial, as it would be best positioned to blunt both the tyrannical impulses of the king and the chaotic demands of the People. The Spartan senate was made up of 30 (or 28) wise men, chosen for their wisdom and age. This would be the basic structure of Sparta's government. 

Lycurgus then set about radically changing Spartan society. Lycurgus' object was to reduce competition in Sparta by creating a system of radical equality. Lyurgus divided Sparta's lands into 40,000 equal sized lots, and then settled families on to each one by lot. The lots were inalienable and could not be passed from one generation to another. When a man came of age, he would simply be assigned a lot, either in the country or city, where he and his family would live. To reduce competition further, Lycurgus persuaded the Spartans to bring forth all of their gold and silver, and replaced Sparta's currency with lead. This supposedly removed the profit motive from Spartan life and prevented lawsuits. Plutarch is famous for mixing myth with straight history, but this is the most fantastical story he has told so far!

Lyurgus set up the boot camp style barracks where Spartan men were expected to live. He also set up the system of military drills and training that all Spartan youths were expected to participate in. For whatever reason, Plutarch spends a lot of time discussing the Spartan's sexual practices which are appropriately "Spartan." Spartan spouses were expected to live apart, with the husband coming home on occasion to sleep with his wife. Spartan intercourse was done  in a darkened room, with both partners unable to see the other. But, while a man could not see his wife naked, women were expected to go about naked on certain festival days, during which they would dance and sing for the men. Lycurgus' idea was that this would remove the mystery of Women from the minds of men and allow them to concentrate on other things, like homosexual affairs, about which Plutarch is also quite voluable. 

By this time, one might begin to wonder how the Spartans supported themselves if there was no currency or private property, and everybody spent the day doing drills. Plutarch explains, but only in passing. The Spartans were supported by the Helots, a sort of slave class that lived in a region conquered by the Spartans. The Helots grew the Spartans food, and also paid rent to the Spartans. Thus, the rigorous "egalitarian" Spartan culture that has been admired by so many was only made possible by a system of vassalage and slavery. The Spartans also seem to have terrorized the Helots as well. Plutarch tells that part of a Spartan youth's rite of passage would be to go to the land of the Helots with nothing but a knife and a bit of food. When the sun went down, the Spartan youths were expected to go out and kill as many Helots as they could get their hands on. This was an annual ritual! Plutarch argues that Lycurgus should not be blamed for this innovation, and says it was a perversion of Lycurgus' original training regimen. 

The picture that emerges of Sparta is thus a disquieting one. While one can admire Sparta's ostensible equality, such equality was only possible with the involuntary support provided by the Helots, who were truly oppressed. Sparta's approach to family life - with little sexual intimacy, family members living apart, and children removed from their mothers at a young age - is similarly oppressive, with the state taking the place of the family and preventing individuals from forming their own associations. And the idea that all of the Spartans willingly gave up their lands and gold is far fetched. If such a thing happened, it could only have happened after coercion and state-sponsored theft. 

The portrait of Sparta that emerges is that of a socialist paradise, where individuals surrendered their desires and ambitions for the good of the state. Such surrender was only possible because the Spartan state oppressed the Helots and treated them as a vast servant class to be terrorized into supporting their masters in Sparta. There are many who admire Sparta,  up to and including in the present day, but I would guess that its admirers would never wish to live there. 

Plutarch's Lives: Romulus

While Theseus was the founding father of Athens, Romulus is the founding father of Rome. Like Theseus, Romulus appears to be a historic figure, but the facts of his life have been buried in myth and legend. However, his life is not nearly as embroidered as that of Theseus. Plutarch is able to trace even the most fantastical elements of Romulus' legend to their original source. In telling the story of Romulus also gives us a glimpse into Rome's culture and self image.

Plutarch traces Romulus' ancestry to Aeneas, of course. Aeneas' descendants had ruled the kingdom of Alba until the regency developed upon two brothers, Numitor and Amulius. Although the two brothers were to share the kingdom, Amulius outmaneuvered Numitor, took full control, and became a tyrant. Numitor had an affair with a vestal virgin, which resulted in the birth of twins: Romulus and Remus. The newborns were in mortal danger from Amulus, so - like Moses - they were hidden away from hostile royal eyes and raised by a shepherd. 

The most famous part of the Romulus & Remus story is that they were suckled by a wolf. Plutarch treats this as being semi-factual. He also offers the plausible theory that "wolf" actually referred to an old Latin word for "loose woman," which could also refer to a woman known to have raised the two babies and whom the Romans regarded well enough to build temples in her honor. As with Theseus, Plutarch is excellent in his ability to separate myth from fact. 

When the two boys are grown, they are eventually discovered by the hostile Amulius. The brothers lead a rebellion against the tyrant, killing him and gathering a mob of followers around them. They leave Alba and travel to the future site of Rome where they begin building the city of Rome. While laying out the street grid, the two brothers begin arguing and Remus is killed. Plutarch suggests that it is unclear whether Romulus was the killer, but it is left ambiguous. Romulus, or someone close to him, also kills Romulus' foster father at this time, as well. This is remarkable behavior for the founding father of Rome. 

Romulus' followers were mostly men, which meant that Romulus needed to find some wives. This leads to the second legendary event associated with Romulus, and one of the oddest tales from the ancient world: the Rape of the Sabine Women. Romulus decided that the best way to procure wives for his men, and create an alliance with his neighbors the Sabines, would be to steal all of the Sabines unmarried women, rape them, and then marry them. Plutarch writes that the legend held only 30 Sabine women were taken, but Plutarch says that historic reality was that nearly 800 were taken. Not only that, Plutarch makes clear that they actually were raped by their "husbands" prior to being taken into their homes. Incredibly, the Sabine men - after an initial burst of anger - decide that being allied with Rome in such a manner is in their best interest!

This atrocity is not just a central part of the Romulus story; it was also part of the foundation myth of Rome itself. According to Plutarch, many of the elements of the Roman wedding ceremony (including the practice of carrying the wife over the threshold!) were intended to memorialize the Rape. The Sabine women, after initially pining for their lost homeland, become good wives and homemakers; so much so that, when the Sabines attack Rome several years later, the women intervene and announce that they will not return because they are now part of Rome. 

I think the strange story of the Rape of the Sabine Women says something profound about Roman values and the way Rome saw its place in the world. Rome was, from its earliest days, an aggressive power, but it viewed its aggression as being a necessary pre-condition to peace. Unlike barbarian tribes, Rome did not simply kill its enemies and destroy their cities. Rather, Rome would defeat them in battle and then bring them into Rome's orbit by incorporating the defeated power's most valuable attributes into Roman culture. The Rape of the Sabine Women is a thus symbolic of Rome's self-image as the conquering aggressor that was also a peacemaker. 

The remainder of Romulus' rule is a series of wars on one hand, and feats of statecraft on the other. Romulus is credited with founding the Roman Senate, among other achievements. Many Roman rituals and temples originated to memorialize events in Romulus' life. The Rome that started as a gaggle of shepherds escaping the rule of Amulius is, by Romulus' 50th birthday, a sizable city capable of fielding a large army and sending thousands out to colonize outlying areas. It is an impressive achievement. 

Eventually, however, Romulus becomes more tyrannical with age. Although the founding father of Rome, his tyranny is such that the Romans developed the Republic, so that no man would be able to oppress them in the manner that Romulus came to oppress them. That is a mixed legacy for a founding father. Romulus' end reflects this ambiguous legacy. Romans taught themselves that Romulus simply "disappeared" one day, meaning he was taken into the heavens by the gods. Plutarch, however, suggests that the more likely story was that Romulus was killed by rebellious Romans. One story even hinted that he was killed in secret by the Senate. 

Whatever the reason, it is clear that the Romans preferred to remember the Romulus who founded their city and civilization, rather than the Romulus who came to treat them as little more than his vassals. It is fascinating that the Romans seem to have willingly made up legends about Romulus, rather than confront the truth of his character. In many ways, Romulus was the quintessential Roman: strong, rationale, agrarian, warlike on the one hand; an aggressive, cruel, and tyrranical ruler on the other. That the Romans preferred to emphasize the former over the latter in their foundation myth suggests that they were equally unwilling to see the negative side of themselves as well.