Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts

Friday, June 4, 2010

Scipio Africanus: A New Kind of Roman

Known to readers of this blog as 'that guy who finally beat Hannibal,' Scipio Africanus was much more than just another Roman military genius. He grew his hair long, wore his toga in an unorthodox style, preferred Greek culture and language to Latin, and became a model of later charismatic commanders like Gaius Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and Julius Caesar. Scipio introduced the cult of personality into Roman politics, and it was a cult that would outlive and ultimately destroy the Republic itself.

Scipio got his start at age 17, joining his father on campaign against the Carthaginian invaders. He was present at the battles of Ticinus, Trebia, and Cannae, all of which ended with decisive victories for Hannibal. In 211 BCE a mere five years after that crushing defeat at Cannae, Scipio went to the Senate and requested command over the new Roman army which was being sent to Spain (the previous army had been utterly destroyed by Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal). The other candidates kept their mouths shut, believing Spain to be a death sentence, now that it was once again so firmly under Carthaginian control. Scipio promptly captured New Carthage and proceeded to win goodwill for Roman occupation. He set captives free, and returned a young Celtiberian princess to her fiancé and family, thus earning that tribe's allegiance against the Carthaginians.

Wisely plotting his strategic course, he sought to defeat the three Carthaginian armies in the area one by one, knowing that they would too far outnumber his own legions if he faced them all at once. He faced off against Hasdrubal Barca in the battle of Baecula and gained a victory by using a similar technique that gave Hannibal the victory at Cannae. Hasdrubal withdrew and marched on Italy, and in a controversial move both now and then, Scipio Africanus refused to pursue. There have been many theories of why he did this, but I tend to believe that it was his strategic good sense that prevented him from risking being caught between the remnants of Hasdrubal's forces and those of Mago or Gisgo, the other two Carthaginian commanders in Spain.

After gaining more Celtiberian allies, he defeated the two other Carthaginian commanders at Ilipa (modern Seville) in 206 BCE, and consequently drove their commanders out of Spain entirely. In addition to recruiting the local tribes, Scipio also made overtures to Syphax and Massinissa, two Numidian princes who agreed to cease their support of Carthage and supply the Roman army with cavalry. This was a huge win for the Romans because Numidian cavalry of the time outmatched nearly all other types, and was one of the chief causes of Hannibal's many successes. Syphax later switched back to the Carthaginian side, marrying one of their noble-ladies to seal the deal, but Massinissa proved extremely helpful in the later invasion of Carthage itself.

Scipio was the ultimate success story for the new culture of Rome: a culture which was fast-growing among the military and plebs. The old Roman model of farmer/soldier was quickly eroding under the increasing power of the Senate and their abusive practices toward the soldiers and the poor. The conservatives in the Senate distrusted his charismatic Greek mannerisms and disliked his fame. When Scipio won at Zama and ended the Second Punic War, he was greeted as a national hero in Rome and given his famous moniker Africanus. Several dissident groups offered to nominate him as Dictator or Consul for Life, but to his credit, he refused. It seems that this radical, innovative commander and politician had some old-fashioned Roman virtue in him after all.

Pax vobiscum

Thursday, June 3, 2010

A Precedent for Controversy

Christianity has never truly been a monolithic religion. Even as near as twenty years (or so) after Christ's death, there were disagreements and controversies which required church councils to be formed to work out what exactly the church was supposed to believe. The earliest recorded controversy was between the Apostle Paul and a group known as the Judaizers.

The Apostle Paul was no doubt a charismatic and radical leader for his day. Imagine a six-figure earning CEO giving his money to the poor and becoming a militant Communist. That's easily the same sort of shock people in the first century would have felt upon learning that Saul, a rabidly zealous Pharisee who sought to put all Christians to death, had now become not just a Christian, but a proselytizer and ardent missionary who devoted his life to spreading the faith he once tried to destroy.

Paul preached a Gospel of radical grace – where all of our sins were cast upon the crucified Christ, and all we must do to receive salvation and eternal life is believe in Jesus and serve God as a redeemed people. However, as often happens, people raised their eyebrows at this notion of a free offer and many could not shake the old idea that we have to do something to save ourselves. Enter the Judaizers, a group of former Pharisees who encouraged newly converted Gentiles to become circumcised and obey the Hebrew food laws.

The Judaizers were scoring points for Christianity with the old guard Jewish leaders, and they resented Paul for making this new faith something that not only included Gentiles, but failed to give them the adequate requirements of the law which they viewed as necessary for communion with God. Paul accused them of denying Christ's sacrifice and making God's work void by placing their faith in good works, as if they could truly outweigh sin.

The two groups met at Jerusalem, where the book of Acts records the Council of Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus. Both sides were heard, and the decision was handed down after much deliberation amongst the Apostles: Gentile believers were to continue in sanctification (the process by which people on earth are made holy during the course of their lives) and to avoid food that was used in Pagan sacrifices. The food requirement was definitely an attempt to appease the Judaizers, but if the rest of the book can be believed, it failed to mollify the Pharisees who hounded Paul and sought to destroy him at every turn.

The Judaizers separated themselves from the Christian community at this point, and seemed to return to the Jewish faction which was seeking to destroy this troublesome sect. They were the first of many groups who would reject the authority of church councils and go their own way, and this precedent of calling the church leaders together to discuss, pray over, and decide various points of doctrine continues in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christianity today, and to a lesser degree, in Protestant circles as well.

Pax vobiscum.