August 2012

S M T W T F S
   1 234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Friday, March 16th, 2007 03:21 pm
Why the heck did they let him speak, that's what I'd like to know . . . it was just dumb . . .

In honor of the ides of March! Which was in fact yesterday, but it's still the 15th in my native time zone, so this counts. A poem!

On the Vanity of Earthly Greatness, by Arthur Guiterman

The tusks which clashed in mighty brawls
Of mastodons, are billiard balls.

The sword of Charlemagne the Just
Is Ferric Oxide, known as rust.

The grizzly bear, whose potent hug,
Was feared by all, is now a rug.

Great Caesar's bust is on the shelf,
And I don't feel so well myself.
Tags:
Friday, March 16th, 2007 11:34 pm (UTC)
While they were doing political assassinations, they might as well have offed him, too. Nothing but trouble from that quarter, anyone could see it. ::nodnod::

I like silly poems like that. ;-) There's a great one by Phillip Lopate . . . and You Are Old, Father William by Lewis Carrol fills me with delight . . .
Saturday, March 17th, 2007 01:33 am (UTC)
I've always thought the Ides of March was really freaky. I mean, here you are (assuming you are Caesar), walking into the forum, and suddenly all these Senators surround you and start stabbing! It's horrible!

But as to why they didn't kill Marc Antony, well--because then we wouldn't have had Antony and Cleopatra!^^ No, seriously, wasn't there a reason? I think someone suggested that they kill Antony and in the end they didn't. Antony was so well-liked though, that killing him may have had serious repercussions.
Saturday, March 17th, 2007 07:08 am (UTC)
I dunno if there was a reason, but there's another good reason why they shouldn't have let him give a speech. They were really too nice about the whole thing.
Saturday, March 17th, 2007 07:29 am (UTC)
LOL, he gave the speech and roused the populace, didn't he? It was a damned brilliant speech.^^

(They probably felt a little guilty about brutally stabbing a man to death.)
Saturday, March 17th, 2007 12:51 pm (UTC)
Bah, if you're going to brutally stab a man to death because you think it's the right thing to do, why would you leave his popular nephew around to make rabble-rousing speeches and undo all your hard work? Might as well have not stabbed him at all, really, would have saved some trouble.
Saturday, March 17th, 2007 05:22 pm (UTC)
But I think you also have to give some credit to the conspirators for wanting to keep the deaths at a minimum.^^ It could also be that they liked Marc Antony and were kind of just hoping he'd not make much trouble. They were wrong, but not everyone's cut out to be completely ruthless.^^

Didn't they kill Julius Caesar because they thought he'd gotten too powerful? I seem to recall he was a pretty good Caesar, from what little Roman history I remember--certainly not deserving of such a brutal death (unless I'm completely forgotten something really important). Come to think of it, Kennedy was a good president and he was offed. Lincoln was a good president and HE was offed. Not to try comparing the US to Rome or anything, but why do all the good leaders get offed?

Anyway my point is that you're right, they never should've stabbed him at all.^^;
Sunday, March 18th, 2007 02:17 pm (UTC)
Most of what I know of that particular era of Roman history comes from Shakespeare, and that from an old black-and-white movie version I watched with my father, so I can't really say one way or the other. ;-)

As for comparing the US with Rome, it's certainly been done often enough . . .