Russell's Paradox

                                                               Herr Cantor in a set of one

In this post, I'm taking a break from my latest obsession with 'Roman History' and interlarding my general nonsense with something very sensible and philosophical   

Bertrand Russell was an English mathematician, logician, philosopher, and undoubted intellectual powerhouse of the 20th century. I consider him the last 'Great Polymath' as his interests and abilities were diverse and multitudinous. His book: 'A History of Western Philosophy' is a wonder to behold. A great book by a great man. In this book, Russell not only encapsulates philosophic development spanning 2,500 years he also manages to place individual philosophers within historical and intellectual contexts. He cogently and eloquently represents philosophers within their intellectual milieu. He goes to great effort to consider the influence of prior philosophers upon man (philosophers are always, men- except in modern times when they are not), and the subsequent furtherance of intellectual development on those to come. In addition, his style is compact, elegant and without unnecessary embellishment. He comes from a time when folk of genius seemed to burst forth like ripe fruit in the summer sun and their abundant cornucopia spillethed (not a real word) upon a florid landscape (steady Flaxen-Arse). Alas, those times are no more.

Anyway, I've waxed enough- tis time to get to the point. Today's fare is a little on the dry side and intrudes upon the esoteric. It concerns, 'Set Theory'. Set theory was initiated in the 1870s by the brilliant German mathematician, Georg Cantor. Simply stated it concerns stuffing stuff into boxes, of different hues, or the same hue,  just because we can. As you will note, my style for the following is vastly different from my usual grandiloquent style. Tis more in keeping with my professional stance, in times past and not a single 'Arse' shall impinge, unless I get bored.  This post is not for all as it is, as a consequence of the subject matter a tad dry. But, gentle reader, it is difficult to present the problem in a more 'user-friendly' manner.  

Russell's paradox is a classic paradox in set theory that is named after the English philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell. The paradox arises when we consider the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. This set, known as the Russell set, is defined as follows:

R = {X | X is a set that does not contain itself}

The paradox arises when we ask the question: Does R contain itself? If R contains itself, then it must satisfy the condition of being a set that does not contain itself, which is a contradiction. On the other hand, if R does not contain itself, then it must satisfy the condition of being a set that does contain itself, which is also a contradiction. Thus, the paradox shows that there cannot be a set of all sets that do not contain themselves.

The paradox was first discovered by Russell in 1901 when he was attempting to find a way to avoid the logical paradoxes that had been discovered by the German mathematician Georg Cantor. Cantor had shown that there are different sizes of infinity and that the set of all sets is a larger infinity than any other infinity. This led to paradoxes like the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, which seemed to defy logic.

Russell's paradox is significant because it shows that there are limits to what we can define using set theory. It reveals a fundamental inconsistency in the way we think about sets and collections. It demonstrates that some assumptions we make about sets can lead to contradictions and inconsistencies.

To understand the paradox in more detail, let's consider the two cases that arise when we ask whether R contains itself or not.

Case 1: R contains itself

Suppose that R is a set that contains itself as an element. This means that R satisfies the condition of being a set that does not contain itself because R is a set that contains itself as an element. But this leads to a contradiction because R cannot both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time.

To see why, suppose that R contains itself as an element. Then R satisfies the condition of being a set that does not contain itself because R is a set that contains itself as an element. But this means that R does not belong to the set R, because the set R consists only of sets that do not contain themselves. This leads to a contradiction because R must belong to the set R since we assumed that R contains itself as an element.

Case 2: R does not contain itself

Suppose that R is a set that does not contain itself as an element. This means that R satisfies the condition of being a set that does not contain itself. But this leads to another contradiction because R must be an element of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. But R is itself a set that does not contain itself, so it must be an element of this set. This contradiction arises because we cannot consistently define the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.

The paradox shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we think about sets and collections. We assume that any collection of objects can be made into a set, but this assumption leads to paradoxes like Russell's paradox. We cannot define a set of all sets that do not contain themselves, because such a set leads to a contradiction.

Russell's paradox has significant implications for the foundations of mathematics and logic. It shows that some of our most basic assumptions about sets and collections are flawed and that we need to be careful when defining sets and collections. It also shows that there are limits to what we can prove using set theory and that we need to be aware of the limitations of our theories.

A select few great thinkers have proposed ways of circumventing the above contradiction. However, I deem that if I continue in this vein I will lose what little readership I already have.

Tis enough for today. I will endeavour to pen a less boring post on the morrow, but only if I remember to take my medication.  

        

Elagabalus

What a Pooftah

No doubt my astute readership will notice the flurry of posts toward the end of this month. In truth, I have a number of posts ready and waiting for posting but for the want of a little editing. Some of these posts 'in waiting' are quite old and thusly I've decided to put forth a little editing effort.

The Roman Emporer Elagabalus ruled Rome for but a short time. The reign was truncated and tumultuous, marked by scandal, corruption, and religious controversy.

I've written extensively about ancient Rome including vignettes on the more famous/infamous Roman emperors. Of course, there are many to write about, although most are unremarkable and demand to be forgotten. During the 3rd century, during a crazy period of political instability, emperors came and went at an alarming rate and it is a wonder why so many seemed so keen to take office when the average tenure could be measured in months. A time unimaginatively known as the 'Crisis of the Third Century'. Anyway, I've decided to continue the theme, concentrating on some of the more interesting and colourful characters ever to don 'The Purple'. Today's post concerns emperor Elagabalus. This was not his given name but a later addition/affectation due to his adherence to weird and exotic Oriental religious practices. This character was unfit to rule and was not expected to. A mere marionette whose strings were pulled by powerful personalities behind the screen, notably his mother and grandmother. 

If decadence can be measured by its rulers then the 'rule' of Elagabalus indicates how far the once great Roman Empire and society had declined. An institution initiated by Octavius in 27BC had seen a plethora of incumbents, of varying competence by the time of Elagabalus' rule. However, the general reader only remembers the like of Nero and Caligula. Who recalls Marcus Aurelius or Vespasian?

Elagabalus, also known as Heliogabalus, was a Roman Emperor who 'ruled' from 218 to 222 AD. He was born in 203 AD in Emesa, Syria, as the son of Sextus Varius Marcellus and Julia Soaemias, who was the niece of the Roman emperor Septimius Severus. His real name, assigned at birth, Sextus Varius Avitus Bassinianus, was more in keeping with his eventual destiny. He adopted the nickname Elagabulus due to the worship of a sun deity of the same name. Like Gaius Caesar Germanicus, who from an early age became known as Caligula (little boots), Elagabalus is virtually unknown by his birth name. At the tender age of 14, this unremarkable wretch became emperor after the assassination of his cousin, emperor Caracalla. Caracalla is also worthy of my literary ministrations- mayhap a blog topic for the future? 

Elagabalus was known for his extravagance, particularly his lavish spending on religious rituals and ceremonies. As mentioned, he worshipped an Eastern sun god and was a self-appointed priest of the effete deity, Elagabal, and rashly brought the cult of Elagabalus to Rome when he became Imperator. He ordered the construction of a temple to Elagabalus on the Palatine Hill, and he himself would perform the religious ceremonies, wearing extravagant robes and jewellery. He even tried to introduce the worship of Elagabalus as the primary religion of the Roman Empire, which caused outrage among the Roman people. Rome was usually tolerant of the importation and inclusion of foreign gods into their pantheon, nevertheless, there was a strict hierarchy of deities with the traditional Roman gods at the pinnacle. Even the dissipated Roman populace of the period was not quite ready for the usurpation of their religion by a lush Oriental idol. Eventually, Christianity would fulfil the role once Roman civilisation was at its nadir. 

Elagabalus was also known for his scandalous personal life. He married five times, including a Vestal Virgin, which was considered a grave offence in Roman society and without precedent. And indeed, in more enlightened times, a Vestal who broke her vows of chastity would be buried alive. He justified his decision by stating that the union, if fruitful, would result in 'god-like children'. A Roman should stay within cultural norms or be Caesar. He also had numerous sexual relationships with both men and women, which was considered abhorrent by conservative Romans. His behaviour was seen as disrespectful to Roman values and traditions, and he began to accrue opposition from the Roman Senate and more importantly and disastrously, the military. 

In addition to his religious and personal controversies, Elagabalus was also known for his ineffectual rule. He was heavily influenced by his mother, Julia Soaemias, and his grandmother, Julia Maesa, who were both ambitious and sought to control the emperor. Elagabalus was often distracted by his extravagant lifestyle and did not pay much attention to the affairs of the state. He appointed incompetent officials and advisors, which led to widespread corruption and mismanagement.

Elagabalus faced several challenges during his reign, including military uprisings and invasions by foreign powers. In 222 AD, he faced a rebellion led by his own cousin, Alexander Severus, who was supported by the Roman Senate and the Praetorian Guard. In March 222AD whilst visiting the Praetorian camp Elagabalus was assassinated along with his mother, Julia Soaemias, by his own troops. Alexander Severus became the new emperor and attempted to restore order to the Roman Empire. For the period, Severus' reign of 13 years (222-235AD) is to be considered almost miraculous.    

Despite his short and controversial reign, Elagabalus  left a lingering impression on Roman history. His introduction of the cult of Elagabalus to Rome had a lasting impact on Roman religion, and some scholars argue that his influence can be seen in later Christian practices. His scandalous personal life and extravagance also contributed to the further decline of the Roman Empire and the erosion of traditional Roman values. Elagabalus remains a fascinating figure in Roman history, representing the excesses and corruption of the later Roman Empire. 

The Unkindest Cut of All

 The Tool of Religious Devotion 

Today's contribution is a little off the beaten track in comparison to my usual literary fare. Here I briefly consider, in my opinion, one of the vilest and most despicable practises enacted by the Catholic Church in a long history and litany of horror put forth in the name of 'Religious Devotion'. A practice performed on boys, subject to coercion, or at worst, performed without consent. A procedure that left the abused mutilated and forever locked in sexual immaturity.      

Castrati were male singers castrated before puberty to preserve their high-pitched singing voices. This practice originated in Italy in the 16th century and continued for a further three centuries. Testicular removal was deemed, and designed, to preserve a male's prepubertal voice. A most desired characteristic to please the rich and higher clergy alike. Mutilation was seen as a way to produce a type of singer who could perform the elaborate and highly ornamented music of the Baroque and early Classical periods. In this post, I will examine both the history and controversy surrounding this perverse/perverted practice.

The act of castrating young boys for the purpose of musical prowess began in the late 16th century in Italy. The demand for castrati arose from the growing popularity of opera, which featured highly virtuosic singing that required a range and flexibility of voice that few mature, and intact, male singers could achieve. Castration, prior to puberty, prevented the boy's larynx from fully developing, allowing them to retain their high-pitched singing voices forevermore.

The procedure was performed by cutting off the testicles, which produced a number of physiological changes in the body (no shit). The lack of testosterone during a critical developmental time prevented the vocal cords from thickening, which, in turn, allowed the retention of prepubescent vocal tones. The castrati also had larger lung capacity and therefore greater endurance, which allowed them to sustain long, complex vocal passages.  

Castrati quickly became the stars of the opera world, and their popularity spread throughout Europe. They were highly sought after by opera companies and performed for royalty and the wealthy elite. Their voices were considered to be the pinnacle of vocal artistry, and they were revered for their ability to sing with incredible power, range and emotion.

Despite their success and popularity, the practice of castration was controversial, and enlightened folk railed against the custom. The Catholic Church initially supported the practice, as castrati were considered to be an acceptable alternative to women singing in church choirs, which was deemed inappropriate. Of course, there was no way the inferior female, the wretched instigator of the 'The Fall' would be allowed to sing in God's sacred house. Arse. The Church believed that only castrati could provide a pure, angelic sound to enhance the liturgy, sans bollocks.

However, as the popularity of castrati grew, so did its criticism. In time, it began to be viewed, by many, as an abomination against nature. The procedure was also dangerous, and many boys died during the procedure, or by subsequent infection or other medical complications, post-op.

As the 18th century progressed and with the 'Enlightenment' in full swing, attitudes toward castrati began to shift about a bit. Enlightened times brought forth a greater focus on reason and ethics, and castration was increasingly seen as barbaric and a violation of basic human rights. The Church also began to distance itself from the practice and issued a decree in 1770 that prohibited the castration of boys for musical purposes.

Despite this, the popularity of castrati persisted into the 19th century, although it began to decline as musical tastes changed. The rise of Romanticism and the emphasis on naturalism in music led to a greater appreciation for more natural, unadorned singing styles. By the mid-19th century, the practice of castration had largely disappeared.

Today, there is a renewed interest in the castrati and their music. Modern technology has allowed us to recreate the sound of the castrati using computer modelling and voice analysis. Recordings of modern singers performing castrati repertoire can be found online and in music stores.

The controversy surrounding castrati raises important ethical questions that still resonate today. The practice of castration for musical purposes violated the natural rights of the child and caused immense physical and emotional pain. At the same time, it produced some of the most sublime and beautiful music ever written. The legacy of the castrati reminds us of the power of music and the lengths to which people will go to achieve musical perfection. And also, it is a reminder of the power of the Catholic Church in times past. What an execrable institution.  

Ode to Shagger the Ferret

                                Shagger in his prime: Go Shagger!

Tis the first post of the merry month of May (poetic licentious)

and I have penned an ode to my beloved ferret, Shagger. I'm inclined to style my prose with an archaic lilt just to show what a pretentious cunt I am. Arse

Oh, Shagger, fair ferret of the land,

With fur as soft as finest sand.

Thy whiskers long, thy eyes so bright,

Thou art a creature of delight.

From field to field, thy feet doth tread,

A nimble soul, with grace instead.

A playful beast, with tricks to share,

Thou art a creature beyond compare.

With every bound, and every leap,

Thou dost evoke a joy so deep.

The children laugh, the elders smile,

Thou art a creature without guile.

Oh, Shagger, creature of the wild,

With spirit free and heart beguiled,

Thou dost run and jump and play,

And fill our hearts with joy each day.

Thy nimble form, with grace and charm,

Dost fill our souls with sweetest balm.

Thy playful ways, thy gentle soul,

Thou art a creature of the whole.

From dawn till dusk, and dusk till dawn,

Thou art a creature to be drawn.

With love and laughter in thy wake,

Thou art a creature we must take.

Oh, Shagger, fair ferret of the land,

With fur as soft as finest sand.

Thy spirit free, thy heart so true,

Thou art a creature we pursue.

In fields and woods, in hills and glades,

Thy spirit free, thy soul ne'er fades.

Thou art a creature of the wild,

With heart and soul both sweet and mild.

So come, dear Shagger, take my hand,

And lead me through this wondrous land.

With thee beside me, heart so bright,

I know my days will be filled with light.

Oh, Shagger, creature of the wild,

With spirit free and heart beguiled,

Thou dost run and jump and play,

And fill our hearts with joy each day.

So there it is gentle reader. My heart overflows with plaque and assorted cellular detritus. So before you go, take heed, and be overjoyed to know that my next post will be very sensible indeed. This will manifest my true nature and detract/distract from my palpable, nay glaring, ferret fixation.

Sad Tidings

Sadly, last Saturday I found two of our alpacas dead in their pasture. This leaves just Ted, the alpaca, and Bert (sheep). I immediately called the local livestock vet to check on Ted and Bert, our remaining boys. However, we had to wait several hours for a visit. After examination, he declared the boys healthy, but as a precaution gave them a cocktail of drugs even though he was unsure why our other livestock had died. The weather was extremely hot and although our stock could not have been dead more than 24 hours, they were already attracting a myriad of flies and starting to stink. I wanted to wait, before internment, to see if the vet could provide a diagnosis. I had managed to secure a mechanical digger on short notice and therefore made the decision to bury our boys before the vet could attend. 

So what could have killed our two, apparently healthy-looking, boys? Just the day before we had been hand-feeding our stock and they looked fine. The only recent change in their routine had been the week before when they all received their annual cut and drench (anthelmintics). The drench contains chemicals to kill off internal parasites that all stock animals are prone to. There is nothing to suggest that the chemicals contained in the drench solution would cause harm as they are specifically formulated for alpacas. I did a little research to see if the presence of certain plant species could prove fatal if ingested. I scoured the pasture and couldn't identify any potentially poisonous plant species.

I'm at a loss to understand what could have killed our boys. Anyway, we are monitoring our two surviving livestock and keeping a close eye on their demeanour and general health.  

Bow Making

Tillering Stick, of DOOM.

My Bow-Making Journey

I have a keen interest in archery and I'm privileged that I own a property where I can shoot my bows safely without killing the neighbours. That said, I do have plenty of land to hide the bodies. In addition, I own a barn to which I've dedicated a large section for my woodworking activities, including bow making. Anyone who has indulged in the art of bow building will acknowledge that it is not an easy enterprise. You would think the most simplest of bows, the English longbow (ELB) would be relatively easy to build. After all, it's just a straight stick. But this is certainly not the case. The trick is to achieve a bow in which both limbs bend evenly and in concert together throughout the length of the bow. Sounds easy, but in practice, this is, without doubt, the most challenging part of the bow-making process. If you so desire to make a more complex design, such as a recurve, or reflex/deflex bow there will be additional challenges. If you really want fun, perhaps you should design a laminated bow comprising three different wood species.

After 5 years of endeavour, of only trying to make ELBs I have a box full of broken staves and a single, poorly built bow. Bow-making is not a skill that can be mastered overnight. It takes many years, at least in my case, to get to a stage where I can confidently make a bow, and honestly, I'm not there yet. Bow-making requires patience and a modicum of forbearance. There is nothing more frustrating than spending many hours crafting a bow and ending up breaking the bow at the last stage. I would be lying if I said I haven't been discouraged and therefore I have had a break from bow-making in general. But recently, I've decided to get orf my big fat arse (big fat arse!) and try anew.

This time I purchased a rough stave for the construction of an ELB. This time, it differs from my previous endeavours in that the stave is a trilaminate composite. My previous attempts were undertaken on a single piece of wood, unadorned (self-bow). The trilaminate I'm attempting to build this time consists of osage orange (belly), with a bamboo core and an outer strip of hickory. These disparate wood pieces have been securely glued together to form a composite whole.  Also, this stave has been commercially sourced specifically for constructing an ELB. My previous attempts involved using wood from trees grown on my property or timber obtained from a local timber store. A critical part of the overall process is not only selecting the right species of hardwood but also ensuring that the piece of wood chosen is optimal for bow making. There are many factors involved, but I won't be considering the complex mix of characteristics, here. Thus, the advantage of purchasing a piece of wood, specifically designed for bow-making, is that it removes the problem of optimal stave requirements. 

So far, I have been carefully removing wood from the belly of the bow (osage) using a farrier's rasp and a cabinet maker's scraper. Thus far, I have been very conservative with the wood removal and have tried to keep the amount removed spread equally along the length of the bow. So far, so good. The next stage is the dreaded tillering. To help in the process I've constructed a 'tillering stick' (see photo). This simple device allows the 'proto-bow' to be bent along its length using a simple pulley system. This allows the bowyer to stand away from the bow to gain perspective. Hopefully, this will enable me to detect weak spots (hinges) and areas of unequal bending. Areas of the limbs can be marked with a pencil to indicate where wood needs to be removed. Furthermore, any weak spots should be identified and wood from this area, not be removed. This is a painstaking process but is critical. At some stage, the bowyer comes to a stage where he is happy with the work and stops. In the end, I'm aiming for a bow of around 40 to 50lbs draw weight at a draw length of 28".  

Once I've completed the project I'll post an update and let my readers know whether I have a fully functioning bow or, alternatively, expensive firewood.   

Gratuitous photo of my three crap dogs, plus my son's equally shit hound

Cato the Elder

                                                               Dat no Brat Pitt

As we start February 2023 I've decided to continue with a post about the ancients. Today's post concerns a Roman gentleman whom I will refer to as 'Cato the Elder' (b234 BC - d149 BC). There is a Cato, called 'Cato the Younger'. However, he is not as interesting or compelling as the older Cato. As far as I'm aware, there is no recorded instance of 'Cato the Juvenile' or a 'Cato Approaching Middle-Age'.   

Above we have a Roman bronze bust of Cato (I will no longer refer to Cato, as the Elder; simple Cato will suffice- with one exception). The rendition represents a realistic style characteristic of Rome art, of the period. As can be discerned, the 'portrait' is not particularly flattering to the man, in the looks department. I'm sure my dedicated readers are aware of the book, 'The Picture of Dorian Grey', by Oscar Wilde. Anyway, if the principle of the novel is sound, then we can see that Cato did not live an exemplary life. And indeed, from the accounts we have, it appears that the creases and lines skillfully crafted upon the 'portrait' are well deserved. However, I am forced to add, that to later Romans, he was considered an exemplar of how a Roman should conduct himself, both privately and in public - go figure. 

Marcus Porcius Cato is a rather remarkable and important fellow, of his time, but like poor Scipio Africanus, is mostly unknown, except to specialists. In mitigation, he did live 2,200 years ago. To understand Cato's nature and actions I need to add a little introductory material. This is necessary in order to place Cato in some form of coherent, historical context.

Cato came along at a time when Rome was undergoing intense social and economic change. He was a plebian by birth and, although considered a 'new man' by the sniffy patricians became widely respected amongst all classes, but not universally liked  The First Punic War was the first contest between Rome and Carthage, and it was a bitterly fought struggle, with Rome as the ultimate victors (264 BC - 241 BC). The fruits of victory were profound. The acquisition of Sicily, after the war, brought great riches to Rome. Sicily, prior to the war, had been equally divided between the Greeks and Carthaginians. The land was highly cultivated and the cities along the east coast were sophisticated, wealthy and Hellenic. And also, let us note that Rome imposed a hefty and punitive war indemnity (pun intended) on the Carthaginians, consisting of much silver, among other things. All this wealth, flooded into the coffers of the minority elite and things began to change. This was not the only challenge the Romans had to deal with. After the war, the Romans became seriously acquainted with Greek culture and civilisation and were mightily impressed. They soon came to realise, that in comparison, they were uncultured oafs. The upper crust began to learn Greek and ape Greek mannerisms. Greek orators and philosophers flooded Rome and obtained an easy living under the patronage of rich patricians, like the Scipio family, who were utterly philhellenic. During this time, Cato can be seen as a reaction against opulence, and as he thought, the effeminate decadence of Greek influence. He considered close contact between the cultures enervating and detrimental to the Roman conception of stoic, hardy manliness- he had a point. 

Cato was commended for living a simple bucolic life. Although admired, his lifestyle was unlikely to be emulated.  Apparently, he was happy to work the fields alongside his slaves and partake of a simple repast. He was also a brave and famed soldier and led contingents of soldiers in the Second Punic War both in Spain and Italy. In 191 BC he became involved in the successful conclusion of the war against Antiochus III at Thermopylae. Cato was renowned for living a simple unadorned life and had great respect for old Roman virtues. At least as understood by Romans, of his time. By our standards, he would be considered boorish and brutal. His own household was ruled by a 'rod of iron'. His slaves were either working or sleeping and mercilessly beaten or executed for minor transgressions. When his slaves became too old for practical work they were sold.

From the above, we might conclude that Cato was an uneducated brute, but this is not the case. Indeed, he was a highly educated man. He was famous for his oratory which was simple and unembellished, with no verbal frippery. He wrote several books however, only one has survived in full. Only fragments of the others remain to this day. Like all Romans of note, he progressed in society, and the ranks, with a military career (military tribune) and it appears that Cato was a competent soldier. Cato's oratory, legal skills and behaviour became noted by a patrician, Lucius Valerius Flaccus, and Flaccus became Cato's mentor and supporter. The preferred way a man could proceed and excel in the Roman world was through the support of an elder, wealthy adherent. The patronage/client system in Roman affairs should not be underestimated. Under Flaccus' influence and guidance, Cato progressed through the required political ranks. In 205 BC he was elected quaestor; aedile in 109 BC and praetor in Sardinia (198 BC). In 195 BC he was elected to the highest office Rome could bestow, consul. 

The great soldier and contemporary of Cato's, Scipio Africanus- he who finally defeated Hannibal, incurred the wrath of Cato mainly due to his philhellenic stance. Due to Cato's concerted attack, Scipio's political reputation was sullied and the great soldier, and statesman, became embittered and left Rome for good, dying soon after (d 183 BC).

In 184 BC, Cato was elected to the position of 'censor' together with his mentor and mate, Flaccus. This was an interesting position. In essence, these twin magistrates were arbitrators of Roman moral conduct. Good luck says, I! Cato was worried about the perceived degeneration of Roman vigour and moral fibre due to the pernicious infiltration and influence of Greek culture. He, therefore, introduced laws to prohibit/inhibit the ostentatious expression of wealth. In this venture, he ultimately failed.

In his later years, he was renowned for his expression of hate for Carthage. And his, 'Carthago est delenda' echoed throughout the forum. His plea was noted and in 146 BC Carthage was utterly destroyed. It was inevitable, there was only room for one great power thereabouts. Few folk know the historic importance of the destruction of Carthaginian power. It determined that Western Civilisation would subsequently be founded on the flint hard, and brutal, stoicism of  Rome, rather than the lush, and exotic, Semitic Carthage.   

Undoubtedly when Cato died in 149 BC he was out in the field ploughing the Sod.  

What are we to make of this Cato?

I need to ask, would I have been enthralled to sit in a pub and have a few beers with 'Cato the Ferret', sorry, I mean 'Elder'? I would like to state: Mayhap we should not judge this gentleman, or Romans of the time, by our standards and mores. There was no equivalent of the 'Geneva Convention', in the ancient world, however, it does appear that the 'Civilised Nations' of the Mediterranean did comply (mostly) with the terms of treaties drawn up between nations, and these treaties were sanctioned by their various gods. It would have been impious to break such compacts. There were also a set of informal policies/rules, applied to war. For example, after a long siege, the inhabitants were likely to be slaughtered and survivors enslaved and the city thoroughly sacked. This gave an incentive for a city to capitulate early for the promise of leniency. The ancients, in general, followed dictums of war that modern man would find familiar/similar. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun where human nature is concerned. We moderns take the moral high ground at our peril. All that said, to our minds, and through the mists of time, the ancients appear unnecessarily cruel and wanton. To return to my question. I think my answer would be an emphatic, no. While no doubt the man was intelligent, erudite and cultured, in spite of the rustic pretence, I suspect Cato would have been an absolute, bore in social gatherings. There is only so much rusticism a man can take. Also, I'm not a great fan of posca- nuff said. Arse bucket.