Question III

As a third installment in my "intra-Bund" historicaly oriented line of discussion topics I had a thought.

We'll pause briefly to note here that prior was "who is our Pliny the Elder" or contemporary keeper of time and history; and before that, if you could have your hand at any profession, hold any degree, at the "wave of a wand", what would you have the desire to do?

And that thought was as follows ...

What is your favorite, period specific, model of a man in history?

Examples as to the parameters: Gladiator? Explorer? Settler? Fryer (or any time period specific man of faith)? Statesmen (such as the Roman senate, 16th Century European parliament, colonial America, etc). Soldier? Physician? Monarch?

In other words, what historical period male role/profession/trait, as an identifiable "group", do you aspire to/admire as a man in your every day operations, when conscience of it? Or perhaps it's better put - what historical male role do you most admire in terms of how you fancy yourself /conjers privatel impersonation (or inspiration, whichever you choose)?

In order to answer this we must accept some level of hubris, without attack on the other, for surely we will not "admire", or seek in some small way to imitate, some slothful existence, and as each will be some grand (at least to our self) example of how we would ideally fancy ourselves (and that's the essence of what I'm asking), then emberaasment over arrogance, on any real level, need not factor in. Also, dispensing with the obvious PC melodrama is a must - if you fancy yourself / admire a Roman (pick your specificity in time period/role), then pointing out slavery was rampant and that they assisted in killing Christ is neither helpful nor warranted. Get the picture?

Let me demonstrate by going first.

Growing up I had 2 very different aspects to my childhood. Time with my father (my parents were divorced when I was 8 years old), and time at my mother's. My father was a "city dweller." My mother, and the man she remarried (who set this tempo in her house) was quite the opposite. Camping, hunting, fishing, shooting for sport - while these were common place in my mother's household via her husband, my father saw these as plots to a Bruce Willis film. Within his concrete world as a physician he preferred hotels and Wrigley field to, well, ... a field.

Now, I say all this because a noticeable dialogue started (and I honestly don't blame my father, it's a natural coping mechanism when the ex remarries), in which cities, restaurants, grand hotels, airliners, these were not only preferable, but "above" simple country bumpkins who still liked to kill their own food or gut fish. The opposite was true in my mother's household. "You're not scared are you?" was a clear reference to what I was accustomed to with my father when my mother's husband "Mr.L", as we'll call him, would invite me to skin a catfish (a dreadful creature to peel I might add - skin like glued leather to the muscle). And as such I always assumed that either one or the other was "right." One was the preferred state of man, the other was in error, no matter how well intentioned. For years I sided with my father. But, as I spent the school year with my mother, nearly all my peers and friends, whom hunted and fished regularly, professedly (in their actions, not that we discussed this, ever) disagreed. So, things went on as follwed - with my father I presumed ordering $8 beer was how a man relaxed, at my mothers, $3 bait.

Now, I have to give Sean Connery credit for my answer to the original question above. I'll call it, the "Quartermain Effect", also to some extent known as the "Indiana Jones Effect." I saw his (Connery's) portrayal of Allen Quartermiane when I was a teenager (I think it was those years, young nonetheless) in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." Not a particularly standout film, fun enough to watch, but I digress ... Near the beginning he is summoned by the Realm to return to England and fight some horrible new evil threatening the crown and its' subjects. Summoned to "return" because the envoy had to travel to Africa, where he was living at the time, in some early 20th Century vestige of the British Empire. There he was, in a gentleman's lounge, with Cognac, reading material, looking poised to either discuss geopolitical strategy, or shoot down a boar at a 1000 paces. Quickly this dichotomy merges into the reality (of the movie) as he sets down his cognac and gentleman's reading material, ceases to lecture the young envoy on the politics of Empire, and literally leaps into action dispensing his enemies with one firearm after another as they bust through the door, the whole thing turning into an explosion climaxing, bullet flying melee.

Now, what does this have to do with me? It set the template for how I fancied myself, in however minuscule a way, from that point forward. I have since been enamoured, and (in my own way) saw myself trying to mimic that "perfect" male role model - the early 20th Century adventurous English gentlemen. Schooled in academics and safari (albeit, a MS outdoor style safari). Don't you see? No more choosing! That period man was able to either take on conversations about state (or take on being head of state for that matter), as quick as we was to draw a side arm and venture off into camping, shooting, and gutting his own food. As well as having good manners when fighting a beast or foe - I found the entire concept utterly attractive. And what's more, this type of man was admired by the peers of his day.

So, for me, lifting weights while listening to political commentary in the head phones, or gutting a fish with my mother while discussing the plight of the American dollar under Obama, or insisting that my sons recite the first 12 presidents (at a minimum) as toll for going shooting with their uncles, is forever inseparable aspects of the male personality which I prize.

In short, it is the early 20th Century educated, English gentlemen outdoorsman which is my favorite historical male model.