Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Imperial Rome] When was the Roman Republic 'doomed'?

Expand Messages
  • Scot Mcphee
    ... When tarquinius superbus was overthrown.
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 31, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 31/07/2009, at 19:53 , postumusagrippa wrote:

      > Hello Group.
      >
      > I can't believe I didn't think to ask this question before - at what
      > point do you think the Roman Republic was 'doomed'? In other words,
      > when was it impossible that it would survive?
      >
      > Some possible points:
      > * The time of Sulla and Marius?
      >
      When tarquinius superbus was overthrown.
    • Ty Sponchia
      The republic was doomed when soldiers became dependent on their Generals for land and basic needs. At that point they were in fact mercenaries, not soldiers.
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 31, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The republic was doomed when soldiers became dependent on their Generals for land and basic needs.
        At that point they were in fact mercenaries, not soldiers.
         
        Ty Sponchia



        From: postumusagrippa <no_reply@...>
        To: imperialrome2@...
        Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:53:18 AM
        Subject: [Imperial Rome] When was the Roman Republic 'doomed'?

         

        Hello Group.

        I can't believe I didn't think to ask this question before - at what point do you think the Roman Republic was 'doomed'? In other words, when was it impossible that it would survive?

        Some possible points:
        * The time of Sulla and Marius?
        * The formation of the triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar?
        * Caesar defeating Pompey?
        * The defeat of the assassins of Caesar?
        * The defeat of Antony by Octavian?

        Feel free to come up with your own and discuss.

        Barry


      • Gerry Carter
        ________________________________ From: postumusagrippa To: imperialrome2@yahoogroups.co.uk Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 10:53:18 AM
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 31, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment



          From: postumusagrippa <no_reply@...>
          To: imperialrome2@...
          Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 10:53:18 AM
          Subject: [Imperial Rome] When was the Roman Republic 'doomed'?

           

          Hello Group.

          I can't believe I didn't think to ask this question before - at what point do you think the Roman Republic was 'doomed'? In other words, when was it impossible that it would survive?

          Some possible points:
          * The time of Sulla and Marius?
          * The formation of the triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar?
          * Caesar defeating Pompey?
          * The defeat of the assassins of Caesar?
          * The defeat of Antony by Octavian?

          Feel free to come up with your own and discuss.

          Barry


        • DKM
          When Caesar was not allowed to stand for his second consulship in absentia. ________________________________ From: postumusagrippa
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 1, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
             
            When Caesar was not allowed to stand for his second consulship in absentia.


            From: postumusagrippa <no_reply@...>
            To: imperialrome2@...
            Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 10:53:18 AM
            Subject: [Imperial Rome] When was the Roman Republic 'doomed'?

             

            Hello Group.

            I can't believe I didn't think to ask this question before - at what point do you think the Roman Republic was 'doomed'? In other words, when was it impossible that it would survive?

            Some possible points:
            * The time of Sulla and Marius?
            * The formation of the triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar?
            * Caesar defeating Pompey?
            * The defeat of the assassins of Caesar?
            * The defeat of Antony by Octavian?

            Feel free to come up with your own and discuss.

            Barry
             

          • michael mccarthy
            Message 5 of 22 , Aug 1, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              <<The republic was doomed when soldiers became dependent on their Generals for land and basic needs.
              At that point they were in fact mercenaries, not soldiers.>>
               
              I agree completely on the first part.  That was certainly the root cause of most of the problem.  I do not think the transition to a paid, professional army was a major factor but both happened about the same time.  Marius(?)
               
              I think a real mercenary fights for pay for a country other than his own. Someone fights fights for pay for his own country is a professional but not a mercenary.

            • segestamilius
              ... The conquest of Macedonia.... was the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic. Macedon was an old Kingdom that was a buffer between the Romans and the
              Message 6 of 22 , Aug 1, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hello Group.
                >
                > I can't believe I didn't think to ask this question before - at what point do you think the Roman Republic was 'doomed'? In other words, when was it impossible that it would survive?
                >
                > Some possible points:
                > * The time of Sulla and Marius?
                > * The formation of the triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar?
                > * Caesar defeating Pompey?
                > * The defeat of the assassins of Caesar?
                > * The defeat of Antony by Octavian?
                >
                > Feel free to come up with your own and discuss.
                >
                > Barry
                >


                The conquest of Macedonia.... was the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic. Macedon was an old Kingdom that was a buffer between the Romans and the east. Once Macedon was no more Rome was , by default, a law and order Police force. The Roman Republic was not strong enough to play global cop.
              • amicus@webtv.net
                When Romulus killed Remus
                Message 7 of 22 , Aug 1, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  <<When tarquinius superbus was overthrown.>>


                  When Romulus killed Remus
                • Kim Noyes
                  You are all wrong...it was when this happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPGb4STRfKw ... -- Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
                  Message 8 of 22 , Aug 1, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You are all wrong...it was when this happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPGb4STRfKw

                    On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:08 AM, <amicus@...> wrote:
                     

                    <<When tarquinius superbus was overthrown.>>

                    When Romulus killed Remus




                    --
                    Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
                    Read our blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
                    Visit me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
                    Visit my Myspace at http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus

                  • robert-blau@webtv.net
                    The issue of land is indeed critical, and also pertains to the independent citizen farmers and others being forced off theirs and flocking to the city to be
                    Message 9 of 22 , Aug 1, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The issue of land is indeed critical, and also pertains to the
                      independent citizen farmers and others being forced off theirs and
                      flocking to the city to be supported by public largess.

                      Of course, the issue of land is critical to most major trends/issues in
                      history, more so than most people today realize or usually think about.
                      See: geonomics.org.

                      RB, Earthrights advocate

                      Posted by: "Ty Sponchia" muskegcorner@...   muskegcorner
                      Sat Aug 1, 2009 11:40 am

                      The republic was doomed when soldiers became dependent on their Generals
                      for land and basic needs.
                      At that point they were in fact mercenaries, not soldiers.
                       Ty Sponchia
                      ________________________________
                      From: postumusagrippa <no_reply@...>
                      To: imperialrome2@...
                      Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:53:18 AM
                      Subject: [Imperial Rome] When was the Roman Republic 'doomed'?
                       
                      Hello Group.
                      I can't believe I didn't think to ask this question before - at what
                      point do you think the Roman Republic was 'doomed'? In other words, when
                      was it impossible that it would survive?

                      Some possible points:
                      * The time of Sulla and Marius?
                      * The formation of the triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar?
                      * Caesar defeating Pompey?
                      * The defeat of the assassins of Caesar?
                      * The defeat of Antony by Octavian?

                      Feel free to come up with your own and discuss.
                      Barry
                    • Scot Mcphee
                      ... When Mars raped Rhea Silvia? No ... wait ... When Aeneas brought his father Anchises over to the Italian Penisular. That would make the *true* cause the
                      Message 10 of 22 , Aug 1, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 02/08/2009, at 04:08 , amicus@... wrote:

                        > <<When tarquinius superbus was overthrown.>>
                        >
                        > When Romulus killed Remus
                        >

                        When Mars raped Rhea Silvia? No ... wait ... When Aeneas brought his
                        father Anchises over to the Italian Penisular. That would make the
                        *true* cause the sack of Troy, correct? But then ... this would
                        attribute the fall of the Republic to Paris' abduction of Helen ...
                        which in turn we can blame on that bloody Cypriot goddess Aphrodite
                        and her doves and golden apples and delicious nakedness. Seeing as we
                        are admitting myth.

                        I would probably place the Marian reforms and Sulla's dictatorship at
                        the start of the long process that led to the end of the Republic.
                        However, there were plenty of prior factors that led to this
                        situation, such as the Senate's long refusal to admit reforms
                        advantageous to the commons.

                        Another decisive moment came with the Second Triumvirate and it's
                        proscriptions. Syme called this the 'Roman Revolution' in the book by
                        the same name.

                        Perhaps it died at Actium, but I don't really see Marc Antony as a
                        great republican any more than Octavian was.

                        In the absence of these factors I would hesitantly submit it was when
                        the Senate meekly conceded Tiberius to supersede his adopted father
                        Augustus.

                        Or maybe when Claudius was elevated by the Praetorians. Or perhaps in
                        the year of four emperors most of when were one or the other of the
                        Army's pick.
                      • rabagas
                        I would vote for the death of Caesar s daughter Julia who was also Pompey s wife. Her tact had kept these two powerful egoists from clashing. Her death ended
                        Message 11 of 22 , Aug 2, 2009
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I would vote for the death of Caesar's daughter Julia who was also Pompey's wife. Her tact had kept these two powerful egoists from
                          clashing. Her death ended all hopes of their cooperation and conciliation.

                          I would like to add, that despite the fact the Roman Republic was in
                          trouble from at least the time of the Gracchi, it managed to stagger on, and it died very hard. I believe there were abortive attempts to
                          restore it right up until the end of the Flavian period.

                          Rabagas






                          In imperialrome2@..., "segestamilius" <rcetmorgan@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Hello Group.
                          > >
                          > > I can't believe I didn't think to ask this question before - at what point do you think the Roman Republic was 'doomed'? In other words, when was it impossible that it would survive?
                          > >
                          > > Some possible points:
                          > > * The time of Sulla and Marius?
                          > > * The formation of the triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar?
                          > > * Caesar defeating Pompey?
                          > > * The defeat of the assassins of Caesar?
                          > > * The defeat of Antony by Octavian?
                          > >
                          > > Feel free to come up with your own and discuss.
                          > >
                          > > Barry
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > The conquest of Macedonia.... was the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic. Macedon was an old Kingdom that was a buffer between the Romans and the east. Once Macedon was no more Rome was , by default, a law and order Police force. The Roman Republic was not strong enough to play global cop.
                          >
                        • amicus@webtv.net
                          Message 12 of 22 , Aug 2, 2009
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            <<Perhaps it died at Actium, but I don't really see Marc Antony as a
                            great republican any more than Octavian was.>>


                            If Antony had won at Actium would he have had the brains like Octavian
                            to keep up the facade / sham of a republic while reserving absolute
                            power for himself?
                          • Scot Mcphee
                            ... I would hazard, probably not. At least it did not seem that was his intention. The standard Roman fear of Antony was that he was setting himself up as like
                            Message 13 of 22 , Aug 2, 2009
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 03/08/2009, at 03:41 , amicus@... wrote:

                              > <<Perhaps it died at Actium, but I don't really see Marc Antony as a
                              > great republican any more than Octavian was.>>
                              >
                              > If Antony had won at Actium would he have had the brains like Octavian
                              > to keep up the facade / sham of a republic while reserving absolute
                              > power for himself?
                              >

                              I would hazard, probably not. At least it did not seem that was his
                              intention.

                              The standard Roman fear of Antony was that he was setting himself up
                              as like an Oriental king - the worst possible charge you could make
                              against a leading man of the Roman age and that's why the affair/
                              alliance with Cleopatra is seen as so dangerous (and very un-Roman) to
                              them. Or at least it could be painted this way by Octavian. And also,
                              "ruled by a woman" !!!

                              This sort of complaint is the exact trope reserved for the whole
                              "good"/"bad" emperor categorisation that occurs in Roman writers all
                              through the imperial period. Bad emperors are always "eastern" - like
                              potentates - and feminised. Cases in point - Nero and Domitian (don't
                              think Tacitus included the story of 'Domitian among the priests of
                              Isis' business for nothing). Nero was at first ruled by his mother
                              (the horror!) and then free of her influence (he murdered her!) he at
                              first dressed like actor then became one (in front of Greeks!),
                              finally expressing desires to rule like an Eastern King (feminised!
                              poncy! homosexual! absolute rule! arbitrary execution!). May the
                              Senate Strike Him Down! On the other hand "good" emperors always
                              display manly virtues and pay at least lip service to the idea of the
                              Republic (i.e. stroke the Senate's ego) even if they are really are
                              despots. Like Augustus.

                              Mind you if Augustus lived today he would possible be seen as a type
                              of 'fascist' - wrapping himself in a sort of antique-'Romanitas',
                              harking back to the past, emphasis on 'moral' values, subverting
                              'democratic' institutions (like the Republic was really 'democratic'
                              in any meaningful sense, but we'll let that one slide past),
                              concentrating power in his person, cult of personality, it's all there.

                              Mind you, historians see what they want to see and they usually see
                              things contemporaneous to themselves. Case in point: when Syme wrote
                              the "Roman Revolution" and basically accused the second Triumvirate of
                              fascism (as somewhat outlined above), it was the 1930s, and across the
                              channel on the continent what did Syme see? Pretty much wall-to-wall
                              fascism, claims to various sorts of antique manly virtues, deadly
                              proscriptions of all kinds. So it was easy to then cast your thoughts
                              back and make the connections (quite apart from Mussolini's explicitly-
                              made link back to the greatness of Augustus!). Remembering what their
                              symbology entailed - and even the source of the name "fascism".

                              So, current historians have re-assessed Trajan's "greatness" in light
                              of his disastrous over-reaching in making a war where? Mesopotamia?
                              And that's got NO modern parallels, right?!
                            • vaughan jackson
                              Yes, I agree with Scot McPhee.   Ronald Syme, in his classic work The Roman Revolution , hit the nail on the head.   Too many powerful men like Caesar and
                              Message 14 of 22 , Aug 2, 2009
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes, I agree with Scot McPhee.
                                 
                                Ronald Syme, in his classic work " The Roman Revolution", hit the nail on the head.
                                 
                                Too many powerful men like Caesar and Pompey, with big armies needing to be satisfied, left an untenable situation.
                                 
                                All Cicero's rhetoric about republican ideals was mere pathos,from a vain and conceited  man who had no army to support him.
                                 
                                Vaughan.



                                From: Scot Mcphee <scot.mcphee@...>
                                Subject: Re: [Imperial Rome] When was the Roman Republic 'doomed'?
                                To: imperialrome2@...
                                Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:36 AM

                                 

                                On 02/08/2009, at 04:08 , amicus@webtv. net wrote:

                                > <<When tarquinius superbus was overthrown.> >
                                >
                                > When Romulus killed Remus
                                >

                                When Mars raped Rhea Silvia? No ... wait ... When Aeneas brought his
                                father Anchises over to the Italian Penisular. That would make the
                                *true* cause the sack of Troy, correct? But then ... this would
                                attribute the fall of the Republic to Paris' abduction of Helen ...
                                which in turn we can blame on that bloody Cypriot goddess Aphrodite
                                and her doves and golden apples and delicious nakedness. Seeing as we
                                are admitting myth.

                                I would probably place the Marian reforms and Sulla's dictatorship at
                                the start of the long process that led to the end of the Republic.
                                However, there were plenty of prior factors that led to this
                                situation, such as the Senate's long refusal to admit reforms
                                advantageous to the commons.

                                Another decisive moment came with the Second Triumvirate and it's
                                proscriptions. Syme called this the 'Roman Revolution' in the book by
                                the same name.

                                Perhaps it died at Actium, but I don't really see Marc Antony as a
                                great republican any more than Octavian was.

                                In the absence of these factors I would hesitantly submit it was when
                                the Senate meekly conceded Tiberius to supersede his adopted father
                                Augustus.

                                Or maybe when Claudius was elevated by the Praetorians. Or perhaps in
                                the year of four emperors most of when were one or the other of the
                                Army's pick.


                              • amicus@webtv.net
                                Message 15 of 22 , Aug 2, 2009
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  <<(don't think Tacitus included the story of 'Domitian among the priests
                                  of Isis' business for nothing)>>



                                  I read that after the demise of the Flavians that Isis worship did not
                                  become in vogue for a hundred years until Commodus.
                                • amicus@webtv.net
                                  A few years ago there was a book America, a Republic or an Empire? . Rome had a dilema like that. They chose Empire. Maybe Scipio Africanus was the last
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Aug 2, 2009
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    A few years ago there was a book "America, a Republic or an Empire?".
                                    Rome had a dilema like that. They chose Empire. Maybe Scipio Africanus
                                    was the last republican?
                                  • Scot Mcphee
                                    ... the point of this story is not about the worship of Isis but that Domitian was a devotee of a dubious eastern cult - the way it was viewed at the time -
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Aug 3, 2009
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 03/08/2009, at 16:18 , amicus@... wrote:

                                      > <<(don't think Tacitus included the story of 'Domitian among the
                                      > priests
                                      > of Isis' business for nothing)>>
                                      >
                                      > I read that after the demise of the Flavians that Isis worship did not
                                      > become in vogue for a hundred years until Commodus.
                                      >

                                      the point of this story is not about the worship of Isis but that
                                      Domitian was a devotee of a dubious "eastern" cult - the way it was
                                      viewed at the time - and rather than facing the hostile forces like a
                                      man (this was 69 AD) he chose to run away like a girl. It's about how
                                      history is framed by those who write it; source biases, which are
                                      always present. notice the use of the term 'superstition' below;

                                      Suetonius, Domitian 1: "But the enemy breaking in, and the temple
                                      being set on fire, he hid himself all night with the sacristan; and
                                      next morning, assuming the disguise of a worshipper of Isis, and
                                      mixing with the priests of that idle superstition, he got over the
                                      Tiber, with only one attendant, to the house of a woman who was the
                                      mother of one of his school-fellows, and lurked there so close, that,
                                      though the enemy, who were at his heels, searched very strictly after
                                      him, they could not discover him."


                                      In 92 AD Domitian rebuilt the temple of isis on the campus martius.
                                    • michelle morlock
                                      Very thoughtful and insightful, Scott. Yes, historians see what they want to see, and twist what they see to fit their preconceptions. But it s extremely hard
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Aug 3, 2009
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Very thoughtful and insightful, Scott.

                                        Yes, historians see what they want to see, and twist what they see to fit their preconceptions. But it's extremely hard to escape from this epistemological
                                        trap.

                                        Rabagas.

                                        P.S. I do believe that there was criticism of Trajan (and later Justinian) for over expanding
                                        that long preceded the Anglo-American involvement in the Middle East, although it probably
                                        was a minority viewpoint at the time.

                                        Frank Morlock, The Man in The Iron Mask and other plays http://www.Roguepublishing.com




                                        To: imperialrome2@...
                                        From: scot.mcphee@...
                                        Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:44:03 +1000
                                        Subject: Re: [Imperial Rome] When was the Roman Republic 'doomed'?

                                         

                                        On 03/08/2009, at 03:41 , amicus@webtv. net wrote:

                                        > <<Perhaps it died at Actium, but I don't really see Marc Antony as a
                                        > great republican any more than Octavian was.>>
                                        >
                                        > If Antony had won at Actium would he have had the brains like Octavian
                                        > to keep up the facade / sham of a republic while reserving absolute
                                        > power for himself?
                                        >

                                        I would hazard, probably not. At least it did not seem that was his
                                        intention.

                                        The standard Roman fear of Antony was that he was setting himself up
                                        as like an Oriental king - the worst possible charge you could make
                                        against a leading man of the Roman age and that's why the affair/
                                        alliance with Cleopatra is seen as so dangerous (and very un-Roman) to
                                        them. Or at least it could be painted this way by Octavian. And also,
                                        "ruled by a woman" !!!

                                        This sort of complaint is the exact trope reserved for the whole
                                        "good"/"bad" emperor categorisation that occurs in Roman writers all
                                        through the imperial period. Bad emperors are always "eastern" - like
                                        potentates - and feminised. Cases in point - Nero and Domitian (don't
                                        think Tacitus included the story of 'Domitian among the priests of
                                        Isis' business for nothing). Nero was at first ruled by his mother
                                        (the horror!) and then free of her influence (he murdered her!) he at
                                        first dressed like actor then became one (in front of Greeks!),
                                        finally expressing desires to rule like an Eastern King (feminised!
                                        poncy! homosexual! absolute rule! arbitrary execution!). May the
                                        Senate Strike Him Down! On the other hand "good" emperors always
                                        display manly virtues and pay at least lip service to the idea of the
                                        Republic (i.e. stroke the Senate's ego) even if they are really are
                                        despots. Like Augustus.

                                        Mind you if Augustus lived today he would possible be seen as a type
                                        of 'fascist' - wrapping himself in a sort of antique-'Romanitas' ,
                                        harking back to the past, emphasis on 'moral' values, subverting
                                        'democratic' institutions (like the Republic was really 'democratic'
                                        in any meaningful sense, but we'll let that one slide past),
                                        concentrating power in his person, cult of personality, it's all there.

                                        Mind you, historians see what they want to see and they usually see
                                        things contemporaneous to themselves. Case in point: when Syme wrote
                                        the "Roman Revolution" and basically accused the second Triumvirate of
                                        fascism (as somewhat outlined above), it was the 1930s, and across the
                                        channel on the continent what did Syme see? Pretty much wall-to-wall
                                        fascism, claims to various sorts of antique manly virtues, deadly
                                        proscriptions of all kinds. So it was easy to then cast your thoughts
                                        back and make the connections (quite apart from Mussolini's explicitly-
                                        made link back to the greatness of Augustus!). Remembering what their
                                        symbology entailed - and even the source of the name "fascism".

                                        So, current historians have re-assessed Trajan's "greatness" in light
                                        of his disastrous over-reaching in making a war where? Mesopotamia?
                                        And that's got NO modern parallels, right?!




                                        Get free photo software from Windows Live Click here.
                                      • rb2717
                                        Empires don t make very good republics. A big war estabishment on the one hand and bread and circuses for the urban masses on the other don t lend themselves
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Aug 3, 2009
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Empires don't make very good republics. A big war estabishment on the one hand and bread and circuses for the urban masses on the other don't lend themselves very well to a republican society.

                                          --- In imperialrome2@..., amicus@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > A few years ago there was a book "America, a Republic or an Empire?".
                                          > Rome had a dilema like that. They chose Empire. Maybe Scipio Africanus
                                          > was the last republican?
                                          >
                                        • acuteheptagram
                                          The loss of small property owners/farmer and the failure of agrarian land reform to correct such problems, i.e. Semproninan Law or Lex Sempronia agraria as
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Aug 3, 2009
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            The loss of small property owners/farmer and the failure of agrarian land reform to correct such problems, i.e. Semproninan Law or Lex Sempronia agraria as proposed by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and passed by the Roman Senate (133 BC) was a indicator of trouble. In retaliation, unhappy latifundia owners and the like caused social and political strife and killed off both Gracchus brothers. This showed that the republic had reached a point that the "small man" was expendable and advocates for them were quite consumable. This did not "end" the Roman Republic, but it was a good indicator that the end was near. Things became too "efficient".
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.