tribunician power

I agree with the general assessment of Claudius, however, the last line confuses me just a bit. How would his freedmen assessing vast fortunes actually indicate that Claudius did not defer to them or grant them great power. It would seem to me that this evidence lends itself towards the notion that Claudius did indeed defer to these men and grant them great freedom to assemble these fortunes and wield power. The whole reply was poorly worded on my part, so you are correct in stating that it was evidence for his reliance on his freedmen, as this is my personal opinion of Claudius' reign. I was using this to discount the idea that his lack of control was overplayed by the senate because of possible jealousy issues. I apologize for this inconvenience. Thank you and please don't chain me to an oar.

I did not say that there were not struggles between the classes nor did I say that the populares were being treated as well as they should have been. I said that their republican system appeared good on paper but was incapable of dealing with these problems and that was not the fault of the optimates. Furthermore I was speaking more specifically of the optimates in power just prior to the fall. It is impossible to change a government already in effect without violence or the threat there of. I must ask you though, if you believed the goals of the Catilline conspiracists to be logical solutions for easing the burden on the populares. You mentioned Clodius, he was a known criminal put into power merely to cause problems between the senate and the people in order to strengthen Julius Caesar's support with the populares. This is what the optimates were supposed to work with? Clodius later used violence aginst the senate and was murdered. Did the optimates ever have a chance to reform is my question. The oligarchy was supposed to stop one day, after seeing how vicious the populares were becoming, and relinquish the senate to people who thirsted for their blood. I think you missed the point of my statements. I suppose your jab with the "lurnin" punchline shows you may consider yourself an optimate. Oh and I guess we'll ignore the fact that the tribunes, after the position was "wrestled" from the senate was still commonly held by men of senatorial rank (who were adopted to a lower class family for eligibility) yet were still voted in by the people. I don't quite agree with your opinion, but I'm only going to give you "heat" over two things: 1) Your opening paragraph makes some questionable assumptions and is a tad condescending. That attitude is not going to win respect, much less friendship. 2) I'd prefer if we kept modern day politics out of these threads as much as possible. They have a way of degenerating quite quickly. Commentary on modern politics, even if it does have Roman history as a pretext, would be best made on the Afterhours lounge. Cheers and Joy. -- Ursus My opening paragraph was just to say that I am alone on this subject with respect to my opinion and I do however realize that my fellow forum contributors all tend to have recieved formal training. I naturally thought perhaps this was a topic taught predominantly from one mindset. As for winning respect or freindship, well, every good discussion needs an antagonist. As for the modern politics I was merely showing that there are trends in politics that never change and refering me to an afterhours lounge I find quite condescending.

Blaming the oligarchy for the fall of the republic must be something they teach you guys in college. I myself have no formal training on the subject, so I draw my conclusions for myself. The oligarchy had the most training and education in the form of politics, law, and philosophy. Would opening the senate up to the populares help anything? I doubt it. The populares were represented in the senate as much as should have been allowed with the system that was already in place. Had they more power, the oligarchy would have been murdered in masses, sending the republic into certain mayhem. The common man in America today has very little say in American politics. The American voting system is a choice merely between two forms of evil and trust me when I say milliions of people CAN be wrong. I assure you that even in present day democracies there is a "nobility" and for the average man from humble beginnings it is near impossible to attain. Of course there are some "Ciceros" but most men who achieve great power were born with some power. Everyone speaks of the "resistance to change" from the oligarchy but the truth is that there was no change being proposed with the exception of Caesar's change which consisted of seizing the power for himself in the name of the people who's shoulders beared his weight but not his dream. I cannot realize Caesar as a chmpion of the people nor as a true believer of his own platform. The honest truth is that the republic was not a functional form of government, similar to a socialistic economy, both appeared to be fine ideas on paper. The powerful generals, bad treatment of the underclass and the spoiled nobility were mere symptoms, and the fall was inevitable. On the question of whether Caesar caused the fall of the empire, well I am going to be vague and non committal. I will say that just as with colonies of ants, societies of people mature and adjust as a whole. Early stages of countries or empires tend to be very enterprising and warring, taking what they can and giving nothing back. As the state ages their former policies slow down as they solidify their borders, attempt to create lasting alliances and turn their eyes toward inward change. They eventually let slip their defenses. This is a cycle that you can track with some consistency through time. Not to say that some countries have not, through new leadership, regressed this trend but it is one theory i put stock in. I will probably take some heat for this one and welcome the rebuttals.

Caudius did SEEM to understand how inefficient the senatorial system could be and appointed non senatorial officials in formerly magistrate jobs which concerned the well being of Rome. He then removed power from the senate for instituting trials and had them conducted by himself and his advisors. He also had the willingness to expend a large sum of money on a harbor for grain shipments on the Tiber. These choices certainly helped day to day Roman life but it remains in question as to who's decisions these were. This is not to say that Augustus did not rely on his many advisors, however Claudius' advisors were not of senatorial rank and it is possible that his reliance on them may have been overplayed by a jealous senate because of this and the general concensus that he was short of intelligence. I doubt this idea though simply because of the vast fortunes his freedmen gained and the power they achieved extended beyond that of most senators, before or after.

I also like Virgil's answer, too. The last 200 or 300 years of Roman paganism saw a massive shift from the traditional gods of the city-state to Greco-Oriental cults promising Saviors and pleasant afterlives. It was at least in part a response to the insecurities and chaos of the times. The only thing that set Christianity apart from the rest of these Greco-Oriental soteriological cults was its exclusionary monotheism. (mod's note: since variations of this topic occur regularly, I am pinning this thread in the hopes all future discussions of the topic will be directed here). Good answers! Valid points. Thanks.

I don't see the linkage between the run for the priesthood, which I suspect he would have done Sulla or no Sulla. It may have been a last-ditch attempt to protect himself but by the time he'd attempted the run-- if the timeline is correct-- his career was already damaged; he'd refused to divorce his wife, had his wife's dowry and property stripped from him and Rome was in a state of terror over Sulla's proscriptions. JC was an ambitious opportunist but I don't think he was a fool even at that age. He also had the added burden of being Marius' nephew for whom Sulla's hatred probably didn't escape him. His "highly suspected" involvement in the Catiline conspiracy boiled down to accusations and promises of proof that never materialized. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination that there were many optimates who disliked JC even then and wished to rid themselves of an irritant-- one of the accusers had lost to him for the position of pontifus maximus. Plutarch, Seutonius and Sallust (biased of course) agree that Cicero, who was no ally of JC and a target for the conspirators, came to his defence. Don't think I believe JC was a choir-boy, he was as opportunist as they come up to a point and could be guilty of certain shenanigans. I do believe that, warts and all, he did commit himself to the populares cause. I think he was almost as consistent at that as he was ambitious. For all his faults the optimates were generally a much worse bunch. I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one. My copy of Suetonius is missing but I quote Plutarch in his biography of Cicero,"Caesar, so far from being his freind, had incurred his suspicions in connection with the affair of Catiline."I could not find where he defends him but I would not rule it out. The Clodius affair was enough reason for me to doubt all Caesar's motives. So I still maintain that Caesar only used the populares as a platform, but I guess I'll agree to disagree and all that. I appreciate your time however.

I guess that is to say that Christianity when adopted entirely in the empire bent to Roman bloodlust and didn't cause an impact on the state by perhaps slowing the vicious appetite for victory or death and did not cause a change in foreign policy (or interior policy). Or are you saying that any changes it caused happened slowly and were in effect prior to the state sanctioning it as the official religion but in either case Christianity when held to an absolute is not a religion that goes hand and hand with world domination(or maintaining a world already dominated by violence) but then I would imagine we are no different than they in how we bend our beliefs to match our goals even in present time.

I did not know of this site "a long time ago" and no one addressed this in the other thread so I chose to ask it specifically. I was actually wanting oppinions of what everyone thought about the fall related to the church not the process of conversion. Thank you none the less.

I personally am a rank amateur in the study of Roman history. I have spent my time to date studying the fall of the republic and the early empire. It always struck me as odd however, that such a culture based on self promotion, violence and "peace through victory" could possibly transition into such a strict and entirely opposite religion. Which leads to my question,"Did Christianity hasten the fall of the empire?"

He certainly was pandering and the poster boy for the word "opportunistic". But I believe his stance with the populares was genuine, though no less opportunistic because of it. When Sulla held the cards he was given the choice of going over to the side of the optimates and divorcing his wife Cornelia, daughter of Marius' ally Cinna, thereby saving his neck-- he refused. A pure opportunist wouldn't have chosen that path. For all his ego-centered faults he remained constant in his support of the masses and many of his attempts at reforms seem moderate measures compared to what can only be described as the reactionary Senate of that time period. Caesar wasted no time in putting himself up for priesthood shortly after the disagreement with Sulla in an effort I would assume to begin his political war against Sulla. I think he merely underestimated Sulla and overestimated himself. Had he believed, right away, he was damaging his career he would not have so quickly put himself forth for an office which appeared to be so far out of his league given his age. After losing the election he heard news of Sulla's rage and fled shortly thereafter. What you speak of is naivity of a young boy not a blind pursuit of liberty for the masses. The political alliances he shared with fellow senators along the way leaves much to be desired not to mention his highly suspected involvement in the Catiline conspiracy which also centered around gaining plebian support for the gain of only a few.

I believe his point seemed to be that the rich oligarchs feared JC because he'd thrown in his lot with the populares at a fairly young age. He may not have been "selfless" but there's ample evidence that he was keen on reforming the system by leveling the playing field between populares and optimates with land reforms, debt reduction, etc. He extended the benefits of citizenship on a relatively wide scale and I believe he was the first to appoint a Gaul as Senator much to the consternation of many in the Senate. When seen in the light of the optimates history of disenfranchisement of a large portion of the populace, JC comes off as a much more sympathetic figure. I always had the feeling that he was pandering to the populous. He certainly gained strencth by winning over the plebes. Every man he promoted to senatorial rank was a potential ally. I would say that he was filling the senate with freinds somewhat similar to George W. Bush's judicial appointments.

It was Ceasar who attempted to reclaim Rome for the masses vs. the Oligarchy. The Republic had become a state of Millionaires and Beggars. Cicero was a leader of the oligarchy in the Senate. It is Not hard to imagine the reasons for the murder of Julius Ceasar. In fact the death of Ceasar was the real end of the Republic Not when he crossed the Rubicon. regards, Wow, the selfless Caesar, that's a new one on me. However, Caesar had no intent of relinquishing power of the state to the people or the senate. Your right then when you say that the real end of the republic was not when the legions crossed the Rubicon, though in fact the republic was held hostage by powerful men throughout it's history and I think it is more in debate as to whether it actually existed as a republic aside from it's very early days of independence.

I too would put it in rank with emotionless. HBO has done a good job of making him appear emotionless quite frequently in order to show how calm and calculating he was. I would imagine they were showing him in this manner to illustrate his use of Caesar's death as an oppurtunity and sometimes a tool and not a point of rage. Aye, it was a good episode again (though I will have to catch the repeat, as I kept flicking over to "life in the undergrowth" when the action slowed. I have no idea why they chose to run this at the same time as Rome ). It was good to see Octavian's character develop and show his intelligence. I'm kind of hoping a future series will flash forward a few decades, so we can see him as Augustus. The plot this week centred around the personal issues of the two main characters and not the main event (for me) of Caesar and Pompey, I hope next time the action between these two intensifies. I agree with you, seeing Augustus would be great but the plot certainly thins during Augustus' reign.

Senators filled almost all important positions in the republic and the army, so one might say the senators had all the power yet the senate only a small amount when counted as the true body of the senate excluding the specific authority that each man's position warranted as in tribunes, consuls, praetors, censors, questors and aediles which comprised the senate. I hope this makes sense.

Mock naval battles were held prior to the building of the coliseum in different areas according to Suetonius and some were probably held in the circus maximus purely to meet space constraints after it was built.