Furius Venator

Syme puts it rather well: Roman revolution p.48

Excellent overall. I'm currently re-reading and hope to have my (rather lengthy) review completed by Friday. Key things: Never assume that anything was inevitable about Caesar's career. Until his command in Gaul, his career was pursued rather conventionally, if with notable flamboyance and success. His initial command of the army in Gaul was perhaps rather tentative and he probably wasn't thought very highly of by his troops at first. He was unquestionably the most prolific Roman general and nobody fought more battles than he until Napoleonic times.

From post number 57

Yes. And as I said, Caesar is culpable. But why on earth would anyone with an ounce of sense not have come to accommodation with him. Cicero at least (for once) saw that was the sensible course. The senate were clearly terrified of civil war, so they must have regarded Caesar as potentially willing to start one. There was an alternative, which was simply to give him his second term. After all, he was willing to reduce his forces to one legion and keep only Cisalpine Gaul. The republic did not fall into chaos when Pompey and Crassus were hanging about Rome with their armies muttering about how nice it might be to be consul and they were allowed to stand. Why would Caesar have been different? There is no reason to suppose he would. For all the pious cant about 'upholding the constitution', Cato and his faction clearly hoped to destroy Caesar, not because he was a threat to the republic, rather because he was a threat to their ambition, or because of past feuds.

Roman law, as you well know, was governed by precedent. There was plenty of precedent for standing in absentia. Wishing to gain a second term as consul is hardly revolutionary either. Even by standing in absentia.

Let us consider the anti-Caesar faction. Prominent are: Marcellus: the consul who dismissed the senate when they voted to disarm both Pompey and Caesar. Jealous and frustrated that Caesar's extended command had made it harder for aristocrats from more prominent families, like the Marcelli, to gain opportunity for a triumph. Appius Claudius: the censor who attempted to remove Caesar's more prominent supporters from the senate. His daughter was married to Cato's nephew. His mother was one of the Metelli. Ahenobarbus: a long established opponent of Caesar. Cato's brother-in-law. Bibulus: a man who had often been Caesar's colleague in various offices, and frequently humiliated by him. Cato's son-in-law. Metellus Scipio: same reasons as Marcellus. Lentulus: consul in 49. Prevented senatorial debate on Caesar's letters. Reasons as Marcellus. Cato: a constant opponent of Caesar from the time of Catiline. It would of course be very wrong to suggest that his personal emnity was in any way fuelled by the notorious 'love letter' incident during the trial. Nonetheless, he opposed Caesar at every opportunity from that moment on. Now Cicero is quite clear: Cato said to him that neither he, nor his allies were willing to accept anything that would allow Caesar to stand for consul in absentia. From this, Cato seems to have been the organ-grinder of the coalition rather than a mere monkey.

What evidence is there for this? Caesar proposed to stand for the consulship in absentia and that he and Pompeius should both lay down their extraordinary army commands. Caesar proposed that he should retain in the interim only Cisalpine Gaul and a single legion. A second consular term for Caesar would hardly have destroyed the republic. The intransigence of Cato and his tiny faction, based upon hatred and jealousy prevented a peaceful solution.

Damn, that's good...

Right, on that basis I'll buy it! If it has sufficient historical touches like that and you like it Germanicus, it's going to be good...

Whilst he was in a poker game holding his 'dead man's hand' I hope

Possibly it was because the various successors to Alexander were too busy fighting amongst themselves to bother with things further west. Excepy Phyrrus of course and the Romans pretty much gave him as good as they got.

I picked up one of Conn Igetawaywiththistoshagain's books once. Now I like good historical fiction, like some of Massie's Roman stuff (Augustus especially), Graves, George MacDonald Fraser, generally anyone who spins a good tale but keeps a grip on the history. But Conn Igetanyworse I found truly dreadful. I forget who said, 'this is not a book to be tossed aside lightly... it should be thrown with great force', but they could as well have been talking about any of these travesties. On the bright side, they inspired the original poster to look further. Just goes to show not everything is all bad.

The works of Conn Imakeitupasigoalong? I would say yes, as far as ancient times go. Though of course it's a moot point. Nobody would doubt that he was one of history's most prolific and successful generals though. It certainly was not his fault alone. Factionalism and the naked pursuit of status and glory was the root. Caesar was far from alone in his pursuit of those things. He'd known Brutus since the latter's youth. His army possibly did. Though if we allow that he commanded about 50 000 men (as a crude average), that'd mean they killed about four Gauls each per year of active campaigning. Not inconceivable.

He's a hero in the proper classical sense of the word (they all had their flaws). But then so too was Cato, in his way...

You're quite right of course. I meant 'informed people'. I should have been clearer. Apologies.

I haven't seen any of it I'm afraid. But I was mulling over whether or not to buy it. If you like it, I think I'll give it a whirl...

Herobane, could you provide the ancient sources that refer to these two incidents? I must have somehow overlooked them.

Was there a precedent for being appointed dictator for life?

Generally when they were defeated it was due to a failure of command or morale (or one leading to t'other). So, yes, they were defeated precisely because they were human. I don't think many people tout the Roman legions as being 'invincible'.

It does, as Phil says, depend to an extent on the terms under which we meet, but also I think at what point in their life we meet them... On my terms: maybe one of P. Clodius' sisters... But if merely for a polite discussion then I'd pick Pompey on the eve of the Civil War. we have a fair idea of Caesar, Cicero and Cato's personalities but Pompey's always seemed a bit more of an enigma.

The sisters of P. Clodius? One can hardly get more aristocratic than the Claudii...

I would also add What need for discretion? Wealthy Roman ladies were not especially noted for being discrete about their affairs and the Roman attitude to marriage, amongst the aristocracy at least, seems to have been rather different to our notions.

As I understand it, nobody has the foggiest really though pet theories abound. Burnswark in Dumfriesshire, Bridgenorth, Shelfield Hill (near Burnley I think), Doncaster(!), Brinkburn Priory and sundry others all claim the 'honour'. I was under the impression that the 'enemy' were largely Norse and Scots, were there Welsh and Irish contingents present also?

Well the Greek states were often troublesome to Macedon (half the Macedonian army had to be left behind to guard against their threat during Alexander's campaigns). They'd be a good source of manpower if brought to heel. Some of them at least were quite wealthy through trade. Controlling S Greece would allow easier acces to trade from the western med. There is the cultural thing as well. An analogy: Richard Coeur de Lion was killed by a crossbow bolt whilst beseiging a small French castle. Why? Because it was strategically important despite its small size and tiny garrison. Important enough to warrant his personal attention. Thessaly was good horse country, well worth controlling for that reason alone. There may well have been others.

It is also very apparent that a main function of the pilum was to puncture an enemy's shield and render it unuseable by sticking in it. Reconstructions have proved that it was designed for this purpose (see assorted articles and books by Connolly). One can avoid the stabbing spear of the hoplite by throwing his line into confusion with pila (see above) and closing whilst he is in disorder. Some might also think that the scutum might play a part also...Perhaps it was used to parry the hoplite spear? And 'pushing power'has nothing to do with it. That is a fantasy created by historians of hoplite warfare who seem baffled by the depth that the Greek phalanx formed in and so created the 'pushing myth' that so plagues understanding of how hoplites fought. Depth gives morale advantages and also aids manoeuver, it is NOT to aid in a rugby scrum approach to warfare (see Goldsworthy: Roman Army in Battle p156, p176-183)