P.Clodius

That's a nice PS job man

This event occurs before the gardens though, he hadn't raped his province yet.

When did Lucca take place, 52? He was expelled by A Claudius Pulcher, who came back, if not towing the Caesarian line, somewhat subdued . Perhaps there was a grudge?

"For gross immorality". What that entails is anyone's guess, probably partisan politics at play as he was a stringent anti pompeian when it wasn't exactly healthy to be one.

I just wish you guys would stop quoting the picture in your replies! And I do NOT want to think about what websites he had to surf in order to find that pic either! HAHAHAHA

A reluctant Pompey is claimed as "My Bitch" by a bronzed Cato!

hahaha...awesome!

What has he done to warrant such treatment?

What is this thread about?

Did it 'fall' at all, did it just evolve/devolve?

But if as many were rendered homeless by the lex agraria Campania (and there is evidence that very many families were left homeless to make room for Pompey's vets--there is a discussion on this issue elsewhere), then it seems that Caesar may have been playing zero-sum politics: in effect, robbing farmer Peter to pay soldier Paul. Also, the large number you cite refers to eligibility, not to the beneficiaries. The number of actual beneficiaries is unknown. So the supposition that the Ager Publicus was utilized by the ruling class and staffed by slaves is false? A quick wiki... In the earliest periods of Roman expansion in central Italy, the ager publicus was used for Roman and (after 338 BC) Latin colonies. Later tradition held that as far back as the 400s BC, the Patrician and Plebeian classes disputed the rights of the rich to exploit the land, and in 367 BC two Plebeian Tribunes, Gaius Licinius Stolo and Lucius Sextius Sextinus Lateranus promulgated a law which limited the amount of the ager publicus to be held by any individual to 500 iugera, roughly 350 acres. In the half century following the Battle of Telamon (c. 225 BC), the Roman fully absorbed Cisalpine Gaul, adding huge swathes of land to the ager publicus, land which was more often than not given to new Latin colonies or to small freeholders. In the south of Italy, huge tracts of newly re-incorporated lands remained in the ager publicus, but tended to be leased out to wealthy citizens in return for rents, often ignoring the Laws of 367. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus attempted to address some of these violations in 133 BC, which led to much redistribution of the land. A similar move by his brother Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 123 BC failed because of his death the following year. In 111 BC, a new law was passed which allowed individual smallholders to assume ownership of their part of the ager publicus.

I have never subscribed to the theory that Caesar was a champion of the People, but for the sake of the argument, before we reach such a far-reaching conclusion, shouldn't we know the numbers involved in the other groups? You hinted that they were comparatively small, but presumably the entire list compiled by S-B is based on men who expressed an allegiance or neutrality. Were there men who were not canvassed at all? For instance, if we are talking about - say - 300 senators and only half of them have taken part in the 'study', how can we reach the definite conclusion that more nobles supported Caesar? As for the populares ticket, we all know that the nobiles did not shy from playing that card if they thought it would suit their own purposes. Great piece of research MPC, is this info available online someplace? I agree totally with your "simplistic nonsense" observation. I think the left/right assumption is easy for our modern sensibilities to fall into, we're always trying to classify so to speak. Roman politics was a rather loose collection, and subsequent to change system of temporary alliances that gradually became more polarized IMO. A precursor to party politics perhaps? The traditional (Optimates)/Populares were a means or method of getting something accomplished simplistically speaking. As we know politics at Rome was a personal affair, Virtus, Dignitas, etc...So was Caesar a "champion" of the people in a Robin Hood sense, nah...But did people in need benefit from some of his reforms, yes. I forget the exact figures, (80,000 families with 3 or more children?) benefited from his land redistribution program. Would any of you agree that the events surrounding the late republic, Gracchi to the 2nd settlement were manifestations of the struggle of the orders?

OK, so I guess we've ascertained; 1) Suetonius and Plutarch are secondary sources and therefore could be mistaken about some things. 2) Syme is just outright "mistaken". 3) Gruen is "mistaken" about one thing but the rest of his work is outstanding. 4) The historical Cato is still a gleaming angelic beacon of hope beckoning from history. Clean and free from corruption, though still potentially tarnished a little by Taylor's verdict.

Marcus Porcius Cato (95 BC

Yes I agree it is time to exit this thread. However, while we're on the subject of pointing out mistakes, here's one of yours! I guess this makes EVERY post you EVER made about Cicero dishonest and therefore discredits you and EVERY post you EVER made. With regard to Primary Sources I take it it's ok for me to write a biography on George Washington and be considered a primary source. Closing thoughts. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." From another Primary Source. From here on in whenever electoral corruption is brought up by you concerning the late republic links to this thread proper, HERE and HERE will be provided. I guess Mommsen's reference to Cato as "a dogmatic fool." doesn't just apply to the historical Cato! See you in the trenches.

Please do. Crete, Tahiti, Long Island, is this all you have, this ONE SELF ACKNOWLEDGED MISTAKE AND FREELY ADMITTED ERROR? I talked about 'brain farting' even before you dug up the links, right? Doesn't disguise the fact that 1) Multiple secondary sources say the man was corrupt. and 2) He bent the rules when it suited him. Was he REALLY any different than the others? Are we still cherry picking?

Right, the Crete thing was an honest mistake, haven't we ascertained that already? Does it matter if I said it was Crete, another instance of brain farting? But what about the charges of corruption? Multiple secondary sources, some of which you hold in high regard have said he was as guilty as the rest of em.

TBH our diametrically opposed views have been helpful to me in that they have caused me to research a little harder. Having said that, this is an internet forum and as such I will brain fart into it occasionally. An example of which can be found here. I could have taken the time to correctly research my answer, but I didn't, I relied on memory, and the always dependable PP to confirm. However, a debate in which you're involved often turns provocative, an intended measure from time to time me thinks. For instance, in your last paragraph above you imply that any opinion that isn't your own is dishonest and it is this dishonesty that causes threads to deteriorate. Should anyone disagree with you?

Actually if I remember correct, both Brutus and Cassius receive imperium maius in 43 BC. I'm not sure about that one, Octavian had had them both declared enemies of the state by 43, and such a grant would have been conferred by the senate.

It is with some trepidation I start this thread because I am not trying to inflame, provoke, or insult in any way, shape, or form. My question is simple really, why did the Caesar deserve death, and the Ambitus thread descend into the polarized depths? As PP has often pointed out, we're arguing over 2000+year old dead guys! The problems appear to derive from two distinct areas; inflammatory provocation, and 'sources'. While I will not dwell on or cite specific instances of the inflammatory provocation part of the issue, for I am guilty of such instances, I would like to make a statement at some length, call into question the use/statements concerning some of the sources. Unfortunately to do so I have to call out front and center a long standing and respected member of the community, namely MPC. Also, to illustrate the point I have to scrutinize his historical namesake. Firstly, what constitutes a Primary Source? Seems to me a primary source is someone who writes about an event/persona that they themselves had in their living memory. For events surrounding the late republic examples would be Cicero, Sallust, and yes, Caesar himself. But should Plutarch, Suetonius, or anyone who lived 100+ years post facto be considered primary sources? Is Livy a primary source for the Second Punic War? I know they all would have had access to material now lost but is this enough? Consider this hypothetical analogy, person 1, "Jesus walked on water!" person 2, "Are you retarded, how can anyone walk on water?" person 1, "It must be true because it says so in the bible." The bible (New Testament) being a primary source, yet it was written by a loose collection of individuals who; 1) Never met the guy. 2) Were writing 100+ years postmortem. 3) Never even been to the place where it happened. 4) Heard it from some guy in the pub! It seems to me we should endeavor to treat Primary Sources with a little more skepticism. Just my opinion. Secondary sources are, I think, those individuals who have been schooled in, and thoroughly researched their given subject/thesis. Make sense? We all have our favorites, those on which we tend to rely, mine being Goldsworthy, Meier, Gelzer, Dodge...OK, now this is where I call MPC/Cato front and center, and I do this reluctantly because as I have stated I do not want things to get heated. In previous threads MPC has stated the following concerning Gruen. "...Not one of major ones I've read--Fergus Millar, Erich Gruen, Nathan Rosenstein, Lily Ross Taylor..." Here Gruen is "major"! "it seems to me that E S Gruens....has merit." Gruen has "merit". "I really like Morstein-Marx, who is a student of Erich S. Gruen, my top favorite historian of the Roman republic...." Gruen is "my top favorite". "I agree with Gruen...." Agrees with Yet when Gruen shines the spotlight on Cato Minor's corruption "Cato was not averse to sponsoring grain laws, thereby outbidding his opponents, or to indulging in bribery, if this could bring supporters into power." It is dismissed by a play on words in the Ambitus thread, and possibly a 'mistake' in the Caesar thread. Ronald Syme, a noted yet controversial Oxford professor, authority, was dismissed outright as "mistaken" when he wrote "Cato gathered a great fund to carry by bribery the election of Bibulus...." Lilly Ross Taylor, remember now, she is one of those classed as "major", and "I'll always have a soft spot for Lily Ross Taylor." With regard to Dio's claim that "Cato was a lover of the people as no other." Taylor stated "the public that counted was Cato's own class, the hereditary nobility," So what do we take from the above points, do we selectively read and use what we want and dismiss what we don't? Do we twist something into what we want it to be? Why do we need citations at all? We never used to! Perhaps as humans it is natural to see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe, everything else is for the birds! Thoughts?

Sure its possible. "Cato was not averse to sponsoring grain laws, thereby outbidding his opponents, or to indulging in bribery, if this could bring supporters into power." Gruen. Another mistake? Are these noted and often quoted scholars less qualified than you to interpret events? How qualified is a primary source that is 100+ years removed from events? I don't think that Gruen and Syme are less qualified, just mistaken. There are seven different primary sources that described the campaign of Bibulus, and none of them claim that Cato engaged in bribery. The lack of an historical source cannot be overcome by any number of scholarly credentials. The quality of an historical claim is directly proportional to the evidence on which it is based, and claims that are made on the basis of zero evidence have zero credibility. BTW, I'm happy to be proven wrong about anyone's indifference to facts (or ability to retain them). But when I go to the trouble of finding, citing, and linking to a dozen or more primary sources and the result is greeted with a causal scoff and a failure to return with any new information whatever, you can bet that my 'abrasiveness' is not caused by a lack of kindness but by exasperation at the failure to reciprocate the exchange of information. Presumably, it's the exchange of information that distinguishes this forum from a "debating society." I guess I should go back to my primary source studies..!

Yes you have, and your adherence to such smacks of a fundamentalists adherence to scripture whom you're so quick to condemn! Sure its possible. "Cato was not averse to sponsoring grain laws, thereby outbidding his opponents, or to indulging in bribery, if this could bring supporters into power." Gruen. Another mistake? Are these noted and often quoted scholars less qualified than you to interpret events? How qualified is a primary source that is 100+ years removed from events? No that was your claim in the Ambitus thread! No thanks, I'll leave the chronic revisionism to you. A personal insult, how surprising. Well not really, your record of abrasiveness on these boards has been noted by other members...Such a statement smacks of elitism, perhaps those three letters after your name have gone to your head?

Yes he did, although the sources don't say it, doubtless that was Cato's brainwave!

So true, so true..."Cato gathered a great fund to carry by bribery the election of Bibulus...." Syme. Chi ching...I wonder how much he shelled out?

They're widely available on the internet, google them.