Publius Nonius Severus

Here is my first go of "Define and Divide" as I call it. Below is a list of about 25 individuals (total) who met the requirements of being politically active in some substantive form (time or signficant action or both) during the time period of 70-49 BC. I then tried to divide them into one of three categories: Optimates, Populares, or Inconsistent/Independent. The first and most difficult part of this exercise, as emphasized by Cato, is trying to define the labels. The difficulties have been discussed above. Personally I cater to the idea that optimates and populares didn't have vastly different ideologies in and of themselves. They all wanted the same power, they just had different ways of pursuing it/maintaining it. As such, I roughly defined an optimate as someone who had had an established base of power though dominance of the Senate and the high magistracies, preserving the mos maiorum and status quo through the traditional means established by the centuries of Republican rule. I defined populares as those that used the popular assemblies and preferential treatment to the masses through cheap/free grain, land redistribution, and legislative reform to obtain/maintain power. I defined an independent as someone who used both means or switched allegiances or maintained independence (as much as possible) I know these are not perfect definitions, I just wanted somethng to get me started and be able to have rough guidelines to sort individuals out. The list is weighted more heavily with consuls and praetors, because there is more info. I hope to add some more tribunes later. There are some other famous names missing: Some of the Caecilii Metelli, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, etc. Again, they were either not active enough in the time period or other similar reasons. The result was a fairly even division between the three categories, which I think support Cato's proposal that these labels are at most devices as opposed to true representations of ideologies (Especially considering some of the names in the Inconsistent category). Please note in a lot of cases someone has been labeled "by association". Much may not be attributable to them personally, but displayed consistency in their allegiances. These are in no particular order. below each name is a short justification, if there is nothing written, it should be pretty clear why. This is a starting ground, not a final list. I have not included reference to source material as I mentioned before, it got a little cumbersome. All of these individuals should be well-known or easly Googled, Wikipediafied, or found in other major works: Optimates ====== 1. Quintus Hortensius Hortalus - Consul 69 Assosciation, Legal Defense of Optimates 2. Gaius Calpurnius Piso, consul 67 By Association 3. Decimus Junius Silanus, Consul 62 Limits on certain legislative aspects 4. Marcus Valerius Messalla Niger, Consul 61 By Association 5. Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus - Consul 50 Opposition to First Triumvirate 6. Appius Claudius Pulcher - Cconsul 54 BC Association 7. Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus Consul 54 BC Association 8. Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, Consul 52 Association 9. Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Consul 51 BC Association 10. M. Porcius Cato Populares ======= 1. Lucius Aurelius Cotta, Consul 65 Caesar Supporter 2. Lucius Julius Caesar, Consul 64 Caesar Supporter 3. Gaius Julius Caesar, Consul 59, 48, 46, Dictator 4. Publius Clodius Pulcher - Curule Aedile 56 5. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Consul 58 Association with Clodius 6. Aulus Gabinius, Consul 58 Pompey's command vs. pirates while Tribune in 67 7. Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, Consul 53 Caesar Supporter Inconsistent/Indepedent ================ 1. Marcus Tullius Cicero, Consul 63 Tendency towards optimates for defense of republicanism 2. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus - Consul 70, 55, 52 Tendency Towards Populares - Only joined Optimates to oppose Caesar 3. Marcus Licinius Crassus - Consul 70, 55 Tendency towards Optimates, Wealth 4. Lucius Licinius Murena, Consul 62 Tendency towards optimates by association 5. Titus Annius Milo Papianus Cicero recall, support of P. CLodius Pulcher 6. Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, Consul 57 Supported Caesar and Pompey 7. Lucius Marcius Philippus, Consul 56 Friend Caesar and Cicero, Stepfather Octavian 8. Marcus Junius Brutus Optimates and then Caesar support

I am sorry I came to this discussion so late. In furtherance of Cato's concept, I am compiling a list of notable politicans who were alive and active in the poltical arena during the time period proposed (70-49) to see if we can collectively compile a list of individuals who can "consistently" be considered aligned with one group or the other. I will include links to sources for references as applicable as well. I hope to have something in a couple of hours...be back soon!

Honk if you love Jupiter! Stercus Happens Crier XCVII.V - Traffic and Weather on the 8's

Good to know about Mouritsen. Indeed Gruen is on my to read list, thanks! I'll also look for Morstein-Marx

Excellent recommendations Cato. I would like to add a couple to read after your list if I could: Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic by Henrik Mouritsen The Fall of the Roman Republic by David Shotter (This is a different work than the one if Cato's list) The Failure of the Roman Republic by R.E. Smith I have only referenced these works, I haven't read them in their entirety yet but from what I have seen they are very good.

Wow, that was a fantastic explanation, Aurelius. It was an essay in and of itself. Thanks!

Thanks for the update Nephele! I was happy to use the alternatives but Ancient Library is much easier!

Not bad in Reykjavik today. It's currently clear and 34F (+1C) High today was 43F (+6C)

Along the lines of stolen pharaoh hair, now a 40-year old intern has pleaded guilty to stealing 164 American Civil War documents. <sigh> Intern Admits Thefts From U.S. Archives

Here is what Plutarch had to say, Life of Marius, Chap 25: "When these things had been reported to the Cimbri, they once more advanced against Marius, who kept quiet and carefully guarded his camp. And it is said that it was in preparation for this battle that Marius introduced an innovation in the structure of the javelin. Up to this time, it seems, that part of the shaft which was let into the iron head was fastened there by two iron nails; but now, leaving one of these as it was, Marius removed the other, and put in its place a wooden pin that could easily p531be broken. 2 His design was that the javelin, after striking the enemy's shield, should not stand straight out, but that the wooden peg should break, thus allowing the shaft to bend in the iron head and trail along the ground, being held fast by the twist at the point of the weapon."

The way I have started looking at the fall of the Republic is two-fold. Whenever an event (or a person associated with an event(s)) is mentioned and the role it may have played in the Republic's demise, I ask myself two questions: 1) Was this a contributing factor in the demise of the Republic? 2) If this had not happened would it have stopped or reversed the demise of the Republic? By doing this, you can shed more light on a lot of the major names and events associated with the demise by more clearly depicting their impact in short and long term considerations. How you answer both of the questions better represents the weight that particular event had in the demise. An event with two "yes" answers is more critical than just one. Let's take Sulla for example. Although there are multiple aspects and events associated with Sulla that can be seen as detrimental to the Republic, one of the more prominent was his first march on Rome. Was it a contributing factor? Yes. Not only did it have the short term effect of terrifying the citizens as they watched soldiers fighting within the pomerium, it also gave Marius & Cinna an excuse to march on the city and of course gave Caesar precedent for marching on Rome several decades later. If this had not happened, would it have stopped or reversed the demise? No. Although Sulla's march was a convienent precedent, I feel quite positive that it alone would not have stopped Caesar from crossing the Rubicon, which is another event to which to apply these two questions and so on.

Thanks for that mi Cato! That lends some weight to the idea that Plutarch used artistic license to increase drama in his life bios while still remaining mostly factual.

On the note of Plutarch's witing, there is a JSTOR article (I do not have access to JSTOR (But I am trying!) that talks about how Plutarch adapted his material. From the limited Google preview I can see it specifcially addresses Plutarch's description of the Trebonius/Anthony exchange but you can't see what the analysis is without further access. Here is the link if anyone is interested: Plutarch's Adaptation of His Source-Material According to Charles Duke Yonge, the second Philipic was not published right away, instead it was sent to Brutus and Cassisus first. It was written by Cicero after Anthony accused Cicero in the Senate of being the architect of the assasination. Cicero was not present for that meeting for fear of his life. I assume he wrote the passage cited in my edited post to turn the tables on Anthony saying there was more to implicate Anthony than Cicero. Cicero also said in the same passage for all (I abridged it): I interpret that as saying if Cicero were behind it then Anthony wouldn't still be around to make Philipics against! Sorry, I didn't want to get off-topic...the more I appraise Anthony, the less I like him. Who knows how worse off Rome would have been if he had been able to take over control after the assasination and didn't have to compete with Brutus & Cassius, and then later Octavian. Marcus Antonius, Rex Romae?

That's a lot of info PP, thanks! Plutarch was usually pretty good at staying consistent across all of biographies of contemporaries so I think your theory of him making subtle changes for dramatic effect is a pretty good one. It is strange that the "plot" conversation with Trebonius isn't mentioned elsewhere in his other bios or from other sources (Appian, Dio, etc.). This could be attributed to countless reasons ranging from poor sources to dramatic effect to ulterior motives. I shall have to look into it further (especially as you suggest the phillipics). In any case, I do not think Anthony was "in" on it per se. Assuming a Conversation did take place where Trebonius or another conspirator "sounded him quietly and cautiously" then Anthony's failure to tell Caesar could be viewed as 1) Failure to actually understand what was being discussed 2) he didn't think they could pull it off or 3) he didn't bite in hopes the conspitators would do his dirty work for him opening an opportunity for him to take control. Or perhaps he did tell Caeasr something was afoot but Caeasar would have none of it? Edit: I have a passage in Cicero's Second Philippic that supports the mention of the Trebonius conversation in Plutarch:

Wow! what a poor amateur scholar I am...when I read the part that I emboldened in your quote above caldrail, I thought surely caldrail is wrong...Anthony was not officially aware of the plot...I was quite surprised to find out according to Plutarch in his bio of Anthony, he was! I had never known this about Anthony. Here is the passage in case anyone else wasn't aware (Plutarch, Life of Anthony, Chap. 13): This puts things in a whole new light for me looking at Anthony as an opportunist (as presented above). I had always found Anthony's behaivor strange in the events directly before and after the assasination. Offering the diadem-->hiding as if he were a slave-->the offer of amnesty-->showing the bloody toga at the funeral. I had always thought that he was just waiting for his shot, his conversation with Trebonius (and more importantly his failure to tell Caesar!) just solidifies it with me. By offering Caeasar the diadem he was just expiditing the process. If Caesar accepts and more importantly the people accept then Anthony is in good with the new king and maybe becomes successor. If Caesar/the masses refuse, it still fuels the conspirators to knock off Caesar and he can move in without doing any of the dirty work but still reap the benefits. Obviously, Octavian was the x-factor he was unaware of. Thanks for bringing this to light for me caldrail!

I've heard of illegal sale of antiquities but this is ridiculous. I wonder if he had any prospective buyers? I suppose their could be a niche market for almost anything. (BTW, how have we not had a "wigging" out joke yet? Oops..I guess we just did! )

Yes, there is quite a lot of evidence of this. One of the great sites I found that shows the breakdowns is : Les gentes romaines. It is in French, but once you figure out "patricienne" and "pl

Thanks for your responses. One thing I think I have learned is to avoid labels like "Early, mid, late" and using more descriptive references like based on actual events (like the sack of rome, post-Gracchi, etc.).

One thing I have been trying to learn more about was the plight of the urban poor during the principate. Was this socio-economic aspect of Rome changed by the "revolution"? I know Augustus undertook some major settlement projects for veterans and some for the urban poor. I also know that up to 200,000 citizens were on the grain dole in Rome as well during Augustus and this benefit was continued for quite a while (up to Nero?). Did either of these types of measures markedly raise the poor's standard of living or even reduce the number of those living below the poverty level?

This was really interesting. I had a hard time envisioning it so I went looking for more info and came across the project website here: www.3ds.com/khufu I haven't downloaded the special plugin to look at the 3D stuff yet but there is a really interesting .pdf with some good info. If they can prove this it will be a revolutionary discovery

You make an interesting point, Pater, but I think we should not look on "soft" as "hard life" and "easy life", rather "warlike" and "peaceable" to achieve means. Before Rome's dominant presence in Gaul, if the Gauls wanted to prosper, they needed to fight for the things they needed. Now that the Gauls that had easier access to "those things which tend to effeminate the mind" as Caesar calls them, they needed to fight less to achieve their means and this became "softer". But as I said earlier, I think that is only part of the equation. By your argument, the Romans should be even "softer" because obviously they had even more access to luxury and ease of life. But there are two factors that counter this. 1) The head count army did NOT have an "easy life" and 2) The Romans had strong cohesive leaders (which the Gauls lacked) to overcome any complacency and focus their military prowess.

Wow..so many choices...I think I have to go with Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus based not only on his impressive military succeses, but also on the speech quoted below. The setting is the consular elections for 298 BC. There are rumors flying that the Samnites and Estruscans are levying massive armies and allies to battle Rome. There are plenty of honorable and qualified candidates for consul, but the people want Fabius Maximus who had thrice already been Consul, twice Dictator, and Censor. Here is his speech: Livy 10.13 "... He at first simply declined to become a candidate, but when he saw the trend of popular feeling he distinctly refused to allow his name to stand: "Why," he asked, "do you want an old man like me, who has finished his allotted tasks and gained all the rewards they have brought? I am not the man I was either in strength of body or mind, and I fear lest some god should even deem my good fortune too great or too unbroken for human nature to enjoy. I have grown up to the measure of the glory of my seniors, and I would gladly see others rising to the height of my own renown. There is no lack of honours in Rome for the strongest and most capable men, nor is there any lack of men to win the honour." Well, this just drove the crowd crazy and they voted for him anyway...he was elected and went on to win crush his enemies, again.

As Andrew said, Caesar himself said it in Book I, Chapter 1 of De Bello Gallico: "Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are farthest from the civilisation and refinement of[our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind" I am sure that this is part of the "softening". It also seems that a lot of the Gaul's early successes (specifically the sack of Rome and the incursions into Greece and Asia) were achieved under a strong leader who was able to focus the Gauls on the task at hand. Obviously Vercingetorix tried to do this again, but, I think that by that point Rome was just too strong having control of most of the Med by then. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Orgetorix been succesfull in his plan to rule with Dunmorix and Casticus. Would all of their peoples rejected these ambitions like the Helvetii did, leaving the Gauls divided for Rome to conquer...or would their consolidated power been enough to repel Caesar?

In Roman Italy, 338 BC-AD 200: a sourcebook By Kathryn Lomas, using Pliny as a source (and his harsh critique of latifundia), the author surmises that Pliny considered a property as a latifundia if it consisted of above 500 iugera. Since this was the "limit" imposed by the Licinian legislation as the maxium holding of ager publicus it would seem to make sense. I don't think there was ever a fixed amount...it was probably more subjective...a farm would be distinct from a latifundius just then just as a farm and a plantation would be differnt today I think.

There are records of Sergii around after 300 BC (just not as Consuls). There were 7-8 branches of the gens Sergia so there is a lot of tracking to do to be specific (best way to track is by their cognomen). It could very well be that like many patrician families they fell out of the limelight for financial or other reasons until Cataline started his funny business.