M. Porcius Cato

"Tyrant" is too mild for what is needed. A tyrant scares only for a day; a true paedagogicus creates the nightmares of a lifetime! Actually, shouldn't the title be something like Magister pro tempore?

True enough, but never when attacked. Given Pearl Harbor, the US would have declared war on the Axis irrespective of how the Battle of Britain turned out. Hitler would have had to have abandoned his Japanese allies entirely or fight the US. BTW, I thought the defeat of the Spanish Armada was the most important event. Without it, there would have been no Scottish Enlightenment, no John Locke, and no Adam Smith. Although...maybe Holland would then be what Britain is today? Perhaps the American Dutch colonies would have declared independence from Mother Netherlands? Hugo Grotius and William of Orange standing in the places of John Locke and Elizabeth? West Indies Trading Company Day in the US instead of Thanksgiving? Spinoza instead of Puritans? Hmmm....maybe the defeat of the Spanish Armada wasn't ALL good.

An insincere claim is not even wrong. If I say, "Oh, Gaius, you are never wrong!", there's no point in arguing "Oh, sure, I'm wrong now and then." It's obvious I believed that in the first place, so it's better to ignore the insincere claim as a mere waste of breath (or electrons).

Glad we're in agreement Gaius. I always love responding to posts where, even if the interlocutor is wrong, you at least know he's sincere.

I love this idea--it's sort of the polar opposite of the Arena, where it seems that anything goes. On the other hand, the most important rule is the one that will be most difficult to enforce. So what level are we talking about here? Is "As Livy frequently remarked" going to cut it? Or do we need to cite chapter, verse, and translator? Also, a complex argument comprises many independent claims--does every claim require a citation? What about common knowledge? Can we just take as given that Caesar defeated the Helvetii, or do we have to cite the chapter, verse, and translator of the edition of the Commentaries where Caesar described his defeat of the Helvetii? Also, will this rule apply to all discussion forums within the major areas (e.g., Imperium Romanorum), or will there be a special board for those intrepid scholars who dare crack open their dusty Valerius?

To say that ill-logic is a species of logic implies that existence is a category, but this implication fails for a number of reasons (Kant pointed out several). Anyway, it's just weird to say that non-Gaius is a kind of Gaius; it makes me want to whack the speaker over the head with a non-fish.

Why not? It seemed like slavery was a normal part of human existence, too, but today even Ebay doesn't sell slaves (and where would you put one anyway?). Maybe the Eternal Republic is impossible, but I'd need better proof than simply the fact that republics have historically been difficult to maintain. (BTW, if Caesar were alive today, I'd chain him to an oar.)

Can you name any representatives who have accepted bribes for their votes and not been caught? I'm sure their political opponents and ambitious prosecutors would love to hear about it, especially in an election year. Also, if the government were really under the control of Exxon, why can't Exxon manage to secure a simple building permit that would allow them to open a new oil refinery in the US? Why--if Exxon controlled the government through their vast conspiracy--have they been unable to build a single off-shore platform off California? Or Florida? Or Alabama? Or Louisiana? Why--if Exxon really has this vast network of paid-off Congressman--can't they purchase a railroad to haul their oil? Or a trucking company? If Exxon really controls Washington, how is it that they continue to be subjected to idiotic controls that they have opposed for over 50 years of lobbying???? I'd really love to hear this one! Isn't it possilbe that the Exxon conspiracy--like the nefarious Black Helicopters of the New World Order, the hidden UFOs at Roswell, the secret Cars That Run On Water--is simply another bogus hoax that cynics and conspiracy types love to swallow? More broadly, private oil companies are one of the most important institutions in modern life. Unlike state-owned oil companies that are inefficient and support murderous and repressive regimes, private oil companies are well-managed, responsible to their share-holders, and have a financial stake in promoting governments that respect the rule of law and private property. This is reason that petty authoritarians like Putin and Chavez attempt to get their grips on these private companies right away, why the (rare) collapse of state-owned oil companies in the Mideast has been a godsend to those countries that ran out of oil, and why nations with more private oil companies tend to have more secure, dynamic, and diversified economies overall (e.g., Britain versus Norway). Defense contractors are another story...

Not in any direct way that I can see. I guess we're all ultimately descended from a common ancestor, but...

So many drawings out there, so little time to get copyright clearance... The drawing you list reminds me of the cover art to Caesar's Legacy.

All told the Cornelia gens produced more illustrious men than any other house in the history of the republic. The 16 families of the Cornelia gens included: Arvina, Blasio, Cethegus, CINNA, Cossus, DOLABELLA, LENTULUS, Maluginensis, Mammula, Merenda, Mercula, RUFINUS, Scapula, SCIPIO, Sisena, SULLA, and two plebeian lines (Balbus and Gallus). The men from this house are too numerous for me to bother listing, but take a look at Smith's dictionary if you're interested in the most illustrious gens in the Roman republic. The Julii gens, though ancient, had descended to almost obscurity by the last century of the republic, so I wouldn't list them as one of the most influential families of the republic. The Julii gens had just 4 families--Iulus, Mento, Caesar, and Libo. The last is completely obscure, but we do know about the other three. IULUS C. Julius Julus, cos 489 C. Julius Julus, cos 482 Vopiscus Julius Julus, cos 473 C. Julius Julus, cos 447, 435 L. Julius Julus, cos 430 C. Julius Julus, cens 393 C. Julius Julus, nominated dictator in 352 under pretence of a war with the Etruscans, but in reality to get two patricians elected in violation of the Licinian Law MENTO C. Julius Meno, cos 431 CAESAR Sex. Julius Caesar, pr 208 L. Julius Caesar, pr 183 L. Julius Caesar, pr 166 Sex. Julius Caesar, cos 157 Sex. Julius Caesar, pr 123 L. Julius Caesar, pr 123 L Julius Caesar, cos 90 L Julius Caesar, cos 64 Sex Julius Caesar, cos 91 C. Julius Caesar, cos 59, 48 I'd also point out that the Claudia gens may have been the most illustrious in all Roman history, though perhaps the least lovable. The eminent historian Niebuhr said of them: "That house during the course of centuries produced several very eminent, few great men; hardly a single noble-minded one. In all ages it distinguished itself alike by a spirit of haughty defiance, by disdain for the laws, and iron hardness of heart." Patrician surnames included Caecus, Caudex, Centho, Crassus, Pulcher, Regillensis, Sabinus; plebeian surnames included Asellus, Canina, Centumalus, Cicero, Flamen, and Marcellus. Almost everyone connected to the family took the Claudian name, the exceptions being the emperor Claudius and Nero.

Even without Christianity, the emphasis of Stoicism on the universal possession of reason and human rights at least had the potential to undercut slavery. Though it is remarkable to me that both the Christians and the Stoics seemed to have no problem with the institution. Ursus--I'd like to see that episode of Star Trek!

The official poverty rate of any country is set by domestic standards, not by international ones. Therefore, you can't use domestic estimates of poverty to make international comparisons. It's comparing apples and oranges. You do realize this, don't you? Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. With free elections, a multi-party government, and an independent judiciary, the House of Windsor is simply a museum piece with no practical signficance whatever. British stability owes its existence to the Glorious Revolution that crippled the monarchy not from some ermine-wrapped dowager.

An intriguing question Brutus. Yes, I think if the republic had been restored, the Roman world might have survived to the present day IF (and it's a big if) they managed to find solutions to the problems that most vexed the republic. First, they would have had to have found an equitable means for protecting the provinces from rapacious governors who could use the provinces as bases from which to launch rebellions (like Sulla and Caesar) and from disaffected provincials yearning for vengeance (like the Goths) Second, they would have had to have found a mechanism to place the military firmly under senatorial control, most likely via the power of the purse, so that the loyalty of troops were primarily to the republic and not to the commander. Third, they would have had to have dealt with the economic and moral problem of slavery. We're talking about a long period of time, and it's entirely possible that a non-slave owning society would emerge as a rival to Rome. In the same way that the northern US quickly surpassed the southern slave-owning states, Rome could have been eclipsed by a freer society or suffered civil war. Fourth, they would have to prevent the new Christians from spreading to the point that the whole Roman world was under the grip of unelected bishops and parasitical monasteries that did nothing for Rome but remove weak-minded fools from the gene pool. These are the top four reforms that would have helped keep the restored Roman republic on sound footing. There are more, but I think these make the point that even had Marcus Aurelius attempted to restore the republic, he would still have had a great deal of work ahead of him in keeping it. The kings who ruled Europe were fools and scoundrels who never attained the levels of advancement acheived by Romans. The Romans rose because they were a republic, and the republic lasted longer than the principate or the dominate (and both) because the republic had a mechanism by which one administration could peacefully take over from next. Hereditary monarchies are simply the means by which inbred fools can bumble their nations into poverty before the dynasty wears out and plunges the whole society into civil war. This is why Europe never managed to acheive Roman levels of material comforts until the Industrial Revolution.

Sure, I don't doubt the importance of 23 as a major event. It's just that by this point there is no divided government in any real sense. If bills can't be proposed in the senate and voted by the people with the possibility of tribunician veto, the state isn't the old republic.

Seems to me that the popular election of the tribune with the right of veto is a defining element of the republican system, the one that distinguished the "Royal Rule of Sulla" and all the other dictators from the normal system. Who was the last popularly elected tribune with full tribunician powers?

Why not Actium? What's your reasoning?

Funny, I only included Sextus because there was a whole page devoted to him in the site's historical narrative. I guess we're still left with what could become a hot button issue in itself: when exactly was the end of the republic?

Thanks for the offer, but I have a brief blurb for each of them (just didn't include above because posts don't support tables). Good idea. Good call--I knew my Punic War section was a tad light. Funny, I had Agrippa listed but I took him off. I'm sort of divided about the cut-off date for the list. Certainly anything after Actium is too late. Whether to end with Caesar's dictatorship, Phillipi, or Actium itself is a bit of a toss-up for me. What do you think?

I'm nearly finished with an annotated version of the "Leading Statesman of the Roman Republic," but I wanted to solicit additions before I finish it off. Currently, I've included anyone with a biography in Plutarch or modern source, anyone who held the consulship 4 or more times or defeated a major Roman enemy, anyone who introduced a major piece of legislation, or who earned notoriety for their role in a major event. If you can think of anyone that I'm not including, please post it here. Currently, I have entries and brief biographical information for the following statesman (listed by an era corresponding to those in the main history section of the site). 509-500 (Birth of the Republic) L. Junius Brutus (cos. 509) P. Valerius Publicola (cos. 509-507) Cn Marcius Coriolanus (pr? 508) 501-272 (Conquest of Italy) S. Cassius Vecellinus (cos. 502, 493, 486) Q. Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 485, 482) K. Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 484, 481, 479) M. Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 483, 480) L. Quinctius Cincinnatus (imp 458, 439) Decemviri M. Furius Camillus (dict. 396, 390, 389, 368, 367) G. Licinius Stolo (tr. 376-367), L. Sextius G. Marcus Rutilus (cos. 357, 352, 344, 342) T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (cos. 340) M. Valerius Maximus Corvus (cos 348, 346, 343, 335, 300, 299; imp 301) Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (322, 310, 308, 301, 297, 296) A. Claudius Caecus (cen 312; cos. 307, 296; interrex 299 ) M. Curius Dentatus (cos 290, 275, 274; cen 272) 264-206 (First and Second Punic Wars) Q. Fulvius Flaccus (237, 224, 212, 209) C. Flaminius (cos 223) M. Claudius Marcellus (cos 222, 215, 214, 210, 208) Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator (cos 233, 228, 215, 214, 209) 205-146 (Third Punic and Macedonian Wars) P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (cos. 205, 194) M. Porcius Cato (cos 195) L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (cos 190) L. Aemilius Paullus (182, 168) P. Cornelius Nasica (cos. 162, 155) T. Quinctius Flamininus (cos 150) P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (cos. 147, 134) L. Mummius (cos. 146) 143-106 (Gracchan Reforms and Jugurtha) Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (cos 143) P. Mucius Scaevola (cos 133) T. Gracchus (tr. 133) G. Gracchus (tr. 123, 122) M. Porcius Cato (cos 118) M. Aemilius Scaurus (cos 115) M. Livius Drusus (cos. 112) Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (cos. 109) Q. Servilius Caepio (106) 107-82 (Cimbri and Teutons and Social War) C. Marius (cos. 107, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 86) Q. Servilius Caepio (cos 106) Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (cos. 98) L. Julius Caesar (cos. 90) L. Porcius Cato (cos. 89) L. Appuleius Saturninus, tr. M. Livius Drusus, tr. L. Cornelius Cinna (87, 86, 85, 84) Cn. Papirus Carbo (cos 85, 84, 82) L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (83) L. Quintus Sertorius (pr. ) 81-71 (The Order of Sulla) L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (cos. 88, ) Cn Cornelius Dolabella (cos 81) P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. 79) Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78) Mam. Aemilus Lepidus Livianus (cos 77) L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74) C. Cornelius (?) Verres (pr. 74) 70 - 63 (Servile War, Cilician Pirates, Catilinarian Conspiracy) M. Licinius Crassus Dives (cos. 70, 55) Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, 55, 52) Q. Hortensius Hortalus (cos. 69) L. Sergius Catilina, pr. M. Tullius Cicero (cos. 63) 62-49 (Triumvirate and Gallic Wars) C. Iulius Caesar (cos. 59, 48; dict. 46, 45, 44) M. Calpurnius Bibulus (cos. 59) A. Gabinius (cos. 58) M. Porcius Cato Uticensis (pr. 54; propr. 57, 56) L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (cos. 58) C. Memmius (pr. 58) P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (cos. 57) Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (cos. 57) P. Vatinius (cos. 47) P. Clodius Pulcher (aed cr 56) T. Annius Milo, pr. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 54) Cn. Domitus Calvinus (cos. 53, 40) Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (cos. 52) 48-31 (Caesar's Dictatorship and Civil Wars) P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. 48, 41) M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos 46) Gaius Trebonius (pr 48, suf cos 45) C. Cassius Longinus (pr.) M. Junius Brutus (pr.) Publius Cornelius Dolabella (suf cos 44) M. Antonius (cos. 44, 34, 31 C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus (43, 33, 31) Sex. Pompeius Magnus Decimus Brutus

First, no one made a racist remark about Italians. GO was obviously joking. Second, the contribution of lobbyists to political campaigns is entirely proper. If NARAL, for example, didn't make political contributions, I wouldn't contribute to NARAL. Lobbying groups perform an indispensible service in promoting their legislative agenda, and congressmen are rightfully free to take campaign contributions from organizations whose policy prescriptions they have every intention of ignoring.

If by "feasted on public purse", you mean "collected a government salary", then your original complaint becomes even more absurd--you seemingly want a person to be voted the highest government office with neither any success in the business world OR success in government! I can't imagine a better description of someone wholly unsuited for the presidency.

How does anyone know that modern scholar's writings are true? Many have been gainsaid by later writers. Ancient history is a reconstruction from limited evidence. How does one know which reconstruction is true? The same you know whether any reconstruction in any domain is true--through a combination of logic and evidence. Whether later writers gainsay old accounts is meaningless in comparison to the evidence and logical analysis that later writers provide.

But this is an obvious self-contradiction. If the perfect system is the one where the majority feels comfortable, then nations where the majority are not comfortable are less perfect than the ones where they are. BTW, nations differ dramatically in how comfortable the people are. If you ask people, "how happy are you with your life" (and the wording of the questions differ from study to study with little effect), they'll gladly tell you and even rate their happiness on a scale. This measure of subjective well-being (SWB) can then be the metric by which you could judge a system, according to your own premise. This data is continually being collected, analyzed, published, and scrutinized by scholars around the world. But there are two findings that are consistent across all of them--rich nations are happier than poor nations, and the US is always in the top 5 (and typically the first) most happy in the world.

I left the phrase "right to tax" somewhat vague because while it is almost certain that tax farmers purchased the right to collect taxes, it is less certain how much (if any) legal discretion they had at setting tax rates (e.g., by collecting low/high taxes in alternate years, etc). Apparently, they also often over-taxed, suggesting they had quite a bit of de facto discretion.