M. Porcius Cato

What's interesting is that the inflation could be used to make two opposite points. The first point would be, "You think that lead poisoning caused the fall of the empire? Well, that's just one theory--there are another 209 causes that have also been posited. How does your theory deal with these 209 competing hypotheses?" The idea here is to inflate the number of competing hypotheses to intimidate anyone from coming up with any theory. That kind of tactic strikes me as dishonest and intellectually lazy. The second would be, "I have the best theory for why the empire fell. Now I know there are a lot of crackpot theories out there--at least another 209--but I can show you not only why my theory can explain the relevant data, but also why all of the other 209 fail to explain the relevant data." Here the inflation simply works as advertising--a theory that beats 209 theories sounds more impressive than a theory that beats 9 or 29 competing theories. This is a bold tactic, but at least it's an honest one. Bryan Ward-Perkins actually takes the second tack in his little gem of a book on the fall of the empire, but in this forum, I often see the first point being made instead. For my part, I think the first point is sort of weaselley. "Oh don't be so arrogant to think you know better than others what caused the fall of the empire. My lead-poisoning theory (or race theory or whatever) is just as good as any! Probably the empire fell for lots and lots of reasons; it was just doomed." This argument is weaselly becauase there is nothing in principle that would falsify it, and it is ultimately vacuous. To say that X happened for EVERY reason is to say that X happened for no reason at all. It's not an explanation; those words are simply the sounds of a mind shutting closed. By the way, I'm not advocating a kind of historical monism. Sure, it's theoretically possible that 5 things or 210 things really did cause the empire to fall, or maybe one thing that set off 5 things that set off 203 things, etc. But figuring out which of these possiblilities is actually correct requires an openness to the idea that the problem of Rome's fall isn't some intractable mystery, just a hard problem like any other.

Did you notice that a number of the items are very nearly identical, some being mere synonyms? Maybe there is some shade of difference between "21. Bolshevization" and "36. Communism", and I suppose "66. Egoism" and "104. Individualism" have a tiny shade of difference that might matter in some contexts. But really! This list is deliberately inflated by including lots of different words for the same concept. Consider the idea that Rome fell because no one cared. That idea gets 10 different entries, including: "Apathy" "Enervation" "Inertia" "Indifference" "Lethargy" "Loss of Energy" "Paralysis of Will" "Paralyzation" "Resignation" "Tiredness of Life" What's the point of this gimmick anyway? Is it to make the causes of the fall appear to be so hopelessly complex that no one takes the question seriously?

Caligula made a horse a senator, but to my knowledge, only humans were senators in the Repubic (although there was this one guy who pretended to be the descendent of Venus).

If these portraits are correctly identified (Drusus and Nero), Caligula is readily distiniguished, no?

I forgot to mention that the classic statement on the constitution of the Roman republic comes from Polybius 6.11.11-6.18.3.

A nice description of the cursus honorum can be found here. For a description of public offices, the Little dictionary is also nice. Briefly, for most of Roman history, plebeians were allowed to hold magistracies from the quaestorship to the consulship, which was the requirement for entry to the senate. Far from being excluded, plebeians held the majority of Senate positions from at least the time of Sulla, who raised a great many plebs to senatorial rank. Patricians on the other hand were excluded from holding the tribuneship and many other offices. Between 367 and 300 BCE, laws were passed mandating that at least one of the two consuls, censors, and aediles be plebeian and half of all priesthoods had to be plebeian. Although the Senate was open to freeborn Romans regardless of Patrician ancestry, there were property qualifications for various magistracies. [EDIT: I'm referring to how things stood while the Republic still breathed; after that, a horse could be made senator.]

The race theory doesn't explain why the west fell sooner than the east, nor why the fall in Britain occurred so quickly and when, nor why the fall in Africa occurred so quickly and when. In short, it doesn't explain any of the major facts of the fall of the empire. To my mind, Peter Heather's theory remains the best one for explaining the fall of the empire. The empire was destroyed by the migration of Germanic peoples who were hostile to Rome and who encountered an empire that was so economically ravaged by nearly a century of civil wars and disastrous economic policies that it could not mount a sufficient defense. On top of all that, does it really matter whether 5, 15, or 50% of the population were descended from Latins (or Venus for that matter)?

That was my whole point--they took politically suicidal positions because they believed in the principles at stake. They weren't 'mavericks" just for the sake being weird--they believed in an unpopular position and they fought for it at (ultimately) their own peril. In any case, this is a digression.

Just when I finally agreed with Clodius on something, he has to add a proviso with which I totally disagree. Politics was about more than simply forging alliances to gain power. There were policy debates then as now. What should be the Roman policy toward its Italian neighbors? What should be its policies in the provinces? How should public finance be administered? How should the courts be organized? Etc Etc The best evidence that these were principled debates and not mere power games comes from the careers of those who took politically suicidal positions that pleased no one (e.g., Drusus on Italian rights, or--more controversially--Cato on the settlement of Pompey's vets). While no one is so naive to believe that power politics was not PART of the story, it's equally wrong-headed to think it's the WHOLE story. Particularly in the aftermath of the Marian slaughter in Rome and Sulla's retributory proscriptions, there were real constitutional issues at stake, despite the political sideshows that were going on. Looking at Roman history without appreciating the issues of political philosophy that were under real debate is like looking at the paintings in the Louvre without being able to see color.

After installing Windows on my new MacBook Pro, I finally got a chance to play RTW to see what all the fuss was about. It's cool! I loved playing the Brutii and wiping the Julii off the map, though I do wish I could play the Senate and People of Rome instead. Marching on Rome like Sulla wasn't as fun as doing all those little Senate missions and watching my family rise up the cursus honorum. Does anyone know if playing SPQR is an option with the RTR mod? Also, can you run the RTR mod with the 1.3 patch?

I think Clodius hit the nail on the head. Antony needed legions that were personally loyal to him so he could carry on as he wished.

Hmmm...shouldn't this thread be called "Pliny the Credulous"?

Three fabulous threads right off the top of your head! Sure, they might not have the star power of other threads, but so what? Don't be such a populare... Or, to be fair, don't underestimate the forum. Haven't you ever started a thread and thought it would be a hit (only to see it fizzle) or started a thread that you thought would be dud (and turned out to be hit)?

Vercingetorix? Nah..seems over the top. I was thinking that the Cilician pirates were sort of al Qaeda-like, but I can't think of any good Zarqawi parallel.

Thanks Germanicus for that review. I also heartily recommend "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic." If the book had a theme, I guess it would be: The republic wasn't doomed. That's already an important corrective to make. Additionally, Gruen provides a wonderful compendium of magistrates, broken down by whether their families had attained the consulship, praetorship, etc. Two points jump out from that list. First, that the magistrates of the late republic were not all part of the nobility. Quite the opposite, the number of new men is really rather astounding. Second, the lower offices were absolutely dominated by new men, who also attained higher offices in large numbers. For example, of the 178 known praetors, 68 were new men or from families that had never had praetors; of the 113 known tribunes and 200 known pedarii, 137 were novi homines and 67 were from families that had never had praetors. These two facts are important because they show that the senate was NOT closed to newcomers, and that over time, the majority of the senate would likely have been filled with new men.

I agree there's still much more to talk about regarding the late repbulic--the system of voting and its consequences, whether bribery was really widespread or just sour grapes, whether all or some or none of Sulla's laws should have been overturned, the history of the imperia extra ordinem, whether precedent was either necessory or sufficient to constrain imperia, etc. You might guess the nature of "the usual suspects' replies", but you might also be surprised, might teach someone something, or might even learn something yourself. The question is--What issues would you like to discuss next? If you'd rather we not beat dead horses, give us a fresh new one to beat!

The filibuster--like the tribunician veto--may have resulted in unpopular decisions, but so what? There was nothing treasonous about using either the filibuster or the veto: both were mechanisms that required further debate on topics of importance, and whether generals could set themselves up as patrons to vast armies was a topic of importance that really did require debate. Nothing Cato did to provoke that debate was treasonous, unlawful, or a threat to the republic. Quite the contrary, something had to be done to end the system of client armies that had begun with Marius--in this Cato's opposition to the Pompeian settlement was principled, far-sighted, and totally admirable.

The Picard text is the only one I own on Carthage, so I don't have that much to compare it too, but I found myself sort of disappointed overall by how little is really known. So if anyone has a modern archaeological work on Carthage that they'd like to recommend, please post here!

Sure--but marching on Rome is an act of treason.

Well, I'm still waiting for Furius Venator to justify his claim that the legal case against Caesar was best found among his consular actions, but I'd simply point out that the exact origin of the triumvirate is up for debate. There are good arguments (by Fergus Millar) that the triumvirate pre-dates the lousy agrarian law that should have been fillibustered.

You know better than to make a statement like that. Cato was the front man for about 20 diehard senators. And his power was not in the vote but in the filabuster. Cato's ability to filibuster posed no threat to the Republic. Quite the opposite, the right to filibuster even today remains a bedrock protection for minority viewpoints. Which is to say that Cato intended to uphold the law. Hardly the work of a revolutionary bent on destroying the republic.

I'm probably being goaded, but: This whole thread is simply absurd. The sole accusation against Cato is that he threatened to bring a legal case against Caesar. So what? Lots of people were hauled into court to justify their actions. Caesar should have shown up and defended himself instead of hiding behind his legions like a coward. NO. In fact, as Cicero complained, Caesar's cronies padded the consular list with 'dictators' in order to make Caesar's power-grab appear less rotten than it really was. It still stunk--until the liberators did the right thing. I agree. No, it wasn't. Cato was just one vote in the senate, and the vast majority of senators voted for compromise. Cato had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that that compromise never came to fruition.

Sure--maybe Julia only had two affairs. But why on earth would she? Her husband--for whom she had no reported affection--is away most of the time; she's young, smart, sexy, and healthy; why not do what every other Roman does? As I said, 80000 lovers is simply absurd, but I don't see any reason to doubt that she was promiscuous, and even less reason to doubt that she was exiled.

10,000 is highly unlikely; 80,000 is simply absurd. Yet, it's still possible that Julia was very, very promiscuous. Julia was once asked how she managed to have so many lovers, yet all her children resembled their father. She reportedly replied that she never took on a new passenger unless she were already carrying a cargo (meaning, she only had affairs during her pregnancy). Even if this story isn't true, there were plenty of ways for Roman women to avoid bringing an illegitimate child into a household, and there were probably as many ways then as now to have a cladestine affair. It's not that Roman men were stupid; it's that Roman women were smart.

Sorry to see that Pliny was such a technophobic Luddite. I wonder if he wrote his jeramiad against metal with an iron stylus?