M. Porcius Cato

Yes, competition is a huge incentive to adopt and invent new technology, but only if the technology is labor-saving. Some technology is purely for luxury (e.g., heated pools). I suppose you could argue that heated pools spread like wildfire throughout the Roman world because everyone wanted to keep up with their neighbors, but I suspect that the intrinsic value of a heated pool would be sufficient to explain why Romans adopted them so quickly. Again, military technology is only a small part of the technological world. There were plenty of advances in daily life that spread throughout the Roman world--advances in the mass production and delivery of pottery, tiled roofs, mining, agricultural equipment, and so forth. For example, the screw-press crusher of grapes was a Roman advance that held enormous practical benefits for the production of wine, and once invented in Italy it quickly eclipsed the Greek press throughout the Mediterranean.

How many names are in this database anyway? I got Kirsten Dunst, Winona Ryder, Reese Witherspoon, and Natalie Portman. I wonder what you'd get if you just answered randomly?

Who was it who said "We have built a thousand shrines to Fortune but none to Reason"? In any case, there was a temple once built to "Common Sense", so I guess I'd worship her.

Of course. But Caesar was unlikely to get a fair trial. Please note, I'm not defending Caesar especially but his conduct whilst consul would give better grounds for prosecution than his actions as proconsul. OK--you play Cato for a while: how did Caesar's conduct as consul provide a good target for a successful prosecution?

I felt inspired--sorry for offending anyone's laconic leanings.

From the royal rule of Caesar in the first century BC to the second decade of the 20th century--when the last Kaisar and Czar were deposed--Europe was plagued by kings. In the history of mankind, republics have been rare and brief, but the precious freedom they have offered has always moved us forward with a matchless dynamism and energy. Surely the small band of aristocrats who overthrew the kings that ruled Rome never could have imagined what they would unleash (and many more surely wished to have had a return to the monarchy), but for a brief interlude in human history, the many had a participation in government that was never before afforded on such a scale and would be not be matched again until nearly the 18th century. By providing a democratic check on the power of the few, the republic created the political conditions for a legal code that was more just, for a set of human rights that was more moral, and for an economy that was more capable of meeting the basic needs and higher aspirations of its citizenry. (And, yes, I know the system wasn't perfect.) For me, the 500 years of republican government that the Romans established was a marvel--perhaps a hopeless one--but a marvel nonetheless. Within those years, the Roman Republic unified almost the whole Mediterranean world, solved thorny problems of political science that continue to inform statecraft today, and spread the light of Hellas to even the darkest corners of Europe. In my opinion, the slow unravelling of that beneficent (though imperfect) system was one of the most consequential series of events in human history. That's why I think the late Republic is so interesting, and that's why I voted for it.

See my post above. There wasn't a "rent-a-mob" in any of the indicidents I mentioned. The Roman legal system worked pretty well, and it was certainly better to try people suspected of crimes than to let them all go. Of course, we all know how averse Caesar was to obeying the law...

That's a very interesting question. In the case of Spain, Caesar departed before his appointment had even been ratified by the Senate, so it sounds more like he was running away than that he was pushed. The bankers of Rome--who weren't popular with any faction--attempted to stop Caesar, who was indebted to them to the tune of 25 million sesterces, but Crassus intervened to help him get out of Rome. So to me, it seems like a real stretch to think that Caesar was pushed out.

Good. we disagree on the legality of the entire war. You just won't led me end with a rhetorical flourish, will you? OK, read that to mean "prior to his partly illegal war in Gaul". We could parse this even further--the "war" in Gaul actually was several disconnected campaigns from the point of view of the Roman senate; some of the Gallic War didn't even take place in any of the three Gaul-parts; and Caesar's mostly clearly illegal action came from crossing the Rhine, so maybe his crime wasn't even technically in Gaul but going out of Gaul. In any case, my point still stands--Caesar had a habit of hightailing it out of Rome whenever his popularity needed a boost.

HAHAHA, you mean the ancients didn't think of him as a useless sack of s**t in dire need of a nose job? Nope--they fell all over each other praising him for his perspicacity when it turned out he was right about your beloved darling of Venus.

Assuming you mean discontent among the middle and lower classes - could you give me some examples of this "widespread discontent" by way of quotes ? Good question. First, I don't want to claim that Caear--or any elected official--was widely despised at the time he was elected. Despite the widespread accusations of bribery that are bandied about on this forum, I doubt bribery played that much of a role in determining who held office: there were courts for that sort of thing, and they were rarely used (which is remarkable given the incentive for the defeated parties to use them). At the same time, I don't think that election shows that the winning candidate was always popular either. Even in our own day, the popularity of an elected official can swing wildly during the course of a term (and even thereafter). Second, lacking any polling data other than the elections themselves, all of our evidence regarding popularity is based on (1) testimony and (2) inference from the events that the sources describe. The latter I take to be the more diagnostic because it can actually be placed in time; in contrast, testimony regarding popularity invariably fails to tell us when exactly the candidate was popular, and there is a tendency for nostalgia to make even the worst dictators (such as Stalin) appear better to subsequent generations. In contrast, here's an example of a quite telling event about popular opinion: In his description of the public debate regarding the Gabinian Law (which gave Pompey completely unprecedented powers against the Cilician pirates, who were a sort of ancient al Qaeda), Plutarch tells us that a tribunician proposal to give Pompey a colleague was met with such a roar of disapproval from the crowd that a crow flying overhead was struck down from the sky. While I doubt Plutarch's physics are right, I'm guessing his demographic inference was at least approximately correct--everyone was eager to give Pompey whatever he needed to rid Rome of the sea terrorists, and they weren't thinking at all about their traditional liberties. (No comment on the modern parallels.) From this, I take it that Pompey had the confidence of the people at the time the Gabinian law was proposed; thereafter, the high approval for Pompey cannot be assumed. Using this general forensic strategy, I'd point to the following three incidents: (1) Popular discontent with Caesar might be inferred from Caesar's association with the Bona Dea scandal, which drove Caesar from Rome to Spain. The Bona Dea scandal, which occurred at Caesar's house with his wife, chiefly involved Clodius, and the disgust with Clodius was shared by the Senate, which had voted 400 - 15 to move a bill of prosecution to the people, and the people as well. According to Cicero, after he delivered his testimony, "there came to me on the next day as large a crowd as that by which I was escorted home when laying down my consulate" (Cic, Att. 1.16). For his part, Caesar not only fled the city; he also famously divorced his wife, remarking cruely, "Caesar's wife must be beyond suspicion." (2) To this incident, one might also add the popularity of the pamphlets and public postings that criticized Caesar after one of his tribunes attempted to murder Bibulus. According to two of Cicero's letters to Atticus (in 59), these texts were very popular and that the people used to "copy down and record his edicta and conditone" (Cic, Att., 2.20.4), with the crowd so great that one could not get past the throng gathered around them. Presumably, these were the source of Suetonius' allusions to Caesar's early career and Caesar's relationship with the king of Bithynia. In response, Caesar published his own texts, seditiously advocating that the people attack the house of Bibulus, but apparently Caesar's plea to the people fell on deaf ears, as Bibulus remained unharmed. For his part, Pompey was deeply wounded by the attacks on his friend Caesar, enough so that Cicero felt empathy for the once popular general: "I could not hold back my tears when on July 25 I saw him addressing a public meeting about Bibulus' edicta. He who previously had been accustomed to preen himself so magnificently in that very place, with the most profound affection of the people, with all in support of him--how humble, how dejected he was; how he displeased not only those present but himself also." (Cic., Att. 2.21.3-5) (3) A similar incident that concerns Pompey also reflects public opinion on Caesar's performance. In his letter to Atticus (2.19.3-4), Cicero observes that Bibulus had become highly popular, whereas Pompey was in disgrace. The incident (in 59) occurred at the ludi Apollinares, where the lines spoken in the theater ("to our misfortune, you are Magnus") were understood as referring to Pompey, and were met with thunderous applause. While Caesar's entry to the theater was met with a chilly silence, the arrival of Curio (who had been the only one to openly oppose Caesar in the Forum at this late date) was met with enthusiasm: "For him there is great applause and extremely favorable greetings in the Forum" (Cic. Att. 2.18.1) In sum, Caesar's popularity seemed to ebb immediately prior to his illegal war in Gaul and his Spanish adventures (wag the dog?)

[quote name='Julia C

There was widespread discontent with Caesar before he left for Gaul (and, earlier, for Spain), so let's not pretend that Caesar marched on Rome at the head of a revolutionary army that sought to end the exclusionary system. Moreover, the exclusiveness of the system was more of a statistical bias than a hard rule. For lower offices, there was nearly no advantage at all for being a member of a powerful old family. For higher offices, old families had the advantage of name recognition and (sometimes) wealth, but even then plebeians and new men very often held high offices. For hard numbers on this, see Erich Gruen's "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic," which contains a detailed analysis on the background of the magistrates of the Roman republic.

Catullus a poet?!? What a coincidence! Next you'll be telling me that Cinna was a poet too! Yes, of course, I was referring to Catulus not Catullus.

What is the title of the book by Gruen?

He showed the difference between the perception of Hellenenizm in Cato's time. You should read it, it is very interesting. What is the book? Do you have any recollection of how Gruen established that there was a difference in the perception of Greek culture at the time of Cato?

No--we have evidence of some successful men respecting Hellenism, and we have no evidence about the attitudes of the 'middle class'. Well, this is a start towards presenting evidence I guess. What is Gruen's evidence?

The position you ascribe to me is almost wholly inaccurate. Far from believing that the republic was perfect, I started an entire thread on the question of how the republic might be reformed for the better, and I almost never fail to indicate that the republic needed reforms (especially with respect to provincial administration). Elsewhere, I also took to task many of the opponents of the triumvirate, specifically those who had supported Sulla and thus had no credibility in opposing the triumvirs. For the record, I think many of those who supported Cato were disingenuous, blood-stained Sullans who opposed Caesar only because they wanted to be Caesar (witness their abhorrent behavior while in camp with Pompey during the Civil War). You'd like me to extend this criticism to Cato, but I don't think it applies--his record of turning down extra-constitutional appointments, honors, and commands is the very thing I admire in Cato, and that lack of that respect for the law is the very thing I most despise in Caesar and the Sullans. I think I'll take their word over yours. Not my word--it's basic archaeology. See Nathan Rosenstein's Rome at War for a detailed analysis of the old wives' tale you've insisted on repeating. C'mon Cato, MacArthur didn't march on Washington DC and force Congress to declare him dictator and kill anyone who opposed him. You prove my point exactly, MacArthur was an influential general who was overly ambitious, but still couldn't get far. The system made it impossible for him to gain true popular support for his personal ambitions. MacArthur didn't back down because he was forced to nor because he was unpopular. What on earth are you talking about?

[quote name='Julia C

Nice to see at someone out there hasn't been snowed by Caesar's two-millenium propaganda machine! Take a look at the two threads that PP indicated. Or--just do a search by my name, and you'll find a wealth of 100% True and Accurate arguments against Caesar. It's easier to find information than ever before, but the student's job isn't easier overall--now they have to digest all that information and organize it into something intellient to stand out. I for one am glad if this is the new metric for judging student performance--intelligently mobilizing evidence for arguments is the hardest (but most needed) intellectual work that there is.

The Roman people--not the shrines of old men--provided the source of Roman power. And Romans were historically very accommodating to Hellenic religion without any undermining of the Roman state. Indeed, the very diversity of Roman religious practices made Rome the cosmopolitan city that it was and allowed her to play host to business interests around the whole Mediterranean and thus to more easily govern foreign territories. Augustus and Tiberius, like Cato the Elder, may have frowned on some of the things pouring out of "the East", but this was simply small-town snobbery. Whether mystical old women in Rome muttered prayers to Bona Dea, Minerva, or Mithras in no way affects whether they bless the shields of their sons. Moreover, even the "Dionysian" elements of Greek society appear rather benign. So universal was this attitude in Rome that Cicero, in his defense of Archias, could list the import of Greek mysteries alongside all the other goods that came from Greece.

Did you know if they had knowledge of how Hellenization worked at that time? Only the upper class did. the uneducated class hated it, because they saw Greece as a tyrant. Again, you make assertions without any supporting evidence at all--only further arbitrary assertions. Do you have any evidence or not?

On what evidence is your certainty predicated? The middle and lower classes of Cato's day left no record of their opinions, so by what means do you divine their attitudes toward Hellenization? [quote name='Julia C

In addition to the old familiar set of characters, we should get to meet Livia at some point. Can't wait to see how they depict her!