M. Porcius Cato

I do love Pliny and Tacitus. What a great letter!

This should be a separate thread, but what's the evidence for your claim? Were citizens less likely to serve in the army than non-citizens? If so, was this always true or only sometimes? When and when not? In my opinion, you're reversing cause and effect. It was only after citizenship became nearly worthless that it was extended to all, not that it became worthless by extending it to everyone. In favor of my claim, I can offer evidence that the value of citizenship declined prior to extension. Can you, in favor of your claim, offer any evidence that previous extensions led to a decline in the value of citizenship? If not, then the evidence doesn't support your causal story.

First, stick to the facts of what Cato did and did not do, and leave out the guilt-by-association nonsense. Second, what evidence is there that Cato opposed Caesar before the conspiracy? As far as I can tell, they got along fine--Cato supported Caesar's early legislation and they cooperated in prosecuting Sullans. I've already told you why--Cato did not hold grudges against the many magistrates he opposed from time to time, including even those (like Scipio) to whom he had lost a love interest. When there is evidence AGAINST a thesis, the thesis should be abandoned. Maybe you don't know what a slush fund is, but raising money for electioneering was a necessary part of campaigning after the Social Wars--the expenses of securing Italian support were considerable, and the Italians were the deciding factor in several elections. Read Cicero's letters for details. If insisting that the law be upheld is "hiding behind a respect for the law", then count me in! I can see nothing particularly partisan about that--unless, that is, if the opposing faction is a bunch of criminals (which they were). The rest of Cato's positions also derive from basic principles, which as often cut against his faction as for it. They were all designed to prevent monarchical consolidation of power in any one group: the corn dole was a response to the Catlinarian threat; the eastern settlement was purely a power grab by Pompey at the expense of a truly competent governor who managed to win Rome the trust of a new province; the tax farmers were rapacious bastards who were undermining Roman relations with the provinces and were in cahoots with the civil servants who were siphoning money out of the treasury. If Pompey Magnus were unable to settle HIS veterans, no general would be able to. Thus, fighting Pompey on this was absolutely necessary to wrest control of the legions from the general and transfer it back to the state. To uphold ONE law, yes--to become a constitutionalist, of course not. As I've said before, Cato's co-operation with Pompey was purely an expedient to ensure that Caesar did not march on Rome like Sulla. Your narration of events simply underscores my point.

Because there was a principle at stake--as long as the rule of law could be flouted by generals, there would never be a lasting peace nor a lasting republic. As you yourself said: Because the record of Cato's principled behavior and his reputation among even his enemies provides a better explanation for his 'stubborness' than the silly idea that Cato's sole motivation was to get even with Caesar over Servilia's love letter. First off, I don't think that the ad hoc settling Pompey's veterans (or Marius' or Caesar's) was good public policy. Do you? If so, explain how you think it could be done while undermining the system of client armies. I don't see it, and I suspect this was the principle behind the opposition to it. Second, Cato never made an 'alliance' with Pompey. He apparently convinced Pompey to uphold the law, and Cato joined the ROMAN army against an enemy of Rome, but Cato reportedly claimed that he would probably have to go into exile if Pompey won. Some alliance! Sounds to me like Cato was willing to make a deal with a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. Further support for the idea that Cato was an unenthusiastic supporter of Pompey's is provided by his conversation with Cicero upon the latter's joining Pompey's camp: Cato told Cicero that he would be doing the republic a greater service by staying out of the civil war so that he could act as a reconciliator after it was all over. Hardly the speech of someone with a vendetta.

Furious, your non-responsiveness to my questions and evidence leads me to think that discussion with you is pointless.

If Cato were the type to hold a grudge, how would you explain his relations with the rest of Rome? He quarreled with nearly everyone at one point or another, so you have a lot of explaining to do. First, why the shudder quotes? Do you really mean leading citizen (like Catulus) or tyrant (like Sulla)? Second, I presented evidence of Caesar's proclivities for violence above, especially against his co-consul. If you're going to ignore the evidence I present with no response, there's no point in my providing still more evidence for you. Or: let me put it differently--what *would* convince you that a senator (other than Caesar) was aiming at dictatorship?

Perfect--just what I was looking for. Thanks!

What was the function of the diribitor?

But the vast majority of 19th century USA was agrarian not industrial. Moreover, one of the largest (if not THE largest) catalysts of industrial growth was demand for labor-saving agricultural tools in the agrarian northern midwestern US (where there was no slavery) versus in the agrarian south (where there was). The example of state-to-state differences in the US is perfectly relevant to the economy of ancient Rome. Not true at all. The vast majority of farming done in the US was done without the help of slaves. Slaves only pay for themselves when they're used for cash crops like cotton and tobacco, and most American farms in the 19th century grew neither. The number of new, non-farm jobs created by industrialization vastly exceeded the number of jobs eliminated due to obsolesence. For one, women were able to enter the workforce for the first time in large numbers. Before the industrial revolution, single women who did not marry overwhelmingly worked in either home-spinning (which sounds bucolic and innocent but was drudgery beyond belief) or prostitution. The number of jobs created by mechanization not only provided generations of women with an alternative to farm life and marriages of necessity, but also led to explosive demand for metalworks, mining, and transport. Overall, industrialization did not cause unemployment; it created employment. (BTW, in China today, there are vast labor SHORTAGES due to rapid industrialization. Ten years ago this was simply unimaginable.) This is easy. Think about the needs and resources in a pre-industrial society: manufacture of farm equipment (whether by blacksmiths versus more efficient tool-and-dies), waterworks (whether by open wells or by more efficient wind-driven pumps), metalworks (whether by ovens or by more efficient blast furnaces), mining (whether by surface mining or more efficient shaft mines), etc, etc. In every single area of pre-industrial civilization, there are small incremental steps that are more efficient and thus more lucrative. But all of these improvements require the expertise of long-term workers who can master the new, more complicated technology. Slaves--who often don't even speak your own language and whose lifespan on the farms and in the mines averaged only about 2 years--were not going to develop these labor-saving technologies because they did not have the freedom to tell their masters and overseers, "Leave me alone for a week, so I can figure out an easier way to do this!" I have no idea what you're talking about or how it's relevant. Quite obviously, the fall of the Roman world disrupted trade to such an extent that the benefits of also eliminating the slave trade were more than offset. Simply look at the production and distribution of pottery and tiled roofs as one example. Moreover, although slavery declined, serfdom (which is very nearly the same) was rising in the same period. It woudl be a fantastic error to think that the fall of the Roman world brought freedom to the slaves--it didn't; it brought famine, disease, death, and (at best) serfdom with no chance of manumission. Finally, there is no point in drawing a line between industrial and agricultural economies in assessing the impact of slavery. Free agricultural economies consistently outproduced slave- and serf-based agricutlural economies. Free industrial economies consistently outproduced slave-based industrial economies. There is a good reason Sputnik wan't developed in one of the gulags (despite having plenty of talent there!).

[quote name='Julia C

Can we stick to the facts on this forum instead of relying on mythology--whether pagan, Christian, or Rastafarian? It's hard enough to reconstruct the facts from the fragmentary evidence that we do have. The last thing we need is a bunch of random assertions about supernatural forces directing so-and-so's wife!

I think it's possible. At the very least, there is no reason why they wouldn't have settled on a partitioning of the empire to avoid bloodshed.

I wish I could say this more diplomatically, but you're simply flat-out wrong. The economic value of slavery versus free labor HAVE BEEN quantified, and slavery WAS abolished in a territory that was completely agrarian. See my earlier post for details, or (better) educate yourself on the economic history of the United States in the 19th century. Even a casual search on this topic in Amazon should alert you to the volume of econometrics that you're ignoring.

It was the celebration of Passover that brought Jesus to Jerusalem, and his reception (reportedly popular) probably got the ball rolling in having him arrested and crucified. So, the connection between the timing of Good Friday and Passover is almost causal.

Actually, Marius was the precedent for this, like so much else..... OK--so both times, this was the spark of civil war.

Well obviously Caesar was the lynchpin in the Triumvirate. If Caesar were removed from the equation, Pompey and Crassus would never have gotten along. If you wanted to undermine the triumvirate, there was no other way. Standing for consul in absentia had never been allowed by the Senate, if I'm not mistaken, and it's bad policy in any case. The evidence for Caesar's willingness to use force was provided by his own conduct as consul, when he had used political violence against his co-consul and effectively kept the rest of the senate locked up in their homes lest they be murdered by his mobs. Caesar's use of political violence accurately predicted the course he was later to take, which Cato had the foresight to see long before anyone else (as Cicero himself acknowledged after it was all too late). The form of the Republic is not what is at stake here, but the substance. As early as Caesar's consulship, there was evidence of Caesar's willingness to use force to have his will: his very opening act as consul was to have Cato arrested for arguing against one of his bills; he ignored popularly-elected quaestors in presenting the case for the agrarian bill and instead had Pompey and Crassus (who were simply privati at this point) deliver the case for them; he had his thugs beat up his co-consul and smash the consular fasces; one of Caesar's henchmen, the tribune Vitinius, successfully abducted Caesar's consular colleague and placed him in the carcer without trial; at least one legal case that affected Caesar's position was also disrupted due to the political violence that Caesar sponsored. You do realize that it was Cato who convinced Cicero to go into exile for this, don't you? Also, if you suspect Cato had been behind the expited penalty phase in the hearing of the Catilinarian traitors, I really wonder whether you've checked a time line recently. Cato was merely a very young quaestor at the time, who had just finished opposing Cicero in the courts (where Cato was fulfilling his pledge to prosecute everyone who benefitted from the Sullan proscriptions). The notion that a quaestor could twist the arm of a consul is simply too fantastic to treat seriously. Re-read Pro Murena: the tone that Cicero takes towards Cato at this point is so patronizing that I seriously doubt Cicero would have needed any prodding from Cato re: the Catilinarians; quite the contrary, part of Cicero's case AGAINST Cato's prosecution was that the threat by the Catilinarians was so great that the republic couldn't be bothered with violations of the election laws. Cato in contrast claimed that Cicero was exaggerating the threat for effect. Rather than Cato leading Cicero against the Catlinarians, it was very obviously the reverse.

Firstly, Cato had opposed Pompey his entire career, including rebuffing a marriage alliance with Pompey. The reason for this opposition was obviously due to the constitutional issues at stake and not to any personal grudge. (Cato also didn't hold grudges against Cicero and Murena, despite opposing them bitterly in the courts and despite Cicero's completely amoral speech on behalf of Murena.) I suspect Cato viewed Pompey as the lesser of two evils. Unlike Caesar, Pompey by this point simply didn't have the "killer instinct" that Caesar did (a point Caesar made himself). The love letter incident strikes me as another one of those moral tales that historians love to tell. It's funny; you don't need to know anything about the Roman constitutional issues at stake to grasp the reason for the Cato-Caesar conflict, so it has a broad appeal. It's a simple tale for the simple-minded, but it's not credible. Again, look at the history of Cato's conflicts and allies. He was willing to let bygones be bygones in many cases, so I doubt very much that his whole conflict with Caesar was over something so trivial. If you're wiling to believe it though, I suppose you're also willing to believe that Marcus Brutus Junius founded the republic to avenge the dishonored Lucretia, that Rome salted Carthage, and that Caesar was born a Marian populare instead of an ordinary indebted aristocrat. So then you would have supported the punishment of Caesar as well? And Pompey? And Marius? Good to see we're in agreement then.

I agree with PP's post almost in its entirety. Only "almost" because I'm still not convinced one way or the other about whether compromise with Caesar could have averted civil war given Caesar's track record. Nevertheless, the rest of PP's post strikes me as an exemplary one--judicious, non-polemical, and erudite.

The Decisive Battles series used the graphics engine of the game for purposes of illustration, but it didn't rely on the game for its historical content.

Yep. Cicero's prosecution of Verres. Or, better, Cato's (attempted) prosecution of Caesar. Heck, most of the prosecutions of the 1st century were conducted by plebs, and most of the greatest senators and staunchest defenders of the republic were plebs. Not true. Campaigning AGAINST one's patron was a popular move. Marius, for one, cut his teeth on the jugular of his patron, Marcellus. Yes, the people of Rome legislated directly and in person (initially not by secret ballot, but later by secret ballot). And yokels did become politicians. Cato the Elder, a true yokel, even held the highest office attainable--censor. No message. Also, know that I never hold grudges. Boldly argue your case--that's the best way to have one's errors corrected. Believe me, I've had many of my own mistakes corrected in this forum by patient (if exasperated) interlocutors.

OK, then we're mostly in agreement. I'd place the height of ancient Roman liberty as occurring a bit later (sometime after the secession of the plebs and the tyranny of Cinna), but I hate to quibble so soon after being gobsmacked by concord.

Yes, but Sertorius predated Caligula by about 150 years.

True. There are much better reasons to deny the existence of gods and saints. What is your proof? See my comments in an earlier thread. Let's keep this to the question of whether the veneration of the saints originated in the teachings of Jesus or in the practices of contemporary Rome.