M. Porcius Cato

Absolutely yes. Consider two modern, hypothetical cases: (1) the mayor of Washington, DC forces a vote on a bill that he proposes; (2) all of the legislation brought to a vote is proposed by one senator from New York. The first case is clearly unconstitutional: no matter what the merits of the bill, the fact that the wrong person brought the bill forward has potential repercussions that far outweigh any of the merits of the bill itself. For example, if the mayor of the capital can introduce legislation, why not the House chaplain? or his secretary? or their janitor? Clearly, who introduces legislation is an important constiutional matter, one that utterly supercedes the content of any bill. The second case is not unconsitutional, but it is highly irregular and would indicate that something weird was going on. After all, how likely is it that only a single senator has any ideas? It is possible, but unlikely. Now take the fact that legislation had been proposed from senators all over the country throughout the history of the country, and then suddenly--at a time of political violence, massive bribery, and illegal war--the one senator in the middle of it all becomes the sole person introducing legislation. In this case, you'd have to be a partisan hack or extremely stupid to fail to see that the senator was aiming to assume supreme power. So, yes, the content of legislation can matter very much less than who proposes it. The first claim--that governments change only in extremis--is historically incorrect. Putsches and coups are at least as common (probably more so) than popular revolution. The second claim is simply vacuous: ultimately all governments change irrespective of their popularity. But even if you were to amend the claim to "unpopular governments are less stable than popular ones", the claim would still not support your reasoning, which is "Unpopular governments fall; the Roman republic fell; therefore, the Roman republic was unpopular." That is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and it is an elementary logical fallacy. Consuls were not meant to rule the republic. It simply wasn't in their job description. Consuls weren't mini-emperors. Most of the business of government did not require consular intervention--it was only when the triumvirs took the consulship that this changed. The same was true with the business of looking for omens. Omens almost never (not never, ALMOST never) seriously interfered with public business until the religious colleges became the mechanism of last resort for the opponents of the triumvirate. As far as the tribunician veto, one could make the same argument about the (de facto) imperial veto: how can you run an empire if the emperor can veto anything you do at any time? If the veto is the problem, then the same problem existed before, during, and after Caesar's coup. Glad to see you agree with my central thesis--the triumvirate had to fail. However, the second claim does not follow. There was nothing in "the times" (a mystical notion if ever there were one) that mandated a monarchy. The triumvirate could have been dissolved, and the republican institutions restored. Had Caesar failed in his coup, this outcome is far more likely than Pompey assuming monarchical powers (although I admit Pompey could have assumed such powers after Caesar's defeat). Rubbish. Athens was a democracy for quite a long period of time. I'm not a fan of pure democracy, but that's because we have a record of how one operated. I'm sure 95% of them would also choose not to work, to get free food and entertainment, to enslave non-citizens, to plunder their neighbors' wealth, and ... wait a second--come to think of it, sounds to me like the people really did play a large role during the Roman republic, and they got a lot of what they wanted. Yes, the people were poor: but you can no more vote away poverty than you can vote away sickness and death. Only citizens who are drunk on their own power are deluded enough to think that they can vote away poverty and illness.

Sure they did, but the number of provincial commanders affecting politics in Rome was not as great. What is your explanation for this fact? Always? Then it should be easy to name the secret pacts of 85-80, which candidates won through bribery, and which offices were corrupt. I'm quite curious to find out how it was that these always went on without any of the courts set up to prosecute bribery failing in their mission. How would you explain that? Why would a defeated candidate fail to bring charges against his opponent if the candidate was defeated unfairly? Do you happen to know who decided the cases that were tried in these courts by the way? ALWAYS gone on? OK--name a five-year-period that was equal to or surpasses the period 55-50 along this dimension. Look at the dates of Cicero's speeches in the Forum.

Virgil, are you claiming that Robert Conquest is a propagandist?

Whether Italy was swallowed up by large latifundia is still an open question. It's true that Tiberius Gracchus made this claim, based on his casual observations of the Italian countryside, but casual observation is darned near worthless. Recent archaeological and statistical work cited by Nathan Rosenstein in "Rome at War" seriously undermines Gracchus' claim.

A pure oligarchy has no incentive to respect the rights of the people, and so they almost never do so (except accidentally). The nice thing about the Roman republic, Polybius observed, was that the aspiring oligarchs were always having to answer to the people, which gave aspiring rulers an incentive to respect their rights. I agree. I'm not claiming that any of my bullet points were unprecedented prior to the triumvirate, but that during the triumvirate all of these symptoms arose simultaneously and to a degree that was unprecedented.

Oh, that's a good point. Vain tyrant never saw it coming. Happy?

If Caesar's last words came with the first stroke against him, his last words were nearly perfect, "Why this violence against Caesar?!" Vain bastard never saw it coming. Heh heh.

I have no real quarrel with your general point; however, I do disagree with your examples. First, the senatorial process changed in character after the secession of the plebs, such that the leading senators by the middle to late republic were almost all plebs themselves. Second, the people of Rome were at least as exclusionary as the Senate, which is why tribunes such as the Gracchi and Drusus were abandoned by the people once these tribunes agitated for Italian rights. The social war was not caused by an exclusionary senate alone: from beginning to end, it was almost invariably Roman blue-bloods who advocated Italian rights and almost invariably popular sentiment that opposed it. Yes, I agree entirely. My point is not that the triumvirate was the only bad thing to ever occur during the history of the republic. My point is that the civil strife and conflict that is normally said to be the fault of the republican system is in fact the fault of extra-constitutional actions. The unconstitutional behavior of Sulla, Marius, and Cinna were all bad too, albeit in different ways. As far as I can tell, this fact again strongly argues for the positive effects of the republican system and argues against "innovators" who did more to spill blood than to help the system. Agreed, the triumvirate was a process involving the use of personal popularity and charisma (Caesar and Pompey), military stature (Pompey) and wealth (Crassus) to 'dictate' legislative policy. Why the shudder quotes? The fact is that Caesar used political violence to prevent the participation of his opponents in the political process. This same violence brought an end to free speech in the Forum, and it violated the rights of the people and the office of the tribunes. The triumvirs did not 'dictate' policy; they dictated it. Absolutely. I'm not arguing that the republic was a libertarian utopia. My argument is that (1) the system was basically stable, (2) what was unstable was the triumvirate, and (3) that the triumvirate was unstable because it was an actual oligarchy and not a system that respected the rights of the people. "Since the time of the Gracchi" implies that there was continuous intimidation of senators by physical violence. Not the case, however. Intimidation by physical violence was rare until the triumvirate, at which time it was almost unremitting.

Based on the same calculations as those used in the NPR report, we are about 23 times more likely to breathe one of the molecules of the liberators' breath. Makes me feel better.

Actually, I didn't mean anything political by the jibe at Kennedy (I was weighing whether to include a jibe against Eisenhower just to be non-partisan, but it seemed random). In any case, I'll be more careful next time--my agitation on behalf of the republic keeps me busy enough on this forum!

Pretty much the same with coins. The only exception made that I know of was the commision of the Kennedy half dollar; released in 1964, soon after he was killed. Even so, that apparently still caused controversy. Still controversial in my eyes. I'd like to see old Ben Franklin back on the coin. Replacing a giant like Ben Franklin with that sod Kennedy is a joke. Back to topic, notice also that when Caesar is depicted on the coin, he's got his bald head covered!!!!

Of course one can argue from the particular to the general. It's called induction--without it, there would be no science.

Take any one of the five-year-periods (or six or four, it doesn't matter) and check on each of the items on my list. No other five-year-period involved so much public violence, scandal, and unconstitutionality. As I've said elsewhere, the triumvirate was a TRUE oligarchy, not just an aspiring oligarchy. The "degradation of the Republic" is a myth--the republic was largely healthy (albeit imperfect) and functioning quite well against domestic threats (e.g., Catiline, Lentulus, etc) prior to the triumvirate. The upheavals from 55-50 were not caused by the Roman constitution: the upheavals were caused by men who wished to overthrow that constitution. Never on the scale starting in 55 BC. There were courts that were specifically set up to prosecute bribery and corruption, and there was every motivation in the world to nail an adversary there. Yet even still these prosecutions were fairly rare, and--most importantly--they succeeded in bringing down well-connected filchers (such as Verres) without requiring a revolution. It matters a great deal. If the bulk of legislation is being proposed by one man, there is clearly something amiss. Normally legislation was proposed by a fairly large number of individuals, all of whom took their competing ideas to the people for a vote, and only after public speeches on the merits of the bill. This is the essence of the republican constitution--competition for honors among leading men, adjudicated by popular will. Not fair at all--this is a completely arbitrary accusation. Think about it. Do you have any idea what kind of foresight it would take to tailor-make a list to produce this kind of result??? I know my history, but you'd need to have memorized all of UNRV and the Loeb Classical Library to tailor-make a list such as the one above. I produced my list the old-fashioned way: I got it from Fergus Millar! Again, what is the EVIDENCE that the republic ever was so degraded as the state of affairs durring the triumvirate? Find any five-year-period you like, and I'll concede that there was nothing unprecedented in the triumvirate and that it was politics as usual. If you can't, you should concede that the political violence etc that is usually blamed on the republican constitution should instead be blamed on the triumvirs themselves. Actually, I don't think so. The slate of candidates for office was almost always hand-picked by Augustus; freedom of speech evaporated; political violence in the Forum was reduced, but only because Octavian had already killed off any opposition to his regime. Most importantly, however, nothing Augustus and his lackeys could do was subject to veto by a tribune of the plebs who won a free and fair election. Almost everything democratic about the republic was wiped out by Octavian: all that remained were the aristocratic and monarchical elements of the old regime. Fascinating questions, but all off-topic.

OK--so name your five year period and show that my bullet points better characterize that period than the period of the triumvirate. As far as your general point goes, that these bullet points contributed to the formation of the triumvirate--explain how exactly. How, for example, did the decline in free, public speech during your yet-to-be-nominated-5-years contribute to an alliance between Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar?

Yes, Varro called the triumvirate "the beast with three-heads". So you're conceding my point? I don't, by the way, take the possibility "the symptoms existed before the triumvirate but no record of it exists" at all seriously. You might as well say that "Martians wrote the Twelve Tables, but forgot to sign their name". The claim has exactly the same epistemological status. It's not as though we fail to have voluminous records prior to 55. The years 60-55 are almost as well documented as the years 55-50. Consider Cicero's output alone during these two periods. Hell, part of my argument rests on the fact that the number of Cicero's speeches *declines* after the triumvirate.

I have a thesis I'd like to put forward for debate. The thesis is this: The stereotypical depiction of the late republic derives almost all its properties from the change that was brought about by the triumvirate. Here are the stereotypical properties of the late republic: * Consuls regularly initiate legislation * Provincial commanders greatly affect politics in Rome itself * Intense electoral competition leading to secret pacts, bribery, and corruption * Personal politics (via marriage alliances, patronage, personal loans) influencing public policy * Violence among rival crowds in the Forum * The decline of free, public speech (contiones) As far as I can tell, these properties superbly characterize the years 55-50 (i.e., with the election of Pompey and Crassus to the consulship), but much less characterize the years prior to this. Can anyone point to another five-year-period in which the sum of these properties were more pronounced? If not, I think it is fair to say that the triumvirate--not the republic itself--was what was "doomed" to degenerate into a monarchy.

I'm not sure the auto-ballistae were really ever used, but they do seem useful for area denial, which would be awfully important if you wanted to the deny defenders from the area of the ramparts.

And why was this true of the late republic but not early or middle republic? The reason is that (1) Marius opened up the legions to people with nothing to lose and everything to gain by blindly following their general, and (2) the general could support his legions out of his own purse. If the senate had kept their power of the purse (e.g., by retaining the sole authority to mint coins that were legal tender), they would have gone a long way to prevent Marians and Sullans from acquiring personal armies. I agree that Caesar didn't create this system, however. The Julio-Claudians weren't the only ones jockeying for power through court politics. Every imperial household did the same. The reason is that the Octavian regime provided no mechanism for accession and destroyed the distinction between the public treasury and privy purse. Consequently, the stability of the government was isolated to sporadic lulls between constant civil wars. During the Principate, around 50% of all emperors were violently deposed or died of unnatural causes. In contrast, only about 5% of consuls attained power through extraconstitutional means. This is simply not true. Rome expanded far more during the republic than during the principate, and against far more advanced enemies. As a republic, Rome defeated not only Carthage, but also attained the advanced civilizations in the east. During the principate, it failed to conquer any enemies as sophisticated. Moreover, during the principate, the military commanders were also "political appointees"--if an emperor thought a general was too great, he'd have him axed. I think even Augustus did this when he announced that a certain general was simply no longer his friend, leading the whole (servile) senate to turn against the general and leading shortly thereafter to the guy's suicide. Same basic pattern in the life of Agricola, wasn't it?

I'll bet not such a little thing. In the US anyway there is a law against having the likeness of a person put on postage stamps until the person has been dead for 10 years. The reason for this is precisely to stop the public business being used for partisan political gain. If there were similar laws against naming bridges to nowhere after senators.... well, I digress. In any case, what Caesar did wasn't simply an affront to the sensibilites of the aristocracy. Even today we have similar laws.

Are you serious?

Yes, but the bust wasn't a contemporary one. As time passed, the Caesar depicted in the busts kept getting hairier and more masculine. Look at the portrait found at Tusculum. I still like "Ides, schmides" best.

Caesar has too much hair. He was bald, remember?

As far as the money being used for political propaganda, I'm duty-bound to point out that it was that darling of Venus, Gaius Julius Caesar, who first plastered his face on Rome's currency. Previously, there were laws against that sort of vain nonsense and for a darned good reason too.

If Caesar and Octavian were alive today, we'd recognize them for what they were--fascists. The term may not have existed at the time, but that's true of nearly all firsts (if you prefer, you can call them proto-fascists). In either case, Caesar and Octavian were authoritarian nationalists who gained their power from a combination of expansionist warfare, populist propaganda, and the use of political violence against their adversaries. Ancient historians who were witnesses to the rise of fascism in Europe (such as Ronald Syme) immediately recognized Octavian's revolution for what it was, and in my opinion, it's time to wake up and call a spade a spade.

Not true. The reason republics lose their empires is because they don't extend the republican system to new territories. The nations cited simply weren't republican enough. If Britain, for example, had bothered to include Americans in Parliament in proportion to its numbers, the whole "no taxation without representation" cry would never had gained traction. In contrast, the British did a comparatively better job of incorporating Wales into the republican system (such as it was), and they enjoyed relatively greater security from Wales. Granted, the extension of republican rights (franchise, common law, right to appeal, etc) is not the only factor determining how securely a territory is held (e.g., weak federal powers make even republics susceptible to civil war), but it is a very powerful factor. There is a reason the Italian provinces were so loyal to Rome for so long--they had nearly the same rights as Romans themselves. If Rome had extended Italian rights to all its provinces (rather than relying on governors and martial law), the republican system would have secured the non-Italian territories to Rome through the bond of common interest. To the degree that the system was not extended, there was a commensurate decrease in the incentives for locals to engage in self-help against external threats and to see their interests as intertwined with the city of Rome.