M. Porcius Cato

So what? By becoming republics, they lasted longer and were more prosperous than they were when ruled by kings. Just taking England as an example: trace the whole course of British history and look at when Britain commanded the greatest resources and achieved the most. Was it in the 400 years prior to the Glorious Revolution (1288-1688) or in the 400 years after (1688-2088)? Or, if you think that progress is some sort of metaphysical law (a foolish notion if ever there were one), just look at the rate of change in wealth and power before and after the Glorious Revolution. Republics are not immortal, of course, they require eternal vigilance for their upkeep, but they deliver better returns than any other system because republics distill the best of each of the lesser forms of government--democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. See Polybius.

That's hard to believe. How do you know how much of the Roman economy depended on barter?

In my opinion, no empire can stand the test of time if it doesn't depend on and allow for the participation of the governed. The Roman empire was more successful than most precisely because it was more inclusive than its competitors, but compared to true republics (as opposed to "People's Republics", for example), empires are doomed and backwards.

Strikes me that the ballistae had a couple of remarkable advantages that would more than offset the bother of dragging them all around Gaul. Ballistae delivered a remarkably tight packet of spears. Yes, this is can be viewed as a disadvantage in that it makes avoiding these bolts rather simple. But avoiding the firing line of a ballista also has tactical disadvantages too, so the ballistae was useful if you wanted to direct the enemy to a certain location. That's mighty powerful stuff. Also, the psychological effect of the ballistae shouldn't be under-rated. Watching your comrades cut down mysteriously without any cost to the enemy has got to be a huge blow to morale and really make you wonder if there isn't a better place to be than standing in front of a Roman army. Last, the ballistae could be (and at least once was) outfitted with a mechanism that allowed for repeated firing. Testing I've seen on some documentary showed a firing rate of 11/minute (versus 3). Granted that you'd not want to go to battle with nothing but ballistae, but if you can cut an unfillable hole in the enemy lines, you've got the makings of a victory. That said, I don't pretend to be a military expert, and I'm happy to be corrected on this.

Just got mine in the mail today--if you think the map looks good online, wait until you see the real thing!

By that logic, the Third Punic War was also justified, as would any war between former adversaries. Personally, I don't think 'enmity' or any emotion is sufficient justification for war. Without further foreign policy objectives at stake, a state that goes to war based on its feelings is like a toddler with an army.

I still like Pertinax's idea of a t-shirt: The Caelian Bread-bakers Guild--Real Roman bread for real Romans.

Thanks Germanicus for that reminder of Cato's harangue of the younger Pompey. I wonder how the author knows what Cato had to say to the younger Pompey--maybe the author just inferred it from Cato's reputation as an advocate of the senate. BTW, just to be absolutely certain that Caesar didn't write the African War, the author (though a Caesarian) calls Cato a "grave and worthy senator" in that context. Hard to imagine the Darling of Venus having anything good to say about a man of principle...

Again, thank you everyone!! Look forward to another year of being the resident Caesar-basher, John-Bircher (lol!--does anyone remember that guy???), and Randroid. Sorry in advance if I make you lose your temper...just remember we're all Romans at heart.

I'm all for the office of the tribunes, but if their restoration was the principle over which Caesar fought (rather than a mere pretext, why did Caesar himself nullify their office once he attained power? Why did he hire armed thugs to keep the tribunes out of the forum while passing Pompey's land bills? Was Cato himself not serving as tribune at the time Caesar had him arrested? What kind of adherence to principle is that??? There was only one kind of tribune that was sacred to Caesar, and it was the Tribune of the Caesarians not the Tribune of the People.

I doubt Cato had much of an informed opinion on the matter of Sulla's march on Rome when it happened. Cato was born in 95, and Sulla entered Rome in 88. Leaving aside Plutarch's dubious but telling anecdote about a boy Cato asking for a sword to liberate his country from the tyranny of Sulla, Cato was firmly anti-Sullan (if not anti-Sulla): as quaestor Cato vowed to prosecute everyone who had profited from the proscriptions (and did manage to prosecute many--including Murena, whom Cicero defended), and he enthusiastically supported the bills to repudiate Sulla's laws. More generally, as a pleb from an Italian familiy (from the Sabine territory), Cato was not a natural ally of the Sullan ranks, who first paid attention to Cato for his energy in breaking up the cartel controlling the treasury, which earned him a kind of popularity that the old guard (like Catullus) could respect. When they asked him to run for tribune, however, Cato refused them, only deciding to run once he learned that a lackey of Pompey was to run for the office. In any case, while I agree that Cato and Sulla shared a belief in the importance of the senate, that's where the similarity ends. Morevoer, since Cato's opposition to the would-be usurpers of the Republic cut across the Marian/Sullan divide (Cato opposed not only the Marian Caesar, but also Sullans such as Catiline, Crassus, Lentulus, and Pompey), I'd bet Cato would have been opposed to Sulla as well.

I agree in essence with Favonius' explanation. Also, you might care to take a look at what Polybius wrote on the topic, which fleshes out Favonius' explanation rather nicely.

I have a wonderful edition of Thucydides called the Landmark Thucydides, which has lots and lots of maps and explanatory annotations. Has anyone else seen this book, and can anyone recommend some Roman world equivalent?

So was Caesar lying when he said he marched on Rome for the sake of his dignitas? If there was a matter of principle, what was the principle? And how exactly was he "being treated by the Senate"? Perhaps you'd enlighten us as to the measures that were passed that did NOT have the support of the triumvirate? And a system with no mechanism of accession provided a better means for governing lots of land??? That makes no sense to me. As the number of provinces grew, Latin rights could have been extended indefinitely without the need for monarchy.

Excellent idea, Virgil. Would be nice to have a thread on Syme's book--looking at it from the perspective of more recent work and our own thinking.

Gallic War thread here.

Caesar's incursions into Germania were illegal, and his term of office was set to expire. The law demanded that he lay down his troops. Why blame Cato and not the law itself? Why not advocate that governors should be able to rule as mini-kings outside Rome? Or why not advocate total disregard of the law and become an anarchist? Unless you're willing to advocate that, you must in logic regard Caesar's refusal to give up his governorship as wrong. In the Civil Wars, Caesar tells us that he refused to give up his governorship for the sake of his dignitas. I believe him--his wounded little ego would not suffer questioning.

I'd second the recommendation for the Roman Revolution, but I'd dispute the characterization of Cato that Furius offers. Syme's characterization of Cato is rather mixed in quality. Some of his claims are nearly laughable. For example, Syme claims that Cato hated Italians from his infancy, based on an anecdote from Plutarch where the Marsic leader asked a child Cato for his support for some cause that is not explained and for which Cato would not answer. Really. I'd also point out that Syme's stemmata of the Porcii Catones is remarkable for what it omits. If you compare Syme's stemmata to mine, you'd see that there are a number of Caesarians in the family. I'm a fan of Syme's book, but more recent works by his students and students' students are much better. My favorite book on the period is Lily Ross Taylor's "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar," followed closely by Erich Gruen's "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic."

Anyone know of a really superlative edition of the Commentaries on the Gallic Wars? Something with lots of maps and footnotes?

Thanks gentlemen--I've just about managed to live longer than my namesake. Yes, I'll be celebrating today in fine style--we knights of the Old Republic (well, OK, just me) will begin reading Addison's play for the first time to find out what got Washington so excited. And, actually, my birthday was a couple of days ago, but who knows where that would fall on the Roman calendar, so why not make it Liberation Day?

Thanks Tobias. Kathleenb, you might take a look at the thread on the Gallic Wars we did a while ago. I make the case that the Gallic Wars were an opportunistic and illegal adventure designed to engorge Caesar and his lackeys on the gold of a non-threatening iron age civilization.

If that is your reasoning then it is feasable for some to say that Pharsalus was its greatest victory. Why? The forces of the state were defeated.

When Rome lost her legions in Teutoberg Forest or Cannae and so forth, it was tragic, but the republic was untouched and Romans kept their freedom. When the Roman army lost at Pharsalus, the state was overthrown by a monarch and the people and senate of Rome forever lost their rights. Who cares about the loss of a few eagles, when the SPQR stops standing for anything meaningful?

Pharsalus was the worst defeat for Rome.

For one, the writing doesn't go left-to-right followed by another line of left-to-right, but uses the archaic method of left-to-right/right-to-left/left-to-right/etc. (the way you'd plow a field). Also, the Latin is very old. So, just in terms of the writing, it seems likely that it's 6th century at least.