M. Porcius Cato

Well, if you define a rock as a book, you can read stones. A full-time group of religious officers, who produce no material goods and who contribute nothing to society but pledging to remove themselves from the gene pool--that's a monastic order.

So Cato, why didn't all these reforms work to salvage your precious republic ? They just needed more time to finish. Unfortunately, their work was cut short by a tyrant, and the tyrannicides couldn't quite defeat the tyrant's princelings. If you think my long catalogue of late republican legislative activity is "dismissing", I'd hate to think what you would consider to be a non-dismissive response! If you want justification beyond what I've already offered, I'd refer you to "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" by Erich Gruen. Like many other modern historians, he also regards the notion that the republic was "doomed" as an unsupportable verdict. You don't need a strongman to accomplish reform. To pass an agenda within a republic, you need a real political party. The 'optimates' and 'populares' were party-like, but neither had a formal platform or were identifiable as a slate of candidates (thought they were moving in this direction). This is a topic of great interest to me, but I'd prefer to save it for another thread. For now, I'd simply refer you to the arguments raised by Lily Ross Taylor in my favorite book on the period, "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar." I call him a power-grabber because he grabbed power and bathed in the blood of his adversaries. His agenda was almost completely rescinded once he retired, suggesting that his reforms might have been more successful if he had attempted persuasion instead of force. Sometimes, arms must give way to togas.

I've read that Roman priests were not a separate class or profession. How did monasticism come to Roman civilization? Was it through Christianity or were there other monastic cults in Rome?

Please do. Eternal vigilance is the price of imperium.

Why? There is nothing intrinsic to a republic that sets a size-limit.

I think "de-population" is nothing at all to be valued, but the answer to the problem is not religion but robotics.

Julius Caesar is the most over-hyped scoundrel to have ever cursed the banks of the Tiber. What were Caesar's rightful claims to excellence? As a general, his accomplishments were not particularly superlative. The Gauls were weak compared to the forces of Hannibal; they were numerous but incompetently led, and Caesar's only notable achievement while butchering these poor, iron age farmers was the circumvallation at Alesia, which was an accomplishment of Roman engineering not Caesar's daring. His contributions to tactics, siege craft, and weaponry are paltry to non-existant compared to that of his predecessors. Nor was he even that good at killing Romans. He was completely out-foxed at Dyrrahaecium, and he only defeated Pompey by a stroke of dumb luck (placing an extra cohort on the correct side of the battle-field). Nor were his choices of enemies well-considered. Those poor Gauls butchered by Caesar the Merciful were no threat to Rome: they provided Rome with excellent trade, taxes, auxiliaries, and were being rapidly Italicized northward of Narbonensis. For this we may thank noble Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus. Caesar, far from deserving thanks, simply made a desert and called it peace. Further, Caesar was most likely a criminal--his expeditions into Germania and Britain were illegal. The latter crossing was ill-timed, ill-planned, and ill-conceived. It brought nothing to Rome but the bodies of dead Romans. Caesar Poplicola--who wept when the poor cried (as Shakespeare would have it--ha!)--had no legitimate military purpose in Britain. It's been said Caesar crossed into Germany and Britain as a warning to Rome's neighbors, but this must be a joke--it was said he only crossed into Gaul to defend a friend of Rome, but then he needed to stay to defend that friend, and to attack the neighbors of that friend to teach them a lesson, and their neighbors too! This is all nonsense--the only lesson being taught was the one sent home in Caesar's commentaries, viz. that the darling of Venus, "the husband of every wife and the wife of every husband," was a Big-Shot He Man. Please. And when Biggus He-Man came home, he was--surprise!--completely unfit for civilian life, threatening death to anyone who stood in his way (to the treasury). Romans quickly found theselves beset by a hypocrite, an adulterer, a power-luster, a killer, a dictator, and a would-be godling. Julius Caesar was not a blessing to Rome but a curse. In my opinion, he couldn't be stabbed enough.

Actually, by savaging the republic, you've disproven your own post. Could the republic, however, have been salvaged? This whole thread has indicated any number of reforms that would have maintained the republican form of government while allowing the borders of Rome to have expanded indefinitely. Ultimately the test of some of these proposals is impossible to attain, but most of the reforms--including census-taking, elimination of the publicani, executive oversight of provincial government, expansion of citizenship to provincial residents-- were ultimately enacted with successful results without betraying republican principles. Moreover, many of these reforms were adopted so shortly after the republic fell that it's likely that they were already being widely discussed before Octavian grabbed power and some may have already been in the works. In short, none of the arguments offered support the gloomy picture of the republic as a failed institiution. The senate was not only capable of passing reforms, it often did so. There is a long tradition, originating with Sallust, that the senate was far too idle, greedy, and venal to pass any reforms. Sallust's moralizing abuse, however, belies the actual evidence. While some of HIS reforms were not passed, the senate was continually passing progressive legislation that was valuable to the republic (and not simply "garbage collecting" legislation, as Virgil once termed it). When we turn to evaluate the abuse heaped upon the republican ruling class--by examining the proposals, decrees, and legislation attested just during the late republic--we can quickly dismiss Sallust's cranky cynicism. To begin with, the assumption that most reform bills originated with tribunes acting on behalf of a down-trodden republic is simply rubbish. Historians who have gone to the trouble of counting the reforms find that reform measures initiated in the senate were more than twice as numerous as the tribunician proposals. Second, the corruption of the electoral process--always vaunted by the friends of tyranny--has been successively exaggerated by the generations as an aspect of republican life to which the senate turned a blind eye. Nothing could be further from the truth. Electoral corruption (ambitus) was prosecuted in a permanent court--quaestio de ambitu--dedicated to upholding the political process, and this court was largely enacting measures that had their origins from the days of the early Republic. Furthermore, the lex Cornelia sharply punished violators by prohibiting them from running for office for 10 years. And so while there was every motivation in the world for hauling abusers before the court, even the victorious candidates of 70, who were widely gossiped to have benefitted from bribery, were not hauled up on charges of ambitus, probably because the election process was much cleaner than has been supposed. Nevertheless, competition for honors and for a reformist reputation led many senators such as Calpurnius Piso to propose even more stringent anti-corruption legislation, including the lex Calpurnia, which strove to drive a stake into both the hearts of any corrupt officials and into the wallets of any would-be bribery agents. The only opposition to this law (by a tribune, I might add) came from the fear that Piso would prove more reformist than the reformers! Moreover, if anything, the election laws were too stringent. For example, the lex Fabia prohibited the use of nomenclatores, whose job it was to inform a candidate of the names of potential voters. This silly law was notable more for its observance than for its breach: a good example of this came from Cato, who embarrased his rivals for a military tribuneship by canvassing conspicuously without the help of a nomenclator. Simply put, the election law was too strict, probably ultimately even for Cato (if I'm reading Cicero correctly). Third, the problem of political violence was addressed by many senatorial measures, including the lex Lutatia, the lex Plautia , the lex Licinia de sodaliciis , and the lex Pompeia . All of these were useful laws that either anticipated or responded to real needs for the security of Romans and the political process. Fourth, the senate passed sweeping and progressive reforms of the criminal code, many of which are still with us today. The most famous is probably the lex Julia repetundarum, which--although passed by Julius Caesar who was borrowing heavily from Sullan law--was nevertheless a useful and essentially republican code. It wisely set limits on the practices of provincial governors in an effort to make them more like Cato and less like Verres. One notable feature of the lex Julia--seen also in the lex Pompeia de parricidiis--is the specificity of its provisions, a feature of the legislation that was probably was even more forward-looking than the provisions themselves (already progressive). Fifth, and probably most importantly, were the numerous laws passed concerning the administration of the government. These reforms included the provisions of the lex Cornelia which freed litigants from the power of partisan judicial officers, the lex Gabinia which obliged the senate to hear foreign deputations, Cicero's abolition of the senatorial junket that weighed so heavily on provincial hosts, Caesar's requirements that all senatorial acts be recorded and published, and Cato's reforms of the quaestorship and his energetic passage of the lex Licinia Junia (co-sponsored with his brother-in-law Silanus; nb not shown here ). In short, Roman legislators displayed remarkable ingenuity, foresight, and attention to detail in the flood of legislation that was passed during the age of Cicero. Far from being recalcitrant, senators were crawling all over each other to outdo their colleagues in passing useful reforms--whether Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus, or Hortensius, Piso, and Cato. The mindless stereotype of senators as hidebound conservative incapable of reform is simply a convenient piece of propaganda for dictators like Caesar and Sulla, who wished to justify their power-grabs. We don't need to go on repeating this propaganda. Dictators have enough friends these days without our joining the ranks of these cronies.

OK, Sextus, you're responsbile now for posting about Architecture and Technology.

I almost included Epictetus. Tell us, why do you prefer the Stoicism of the slave to the Stoicism of the emperor? And why do you think this same philosophy could appeal to both a slave and an emperor?

Cato would have done whatever he could to suck up to the senate elite, just like Cato Major. Cato wasn't Cicero. Nor was Cato the Censor--like Pompey, he rose to prominence via military laurels.

Read the original question. It had two parts.

That's sort of how I see him. I just read Tom Holland's account in Rubicon (pp. 204-211)--this is the kind of thing that's really Holland's forte, so I'd recommend his version. None of my 'serious' Roman histories tell the story properly, so if there's anything that Holland left out, please do make a note of it here.

Any dictators will have to deal with the daggers of my nephew!

Latin rights for Puerto Rico! Castro delenda est.

What really happened?

I wouldn't argue that the manipulation of the state religion contributed to the fall, but didn't the laws passed in a year have to be submitted to the augurs for review? That religious college was almost always filled with senators, so it would have been a mostly superfluous exercise (I think), but there was certainly potential for mischief. Also, the hatred of Clodius for Cicero dates to Cicero not providing Clodius with an alibi for the Bona Dea scandal--so I guess one might try to spin something out of that. I'd give Clodius his due on that one.

Yes, the manipulation of the state religion was a bit of problem. Filibuster-via-bird-watching seems an avian-brained way to run a republic, doesn't it? I guess I'd just fire all the augurs, and I'd have the rest of the priests stick to their barbeques.

When it comes to Caesar's army the only major player to change sides was Labienus. The famous saying "The die is cast" is passed down by Assinius Polio who was present during the contemplation on the banks of the Rubicon. Caesar's army was well staffed by officers. I didn't mean to imply that all of the officers deserted; I meant that *only* the officers deserted. At least, that's what I'm assuming.

Seems like a good reform to me--sort of turns the tribuneship into a Supreme Court-style decemvirate. I'd still want to put the tribuneship on the cursus honorum though. It would help to integrate the two bodies.

Scipio rules. And it is with the greatest reluctance that I undercut your argument. Saved rome? I don't think so. ... Scipio's victory was attained by standing on the shoulders of men like Fabius, Marcellus and Nero. True and fair. Unfortunately, I could only choose one--it was in the crucible of the Punic Wars that Roman tactical fighting was forged, but I couldn't very well choose Hannibal as Rome's greatest (could I?). Oh, shite. Well, I knew I was gilding the lily with the Polybius argument--too bad I was gilding it with fool's gold. Oh so subtle as usual Cato, you just can't resist. No, I really couldn't.

Perhaps some sort of reform regarding the office of tribune and it's easy abuse. What kind of abuses would you want to stop? My concern is that some of the 'abuses' of tribunician authority comes down to people not liking the politics of the tribunes holding office. So, leaving that aside, what would you take to be an out-and-out abuse that isn't already covered by extant law (e.g., laws against bribery)?

Sure. Once you decipher the coding of the relations, you'll find that stemmata can be quite valuable (and thanks Pertinax!) First, the link for the New and Improved "Kinsmen of Cato". Colors represent different families--Yellow for the Servilii Caeponis, Red for the Junii, Green for the Livii Drusi, and Blue for the Porcii Catonis. A double-circled line represents a marrage. Some people were married more than once (e.g., Brutus' mom Servilia was married to two different members of the Junii, and Cato's mom Livia was married first to her brother-in-law Q. Servilius Caepio and later to Cato's dad). [edit: some sources have it the other way: livia first married a cato, then a caepio. I think that version makes some sense given that Caepio hero-worshipped his brother Cato, which might suggest that Cato was an older brother.] A black-circled line ending in an arrow represents a parent/child relation. In some cases, we don't know who the mother was, or I didn't have room on the chart to indicate the fact. In one case, this omission might be misleading, i.e., in the case of the two sons of Cato the Censor. His first son was born to Licinia; his second son to a MUCH younger woman, Salonia. (Cato the Censor was 80 when he married Salonia; much to the delight of her father, though we have no record of Salonia's thoughts on the match!) In my stemmata, each unique name represents a unique person--thus, there really were EIGHT different people named M. Porcius Cato. The Cato who opposed Caesar is often known as Cato Uticensis to distinguish him from the others; however, many sources simply assume that the Cato in question is Cato Uticensis. Some stemmata, for space reasons, have the same person entered more than once (e.g., Syme's stemmata of the Cato family enters Cato's half-brother more than once but indicates the fact by providing dates of death). As far as space permitted, I attempted to keep generations of people in the same row. This is particularly instructive in the case of Cato Uticensis' family. As orphans, he and his sister lived with their half-brothers and sisters (Caepio, Servilia, and Servilia). In one case, I have a dotted line. That is because the relation between C. Porcius Cato (cos. 114) and C. Porcius Cato (triumvirate lackey, tr. 56) is assumed to be patrilineal, but we're not really positive. It is interesting, however, to note that M. and C. Porcius Cato were both sworn enemies and second cousins.