M. Porcius Cato

No, this is isn't correct. Cicero was acting under a Senatus Consutum Ultimum and thus his actions were completely legal.

Even if the Romans found a way to generate electricity, it wouldn't do much good unless they also had: 1.) a use for it, 2.) a means of delivering it, and 3.) a method of measuring and charging for it. In addition to genius, effort, and a love of innovation, getting these three things takes a lot of capital up front (which was constantly being siphoned off for silly military escapades, leading to enormously high interest rates) but also a lot of people living within close proximity to one another AND who also had enough wealth to pay for it. The first electric grid was laid down in Wall Street in New York by Edison's company, and the financial and legal risk was enormous. Sort of hard to see how all those elements would have spontaneously come together with only an extra 100 years added to the longevity of the Empire.

Ancient: Tacitus and Polybius (with a huge love of Plutarch, but I know he's not so reliable) Modern: Syme and Scullard Actually, my favorite modern history is Modern Times by Paul Johnson, but I'm assuming we're talking about modern historians writing about ancient history.

By this reasoning, shouldn't Romulus be considered Rome's greatest general?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I'm not arguing that the Gallic Wars were genocidal--I did use that term for rhetorical effect, and I was happy to admit that it's unfair, anachronistic, and the like. Just to be clear, I'm completely and totally opposed to all things postmodern, including cynicism and moral relativism. I'm NOT itching to lecture anyone on the the alleged evils of the Romans--I love the Romans! As much as I'm not a fan of Caesar, I'd rather be his stooge than Vercingetorix's! I'm not interested in discussing here whether the Romans viewed the Gallic Wars as moral so it would be dumb to move the discussion elsewhere. I'm interested in whether Caesar's actions in Gaul were LEGAL ACCORDING TO ROMAN LAW and whether the wars were GOOD FOR ROME--i.e., did Rome get more out of Caesar's escapades than she put it in to them? The first question is critical because Caesar faced prosecution for his conduct in Gaul, and if Caesar's actions in Gaul were illegal but justified by overarching foreign policy goals, it places his refusal to put down his arms and face the courts in a totally new light (which is how this whole thread got started). This issue is clearly related to the second qustion about Roman foreign policy: What were the long-term effects of wars like the ones in Gaul? Did they yield what they were supposed to yield, or was Rome generating more problems than she was solving? Did Rome need to expand her borders to the Rhine, or were Alps a pretty good place to stop, or someplace in between? And so on. There is absolutely no reason to cry Foucault, so if you think the Gallic Wars were legal and smart foreign policy, make your case. I'm sure people are as uninterested in a sermon about postmodernism as they are a sermon about the alleged evils of Rome.

What was impact of climate change in Northern Africa?

I think it's vital not to overlook the importance and prevalence of tenant farming. Justinian is a rich source of information here, and the picture I get is that the expertise of tenant farmers gave them considerable bargaining power with land-owners. Not all farm-workers were slaves or living at the edge of subsistence.

Absolutely--it was an utterly desperate measure to pull Pompey and Caesar apart. Frankly, I think Cato and at least 21 other Senators were in full-panic mode by the time of this proposal. The triumvirate, which was initially a secret pact, seemed to have struck the fear of Tartarus in people, and Cato's measures--like those of many others--became increasingly paranoiac and myopic. The contest of political visions had morphed into a contest of wills and then a contest for survival. Caesar later wrote that he would not return to Rome stripped of his arms because he preferred to die rather than to lose his dignitas. To me it looks like the panic had even spread to him. It's impossible to know and probably irresponsible to speculate on the matter, but my guess is that the fear of Caesar would have dissolved soon after he returned to Rome as a private citizen. But I reiterate that it's unknowable, and the case for his laying down his arms could only be made by appealing to the rule of law, and for violating that even once (however understandably) Cato IS culpable though not AS culpable as the other guys on the list.

Nations can achieve greatness without military conquest.

You're kidding, right? I think every secondary source I've ever read contains an anti-Cato argument. I'm only astonished to hear him called the destroyer of the Republic, on par with Sulla and Octavian. It's a fun thing Roman history--when a little fact gets in the way, the source is probably unreliable. So I guess we should instead believe Caesar's Civil Wars, where Cato's entire motivation is chalked up to a personal grudge? Moreover, this little tidbit about Cato's family is the typical guilt-by-association number that's always hurled at Cato. Honestly, do you think a prepubescent orphan is to blame because his family tried not to get on the wrong side of a blood-thirsty dictator? And do you really think Sulla would be frightened by some kid? And what rule was it that Cato bent? You've only mentioned that Bibulus was doing the bribery, not Cato. Again, typical guilt-by-associaiton number. He sponsored a bill that would put up an obstacle to the opposition. So what? Cato wasn't simply trying to defend tradition--he sponsored lots of bills, every one of which *by definition* is opposed to the longer tradition of that bill not existing. If you think this is equivalent to marching legions into Rome and celebrating a triumph over the dead bodies of Romans, you've an unusual sense of proportion. Mommsen was a Bismarckist, and so it's hardly surprising that his hagiography of Caesar contains a slur on Cato. But I agree that after the first triumverate, Cato and many others were absolutely desperate. Between Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus was shared the bulk of Rome's military power, political control over the urban plebs, and poltical control over the Equites. Their private agreement essentially brought the entire state under the control of three princeps. It's no wonder Varro called it the Three Headed Monster--and it's no wonder Cato wanted to pull off one of the heads. The Catiline conspirators were guilty of treason, as even Caesar acknowledged, so the only question is whether they ought to have been executed. The history of the Republic up to that point was filled with executions of Roman citizens for far less than treason--Manlius Torquatus' son was tied to a stake for being too eager to fight FOR Rome. As for Cato's testimony on behalf of Milo, we really have no idea what he said except one obvious truth--the death of Clodius was good for Rome. It was--it brought an end to the political riots for some time thereafter. And, it's a funny thing calling Clodius a tribune of the people. The guy wasn't even a pleb, but another opportunisitc oligarch who had cynically had himself adopted by a younger pleb so that he would qualify. That's just nonsense. Plutarch says he got rid of his wife to show what a big Stoic he was and that some citizens once saw him drunk. It's trashy gossip, and even if it were true, it's hardly a threat to the rule of law and had no effect on the health of the Republic. That's rich. Cato wasn't perfect because he divorced his wife so he's just as much to blame for the subseqent dictatorship as the guy who marched legions into Rome and had himself declared dictator for life. I guess by that reasoning John Kennedy was as responsible for Cuba becoming communist as Castro, and Franklin Roosevelt was as responsible for German fascism as Hitler. Wow! No wonder it's so hard to tell who's ultimately responsible for the downfall of the republic.

Maybe someone with a better knowledge of Roman law can clarify this--were ex post facto laws traditional? If Germanicus is right (my memory is that traitors were normally hurled from the Tarpeian rock), then the legality of the execution was totally up in the air--first it was illegal, then legal, then illegal again once Clodius passed the laws which exiled Cicero (and notoriously confiscated his house) for his part in the execution. Bona dea!

Maybe the tale of Coriolanus--imho, it was Shakespeare's greatest tragedy. Barring that, I'd like to see the Punic Wars through the eyes of Scipio Africanus.

Does no one tire of this old tale of progressive Caesar fighting alone for badly-needed reforms? Does no one yawn at this yarn of an evil Senate, one full of aristocrats who no doubt eat poor babies for fun and profit? Why who needs Frank Capra? We've already got "Mr. Caesar Goes to Rome"! Think about this for a second. When exactly did Julius Caesar make these supposedly people-loving reforms? After he had himself appointed DICTATOR FOR LIFE. If Julius Caesar were really such the darling of the people, why couldn't he run for office like everyone else? If the people loved Caesar for his reforms, why didn't they elect more allies for Caesar? If Julius Caesar were really so concerned about the enfranchisement of the plebs, why did he have to hand-pick their representatives in the Senate, the tribunes? If the Senate were really such an opponent of the rights of the people and so willing to subvert their own laws, why didn't they abolish the veto power of the tribunes? If these laws of Julius Caesar were really the products of progressive thinking and superior political acumen, why were they ignored by his loyal allies? And if Caesar were not responsible for the death of the Republic and the Republic were dying for a century before Caesar was even born, why was the Republic --like a Phoenix--able to recover time and time again, only to die decisively once Julius Caesar came along? Isn't it possible that Julius Caesar simply used the poor, like a pimp uses his whores, to get what he wanted--viz., absolute power and everlasting fame? He got what he wanted. Must we endlessly repeat his propaganda?

The men who were executed had already been found guilty of treason by the Senate. Their guilt was so certain that even Caesar moved that anyone who brought up the matter of their guilt again should find themselves charged with treason. The only question was whether the young men, one descended of consuls, should be executed. As I understand it, the law not only provided for the execution of traitors but demanded it. Cato had many enemies in Rome and in the Senate, yet none ever charged him with breaking the law.

I agree with Primus too, and I don't doubt for a moment that Cato contributed to the civil war: he contributed to it in exactly the same way that the intransigence of a policeman contributes to a shoot-out with a criminal who is resisting arrest. Obviously the policeman could let the criminal go if he weren't so 'obstinant', but the rule of law demands obstinancy. Whatever mistakes Cato made (e.g., he should have condemned Milo), his lifelong love of the Republic and hatred of dictatorship (which btw predate his grudge against Caesar) was of *some* value in preserving the first and preventing the second. With the possible exception of the Gracchi, I don't think the same could be said of anyone else on this list, which is why none of them were controversial choices and almost all have received votes.

All right guys, take your shot. How was Cato, who had no armies and never served as consul, MORE responsible for the fall of the Republic than the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Catiline, Clodius, Caesar, and Octavian? This I've got to hear.

I was really disappointed to miss the battle at Pharsalus (putting Vorenus on the decisive flank would have been supreme irony), but they did spend $100 million on the series, and they did a damned good job.

I'm as opposed to Caesar as my namesake, and I don't think he was a crazy tyrant either. A hypocrite, an adulterer, a power-luster, a killer, a dictator, and a disaster for the Republic--absolutely. Epileptic and severely depressed in the end, probably--but not crazy. I also think 'Rome' did a fabulous job of him, and I was ALMOST sorry to see him killed.

By Jove you must be channeling some ancient Roman! It's this kind of attitude that made me feel OK about 'sensationalizing' the conquest of Gaul as an act of genocide. (OK, again, it really wasn't, but still...) BTW, did anyone see this? Julius Caesar and Ten Little Injuns

Absolutely in theory. However, ... Its been estimated that Italian recruits made up less than 1% of the Roman army as early as the late 2nd century AD and early third century (Severus through Caracalla), which, considering that Christianity's massive growth came considerably later, would lead us to believe that Christianity played little part in forcing the Romans to use 'barbarian pagan' recruits. This is very interesting, and I regret I don't know more about this period. If it's not too much of a digression, How do we know how much Christiantiy spread during the 2nd century CE? Also, if the rise of Christianity only explains a small part of the de-Italicization of the military, what explains the larger part?

Yes, you're right--if your support of conquest is predicated on some grounds (such as drawing more defensive borders), your support isn't reflexive. Earlier you'd written that conquest is usually beneficial, and I misunderstood you to be reflexively pro-conquest. Mea culpa. My view is that conquest is usually the downfall of great nations--from the demise of Athens to the tragic fall of the British Empire but that can be debated in another thread. A consolidated border and the resources from Gaul and Brittania would be very useful to the Republic, but the question is whether that border ought to extend to the Rhine and whether those resources ought to be acquired by trade or by sword. On the quesiton of economic benefit, I think trade has longer-lasting benefits than plunder: slaves die and plundered booty is quickly spent, but the partnerships of trade and commerce can last several lifetimes. By bringing resources into Rome out of Gallic and Brittanic mines and luxury goods into Gaul and Brittania out of Roman workshops, both sides could enjoy secure livelihoods, and the light of Rome could be spread through the roads emanating northward of Narbonensis. Prior to Caesar's escapades in Gaul, Rome already had a defensible route to Spain and a land port to British trade (mostly in tin) and trade to nearer Gaul (raw material coming in to Rome, luxury goods flowing out). While Narbonensis did come under attack from the Teutones, they were defeated by Marius, and he did not choose to subsequently expand Roman borders to the Rhine for a very good reason--it would have enveloped the Aedui, who were friends of Rome, and it would have stretched Roman forces thinly along a position difficult to defend. Undoubtedly, the Germans were a threat to all of Rome's Gallic allies. The Aedui in particular faced a real threat when her rivals the Sequani made a fool's bargain with Ariovistus and his Suebi. After Ariovistus invaded and defeated the Aedui, a competent Roman general should have been immediately dispatched to unite the Gallic tribes against Ariovistus and the Germans: their attack on the Aedui would have been legitimate grounds for such a campaign. Instead, Caesar treacherously convinced the Senate to recognize Ariovistus as a Friend of Rome (!), and when Caesar arrived in Gaul, he only decided to attack Ariovistus after the latter had insulted Caesar by joking that Caesar's death would rejoice many Roman nobles. However, the Divine Caesar, darling of Venus, could scarcely get his legions to avenge his wounded ego--until they begrudingly followed the die-hard Caesar-loyalists of the Tenth, and were in sum almost defeated but for the initiative of P. Crassus, who sent the Germans scurrying across the Rhine. Thus, the immediate threat was gone and probably would have died with Ariovistus himself in the same year, but news of Caesar's treachery against her Gallic allies spread northward and destabilized the entire region. To be continued...

Thanks for the reminder--I'd forgotten it entirely. A little further on the hagiography really get rich, with Caesar depicted as some sort of oriental king, enthroned on high with conquered nations paying fealty. First in line ought to have been Roma, because among the nations conquered by Caesar, none were as great as Rome.

If Christian Romans were loathe to serve in the military, am I correct to infer that the advance of Christianity would have also advanced the reliance of the army on pagan provincials and 'barbarians'? Is there any evidence for this? For example, if there were large geographic differences in the adoption of Christianity, were there also large geographic differences in the number of 'barbarians' serving in the military?

The security of Rome amidst its possessions--whether vast or small--required Rome to extend the foreign policy it used with her Italian allies, who were largely loyal to Rome. During the 100 years before Caesar's adventures, this was the policy in southern Gaul. There the tribes were not only no threat to Rome, they provided Rome with excellent trade and were staunch allies of the Republic. Rome's allies in Massilia had been securing military assistance from Rome in repelling Ligurian raiders from 154 to 125, when the campaigns of Flaccus and Calvinus culminated in the defeat of the Saluvii, the Ligurians, and the Vocontii and the establishment of a castellum near Aquae Sextiae for the control of the sea. While not all Gallic tribes welcomed this Roman presence, after the nobles Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus defeated the attacking Allobroges and Arvernri in 121 with the assistance of the Aedui, Rome found herself blessed with two independent Gallic allies, a secure road to the Pyrenees and Spain for Rome's legions, commerical routes from Italy through southern Gaul to Spain, a terminus for tin from Britain, and land for the Roman colony of Narbo. Thus, working together, the Gracchans and nobles helped one friend of Rome, made a new ally, secured a new province, and brought wealth to Rome. These events are important to note because many of the blessings claimed here to have been accrued by Caesar's adventures were already in hand before Caesar was even born. These boons, moreover, did not require the breaking of the sacred ius fetiale, which forbade unprovoked wars of territorial conquest, but simply involved the extension of the policies of the Senate since the founding of the Republic. In the subsequent years, with the rapacious publicani swept into Gaul by the wake of Marius, the burdens of taxation began to overwhelm Rome's Gallic friends, so much so that Cicero complained "Not a single sesterce in Gaul ever changes hands without being entered in the account-books of Roman citizens." Roman governors such as Murena and his henchman Clodius (a friend of the poor--what a laugh!) were completely unresponsive to the plight of the overburdened Allobroges, who were driven in their misery to make envoys to the equally rapacious Catiline. Thus, Caesar's proper charge in Gaul should have been one of diplomacy and conciliation. The people of Gaul were no longer the utter savages that had terrorized Rome centuries before, but were often advanced in the use of agriculture, stock-breeding, mining, metallurgy, commerce, coinage, and were becoming increasingly literate (the Druids themselves had adopted a Greek script). The influence of Massilia northward was large, and the past progress in Italicizing Gaul could have been furthered had Caesar chosen to have pacified Gaul by using his mythical clemency and compassion. Unfortunately, the clemency and compassion of Julius Caesar were as mythical as his self-proclaimed descent from Venus. To be continued...

But that's precisely what makes the Gallic Wars interesting. With the benefit of hindsight, we can begin to work out the ramifications of the conquest to determine whether the conquest was worth the cost. Some are reflexively pro-conquest (see post above); some are reflexively anti-conquest (probably most in the West today). Perhaps there is something to be learned by examining the historical record of conquest to determine whether its modern day advocates and opponents have something to learn about the matter. For my part, I don't think the Gallic Wars were worth it (though I could be persuaded otherwise). I'll weigh in shortly on this point, but I wanted to give the pro- side a chance to air their views.