M. Porcius Cato

Out of curiosity, how do the written sources on the falx compare to the visual depictions above?

I think the jigsaw puzzle analogy is right. I'd just add that the pieces of the puzzle aren't just ancient texts, but also ancient coins, inscriptions, and all the patterned data that arises from the archeology of everyday goods (e.g., number of pots found in location A at time 1 versus time 2 and in location B at time 1 versus time 2; number of roof tiles found in ...). Moreover, new data doesn't just ADD to and SUBTRACT from the number of possible new interpretations, some new data MULTIPLIES the number of possible new interpretations and other new data DIVIDES the number of possible interpretations. Consequently, the possibilities for new scholars remains vast in proportion to the accumulated scholarship of prior generations.

I condemn these attacks too, and it's one of the reasons that the US was not always an enthusiastic supporter of Israel. Not that this bit of history ever enters into discussions of US-Israeli relations. But now let's carry the analogy through--did Menachem Begin believe that Britain had a right to exist? Did he maintain that a pan-Jewish state should spread from Jerusalem to Cadiz? Did the founders of Israel oppose diplomatic recognition of Britain? Of course not. Why not? And why does Hamas oppose Israel's right to exist, endorse the return of the Caliphae, and oppose recognition of Israel? Because, unlike the Israeli opposition to Britain, Hamas is racist, and it want to wipe out the Jews--just like the Nazis.

The similarity is totally superficial and concrete-bound. Arabs aren't being walled into ghettos--they're being kept out of Israel, a nation that has been under constant siege from its Arab neighbors from the moment of its inception. The purpose of the wall is to defend Israel from racist Arab supremacists who want to wipe Israel off the map. For the parallel to be exact, Poland would have to have been surrounded by Jewish states that had recently declared war on Poland, and the local Jewish population would have to have participated or been complicit in terrorist actions against Polish civilians, including the bombing of discotheques, murder of Polish Olympic athletes, and part of political movements that failed to recognize the right of Poland to exist. The only similarity between the two walls is that they're both made of concrete--rather like the analogy between the two walls.

GO--have you been to the web site to which I linked? I'm not just randomly making up the lines for virtual Caesar. This is a computer generated script that I'm quoting. You seem to be misunderstanding the point of this thread.

You must mean that a large number of AMERICANS have absentee voting rights, and that this is a reason for US politicians to keep their constituents happy--whether their constituents are visiting Israel, Gaza, Mecca, or Rome. If this is what you mean, then so what? If this is not what you mean, then what is?

OK, I just had a second conversation with Virtual Caesar. (This is really too fun--I can't believe it doesn't work on PCs). Cato: Who is the greatest commander ever? Virtual Caesar: Alexander the Great. He conquered the known world before the age of 33. At that age, I had not yet even been entrusted with a significant command. Cato: What was Cleopatra like? Virtual Caesar: Ah, the last of the Ptolemies.. such an enchanting woman. Cato: What do you think of Cicero? VC: Cicero's gift for oratory made him a treasure of Roman culture. It's too bad he used his gift unscrupulously to defame his enemies and subvert the constitution. Cato: You're telling ME about the constitution? VC: What exactly is on your mind? Cato: Why are some folks so interested in making of you a catamite? VC: I exist to serve Rome most of my actions are the result of trying to glorify and enrich Rome? Cato: You mean you served as a catamite for the good of the republic? VC: Really, I am only a man of the times in which I lived. Cato: But surely even Cato would object to serving as a catamite merely to enrich Rome! VC: Rome is the center of the world! A thriving city with spectacular entertainments, luxurious baths, exciting debates, and gleaming marble temples and villas. Cato: Oh god, here we go again...Yes, I'm very fond of Rome. VC: Rome is the center of the world! A thriving city with spectacular entertainments, luxurious baths, exciting debates, and gleaming marble temples and villas.

Has anyone had more luck with this page? Really too bad if you can't enjoy it on PCs.

Exactly--the sacramentum was sworn to the commander, not to the senate and people of Rome.

The problem wasn't an insufficient number of agrarian laws, but the type of agrarian laws that were passed and the manner in which the agrarian laws were passed. Some agrarian laws were simply designed to set up colonies of Roman citizens on new land (e.g., the laws proposed by Livius Drusus). These were typically unopposed in Rome by Romans (though sometimes they were opposed by Italians and residents of the municipia nearby). Other agrarian laws, however, were confiscatory and created as many poor as they alleviated. Caesar's lex agraria Campania is a good example of a very bad agrarian law of this type. Finally, some agrarian laws were passed in manner that was unconstitutional. Tiberius Gracchus' agrarian reforms come to mind here. The passage of the latter two types of agrarian laws were harmful for the republic because they led to the formation of political blocs and to the breakdown of the rule of law. Italians had been enfranchised by 49, which was undoubtedly a good thing. However, the voting districts were not amenable to active participation by Italians due to the demands of travelling to Rome. The problem, therefore, was not a problem of enfrachisement but that the Romans did not have a proper concept of representative government--that is, where a local official was meant to represent the voices of his or her constituents. Rather, the Roman adopted the Greek practice of direct democracy, which was impossible to scale-up without some form of representative government. Had the rule of law been adhered to, demagoguery wouldn't have been such a problem. The problem was not in voicing crazy ideas; the problem was using force to prevent opposition to crazy ideas. It would have been better if there were no first consulship for Marius! Would have been hugely helpful. The problem is that there weren't enough vendettas against the Queen of Bithynia. Caesar could have ignored the mos maiorum all he wanted as long as he followed the laws. I doubt it made much of a difference in the long run. See here for discussion.

My personal view is that the key to the stability of Rome (both during the republican and imperial periods) was in the way that the provinces were managed. As long as the provinces could be treated as personal kingdoms for any Verres, Pompey, or Caesar who wanted to enrich himself and lead his hapless troops against Rome, there was a real danger to civilian government.

Oh my! Maybe I was speaking to the one, true shade of Caesar... and here, I left my dagger at home.

This is priceless. Now you can ask Caesar anything you'd like, click here. Here's an excerpt from my conversation with Virtual Caesar: Cato: "Where did you get all that hair?" Virtual Caesar: "My hair is unimportant. It is the mind underneath it that matters." Cato: "What were you doing with the king of Bithynia for so long?" Caesar: "You did not intend to provoke me. I am well aware of the vicious rumors about my relationship with "that painted trollop" started by Lucullus... [blah blah blah]" Cato: "That whole pirates thing was just a fib, wasn't it?" Caesar: "There are a lot of things we can discuss: my military campaigns, my service as advocate, even my brief career as flamen dialis" Cato: "There you go again. You were denied the flamenate!" Caesar: "Really, I am only a man of the times in which I lived" Cato: "Does that excuse your violation of the treaty with the Germans?" Caesar: "Can we please talk about something else? Why don't you ask me about my family" Cato: "OK. Why were you divorced so many times?" Caesar: "I exist to serve Rome. Most of my actions are the result of trying to glorify and enrich Rome." Cato: "You divorced Poppaea to enrich Rome?" Caesar: "Rome is the center of the world! A thriving city with spectacular entertainments, luxurious baths, exciting debates, and gleaming marble temples and villas." Cato: "Yes, I'm quite fond of Rome." Caesar: "Rome is the center of the world! A thriving city with spectacular entertainments, luxurious baths, exciting debates, and gleaming marble temples and villas." Cato: "You said that already." Caesar: "I exist to serve Rome. Most of my actions are the result of trying to glorify and enrich Rome." Cato: "OK, now you're just being silly." Caesar: "Really, I am only a man of the times in which I lived" Cato: "Ugh. I think I'll leave you alone with Brutus now." Caesar: "Alas, I treated Brutus as my own son. I'm sure he loved Rome as I do and surely thought he acted to protect the Republic."

An important addition might be made: Rogatio Ius Honorum, 63. From Dio 37.25.3: For the tribunes united with Antonius, the consul, who was very much like themselves in character, and one of them supported for office the sons of those exiled by Sulla, while a second wished to grant to Publius Paetus and to Cornelius Sulla, who had been convicted with him, the right to be members of the senate and to hold office Cicero also spoke on behalf of the bill. (Cic:Att 2.1'3, +:Pis 4; Plin:HN 7'117).

A good way to find used books is Alibris.com. From Alibris, I bought hard cover editions of that whole cussed "Masters of Rome" series. Now, whenever UNRV is slow and I want to read slavish worship of Julius Caesar and lies about by all his opponents, Colleen McCullough fixes me up better than anyone. In fact, I can never put her books down (forcefully enough).

See here.

Writing an op-ed for today's NYT, Harry Mount ("Carpe Diem: Put a Little Latin in Your Life") casts A Vote for Latin: AT first glance, it doesn’t seem tragic that our leaders don’t study Latin anymore. But it is no coincidence that the professionalization of politics — which encourages budding politicians to think of education as mere career preparation — has occurred during an age of weak rhetoric, shifting moral values, clumsy grammar and a terror of historical references and eternal values that the Romans could teach us a thing or two about. As they themselves might have said, “Roma urbs aeterna; Latina lingua aeterna. <snip> Best part: Translation here!

As I assume you are aware, Sulla and Caesar were exceptions, not the rule. Moreover, their tyranny WAS resisted. As Charles had his Cromwell, Sulla had his Sertorius and Caesar had his Brutus. And can it really be that you thought Caesar was not removed from power?? Let me tell you about it: It was a beautiful day, on the ides of March ... In a free society, no individual can MAKE his voice felt--he must persuade his fellow citizens and establish his authority by service to the state. In fact, many of the greatest names in the history of the Roman republic did just that, rising up from the lower ranks, including Cato the Elder, Marius, Cicero, Pompey, and so on. You seem to imagine that democracy consists of everyone making their voice felt, but this is a logical impossibility--as long as there is disagreement among free agents (and of course there will be), each individual's effort to make HIS voice felt will be counteracted by the ability of his neighbor to make HIS voice felt. This basic fact is what gave rise over time to the complicated constitution of the Roman republic. You seem to think that this constitution came all at once as means of suppressing democracy, but if you would just look at the legal chronology, you would see that constitution of the Roman republic arose from the successful struggle for plebeian civil rights. The final result wasn't a pure democracy, but the most important part of it (the making of laws and treaties) was, and it was this element that was destroyed by the emperors. No, you can't safely assume that your counter-argument is true! Present the counter-evidence or concede the point. This is one of the most important issues in the history of political thought: Free people, in citizen armies, have a stake in government because they own the government and the government is the institution by which they protect themselves. Historically, citizen armies of free states are easier to raise and more difficult to defeat than mercenary armies or armies of oppressive states. This idea goes back to the defeat of the Persians at Marathon, where the free citizens of Athens were able to defeat the Persian serfs who had to be whipped into battle. EXACTLY my point. We don't have any evidence of Martians or patrons controlling some alternative government. For the same reason that it's absurd to maintain--without any evidence--that Martians controlled the government, it's also absurd to maintain--without any evidence--that patrons controlled the government. Ha! Very convenient of you. The reason that your claim can't be supported by any evidence is simply because there is a giant conspiracy of silence to suppress the truth (that you somehow know)? Forgive me for saying so, but this is a dumb argument. Formally, it's identical to saying, "Of course there's no text saying that Martians controlled the government! Good grief, the records were written by the very same people who were in a conspiracy with the Martians!" Epistemologically, the two claims are equally incapable of being falsified. The popular assemblies voted in their tribes, and it was the number of tribes that determined the winners. But the organization of tribes wasn't based on class or even geography. They were roughly equal sized units. By your reasoning, the electoral college in the US means that Americans don't actually have democratic selection of presidents. If you want to play this game, fine--but then you have an utterly idiosyncratic definition of democracy, one that fails to capture the real differences that exist between republics and monarchies.

Not so at all. Ammianus Marcellinus strongly implies that it was common in Italy, writing of the Gauls "No one here cuts off his thumb to escape military service, as happens in Italy, where they have a special name for such malingerers (murci)," and consistent with this, the Latin verb murcare means "to be a coward" and in late Latin came to be used as a synonym for self-mutilation (see also Gibbon). Think about this for a second--during the empire, Italians so often cut off their thumbs that there was a special name for this special cowardice, which ultimately became associated with the manner of cowardice (self-mutilation) rather than the feeling itself. In contrast, the republican writer Plautus uses the term simply to mean lazy, not to people who cut off their thumbs. In fact, Ammianus Marcellinus was understating the prevalence of the practice--it even happened in Gaul. Valentinian had to order that such Gauls be burnt alive. See C.Th., VII, 13, 4 (367); 5(368). Moreover, his order threatened to so deplete the army of manpower that the rule was later rescinded by Theodosius, who ordered that those who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service were still to serve in some way. This issue is also discussed in "Seniores-Iuniores in the Late-Roman Field Army," Roger Tomlin, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 93, No. 2. (Apr., 1972), pp. 253-278. Now, we've listed several ancient sources attesting to fairly common draft evasion in the imperial period. Can you find any examples of this practice in the Roman republic? I'll bet not. Instead, you'll find Italians--even when on the back of their heels against Hannibal--refusing to betray Rome. In fact, the only example of self-mutilation that I can think of from the republican period was Mucius Scaevola burning off his right hand to show the Etruscans how BRAVE the Romans were. What a contrast!

And Erich Gruen? And Fergus Millar? And Nathan Rosenstein? And Morstein-Marx? And Yakobson? And Brunt? They all disagree with this view of the Roman Republic--and unlike Grant, their actual specialty is research on the Roman republic. Grant is a wonderful writer for the general public, but his academic specialty is simply not the Roman republic, which he would be the first to admit. They hadn't changed one iota?? That's absurd. Read Livy and Tacitus. Forced to kowtow to the dominance of one ruler, the bold spirit of the old Roman character was slowly eroded by fear, servility, and finally serfdom. A free people require their leaders to explain themselves and justify their actions, as the tribunes of the republic required of consuls like Pompey and senators like Cicero--they don't permit homicidal lunatics like Caligula and Nero to abuse them without resistance, as the lapdogs of the empire did. A free people take an interest in the defense of their state, as they did in the republic--they don't cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, as they did during the empire. A free people can even taunt, satirize, and write ribald poems about their leaders, as Favorinus and Catullus did--during the empire, this kind of thing could and did get people killed. A free people can chart their own personal lives. Just think about the incident with Augustus and his daughter Julia--only when you have supreme power vested in one person do you get the utter absurdity of one woman's sex life causing the deaths and exiles of so many people. During the republic, women like Julia certainly existed (Servilia, Fulvia and Fulvia come immediately to mind), but they were free to be as promiscuous as they wanted w/o getting all their lovers killed. The empire changed nothing? I think you underestimate the importance of libertas in contributing to Romanitas. Who was it who said, "I am a Roman, and you are just a king"? By the time of Domitian, this spirit was gone with the wind. We DON'T know that patronage was very nearly an alternative government. NO Roman sources attest to such an arrangement. If you can find a SINGLE ancient source that attests to such a system, I'll eat crow. Really, if we're going to just make up institutions out of thin air, we might as well get creative and claim that Martians were very nearly an alternative government! In contrast to this fictional system for which there is absolutely no evidence, we DO have ample evidence of voting in ancient Rome, as well as the fact that voting was a legal right. The evidence can be found in all the ancient historians of the period. The procedure for voting was printed on coins. Private letters frequently speculate how votes would turn out, feature advice on winning votes or not losing them, etc. In one letter, a consul who had been appointed by an emperor wrote in thanks that he hadn't had to go to the bother of running for election and thereby facing all the ancient anxieties of not knowing how it would turn out. Come to think of it, if votes had been arranged by patrons, why did candidates bother to campaign among voters themselves? Further, what do you think the Social War was for? Why do you think it came to an end? What do you think the various forms of municipal governments were all about? Do you understand what Latin rights are? What do you think all the lex tabellaria were about? To think that voting was not a legal right is simply a massive evasion of the evidence or simply utter ignorance of it.

Michael Crawford is a fine coin collector, but his repetition of the same tired claims WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE makes him a lousy historian. There is simply no evidence that patronage worked the way he'd like to claim it does. BTW, I've never claimed that Rome was a "true democracy." It had a mixed constitution.

Tacitus said it best: Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion, so that, aggrandised by revolution, they preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past.

Consuls did not rule by decree--not according to Polybius or any of our ancient sources. All laws were passed by plebiscites, not consular decrees. For details, see Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic. Nor was it the case that patronage obligated anyone to vote a particular way. With a secret ballot, such an obligation would have been impossible to enforce, and it's clear from the social conflicts of the republic that patrons and clients very often voted for different types of candidates (see Brunt's "Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic").

I think it's a totally misleading oversimplification. First, there was no hereditary aristocracy in the Roman republic. Second, the one hereditary social distinction that existed--the plebeian/patrician orders--did not map onto political factions in the middle to late republic. Third, the large majority of voters were not "liberal" in the modern sense of the term--they were typically religious, for an aggressively militaristic foreign policy, and consistently resisted the expansion of civil rights to non-Roman Italians (until it resulted in the Social Wars). If anything, it was the more philosophically well-educated senators who were "liberal". I'd also point out that the senate typically did not come into conflict with the tribunes of the plebs. A large proportion of senators had been tribunes themselves, and for every Gracchi-type, there was at least one Livius Drusus-type who supported the senate's positions. Moreover, even the Gracchi had the support of many leading senators, and the danger to the Gracchi only came when they attempted to usurp powers that were not traditionally delegated to them (e.g., running for consecutive offices). Understanding the Roman republic through the lens of modern politics is a recipe for oversimplification, distortion, and misunderstanding.

See Wikipedia for a nice big image of the Tabula Peutingeriana.