M. Porcius Cato

I think this is ultimately the root of our disagreement. In my view, the Hellenic values of reason, humanism, and representative government (whether held by Greeks, Romans, and Jewish "turn-coats") deserve greater admiration than mysticism, tribalism, and theocracy, and those who promote these latter values (whatever their ethnicity) deserve no admiration. If we agree that the defenders of the Masada were no heroes, we have little else to discuss in this thread, which is veering off into an 1800-year history of Judaea, which has its history written in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic and its record scattered across a mountain of archaeological and numismatic material. If you want to follow up on a wider discussion of Roman Judaea/Syria Palaestina, then I'm happy to discuss each of your challenges in turn--from the question of Josephus' credibility as a source to the question of the effect of Roman rule on the urbanization of Judaea--in a new thread.

The constitution of the Roman republic changed over time, so I'll base my answers on what was true most of the time in most of the cases. Neither. Proposals (rogationes) were brought before the people, called to assembly by their tribunes. The people either voted for or against the bill. If "for", the proposal had the force of law; if not, not. Who could bring a bill before the people? Typically, bills were brought before the people by the tribunes, who were acting with the advice of the senate, but the tribunes were not obliged to bring all proposals to the people if they thought the bill against the interest of the people. Sometimes, tribunes brought bills without the formal consent of the senate (e.g., the Gracchi); sometimes, consuls brought bills over the veto of a tribune (e.g., Caesar). These exceptions to the common formula--idea raised in senate, endorsed by senate, not vetoed by tribune, brought by tribune to the legally-assembled people for vote--invariably caused a constitutional crisis. The senate comprised the former magistrates of the Roman republic, all legally elected by the people. The tribunes' job was to serve as a check on the other magistrates, either in their capacity as magistrate or senator. The consuls were directed by the senate to take actions against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections. Ultimately, all power rested with the people, but this power was restricted to voting on bills and choosing magistrates, not micromanaging the state. This is just a sketch of the constitution, and you'll find a much more comprehensive answer in Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic.

List of consuls HERE. Background on prominent statesmen HERE.

An interesting observation a propos of absolutely nothing being discussed here. The argument I've advanced against the zealots on the Masada in no way rests on the idea that the Romans were the "strongest and most noble people", but that they were the conduits of Hellenism, urbanization, trade with the West, and security from Eastern conquest. These fruits did not spring merely from physical power--if that were sufficient, the Huns would have left a trail of flowers in their wake rather than a trail of tears, blood, and ashes.

Happy Birthday, Pan! How will you celebrate?

Again, if I had wanted to say that Rome was 'benevolent', I would have said so. There is an elementary distinction between benevolence (goodwill) and beneficence (good deeds), and the understanding of history requires knowing that sometimes the second prohibits the first. Frankly, your post reminds me uncomfortably of the advocates for African independence who--in their zeal for home rule--failed to acknowledge that there are real costs involved in letting backwards, superstitious, illiterate tribalists control the government. Substitute Idi Amin for Elazar Ben-Yair. Jewish turn-coat? Your tribalism is overwhelming. Do you really assume that by virtue of being born a Jew, admiration of Rome was impossible? I think we have here on this board many living counter-examples! That is a rather hard concept to grasp, not only because the Arabs were not on a conquering spree at that time, but also because the Romans actually installed an Idumean Arab usurper on the throne of David. Pure intellectual dishonesty: you quote me out of context and then direct your criticism at the ellipsis. I was talking about a period of seven centuries, and you talk about a blip. Well, if you want to call desolation peace I wouldn't disagree with you Truly amazing. If you think that Caesarea was a desolation, I wish Rome had brought more desolations to the world. First, the notion that Hellenic enlightenment "can be viewed in different ways by different people" is banal pablum. The same could also be said of the code in Deuteronomy, which wasn't practiced voluntarily but was very much enforced by physical force. If you committed adultery in ancient Judaea (maybe because you didn't appreciate an arranged marriage), it didn't matter that you viewed the ancient code "in different ways"--the Jews stoned you. And, no, I don't have to appreciate and respect this arrangement--quite the contrary, I detest it and have withering contempt for its apologists. Second, the fact is that "foreign rule" is a constant in the ancient Mediterranean. I'm sure the pagan Philistines would have said that the Jews were not wanted there, either, yet you strangely think the "end of the story" only comes in what was desired by the Jews living under Roman rule. Finally, anti-Hellenic Jews--such as the terrorists on the Masada-- were not the only people who lived in the region. For the Hellenizing factions (esp Samaritans) and for people like Josephus, Roman rule was a blessing.

A somewhat idealist and naive view about the Roman rule, you make it's sound as the Roman expend their empire out of concern to those poor barbarians who live outside the spear of the benevolent Roman rule. The naivet

I think this may be the most comprehensive and well-sourced list of Roman laws to be found on the web. It's simply invaluable for intelligent commentary on the republic.

Wow--that is refreshing! It's so nice to read an author who realizes that historical accuracy doesn't stop at knowing when Romans quit serving the dormouse--historical accuracy means conveying the whole context of events, not just the details. Also, I won't say that I'm surprised that this level of care was put into a "children's book". Rather I'm disappointed that more children's books aren't held to the standard that Flavia set. BTW, I do agree with Vespasian Columbopolii that historical accuracy shouldn't be whole standard for judging historical fiction. But I do want to see the Romans depicted in a more favorable light--when they deserve it.

I'm so glad you mentioned this--this was simply bizarre, and try as I did, I could find no evidence for the practice at all.

Yes, but the standard "Rome as Villain" show depicts at least one Good Roman. This is par for the course, and it reminds me of a racist with whom I was acquainted who told me--with no hint of irony-- "All N--'s ain't bad." I'm not asking for the Romans to be depicted as all-good, but for their assault on the Masada to be placed in its proper, historical context--i.e., an assault on a group of murderous religious fanatics who had conducted terrorist operations against innocent Jews. In this context, you can have as many or as few Good Romans as you'd like, but at least it becomes clear what was at stake in purging Judaea of these zealots. Instead, the series depicts these backward, religious fanatics as heroic martyrs--which they most certainly were not--rather than as committed enemies of peaceful civilization and Hellenic enlightenment. If there is any doubt about the net beneficence of Roman rule of Judaea, just compare the progress of the region in the seven centuries of Roman rule (up to 638ish) to the seven centuries of rule by the Umayyads, Abbasids, and sundry Arab Caliphates. Just looking at Caesarea between the 7th and 9th century, one sees massive depopulation, the collapse of public buildings to the stone-robbers, and (most tellingly) the loss of the great Herodian harbor; by 1271, the previously magnificent city was a desolate wasteland of squatters. The fact is that Rome protected Judaea from Arab conquest, and the fools who camped out on the Masada were merely making enemies of their best hope for survival, prosperity, and progress. Oh, but then they wouldn't be religiously pure... idiots. On a more friendly note, it's nice to see another Romanophile from Columbus.

Ironic that this ode to Jewish terrorists is being released on 9/11. One of the things I liked about Gladiator (even with its exploding chariots) is that it departed from the standard "Rome the Villian"-script that is so evident in Spartacus, Quo Vadis, and Masada. For historical perspective, this mini-series should be packaged with Life of Brian.

Adolescence was still a well-defined (psychological) concept prior to child labor laws. The name for the concept was "Youth", which was distinct from childhood and full adulthood. Again, while the legal rights of adolescents (or 'youth') has varied over centuries, there is clearly recognizable adolescent behavior going back to the ancient world. If we think about it a little, I'm sure people can dig up good Roman references to the risk-taking, sexual exploration, and rebellion of young people who were becoming adults (whether their parents and society liked it or not). Off the top of my head, I recall one of Cicero's Philippics chastising Antony for his adolescent escapades with Curio. In the Greek comedies, there is also a terrific scene depicting young lovers being interrupted by three old hags; a scene that would be situationally identical to the horror of finding your grandmother's friends flirting with your teen boyfriend via MySpace.

I'm a damn adult, and I sure as hell know too many stupid and reckless adults (as well as over-cautious ones too). Personally, I don't buy the idea that "adolescence is a modern phenomenon." While it's indisputably true that the legal status of young men and women have changed enormously since the days of Solon, even Solon recognized the "ten ages of man". Simply put, hormones are a biological fact of human existence, and when they first act on the brain of a child, watch out! That said, I have no problem with expanding the civil rights of adolescents--as long as they bear the burden of responsibility that comes with those rights (credit ratings, legal obligations, etc).

You must be talking about the Rome that exists on a Hollywood stage set, not the historical Rome of the republican era. In the literature that exists, Sulla's proscriptions were uniformly described as horrific and unjust, and this fact is fundamental to understanding the post-Sullan era. Nor should we believe that the "common man" was any more bloodthirsty than his more lettered fellow citizen. Recall that when Pompey staged a showing of elephants being killed, the crowd was so moved by their plight that the incident reflected badly on Pompey. Could a crowd moved to tears over elephants really be indifferent to severed heads in the forum?

OK, I'll include the full quote if it makes you happy.

Additionally, there is a very nice commentary on Plutarch's Sertorius HERE. While searching for biographies of Sertorius, please note the spelling--Sertorius, not Sertorious.

I met a Canadian who asked me what state Maryland was in. It really is galling when foreigners don't know the geography of your country, isn't it...

First find some examples of common soldiers being charged or convicted of high treason. Also see if there examples of common soldiery being proscribed. How about twelve thousand of them to begin with? Here comes Plutarch, Parallel Lives; Sulla; Ch. XXXII, sec. I [...] And here comes Appian, The Civil Wars, Book I, Ch. XCIV [...] The Praeneste massacre (which I already cited above) did not follow a conviction of treason--it was plain butchery and was expressly forbidden by the lex Valeria and leges Porciae, which forbade summary execution of soldiers. Furthermore, if you want to continue this line that Caesar's troops couldn't desert him lest they be executed for treason by the republican forces, the critical evidence has to come from surrendering troops, not captured troops.

Given that I can't find a single example of a Roman soldier being CHARGED with treason for following his officers' orders, it's impossible to find evidence that one was ACQUITTED either! The onus of proof is on you to find evidence that a common solider was ever charged with treason while acting under orders. Generally, I find it fantastic to imagine the authoritarian Romans expecting common soldiers to overthrow their commanders. Indeed, there is some evidence that the normal social hierarchy was expected even in civil war. Recall that after Sulla--who was never declared hostes-marched on Rome in 88, he passed a measure declaring the 12 seditious Marians hostes, including Sulpicius, the tribune whose use of force started the whole civil war. A slave of Sulpicius promptly did his patriotic duty by turning the public enemy over to Sulla, who gave the slave his freedom--but then had the freedman hurled from the Tarpeian rock for disobeying his master.

I suspect people play stupid on "Jaywalking" so they can get on TV.

The Sullan proscriptions weren't aiming to punish Marius' soldiers--they aimed at rich, political opponents of Sulla. Think about it: only 4700 people were proscribed, not a whole army's worth. Thus, Caesar's legates might have wanted to avoid such a fate, but there was no precedent for applying such a law to ordinary infantrymen following orders. Now the lex maiestas is a much more interesting case. These laws would apply to soldiers, but the wording of the laws (even as late as 48) seems to envision situations such as desertion, conspiring with the enemy, abandoning a standard or fortress, etc. Had it been otherwise, surrendering forces in civil war would have been summarily executed, which seems not to have been the policy. In the case of the Social War,for example, surrendering troops were given the franchise. I hasten to add that troops that did not surrender were killed, e.g., the recalcitrent Samnites in the Social War and the last Marians at Praeneste, but they were not tried under the lex maiestas--they were just butchered.

Pridie Nonae October 649 AUC (Oct 6 105 BC) at Arausio (Gallia) Biorix, Teutobod and other immediate iron-age neighbors of Rome won over the legions of Quintus Servilius Caepio and Gnaeus Mallius Maximus one of the most lethal classical formation battles in all History, second only to Cannae for the recorded absolute number of Roman casualties. You do realize that the Cimbri and Teutones were not neighbors of Rome (let alone immediate neighbors), don't you? The Cimbri were from Jutland, in modern day Denmark. Thus, the conquest of Gaul only brought Roman territories closer to the homeland of the Cimbri.

No one is endorsing the idea that ambition was born in the last century of the republic. The claim is that the Marian reforms were not themselves sufficient to create civil war. At most, the civil wars after Marius demonstrate only that the reforms were necessary for the proceeding unrest. Moreover, I continue to think the issue of personal ambition is a red herring. Ambition is the very lifeblood of the republic--as long as it is realized within the bounds of LAW. What distinguishes a Lucullus and a Scipio from a Catiline and a Caesar isn't ambition--they were all ambitious men. The distinguishing factor is their loyalty to the rule of law. Without the rule of law, not even a republic led by the laziest "fish-ponders" could endure for long. Petty corruption is merely treason on a smaller scale.

The train analogy breaks down because the immediate iron-age neighbors of Rome were no threat. The Romans had long-established allies in the Aedui, and there was active trade northward of Narbonensis. Both in terms of dealing with potential threats and realizing potential gains, Rome would have been better served by re-tracing the steps of Alexander.