M. Porcius Cato

They were descendants on their mother's side (Cornelia), which makes all the difference.

Inhabitants who had declared war on Sparta, which--like Corinth previously--was under the protection of Rome. Mummius' reaction was severe, but if Corinth wanted to start a war, Rome was happy (and right) to finish it.

I freely grant that the Senate attempted to hold Caesar back, but hold Rome back?? Rome was ruled by a senate for nearly 500 years, during which time a city on the Tiber became the greatest empire of the ancient world. With that track record of "holding Rome back", Caesar should have wished that the Senate held him back!

Great book, dumb movie. Personally, I can't stand these movies that portray Rome as some sort of degenerate society in need of Christ's salvation. Christianity didn't do much to alleviate the horror-fest that was the Dark Ages, that period immediately after the fall of Rome. This fact alone suggests that Roman culture was onto something that Christianity utterly failed to provide (viz., science, engineering, humanism, pride, and the love of beauty and pleasure--just to name a few). Unforunately, these Greco-Roman values are utterly ignored in movies like Quo Vadis, which similarly ignore wonderfully colorful Romans like Petronius and lavish slavish attention on insipid, colorless mediocrities like Lygia. IMHO.

Seneca the Younger was a great man--but he would have served his country better had he cut out Nero's liver and given it to Thrasea Paetus. Instead, the greatest men in Nero's day--Seneca, Lucan, Petronius, Thrasea Paetus, and Piso--were either put to death or forced to commit suicide.

Good point--and very relevant too. If the centurions had all been legionaries, then all the centurions would have taken the sacramentum and been bound by it. Thus, insofar as Caesar packed his officer's tents with men from the legions, he prevented any of the defections that had troubled Sulla. What a Machiavellian genius!

Catiline died, on a field of battle, surrounded by some 300 of his conspirators, hacking with swords at the men of the Roman army. Now how the heck could Catiline put together an army without any planning to do so--and in secret too? Obviously, this is the very definition of not only a conspiracy of enormous magnitude but treason itself, which is why--having assembled an army at Faesulae--Manlius and Catiline were declared hostes. Because an attempt on the life of a legally-elected consul is no mere murder--it is an attack on the republic itself, and merely apprehending the guilty parties of that one crime threatens to mask the larger conspiracy against the state. More specifically, to have prosecuted an attempted murder in this case, Cicero would have had to have revealed his most valuable source--Fulvia, from whom he had learned (and would learn) of events of the conspiracy as the events were unfolding. No prosecutor (and no patriot) would have been so stupid as to charge the conspirators with this flimsy murder case while they were in the midst of planning the conflagration of the city. Not at all. First, I quit underestimating the stupidity of criminals a long time ago (sometime between first reading "News of the Weird" and later scanning the winners of the Darwin Awards). Second, the conspiracy revealed in those intercepted letters was corroborated by those received by Crassus, which Crassus had brought to the attention of Cicero, and by Catulus, which was signed by none other than Catiline himself. Are we really to expect that Crassus and Catulus, two former friends of Catiline and neither friendly to Cicero, were joining in a conspiracy with Cicero to frame Catiline?? It makes no sense. The letters must be taken as corroborating evidence. Further, the initial messages sent to the Allobroges were NOT affixed with the seals of Lentulus et al. Rather, the Allobroges--in an ingenious sting operation masterminded by Cicero--had insisted on sealed letters to deliver to their own Senate. Thus, Lentulus' provision of his own seal was not a case of unbelievable stupidity but of completely understandable desperation. First, let's not pretend that Lentulus and company were railroaded without a hearing and full investigation. Quite the opposite. Over the course of a full day of evidentiary hearings, testimony was taken from the messenger who was to have delivered a message from Lentulus et al to Catiline; the house of one of the conspirators was found to have been stacked with spears, swords, armor, and shields; Lentulus himself was cross-examined; the conspirators confessed everything; the case was cut-and-dried. Should they have been given a lengthy and formal trial while Catiline was already at the head of a hostile army and the Senate House had already been attacked by loyalists attempting to grab the conspirators? Why? Having been caught in the early stages of rebellion, these men had clearly foresaken their citizenship. Indeed, even a scoundrel like Caesar--with his weasely suggestion that the conspirators be incarcerated for "safekeeping" (safekeeping for whom?)--explicitly argued against a trial, as did the Senate and consul-designates (Silanus and Murena) when Cicero asked for their opinion. Indeed, there was ancient precedent for executing the conspirators immediately since they had already admitted their intentions; there was no need to wait for them to actually burn down the senate house and murder all the senators!. Most importantly, a formal trial would have only upheld the appearance of legality, while the source of all laws--the state itself--would have been toppled. Any trial would have been worse than a meaningless exercise--it would have been dangerous for the people and Senate of Rome.

Cicero is simply adding unjust insults to quite just injury. Catiline was undoubtedly guilty of conspiring to overthrow the state. Catiline's political posturing--which ranged from obnoxious Sullan to equally obnoxious populare--is totally irrelevant here except to indicate that he had as little integrity as judgment.

There's more than a passing similarity between the political back-story of the Star Wars saga and the death of the Roman republic. In both, the republic is governed by elected senators, who are despised as squabbling oligarchs by the future enemies of the Free State (Vader and Caesar, Palpatine and Octavian, the Trade Federation and Crassus). The enemies of the republic routinely conspire to sponsor coup d'etats (the plots against Amidala, Catiline Conspracy) while brigands terrorize provincial territories (the Separatists and the Cilician pirates). The senate responds to these threats with dangerous innovations (sanction of the clone army, the lex Gabinia which gave extraordinary powers to Pompey). With these small-fry threats ending in failure, a false sense of security falls upon the defenders of the republic, who are subsequently taken completely by surprise by the secret enemies of the state (Vader and Palpatine; Caesar and Octavian). The enemies of the Old Republic systematically wipe out all its remaining defenders (the Jedis, the republican armies in Pharsalus, Thapsus, and Mutina), and finally the power of the senate is destroyed, with regional power passing to the local governors that report to the Emperor. As for Cato--he's obviously Obi Wan-Kenobi, a paladin of the Republic who allows himself to be destroyed so that his soul would become a stronger force for the rebellion than his own body. This is just how the suicide of Cato worked--it galvanized opposition to Caesar (Brutus, Cicero), undercut support for Caesar among his own allies (like Sallust), and inspired rebellion against the dictatorship (the Ides of March). All that said, the parallels between SW and Roman history breaks down pretty quickly. After all, SW isn't meant to retell Roman history. Even the political back-story could be just as favorably compared to the history of Weimar Republic before the ascent of the Nazis. For another look at parallels, see Star Wars and Falling Republics.

Is this true? Which of Caesar's legates were with him when he crossed the Rubicon? When he left for Gaul, he had perhaps 10: Labienus, Balbus, Mamurra, Vatinius, Q. Pedius, S. Sulpicius Galba, Q. Titurius Sabinus, L. Aurunculus Cotta, P. Crassus, and D. Junius Brutus. Not exactly a group of battle-hardened Italian veterans--probably none had any more experience fighting than Caesar himself, so you couldn't exactly say that they had risen through the ranks. How much had this changed by 49? Also, of the defections from Caesar that we do know, 100% were Italian, so it's not clear how much that variable helps Caesar. Actually, "100%" is misleading--we only know of one certain defection from Caesar--Labienus, from Picenum. Of the half dozen or so military tribunes and 60 centurions with Caesar in 49, we have no idea how many left Caesar, let alone how many were Italian.

Yes, I freely grant that slavery was universally accepted--not only in the ancient world, but right up until the English abolitionists of the 19th century. The question I want to address is: Why did anyone practice slavery at all? Aside from any moral issues, where was the profit in it? It shouldn't be obvious that slavery is economically viable--in many, many cases it most patently is not. The costs include guarding slaves, feeding them, sheltering them, clothing them, training them, finding them when they run away, rearing or disposing of any of their progeny--why anyone would want a slave is beyond me: it's sounds worse than having a teenager! No wonder that slaves today go for only $40. It's amazing to me that anyone would pay anything at all. Now, if you have a huge farm and no one is around who can work it, then it might be profitable to pay the costs of owning a slave. And if you can really get your slave-run farm humming along, then you might even pick up a few extra slaves to tend house too. But barring this situation, it simply doesn't pay to keep slaves--however much philosophers (or mother-in-laws) do or don't approve of slavery.

These are two excellent observations--one about the prevalence of slavery and the second about the apparently universal acceptance of slavery as an institution. I wonder if they're connected? Here's my working theory. First, it appears that the rise and fall of slavery is tightly connected with its profitability, which is tied to the appearance and disappearance of particular labor conditions. Chiefly, the situation is one where the availability of potentially profitable land is much greater than the availability of free (non-slave) labor--a situation which leads to a demand for labor that can't be met by free economic agents. Such a condition clearly existed, for example, in the New World: after the indigenous inhabitants had been wiped out by European diseases (etc) and when land capable of producing cash-crops was almost free for the taking, the importation of slaves was practiced widely. As immigration to the New World also increased dramatically (particularly in the northeast US), slavery itself became more rare and opposition to the institution grew (again, particularly in the northeast US). A similar change in conditions also appeared in Italy as the population plummeted during the middle republic, new lands were acquired, and prisoners of war were increasingly kept as slaves rather than executed or ransomed. As these conditions changed, the profitability of slavery declined, manumissions increased, and as the demand for land grew greater than the demand for labor, the institution of slavery died out. If the foregoing analysis is right and slavers recognize that slaves are not animals (even if they are treated that way), then slavers will have to rationalize the situation somehow. In the pre-industrial world, rationalizations for slavery were chiefly racial (see esp Jefferson on this). In the ancient world, slavery was seen as part of a larger natural order (see Aristotle), one in which the vanquished lost their natural rights. That's my working theory, one that should apply to all societies--ancient and modern, Greek and barbarian alike. Differences between slave-holding societies certainly exist, but I expect them to largely rest in how different societies rationalize slavery (which has consequences for how slaves are treated once freed). (BTW, let's return the conversation about Corinth to the thread about Mummius.)

Nice post, Augusta. Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus?

Everitt makes this very claim in his bio of Augustus, but provides little proof. His theory was that Augustus silently consented to it to provide a smooth transition for Tiberius and prevent a civil war. How did Everitt reach this conclusion? I don't understand the reasoning. Why would civil war be averted by the appearance--but not actuality--of his natural death?

What a stunning misrepresentation of my view and dazzling evasion of my point! First, as an historical matter, the number of freed slaves who became citizens was not a small number, but huge. (Recall Scipio's harangue to the citizen's assembly, I brought you all here in chains!) This frequency is germane because it demonstrates conclusively that the Romans did not literally think slaves to be animals. Treatment of slaves and animals was similar in some respects, but certainly not all. As morally reprehensible as is slavery, its most horrific aspect may be that slave drivers really do know that they are dealing with human beings. Let's not whitewash slavery by pretending that the ancients were unaware that slaves were humans. With respect to manumission, Romans certainly were not 'peculiar' in having legal restrictions for freedmen. The apeleutheroi and metics of ancient Greece faced many more legal restrictions than did freedmen in Rome, who (unlike the Greeks) could vote in the assembly. In fact, enlightened Greek rulers commented on the wisdom of the Roman practice of admitting freedmen as citizens and in opening the cursus honorum to their sons. No, I didn't say that. And my original claim--that by suppressing the rebellion of Corinth, Mummius saved Sparta and other cities of Greece from Corinthian aggression--isn't germane to this discussion, except as another example of your misrepresenting my views. You seem smart enough that you needn't distort my views to address them (but I could be wrong).

I agree that this is the right way to depict the legal status of slaves. Legally, slaves were treated as if they had no more rights than domestic animals. Indeed, today's animals enjoy greater legal protection than did Roman slaves, who could be beaten, raped, and tortured with impunity. That said, the analogy does break down. Unlike slaves, domestic animals couldn't be "freed" from their state and thereupon enjoy the full legal rights of any human. The fact that a very large proportion of the Roman citizenship had been brought to Rome as slaves MUST say something about Roman attitudes toward slaves in general and at least their potential for enjoying full human rights. In fact, in this respect, Roman slaves were accommodated more freely than were freeborn foreigners, who could never be admitted into the citizen body without first passing through slavery.

The material from Frontinus and Livy both suggest that legates were not administered the sacramentum, which makes sense since it evolved from the voluntary oath not to break formation. With officers needing to move from formation, there would be no reason for the tribunes to have officers take this oath.

This would be an important consideration if officers were required to take the sacramentum, but I'm not sure that they were. I'm guessing this explains why officers deserted both Sulla and Caesar, whereas the troops did not. The slightly more interesting question is whether Legio XIII would have deserted Caesar had he met resistance from Pompey immediately. Presumably the weak resistance from Ahenobarbus did much to convince Legio XIII that they were safer under Caesar's command than under the consuls'. After this point, there was really no turning back--the Rubicon was (quite literally) crossed.

Granting this characterization or not (and I certainly don't), it doesn't matter. Men were bound by the sacrumentum to follow their commander's orders, and that's exactly what happened. Caesar could have been the descendent of Venus or the son of a whore, and they'd still have followed him lest they be strung up on a cross. It's that simple.

No more than they benefitted from Pompey or any other general who sent booty home to Rome. Probably less since Caesar wasted so much of the treasury on spilling Roman blood. Caesar was no populist hero.

Caesar marched on Rome to speak for the poor? Funny he never mentioned this... nor ever spoke for the poor either--guess he was too busy threatening their tribunes with death while having a crown fit around his balding pate.

I guess I'd define a "hero of the republic" as someone who overcame obstacles to contribute greatly to the quality of life in Rome and the expansion of Roman law and culture. By those standards, Mummius was a hero even before he punished Corinth. Why do I say that Critolaus and Diaeus were the real "wackos"? Not merely because these aspiring tyrants opposed Roman governance, but more importantly because their success--expulsion of the Romans--would have removed Greece from Roman protection, and left it (at best) vulnerable to invasion from the very same enemies that Greece had always faced (including other Greeks!). In fact, as soon as Critolaus had ejected Roman emissaries from his assembly, he declared war on Sparta and immediately began a campaign of intimidation against dissenters in Corinth itself. (BTW, the Critolaus who opposed Mummius was not the philosopher Critolaus, who was far from Corinth at the time of incipient civil war.) Why do I say that the suppression of the revolt of Corinth was beneficial in the long run? Because civil wars are almost always much worse and more destructive than wars of aggression. Suppressing the designs of Corinth protected the rest of Greece from Critolaus and Diaeus, whose victory (even if obtained against the Romans) would have left Greece totally vulnerable to invasion from other Hellenistic powers. (BTW, if moved to make a point-by-point reply, it's not necessary to quote every snippet to which you'd like to respond. Doing so ultimately leads to posts that involve so many nested replies and counter-replies that it becomes impossible to discern the original train of thought.)

Agricultural manuals and the like are informative about one end of the continuum of slave experiences, but some slaves were clearly treated much better. In addition to evidence from the plays of Plautus, recall Pliny's letter where he said that the floorplan to his villa was designed "so I do not disturb my slaves while they are relaxing." I doubt many architects today take that much care for the sake of their clients' children, let alone the clients themselves. With respect to Cato the Elder, recall also that Cato had not only freed many of his slaves, but also was married to the daughter (Salonia) of one of his freedmen. This Salonia was the great-grandmother of Cato Uticensis.

L Mummius Achaicus was certainly neither a "wacko" nor a "loony". A hero of the Republic, Mummius Achaicus was a new man who rose from obscure origins to triumph over the Lusitanians and suppress the actual "wackos"--those Greek demagogues Critolaus and Diaeus. Mummius' treatment of Corinth was harsh, but the previous leniency of Metellus Macedonicus had led Roman ambassadors to being insulted by the Greeks, led the Greeks to insurrection, and led many Romans to their deaths. Mummius' treatment of Corinth was ruthless, but by severity, he put a stop to what could have been a conflagration that consumed all Greece, not just a single city. Weep for Corinth if you'd like, but praise Mummius that the remaining glory of Greece was saved. The stories circulated about Mummius were typical Ciceronian fare, endlessly credulous of any lies and half-truths told by patricians about their plebeian rivals. The younger Africanus sniffed that "he should have discharged his functions well, had he been paired with a different colleague, or with none at all." In fact, Mummius was a very capable administrator. That famous jibe that Mummius had told his plundering troops to be careful not to drop any sculptures lest they be prepared to replace them is only half-true. The basis of this story is that Mummius had required the shippers of the Corinthian treasure to provide surety for the goods at the cost of replacement. Of course, real replacement was impossible, and the cost of substitution much too low for their real worth, but this is a problem that any insurance policy has. But to haughty patricians and their lackeys, Mummius' responsible policy was delectable rhetorical fodder, and Cicero never let the truth get in the way of a good joke. In my view, the final testament to Mummius' honesty was that--despite all that Mummius might have personally plundered from Corinth--Mummius died poor, and for all the wealth brought to Rome (which--unlike others--he refused to inscribe with his name), the city paid for his daughters' dowry. Moreover, Mummius was one of the only Romans ever to pay homage to the Greek gods, dedicating a magnificent bronze god to Zeus at Olympia, one that was forever celebrated thereafter. For more on Mummius, see Polyb. iii. 32, xl. 7, 8,11; Liv. Ep. 52; Appian, Pun. 135 ; Dion Cass. 81 ; Flor. ii. 16 ; Eutrop. iv. 14; Val. Max. vi. 4.

Thanks, Sullafelix, for your post. Now that this discussion in no longer "completely unhinged from the documentary evidence", could a legate move this long digression on slavery to the Humanitas sub-folder so we can continue the conversation in its proper place?