M. Porcius Cato

Since most professors began their intellectual life as "wet-behind-the-ears teenage brats" themselves, they're mostly thrilled to hear any intelligent commentary from students, even if it is challenging. Of course, what's disappointing is that most (but not all) commentary from students is at best a rehash of something they read or heard elsewhere but with no awareness of the supporting evidence that justified the original insight. The traditionalism being advocated here is simply turning this habit of thoughtless imitation into some kind of principle.

In the main, I agree with this assessment: Diocletian's reforms created the feudal system and were an economic disaster. For all that, however, do recall that the material comforts of the Romans (and their livestock!) even in the third century were much better than those found after the Germanic invasions, when life in the provinces returned to Iron Age levels of subsistence farming. Also, the analogy between Caesar's war on Rome and the civil wars of the third century seems to miss a crucial factor, one that is entirely relevant to the topic on the single biggest contributor to Rome's collapse. What's missing is that Caesar was attempting to circumvent the legal mechanism for the transfer and supervision of power, whereas--after Caesar's success--that mechanism no longer existed. Indeed, if you count up all the consuls of the republic and all the emperors after the fall of the republic, you will find that only about 5% of consuls held their positions through extra-constitutional means, whereas fully 50% of emperors attained their positions through the murder, suicide, or military defeat of their predecessor. The principate was an inherently unstable system and was doomed to collapse.

What is the evidence that the system of clientele ever played a meaningful role in the politics of the republic? I think there is none to be found, whatever Syme's view.

This helps to clarify your perspective, and I agree with the above on balance. (Although, FWIW, I'd prefer to live in a more Hellenic, less Judeo-Christian society.)

Let's be absolutely clear about what was going on. The Gauls, Germans, Britons, Spaniards, and all the sundry Hellenistic despots around the ancient Mediterranean were far worse bullies (and far worse bullied by their own leaders) than were the Romans. A freeborn Roman male--unlike those in all these other groups--had political rights to vote, to appeal magisterial decisions, to run for office, and to get as rich as Croesus if the opportunity permitted. Roman free speech, on top of that, was greater than even in Athens (just ask Socrates), where there were also no Greek equivalents to the rags-to-riches stories of Cato the Elder or M Curius Dentatus or the hundreds of nouveau riche freedmen who've left us their stunning villas. This wealth wasn't stolen from the Gauls or Germans (they were dirt-farmers and didn't have anything worth stealing!) but was built in large part by same culture of practical reason and hard-minded shrewdness that builds every civilization. Absolutely. The mortality rate in the Roman Games was only about 10%, which makes it an "extreme sport" to be sure, but no less so than the Pankration and chariot racing practiced elsewhere in the world. More importantly, those Roman games were the very flower of civilization and democracy, where people from all walks of life (even women and emperors) came together to enjoy themselves without going out and getting mind-dead drunk like those Northern barbarians whom Romans rightfully scorned. Exactly what the word means etymologically--city-fied. Getting back to the larger issue--it's simply not true that the Romans were the first to practice "total war". Compared to the utterly savage warfare practiced by (for example) the ancient Hebrews, the Romans were pussycats. Looking forward another 500 years, look at Alexander's sieges for further evidence of total war. The fact of the matter is that ancient armies routinely engaged in mass executions, crucifixions, biological warfare, and (though no one approves of the term around here) genocide. What made the Romans different from all these other groups, however, is that what they left something behind that continues to be a part of modern life today. How many Hittites can say that??

By conventional standards, perhaps, but those standards have absolutely nothing to do with civilization. Are you seriously attempting to argue that Rome was uncivilized?

... because she is almost certainly hallucinating if she's seeing Cato dancing?

Which Brutus? Decimus Brutus was named in Caesar's will. Also, it's useful to consider an option not listed: Caesar is defeated by the Parthians and joins Crassus in the afterlife.

Heresy!

I think this latter issue is more important than any other: Britain and northern Gaul were completely un-Hellenized backwaters, making it difficult and expensive to rule them. They were an albatross hanging around the neck of the Empire, and no rational decision-making process ever went into their initial acquisition anyway. The question shouldn't be--why was the Empire split?--but why was the Empire split East/West instead of North/South? Seems to me that if Gaul and Britain had been thrown back to the barbarians, the Romans could have done quite well just by continuing the consolidation of Northern Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.

I think you've got it backwards--if you want good ethics, talk to Aristotle; if you want good government, talk to Cicero. Athenian democracy--though better than the governments that preceded it--had no checks or balances on the popular vote. Thus, when the people foolishly followed a demogogue like Alcibiades or Cleon, the whole state suffered. When the people decided they didn't like someone (e.g., that rube who voted to exile Aristides the Just because he was sick of hearing about "Aristides the Just", or the rotten fools who voted to execute Socrates), they had the first and last word on the innocent's fate. Worst of all, the people had a direct role in the military, including the power to execute admirals, to direct military strategy, and so forth. This is the sort of lunacy that led to the ill-fated invasion of Sicily. In contrast, the Roman system had a mixed constitution: although the people had the final word on legislative matters and treaties, they could not serve on juries without meeting necessary qualifications, nor could they propose and vote on any legislation that just happened to catch their fancy in an assembly, and once they elected a consul, the consul was free to direct his armies as mandated by the Senate, which also served the critical function of sanctioning legislation brought before the people. Of course, the Roman people--through their tribunes--had means to check the Senate and to which to appeal the decisions of a magistrate too. Thus, the system as a whole was much more conservative. And when it comes to the State's use of physical force, that's a good thing.

Isn't that the very definition of cowardice?

Today's NYT has an interesting report that claims that the Virginia Tech killer's history of mental illness made his gun purchase illegal. The report is interesting because (1) it challenges the assumption that more gun control laws are needed to prevent future VT-type massacres, (2) it demonstrates the difficulties in enforcing existing legislation, and also (3) it illustrates how small differences in the implementation of federal law at the state level can have devastating repercussions. From my perspective, this is an interesting set of observations because it fits in with neither the standard 'liberal' view on the alleged obsolescence of the Second Amendment nor the standard 'conservative' view on the supremacy of States' rights. Rather, the implication of (1) and (3) is that a strong federal government--strictly bound by the Constitution--is potentially more effective at meeting the legal needs of the people than is commonly supposed by liberals and conservatives alike. Further, the implication of (2) is that this potential requires cooperation from state authorities. This makes me wonder whether there are many more issues like this one and whether there is a non-governmental organization that monitors such issues.

I don't think you would have liked it Augusta: no portraits of Cicero.

But if the "mob" were so easily swayed by charismatic speakers, why weren't they swayed by Cinna's rhetoric? If anything, the reaction to Cinna seems to show that the crowd attending contiones were not passive playthings of rhetoric, but active participants in an important political setting. Moreover, if the Liberators were not concerned about popular opinion and simply took it for granted that everyone would immediately acclaim them, why did they mount the Rostra in the first place? Finally, isn't there a good reason to suspect that the audience to the Liberators differed from the audience to Antony? After all, why would Caesar's veterans be immediately on hand after Caesar was killed? Wouldn't it be more likely that they would attend his funeral? If this is right--that the audiences to Antony's speech and to Cinna's were not the same--then doesn't it suggest that the "mob" isn't some fickle, undifferentiated mass of lemmings but a group of citizens whose composition changes according to the purpose of the assembly?

I've also been enjoying it immensely. Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More is a real treat. I hated Utopia, but I seem to like everyone played by Jeremy Northam--his Thomas More is much more interesting so far than the more buffoonish one from A Man for all Seasons.

A bad day for Remus, but a great day for mankind!

Look forward to it. Agrippa's "black bedroom" looks stunning, and I can't wait until my next trip to NYC to see it in person.

In today's NYT, there is a nice spread on the newly renovated Greek and Roman Galleries at the Met. It looks much better now that they've moved the cafeteria out of there.

Can you clarify what you had in mind by "his way"? It seems to me that Pompey had a long, unfinished legislative agenda when he returned from the East. Doesn't this suggest that Pompey dismissed his army before he had his way?

How do you know it didn't? Maybe paganism satisfied some people's emotional needs much, much better than Christianity, but Christianity was forced on those people. Isn't this hypothesis equally consistent with the evidence?

Presumably gutters could be made from the same imbrices as used for the roof? See here for a suggestion along these lines.

That's an oversimplification. There seemed to be three categories here: Some people did hail them as Liberators (e.g., Cicero), and many of their peers joined them at Philippi, including the many children of those who fell in Caesar's civil wars. Others failed to hail them as Liberators but were also opposed to punishing them (see the debates in the Forum while the Liberators were hanging out in the Capitoline temple). Indeed, many respectable partisans of Caesar--though they mourned him and could not celebrate the death of a friend--still acknowledged that he was (legally) a tyrant (see Cicero's letters for some examples), and the fact of the matter was that the lex Valeria obligated citizens to tyrannicide. Presumably the consuls Hirtius and Pansa would fall in this category, and even Antony veered in and out of this category. Finally, some were out for their blood (or pretended to be out of political opportunism). Octavian and some of Caesar's veterans fell in this category. Had there been no sympathy or support for the Liberators, they would have been thrown from the Tarpeian rock. Instead, compromise was reached, and for a time it appeared that a resolution might be possible. Unfortunately, that 'gladiator' Antony cleaned the vomit from his lap and marched on Mutina, while all Rome cowered before the army of a blonde boy with a sphinx on his finger.

It's striking that you've not gone to the trouble of defending your original claim that Claudius was a populare. Instead, you've decided to misrepresent my position entirely. First, against the claim that Claudius originated the idea of the Twelve Tables, I pointed out that the idea originated with a tribune, whom I named precisely to show his plebeian origins. Thus, far from suggesting that plebeians were against the formulation of new laws, I gave precise information about WHICH plebeian exactly was in favor of it. Second, I never claimed that patricians in general crafted the Ten Tables with the goal of oppressing the plebs--I claimed that the laws did not benefit the plebs. There is a vast difference between intended oppression and failure to help, and it's impossible to know which best describes Claudius' legislation. Here you go. Funny you bothered to cite how populare they were without ever having read them--even stranger for a person with your (self-described) background in Roman law. Given the dating of the Twelve Tables, this is totally irrelevant--and probably totally false as well. What's the source of your claim? Cicero claims that the plebs and patricians go back to Romulus. Presumably, Cicero is relying on legend, but if Cicero didn't know the origin of the classes, how do you? No, it was only influenced by Greek laws but its source was local Roman spoken law and traditions - in other words - mos maiorum itself. You're making this up entirely (again). I've given citations in Pliny, Strabo, and the etymology of the language from the Tables themselves. What's your source? None, I'll bet. As far as I'm concerned, you've lost all benefit of the doubt regarding Roman historical facts. Unless you provide a source for this claim, I'll presume you're manufacturing this from your imagination, like the claim that Claudius--the man whose behavior legendarily instigated the secession of the plebs--was populare.

This is interesting, but the power of the Church in some locations doesn't tell us about how widely Catholicism had spread. For example, were the orders you cited to be found in North Africa? Spain? Turkey? Japan? There had to be some limits, and it's impossible to talk about the growth of the Church without knowing its spatial and temporal boundaries.