M. Porcius Cato

Not commenting on all ancient polytheistic religions as being about the control of the masses, but certainly religion in ancient Rome was a device of political control. See here for a previous discussion.

What I find so frustrating about a post like this is the lack of any consideration of the details of the period. To take just one counter-example that readily springs to mind: prior to the second Catilinarian conspiracy, Caesar and Crassus proposed to annex Egypt, to bring rich shipments of grain from Egypt, where Caesar would have been made governor. When the proposal was brought before the people, they were uninterested--having already been supplied richly with grain by Pompey--and Caesar and Crassus had to abandon their proposal. Far from the government being unable to meet the people's temporary needs, many politicians were fairly stumbling over each other to supply the people with grain (even Cato) from all quarters of the empire, and they were so successful that the people were finally disinterested in this form of appeasement. The suggestion that a minor disruption in the food supply in 64 led to the downfall of the republic simply doesn't fit the facts.

I don't see this in Fuller, and I've not seen anywhere that Cicero had a change of heart about Catiline. Are you sure you've got this reference correct?

Not true--look at Marius' landing in Africa, which was better planned and organized than either Caesar's landing in Africa or his landing in Britain. In both cases, Caesar launched hastily, ill-equipped, and nearly met disaster. If you want to argue that there is a trade-off between celerity and preparations, that's fine. But let's not pretend that the Romans didn't know how to launch an amphibious landing.

Yes, that's my complaint too. Additionally, it's misleading to say that the Epicureans were merely "apatheists": they not only denied any divine intervention in human affairs, they also denied any afterlife ("Where I am death is not; where death is, I am not; and never the twain shall meet"), and--most importantly--they were outspoken polemicists on these positions, unlike equally naturalistic philosophers, such as Aristotle.

That's a good one. Mencken is one of my favorites.

This might account for Caesar's inferiority in Gaul, but not the campaigns in Greece and Africa.

In the series, Pompey didn't attempt to kill Octavian. At least, that's not how I interpreted the events depicted.

Plus, what were Alexander's plans after Tarsus? From what we can tell, the original expedition was to go no further then that point. After that, luck seems to be a substantial factor in his campaign. These have nothing to do with logistics.

Definitely not. He didn't even pack extra sails or sufficient anchorage, leading to a near-disaster for his whole army. (Unfortunately I'm out of town at the moment, so I can't quote page numbers from Fuller, but Virgil might be of assistance here.) True enough, but we have good information about Alexander's mastery of logistics in his campaigns. It's useful to compare the two along this dimension.

Did anyone find the display of Antony's corpse (i.e., seated) to be interesting? I've seen this depiction of Roman death in only one previous dramatic depiction, and I've never found a source supporting the depiction. Even within the series, corpses have been displayed lying (Caesar), standing (Julia), and now seated (Antony). What gives?

This is off-topic, but Taylor explains what she means by the term (no, of course, there weren't political parties in the modern sense), and why it applies to the age of Caesar more so than the normal political situation in Rome, which is fairly characterized by ad-hoc alliances.

My source was Lily Ross Taylor's "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar," which I highly recommend.

Good one.

Most UNRV participants are aware that the common use of "plebeian" to refer to the poor and "patrician" to refer to the rich is a modern invention that does not conform to the ancient Roman concepts. For the Romans, the patrician/plebeian distinction was a hereditary marker, not an economic marker. But the question is--who were the patricians? Who were the first plebeians? According to Forsythe, the 16 original patrician clans were the 1. Aemilii ..... 9. Nautii 2. Claudii .... 10. Postumii 3. Cloelii .... 11. Quinctilii 4. Cornelii ....12. Quinctii 5. Fabii .... 13. Servilii 6. Furii .... 14. Sulpicii 7. Julii .... 15. Valerii 8. Manlii .... 16. Veturii During the middle republic, three clans could be firmly added to the list: the Folii, certain Papirii, and Sergii. What's interesting is that none of these three clans were among the prominent plebeian families, suggesting that they hadn't been elevated by some novel mechanism. So, where did they come from?

According to a detailed discussion of the matter in Forsythe's "Critical History of Early Rome", the office of praetor was created in 367, not 363. Based on common usage, Livy's use of the term praetor maximus shouldn't be taken as a type of praetor, but as a post that was superior to praetor (i.e., consul).

I'd give you 3/4 (maybe), but not logistics. What is the evidence that he was good at logistics?

No lack of interest here! I just hate to interrupt the flow of excellent posts with commentary. Or did you mean a lack of interest on your own part? I hope not, but if so, why not finish off with the last period. Also, I posted on your web site with some suggestions for other letters relating to the topics in question (e.g., Caesar's consulship).

We must have identical libraries. As you might suspect, I follow Fuller's account.

If I understand the thesis correctly, participants in the civil wars with Caesar relied on mercenary cavalry at considerable risk to their own side. But didn't Labienus employ an all-mercenary groups of Numdians to almost annihilate Caesar's troops at Ruspina? Had he not removed himself to make way for Scipio (according to Appian's account), the war very likely would have ended in Caesar's defeat right then.

Theatre of Pompey.

Are you aware that archaeological evidence of Roman agriculture completely contradicts this hypothesis? That demographic evidence suggests that the opposite is true? That the only way to make this hypothesis feasible is to assume rates of death, birth, and fertility that are completely unrealistic? EDIT: Ooops! I just realized that bourgeois science might be too much for your proletarian sensibilities.

Was Marius any less successful than Caesar? Compare their invasions of Africa, where--contrary to previous claims--Labienus had the initiative against Caesar and soundly trounced him at Ruspina.

I'm sure the collectivization of the farms would have been just wonderful for the republic LOL.

Nice work.