M. Porcius Cato

I thought it was a writing tablet for keeping notes.

OK. Yes, of course, political groups are capable of conspiracies. What else would one call Watergate?

If you're going to read Plutarch, then you might as well read Tacitus first to avoid overlap. But what's your goal here anyway? If you're trying to construct a mental timeline, there's no way to do it by casually reading the ancient sources. This is just what secondary sources are designed to do.

Who "you"? No one, including Kosmo, implied that the media and Congress are unbiased. The claim was only that one needn't assume a conspiracy to explain something as utterly ordinary as the failure to rebuild a foreign government in five years' time. Hell, one needn't even assume that the Bush administration is filled by ideologically-driven nincompoops to explain their failures. The fact is that, even with the best leaders (say, Abraham Lincoln), it's damn near impossible for a military to re-build a civil society where one group has been oppressing the others for many years and where the oppressors managed to survive the war (another argument, btw, for wars of attrition). I'd also add my agreement that conspiracy theories are inherently suspect. The problem is not that two people are inherently incapable of conspiring (though even that is hard, if you know the research on the Prisoner's Dilemma). The more fundamental issue is that conspiracy theories are bad as theories. Their problem is that they typically not only lack the most important feature of a good theory (ya know, evidence), but on top of that conspiracy fans typically proclaim this very failure as a point in their favor ("of course there's no evidence--it's a secret!"). And these conspiracy theories (like the various crackpot theories about who killed JFK) are epistemologically faultless in comparison to the really rotten conspiracy theories that don't even bother to posit who exactly conspires with whom over what (q.v., the latest "media conspiracy" du jour). (Full disclosure: I'm part of a massive government cover-up to hide the truth about conspiracy theories. Don't believe a word I have to say.) (Fuller disclosure: That was disinformation.) (Fullerest disclo--oh, never mind.)

Although the police assumed the statue was Roman, no archaeological authority has claimed it to be Roman. Also, although the owners of this piece have attempted to sell it for $15 million, no one has ever accepted that price, and the owners themselves purchased it cheaply in the Aegean. A more conservative headline would read, "Cops bust couple for selling lawn art for too much money".

Not any more. Maliki and al-Sadr (thankfully) split, in no small part due to Washington and Sistani. The US is propping up the Iraqi government with no contingencies about whether the Iraqi government is, will be, or has been secular. Clearly, it would be nice if the Shi'ites and Kurds were all Jeffersonians (or Lockeans, if you prefer), but that's not an issue that any military could ever decide. There are a number of secular leaders in Iraq, including the Kurdish president Talabani, so it's not impossible for Iraq to have a secular future. The nice thing about democracy is that voters tend to punish failing governments, regardless of their pieties.

If the gold and silver in Britain were sufficient to pay the soldiers there, why didn't they just mint the soldier's pay in Britain itself? Also, to judge the value of the occupation, it isn't right to simply subtract the value of all the goods coming out of Britain from the costs of the occupation. With virtually no occupying force, goods from Britain could have been purchased from the natives for less than they could have been sold in Rome. The critical question is whether this difference in value is more or less than the cost of occupation. My guess is that the 'marginal utility' of the occupation was less than the cost of the occupation itself, which is why the Romans abandoned Britain without a fight.

I strongly doubt that Saddam will be widely viewed as a martyr by most Moslems. The Iranians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Kurds were certainly no fans of Saddam, who was always viewed as an Arab nationalist more than any kind of pan-Islamic leader (pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding). Also, maybe Saddam should have been executed after standing trial for still more of his atrocities, but apparently the Iraqis have chosen to put him on trial posthumously for his many outstanding misdeeds. Surely one can appreciate their reasoning here: why on earth should Saddam's life be prolonged only in proportion to his crimes? The only legitimate criticism I can see of this execution is that Iraqi law forbids executions during religious holidays, and there is apparently a Sunni-Shi'ite disagreement about whether today is or is not a holiday. By executing Saddam today, the government of Iraq has implicitly taken a position on a strictly sectarian issue, which is an ominous sign. However, ultimately whether Saddam was executed this morning, yesterday morning, or tomorrow morning makes no difference to his willing Sunni accomplices, who would prefer that Saddam be executed on no morning whatever. Thus, the criticism of the timing of the execution is simply a proxy fight for a larger cause--the continuing dominance of the Sunni minority--that has absolutely no legitimacy whatever. Personally, I'm glad the bastard is dead. Sic semper tyrannis.

Caesar was already facing prosecution for several crimes, including his violation of the leges Fufia et Aeilia as consul and his illegal crossing into Germania and Britain as proconsul.

Had Caesar laid down his arms, he would have had that right, but no civilian law applied to men under arms. This principle extends even to this day.

J. F. C. Fuller, Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier, Tyrant. Fuller's military background may provide exactly the perspective you're looking for. There are other good works, like those of Meier and Goldsworthy, but they tend to presuppose an advanced background or interest in the details of the Roman republic.

So what law did it contravene?

That's an excellent point.

The sagum. See here and here.

What makes you think the SCU was illegal? Caesar himself never made such a charge. He claimed only that it had been reserved for grave threats, which apparently he liked to believe wouldn't include himself (though the Gauls would probably have disagreed). Moreover, at the time that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he never claimed that he was doing so for any "greater good"--he said, "To refrain from crossing will bring me misfortune; but to cross will bring misfortune to all men". Are you really claiming that the personal well-being of Caesar was a greater good than that of "all men"? Caesar's "larger agenda" was perfectly described by Cicero: "This cause lacks nothing but a cause."

Diotima is a good source for those interested in Roman women.

The struggle of the orders during the Republic was largely due to the leadership of outstanding men (and sometimes demagogues) who held public office. During the principate and later, the independence of the lower magistracies was curbed, thereby preventing independent representation of popular causes. The sort of men like Licinius, who advocated civil rights for plebs, or Livius Drusus, who advocated civil rights for Italians, were viewed as threats by paranoid emperors, and since they lacked the traditional protections enjoyed during the Republic (such as the lex Porcia), they were frequently killed or driven to suicide. If you mean, why did poor Romans "put up" with poverty, I would guess that many did everything they could to get out of poverty. What makes you think they were indifferent to their circumstance? Probably because the plebeian/patrician divide hadn't been a major political fault line for hundreds of years. Heck, even the civil wars of the Republican period did not divide along plebeian/patrician lines. Recall that political adversaries such as Caesar and Scipio were patricii while political adversaries such as Sallust and Cato were plebs. The patrician/pleb distinction wasn't a completely moot issue (e.g., in terms of who was eligible for certain religious offices), but it wasn't what divided the major camps that went to war. In fact, many of the same families were split into different camps. For example, there was another Cato who was as fierce a supporter of the triumvirate as Cato Uticensis was in opposing it.

Then please explain how 95% of the US population (i.e., 285 million) paid their taxes in blood. I'd love to hear this. Far from being inane, the question points to the rampant innumeracy that is endemic to political propaganda (both left-wing and right-wing). Take Ludo's claim that "only" 4 children of US Congressmen are fighting in Iraq (it's actually 7, but for argument's sake). To understand this number, you have to put it in context. Currently, there are 535 members of Congress. Assuming that they are no more or less fertile than the rest of the population (i.e., averaging 0.9 children), then, we can estimate the number of Congressional kids who could eventually serve to be 435. Thus, about 1% of Congressional kids who could eventually serve actually are serving in Iraq. How does this compare to the general population? Currently, there are 152,000 troops deployed in Iraq. Using the same assumptions for the general population as for Congress (for this comparison, it doesn't really matter what the assumptions are as long as they're the same), the number of kids who could eventually serve is 34.5 million. Thus, less than .5% of the children of the general US population who could eventually serve actually is serving in Iraq. Thus, even using Ludovicus' wrong figures, if your mom or dad is serving in Congress, your chances of serving in Iraq have been doubled. Using correct figures, your chances of serving in Iraq would be almost quadrupled. So, please, spare us this nonsense about Congressional kids shirking military service--Congressional kids are much more likely to serve than everyone else. More generally, quit throwing around bogus numbers, and start evaluating the numbers that others throw around.

95% of the US have paid their taxes in blood?? LOL.

I don't know what's left to prove, PP. The lex Cornelia Maiestatis forbade Roman generals from entering Italy with their armies. The northern boundary of Italy was the Rubicon, and Caesar crossed the Rubicon into Italy with his army. Therefore, Caesar broke the law. QED. To my knowledge, no historian --including T. D. Barnes-- has ever denied that Caesar broke the law by crossing the Rubicon. Moreover, the ancient historian Pollio was actually with Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon, and though Pollio's account has been lost, several historians based their narratives on his account. These writers attest that Caesar himself was well aware that crossing the Rubicon was illegal, remarking "To refrain from crossing will bring me misfortune; but to cross will bring misfortune to all men." And then he commenced to "bring misfortune to all men." If this isn't black and white, nothing in history is, and I don't see the point in debating the legality any further.

I'm pretty sure this statistic is incomplete or a complete fabrication. Source? BTW, even if it were true that 30 families were contributing the majority of magistracies, it doesn't hold that this inequality is symptomatic of a lack of liberty. Consider a paragon of free speech like UNRV, where the top 30 posters (of around 2000 registered users) have contributed almost 2/3 of the posts to the forum. Obviously, there is nothing about equal rights that ensures equal contributions: some families cultivated politicians, whereas the vast majority did not.

The situation is black and white--Caesar's crossing the Rubicon was illegal, and your attempt to blur the difference between black and white can only benefit the black: the white have nothing to gain from pretending that they are black, whereas the black have everything to gain by pretending that they are white. And whose hypocrisy are you talking about? This optimate hypocrite you've conjured is a complete straw man. No Roman simultaneously praised Brutus, Sulla, and the killers of the Gracchi. Moreover, in your criticism of the Liberators, you seem to forget that Romans were legally obligated to kill tyrants, a law that dates back to Poplicola, the first advocate of popular rights and a real advocate, not a sham advocate like Caesar. And do I even need to remind you how Caesar treated the tribunes? Not only did he strip them of their powers, he threatened one with murder--not for any great popular cause, mind you, but because the tribune forbade Caesar from looting the treasury! I'd also point out the ludicrous irony in your argument that Brutus and Cassius should have put Caesar on trial--the very reason that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and had himself declared DICTATOR FOR LIFE was to avoid trial. In my opinion, your allegiance to Caesar either blinds you to the populist cause that you claim to endorse or your advocacy of the populist cause is simply a cover for your true love--dictatorship.

What about Hypatia?

But this is exactly my point--Sulla did not "do what all politicians do". Dentatus, for example, would have never dreamed of marching on Rome. Heck, the guy reportedly refused even the most trivial of bribes, which is why he was ardently admired by Cato the Elder.

And how exactly was this illegal? An enemy of Rome was assembling on her doorsteps, and the consuls had the right and obligation to levy troops to repulse the threat. Had the opponent been Brennus, it would have been obvious that the consuls did as required. Moreover, Curio's contradictory proposals could not be legally enforced and were thus self-negating: How could the Senate require Caesar to demobilize the 13th Legion if he was unwilling? Only by superior force of arms, which could be attained only by Pompey taking the field. Thus, Curio's proposal had exactly the same legal force as a Senate resolution that the Romans be allowed to have their peace and eat it too.