M. Porcius Cato

And there is no evidence that "the people" supported Caesar in the civil war (or "civil dispute", as Caesar would have it), nor even that Caesar wanted the support of the people. In Caesar's own words, "What more befits a decent man, a decent, peaceful citizen, than that he should remain aloof from civil disputes?" If anything, the ones who sought the participation of the people in the civil war were the ones who constituted the legitimate government of Rome. They believed that the republic itself was in peril, and Cicero recalled Solon's wise law that punished those who failed to take sides in a civil war. Thus, the contest was not Caesar at the head of the people (that's patent rubbish), but Caesar and his Gallic adventurers against the legitimate government of Rome and Roman patriots everywhere.

Welcome, Marcus Tullius Cicero! Could you find that passage where Caesar discusses horses without knees?

There were at least 800 consuls before Sulla. Of these, how many instituted proscriptions? Zero. Sulla did not do "what all politicians do". He did what no other politician did. That's why we're bothering to talk about Sulla and not, say, Caius Furnius. If--of the 1000s of magistrates that served in the republic over a 500 year period--there were only five leaders who could even be compared to Sulla, that's a proportion that is so far from "all" and so close to "none" that I wonder how you can justify your claim that "Sulla did what all politicians do".

Astin's Scipio Aemilianus has been highly praised for reconstructing this period that is utterly lost from Livy's histories. Astin focuses largely on Scipio's political career rather than his military one, so the book might offer some insights.

This is an absolutely critical point. In addition to explaining the duplicity of some populares, it also explains why the "people" so often turned on their alleged champions. For example, why the Gracchi were popular in the city, yet couldn't find support among the urban poor when standing up for the Italian allies (who made up the army). Also, an oligarchy is "rule by the few". Therefore, by its strictest definition, the triumvirs were the purest oligarchy. Far from the populares standing for the people against the oligarchy, the populares stood for SOME people IN ORDER TO BECOME oligarchs. Indeed! Couldn't have said it better myself.

I guess I wonder what you'd count as "political ignorance", but my favorite book on the general topic of Roman politics is Party Politics in the Age of Caesar by Lily Ross Taylor. You might also want to take a look at Erich Gruen's The Last Generation of the Roman Republic and Christian Meier's Caesar.

No, nor is this on-topic. Instead, you've employed a fallacy of distraction: whether Cato did or did not like wine is wholly irrelevant to the topic of Sulla's murders. In fact, I can't help but say that this is the worst defense of Sulla that could be raised ("Sulla may have murdered thousands, but Cato drank wine!"). You have better arguments than this. Why are you resorting to one that is formally equivalent to "yeah? Your mother wears combat boots!" (sorry don't know the British equivalent)?

Not really. You forgot: (1) He attempted a cover-up of the Catilnarian conspiracy by opposing a trial for the accused. His motivation may have been to hide his own foreknowledge of the traitors' plans (being an intimate of those involved). Moreover, his recommendation of exile for the accused would have let the traitors join Catiline on the fields of war, where they could have passed valuable information to their rebel comrades. (2) While consul, he had M. Porcius Cato arrested merely for voicing his opposition to Caesar's hare-brained schemes. The move was so extraordinarily illegal that the whole Senate refused to meet until Cato's release. (3) In Spain and in Gaul, Caesar betrayed the interests of Roman allies by sacking their towns and enslaving Roman friends. His motivation in both cases was merely to run up a body count so he could celebrate a triumphal parade in Rome. His campaign in Gaul (where he mercilessly slaughtered and enslaved perhaps a million or more trading partners of Rome) finally led to the threat of prosecution for his illegal crossing into German territory. (4) Rather than face prosecution like an honorable Roman or even go into temporary exile (as Cicero had once done), Caesar forced his troops to wage war against the Republic. Taking Rome essentially by surprise, he confiscated the entire Roman treasury for his own personal use, and he threatened the legal tribunes of the people with death if they stood in his way. (5) The Civil War he launched wiped out the cream of the Roman Senate and their best generals, including Pompey and Caesar's best officer Labienus (who refused to join Caesar in his traitorous mission). After Pharsalus, he refused to offer a general amnesty, but instead went to Egypt, where he burned the Library of Alexandria through criminal negligence. (6) Once victorious over all his old enemies, he had himself declared a DICTATOR FOR LIFE. In this role, he immediately cancelled all elections for lower offices, abolished the power of the tribunes (who were the representatives of the people of Rome), and personally selected Yes-Men for the office of consul (which had been the highest-ranking elected position in the old Republic). Laying the precedent for future serfdom (and anticipating Stalin's Berlin Wall), he forced 20 - 40 year old Italian civilians to remain in Italy, and he attempted to wipe out the wealth of his political opponents by cancelling debts owed to them. (7) As dictator, Caesar seemed to lose all touch with reality. He had his face plastered over all the coins (a previously illegal act). He forced Romans to build him a palace, to carry an ivory statue of him at religious ceremonies, to place another statue of him within the great Quirinal temple with the inscription "To the Invincible God," and to place still another statue of him beside the statues of the (deposed) kings of Rome. All the time he did this, he ostentatiously refused to allow anyone to call him King, and he sent out goon-squads to arrest anyone who made the mistake of recognizing that Caesar had robbed all Romans of their liberty. The notion that this monster--and I'm being generous by not mentioning the Queen's more outrageous personal perversities--was honorable makes me wonder if anyone even knows the meaning of the term. (I guess Caesar137 will call this another issue of 'semantics'.)

How many leading Romans of Sulla's time--or any time leading up to Sulla--engaged in the systematic, wholesale slaughter of whole political classes? The notion that Sulla was just an "ordinary person, full of flaws" strains credulity, and the reasoning vividly demonstrates who the real beneficiary of that "judge not" nonsense is--the most wicked and the most corrupt. When Sulla retired, he was a debauched, bitter, evil old man. Moral relativism would only have warmed his black, rotten heart.

Sorry--there's no better cure for a pious foolishness than a sacrilegious vulgarity.

Funny, I would think that an extreme populare would be in favor of direct democracy, not dictatorship. I guess that shows what frauds the populares were--they claimed to be for the people, but even the populare advocates (such as the one who made this poll) can't hide that they really want (to be) dictators. All the guff about "the People" is just a cover for the populares' real ambition--naked power.

Take a look at the 2006 data (the red series) from the EID, and judge for yourself whether falling prices last Autumn were due to political manipulation or due to seasonal fluctuation: In Spring 2006 (late March to May), there was steep increase in prices as weather got warmer. In the summer, prices were high and remained about $3/gallon. Then, in the Fall 2006 (from Sept through late October), there was a steep drop in prices, which has since leveled off and remained steady at around $2.30/gallon. It's now mid-December, and we're nowhere close to where we were when the cry of "election manipulation" was first raised back in September, despite the abundant historical data of falling Autumn prices (even in non-election years). I should quit when I'm ahead, but I'll make another prediction: by next May, prices will be higher than they are now. If anybody says it's because the oil companies want to punish the Democrats, hit them in a head with a fish. (imagine your own emoticon here)

The more capitalist, the less religious..the better! In that case, you might want to use their proper names yourself. The "manura" should be the Menorah; and unless it's much more exciting than it used to be, the "nativitity scene" is a mere nativity scene (not that I wouldn't care to see nativititties on courthouse lawns all over the nation).

A saint -- Augustine -- saw him in good light, therefore the church had little to argue with... And why did Augustine admire Cicero?

As I recall, no one referred to them for many centuries before Petrarch. Much of Cicero's reputation in the Western canon derives from his philosophical writings. Whether he lived up to these ideals (even when he was not under threat of force) is a matter of some dispute. See, for example, this thread for praise, criticism, ambivalence, and downright abuse.

Am I correct to assume that you mean the persecutions and repressions COMMITTED by the Christians?

The mob that murdered Hypatia was no typical mob. Typical mobs cheer for Green to beat Blue. Only religious fanatics murder women for their mathematical ability. If you don't think that's Taliban-like, what is???

No one's arguing that the Christians burned Rome. They intolerantly drove out the pagan religion, sucked up the resources of the empire to build worthless new churches and monasteries, and much later burned heretics at the stake while they were busy reminding everyone of what holy martyrs they were, BUT they were absolutely innocent of burning Rome itself. Then how do you explain the evidence that Philhellene cited? And if the Christians were so eager to preserve higher learning, how do you explain the Christian mob that tore the philosopher Hypatia to pieces? To me, those Christians sound like carbon copies of today's Taliban.

Were there? What makes you say so?

Not "accident" but "criminal negligence", I think, is the concept you're looking for. And how fitting that Caesar and the Christians--who together more than anyone made way for the collapse of classical civilization--should have destroyed the Library as well. That it was an "accident" in both cases is even worse: the bastards didn't even know what they were doing.

Barnes and Noble currently has an amazing coffee-table style book on Pompeii for less than $25. If you're a sucker for pretty pictures (like I am) and you love Roman art (me too!), this book is simply a steal. After I quit fawning over the pictures, I might write a proper review, but in the meantime, you might want to pick up a copy.

Olympic javelins aren't weighted, but weren't pila? Not that I think any mere mortal could toss one at a 60-degree angle for 100 meters. That's from tryline to tryline on a rugby field (or about end zone to end zone on an American football field).

I wish I could write a biography of Porcia. Unfortunately, there isn't enough known about her from the Romans, and Shakespeare isn't a legitimate primary source!

I think the author makes some important points. Initially, I was going to respond angrily to Clodius that American troops are stationed in many locations around the globe only because they were invited by governments that faced an external threat. For example, US troops were requested by Saudi Arabia because they feared that they could not repulse an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who had just invaded Kuwait and was lobbing missiles at Israel. But, as the author argues, isn't this exactly how the Romans got involved in the Punic Wars--by good intentions blowing up in their face? And how many Saudis really do bristle (or worse) at the fact that they have no say in their government (being another crooked monarchy), resent their invitations to foreign superpowers, and hate the superpowers by proxy? Or, to consider another Rome/America parallel, look at the sympathy that MacArthur had when he defied Truman. How close were we to being invaded by an American Caesar? (Thankfully, not close enough.) On the other hand, one could make a very good case that the US fear of imperialism is just as destructive as its susceptibility to get involved where it shouldn't. Perhaps (perhaps) had the US been more hegemonic it might have saved Eastern Europe from Soviet oppression. This is the dilemma: how to protect the republic from gathering foreign menaces, while not extending that power so broadly that it undoes the very republic that is being protected?

Bars are privately owned, and thus the owners have the right to set whatever policies they want for their own private property. If bar owners wish to prohibit smoking, set aside separate sections for smoking, or even have smoking in their whole establishment, that's their right as owners--every bit as much as whom they choose to play music, what beers they want to serve, and (gasp) even whether they want to serve fries that have touched a trans fat. Bar owners no more forfeit their rights by allowing others to visit their property than you forfeit your rights by allowing people to visit your property.