M. Porcius Cato

The best modern source on the topic, IMO, is Chapter 8 "Clientela" in Brunt's Fall of the Roman Republic. He goes over the evidence with a fine-tooth comb and comes to the conclusion that the system did not play a key role in politics. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative--just because there is no evidence that the client system played a key role in politics doesn't mean that it didn't happen. But the onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. On the basis of this logical principle, then, I personally don't believe the Gelzer story.

It's interesting to note how the two spy agencies--the NKVD and CIA--erred in such different ways. Under Stalin, agents who returned from the West claiming that it wasn't a land of starving masses ready to revolt against their capitalist masters were executed, leading the Soviets to consistently underestimate the state of the West. In contrast, the CIA (as your anecdote illustrates) routinely overestimated the capacities of the Soviets, leading us to arm ourselves to the teeth against a mirage. I take the lesson to be that the Soviet ideology led them to their errors. What can we say of the American errors in the opposite direction? My hunch is that it was the same thing that led Nixon to be so tongue-tied in the "kitchen debate," an unjustified but sneaking suspicion that the Soviet system really was all that they claimed it to be.

I'm happy to concede that the Russians killed a large number of Nazis, and I'd not underestimate the resolve of the Russian people to survive--not on behalf of Stalin but in spite of him. In that, all your points are well-taken, Virgil. My original point was that the Soviet empire has been made out to be some great superpower and rival of the West, like some Carthage to our (NATO) Rome. This is the point I wish to dispute, not whether the Red Army did a fine job of standing up to the Nazis. The view that the Soviets were a real superpower did much to cower Eastern Europe, much to inspire would-be totalitarians around the world, much to justify a seemingly unnecessary nuclear arms race that continues to have repercussions, and much to justify atavistic movements in Russia today. Had the strength of the Soviet system been more accurately gauged (i.e., as a leech on the West), a very different policy toward the Soviets would have been clear, as would be the proper place of the Soviets in the dustbin of history.

Reportedly street posters in NYC have announced that the new season will begin Jan 2007, but I don't think it's been announced when in Jan we're supposed to cancel all our plans to witness the big event.

Whether Caesar knew about the conspiracy itself--rather than just a vague threat--is not settled fact. Caesar certainly knew how much he was hated, remarking "Can I doubt but that I am profoundly hated, when a Cicero sits and cannot meet me at his ease? But if anyone is easy, he is the man. Still, I have no doubt but that he hates me bitterly." And he hinted at expecting someone to murder him, remarking at Lepidus' dinner party shortly before the Liberation, "Better to die once for all than always to expect." Nor is it established fact whether the assassins ran from the Theatre of Pompey (not the Senate house) immediately afterwards. According to sources, the Liberators spent some time after disposing of Caesar to announce "Sic semper tyrannis", to hail Cicero, and to announce their intention to restore the republic. Indeed, how they could do all this on foot is beyond me. BTW, the ancient source who seems most reliable on the details of the tyrannicide was Nicolaus of Damascus, who was the nearest to events.

Yes and no. On the one hand, you're right that the war was caused by the unwillingness of the Roman mob to share power with their Italian allies. On the other hand, many Romans had supported civil rights for Italians for many years prior to the outbreak of civil war. Indeed, the most proximate cause of the war was the murder of Cato's uncle Livius Drusus, who was a major sponsor of the Marsic faction that was behind the Social War (sometims also called the Marsic War). Most imporantly, the republic DID show itself able to change. The war was ended almost with the stroke of a pen, when the franchise was voted to be extended to the Italians. To my mind, this shows that the consittution was adaptable to the needs of the day. I'd also point out that the democratic solution to the problem of provinical administration was sitting right under the Romans' noses. The Macedonians had already worked out a situation whereby local leaders were chosen in their home districts and traveled to have their votes counted. The Roman assemblies were already reforming in this direction after the Social War (thus, Caesar's political campaigning in Cisalpine Gaul during breaks in his little adventures northward), and it's reasonable to infer that peace and a little agitation could have made the system of provinicial voting still more practical. And if the Romans of the republic were anything, it was practical.

Am I correct that there are three from PA (Ursus, Lost Warrior, and CiceroD), two from OH (Spurius and myself), one from Michigan (PP), one from NYC (Clodius), and a couple from Chicago (FVC and somebody who will probably hate me for forgetting him/her)? Who else is east of the Miss with a desire and means to travel? From those I mentioned, it would seem like Pittsburgh would be within easy driving distance for at least 5 members.

Yes, the Germans failed to defeat the Soviets, but is that testimony to Soviet strength, Nazi incompetence, or both? When Stalin invaded tiny Finland immediately after the outbreak of WWII, the Soviets had an overwhelming advantage in manpower (4:1), tanks (100:1), and aircraft (30:1), yet Finland's losses were ultimately fairly minor--even after the Soviets again invaded in 1944, when it then had a four million man army and had benefitted for years from lend-lease. While receiving no such aid themselvs, the Finns successfully resisted Soviet aggression throughout this period, and democratic Finland endured and maintained its independent govenment. I mention this episode because it nicely illustrates my original point: the Soviets were not an unstoppable superpower; they acquired and maintained almost their entire empire due to Western support. The flailing Soviet government was initially saved thanks to food shipments by Hoover and other Western nations prior to WWII, then by Roosevelt's lend-lease during WWII, then by the oil capacity built by Armand Hammer after WWII, plus automobile factories set up by American Henry Ford, hydroelectric dams built by American Hugh Cooper, steel companies by American Arthur McKee, ball bearing factories by the Swedes, etc. Some of these developments are worth mentioning in particular because I personally saw them included in the Pavillion of Soviet Economic Achievement in 1987 Moscow, with no mention of their Western sources. Indeed, today one still hears the myth that Stalin's communist policies successfully industrialized Russia, with no mention of just how much of its industrial capacity was a free gift from the West. And that's to say nothing of how much of Eastern Europe they ripped up and brought back with them to starving, poor, backward communist Russia. No matter how well the Soviets (and, let's face it, the winter) put a stop to Operation Barbarossa, to the extent that the Soviets managed to appear a real threat to the democratic West, it was BECAUSE of the democratic West. In my view, author Werner Keller put it best in the title of his book, East Minus West Equals Zero.

It's a bit hard to discuss Roman art without the images and background information handy. Presumably we all have the Kritios boy and Prima Porta Augustus emblazened in our brain, but how many could even name all the women of the Republican period whose portraits survived? Perhaps, Augusta, you'd care to craft a series of links to get the conversation rolling?

I agree. There was a saying in Weimar Germany that the followers of Hitler were like a beefsteak--brown on the outside, red on the inside. And many of the former Communist stooges in Russia (such as Zhirinovsky) have proven that the inverse proposition is probably also correct.

Yes, I realize there are neo-Nazis, but they have a very different place in society. In my comment above, I meant no one among Western liberals (nor intellectuals nor polite society nor even anyone with two neurons to rub together) support Nazis today, whereas I have walked into the homes of faculty members who have Soviet posters hanging in their living rooms. Or: though a Joseph Goebbels t-shirt would invite near universal social ostracism, a Che t-shirt is still considered totally acceptable to wear. Do you not think, Augusta, that this represents a double-standard?

I'll never hear "Adeste fidelis" quite the same way again.

In contrast, I'd say that the "struggle of the orders" was a period of continual reform for greater openness and inclusiveness and that it did not end until the lex Titia.

I don't have a problem with our setting two devils against one another, as was done with Stalin and Hitler. My concern is that Stalin was portrayed as a benevolent "Uncle Joe" during the war and that significant (though clearly not universal) Western support and friendship was extended to the Soviets between 1945 and 1990. Today, you can still walk into some Western liberals' houses and see Soviet posters and hear apologetics for the Soviet regime, whereas no one would even consider hanging Nazi posters or apologizing for the Third Reich. This double standard is simply appalling, and it is sympomatic of the support that the West provided for the Soviet empire, which was far bloodier and just as evil as the Nazis.

You're exaggerating the dangers to the tribunes immensely. Between 133 BC and 44 BC, around 890 tribunes served the republic and fewer than 5 were assassinated. That's a survival rate of about 99.5%. In contrast, around 50% of emperors were deposed violently, either due to murder, suicide, or civil war. So, being a tribune during the republic was roughly ONE HUNDRED TIMES safer than being an emperor. IMO, that's a pretty immense discrepancy to gloss over.

Bill O'Reilly is a stupid wind-bag. The biggest clue here is that the guy doesn't provide even a fragment of evidence for his claim about Rome.

Let me make sure I understand your argument. You're saying that even if Rome had managed to avoid civil war and had adopted the reforms of provincial administration initiated by Augustus, Roman society would still have faced the challenge of Christianity, the economic consequences of its "bread and circuses" policy, and a massive migration by Germanic tribes. Sounds right to me, but if the previous history of the republic is to be our guide, I don't see why Rome couldn't have successfully overcome these challenges. The republic had defeated the Cimbri and Teutones before, so why shouldn't they have successfully resisted the next wave of Germanic 'migrants'? Its also certainly true that the free bread and entertainment in Rome had the effect of sucking off productive farm labor from the countryside, and the rise of monasticism had the effect of draining capital from productive enterprises into completely non-productive ones, but each of these problems could have been dealt with as they had during the republic. First, the underemployed in Rome normally jumped at the opportunity to settle in new colonies (such as those proposed by Gracchus), which was the traditional mechanism for restoring equilibrium to the labor market (e.g., among the Greeks). Second, the state support of the pagan religions wasn't cost free either, and as long as the state support of religion was made a zero-sum game, the negative economic consequences of Christianity could have been contained. But I agree that Rome would have had major challenges ahead of it even had the republic been preserved.

The original question is whether the Roman system could have lasted longer had an emperor not been installed. Meeting that simple criterion leaves open any number of alternative, non-imperial systems, including ones that would have been more inclusive (though whether that would have actually helped is open to debate). As stated, the question is really whether the imperial system was the perfect system--or whether a system that had no emperor could have worked better. Are the No-voters really arguing that an imperial system is the BEST POSSIBLE system? And--if you have criticisms of the system prior to the republic--how does having an emperor improve anything? If "anything top-heavy is bound to tip over" (an arbitrary and ill-defined premise, but let's go with it), wouldn't that make an imperial system even MORE likely to "tip over"? What could be more "top-heavy" than the imperial system? Or--to speak in English rather than metaphors--if an oligarchy is unstable, how is a monarchy more stable? (Not that I grant that the republic was an oligarchy--that's just populist rubbish.) Also, CiceroD--You speak of the Gracchi as if opposition to their plans were based only on tradition, and then you infer that all reforms were interpreted as an attack on the state. You do realize that there was continuous reform of the system from the founding of the republic right up to Caesar's putsch, don't you? Just consider the reforms since the Twelve Tables, when a hereditary class (patricians) held a monopoly on power and refused to allow even intermarriage with the plebs. Since that time, the marriage laws were overturned, all the magistracies on the cursus honorum were opened to the plebs (while the plebs kept certain offices closed to the patricians), all the religious colleges were opened to the plebs, the leading citizens of Rome were soon dominated by plebs (the so-called 'noble plebs'), and the one purely plebeian office had full veto power and sacrosanctity. Now if that isn't reform, what is???

I do.

What would you consider a good evidence for numeracy, Ruthe? Wouldn't the monetary system itself be good evidence for widespread (if very basic) numeracy?

Why not take a poll on the issue, Ursus?

It'd be more funny if there weren't so many people who believe this sort of thing (like my new senator Sherrod Brown). Alas, economic illiteracy is rampant.

He also injured his hand punching one of em in the face causing him to botch his suicide. The slave stole Cato's sword when Cato was in a hurry to kill himself. Whether he'd been a slave or not is irrelevant.

That's a good point--farm slaves (such as those on the farm of my namesake's great-grandfather) were treated like cattle. I don't want to whitewash the Roman practice of slavery; I just want to point out that some slaves were treated better than cattle (e.g., my namesake--presumably unlike his great-grandfather--freed his slaves upon his death, but he probably wouldn't have let any cattle he had roam the countryside in freedom).

But how does one determine a priori what a "critical mass" is? If I said, "No, the critical mass occurred 100 years earlier and no private armies developed," what would you say? You might say, "No, the critical mass didn't occur earlier because there were no private armies earlier," but clearly that would be a circular argument. So if the "critical mass" argument is going to save the idea that the Hannibalic War led to the downfall of the republic, we need a more precise definition of "critical mass".