M. Porcius Cato

Also, the ages of Cicero, Caesar, and Cato are all wrong. Cato is depicted as being older than Caesar, who looks older than Cicero. In fact, Cicero was older than Caesar, who was older than Cato. I also remain mystified why they failed to mention the family connections between Cato, Servilia, and Brutus. As Servilia's oldest male family member, Cato had control over whether Servilia could marry Caesar, which I suspect annoyed Caesar and Servilia a great deal.

On the Back-to-the-Future premise that changing one's own history can be hazardous to one's existence, I'd have loved to have joined Cato in watching the prosecution of Verres. That was a great day for the republic. If I were to ignore the Back-to-the-Future premise, then I'd go straight to Bibulus to warn him of Caesar's crossing at Brundisium, and then I'd try to convince Labienus to deploy his cavlary in squadrons rather than en masse. The whole civil war could have ended quickly had Caesar been intercepted off Brundisium or had Labienus' cavalry not been so ill-organized in their attack. A quick end to that civil war could have given the republic the time it needed to begin the hard work of reforming the system.

Yes, my point was that Cicero's defense of Murena was unprincipled self-promotion. (His argument in the case was also intolerably illogical and condescending.) However, I think this is just one side of Cicero--while he could be an unprincipled pragmatist one minute, he could be a brave and true patriot in the next. I don't think one side was Cicero's "true" side--he was simply a man of contradictions.

I didn't miss your point; I was consciously avoiding that particular implication of yours so that this thread could be devoted to Cicero. You know my opinion of that ... [biting tongue hard]

The renowned Robert Fagles has finally released his translation of the Aeneid. Ten years in the making, this Aeneid reportedly is more free-flowing but literal than previous translations. Write-up in the Grey Lady. Also, Amazon is offering an unabridged audio version of the Fagles version of the Aeneid. Having listened to the Iliad and Odyssey on tape, I'm looking forward to hearing the spoken version of, "I sing of arms and a man..."

I confess to loving caldrail's suggestion as well. Though the exercise might not acheive its intended aim (to discover the greatest emperor), it could be an educational exercise--if only the rating criteria were more explicit and more detailed. For example, what is the best way to measure "Prosperity"? What about "internal order"? For example, should the goons unleashed by Sejanus be marked as a point for or against "internal order"? What about executing Christians? Etc. Without a very good checklist, the task doesn't even hope to be educational. With a good checklist, at least the ensuing debate might shed some light with the heat.

So refreshing, WW, to hear a defense of principles over compromise. I'd just like to add, in defense of Cicero, that he was uncompromising in his prosecution of Verres, of Catiline, and of Antony--scoundrels all. Had Cicero shown the same attitude towards such dark grey figures as Murena, Milo, and all their ilk, the republic would have been far better off--as only Cato and Cicero would have been remaining!

A peripatetic ruler?

Having spat on the ruins of the temple to that "bald whoremonger" Caesar, I'm obviously of the opposite opinion about Cicero. I wonder what it is about Cicero you find so abhorrent? Was it his prosecution of Verres--that you'd prefer filchers and murderers to act with impugnity? Or was it his campaign against Catiline--that you'd prefer traitors and brigands to have their putsches whenever they like? Perhaps it was Phillipics that set your teeth on edge--that you'd prefer a drunk and a thug like Antony as your dictator du jour? Then I'm sure you exult in the knowledge that justice was finally delivered to Caesar? Funny, you never mentioned your punching his portrait in the nose.

Happy birthday Moonlapse! Hope you have a great one.

Dante's "master of them that know" is my favorite ancient philosopher. Here's the bust that was found:

Salaries should not be equal because (1) the value added by each worker is not equal and (2) the abilities of critical functions are not equally common. If a critical skill set for a corporation can only be found in 1 of 2 million workers, it's fair for corporations to compete for those rare skill sets. What other mechanism for attracting rare skill sets to corporations could be more fair? The secular trend you cite also doesn't address fairness. If education goes down the toilet (which it has been since the 60s), it becomes more and more difficult to find people who can run a company, and thus the value of CEOs increases over time. I agree with Moonlapse that the rotten state of public education is an important place to look for increasing the competitiveness of the American labor market. Additionally, I'd have a policy that puts anyone with a degree from US universities (which are the best in the world) on a fast track to citizenship (if they want it). This policy would also help to increase the size of the middle class. In my opinion, no one possesses some metaphysical right to join the middle class simply because they are white Americans. If Americans won't work hard to compete, they don't deserve to be in the middle class. What do you think venture capitalists do for a living??????

Were any previous codifications of basic law drawn up by an elected committee and then ratified by a voting assembly of the people? To my knowledge, all previous codes of law (e.g., that of Hammurabi and also I think those of Solon) had been devised by authors and imposed on the people without their consent. In contrast at least the first ten of the Twelve Tables had been approved by the full assembly of the Roman people in the Comitia Centuriata. The Romans were actually quite proud of the Twelve Tables. Cicero (De Oratore, 1.44) famously commented on them

Completely off-topic editorializing. Simplistic nonsense too--as if mankind lived in a peaceful Eden before private property and money (ha!) and as if racism, fear, and ignorance play no role in human motivation (if only).

The most importance evidence is Caesar's own claim to have killed a million Gauls. Normally, this is dismissed, but if we recognize that Caesar may have been including ALL those killed in the war, not just those killed in battle, then the claim makes much more sense. Very good point.

If the charges were wrong, then in what way was the Bacchant cult outside the traditions of normative religion? Isn't it possible that the normally tolerant Romans truly acted intolerantly in a few cases? I do agree that the Romans were tolerant about religion--certainly more tolerant than the Christians of the middle ages--but I don't see that admirable tolerance on display with respect to the Bacchants. It looks to me like a case of anti-Hellenic reactionary fervor, which would also explain the contemporaneous expulsion of philosophers from the city.

Does anyone really believe these absurd charges against the Bacchants? The charges--like those against the Christians or like those of the Christians against the pagans many centuries later--are so transparently inflammatory and vague that I can't believe they have any merit. This is typical in-group/out-group political posturing.

With all due respect, these points seem irrelevant to the matter at hand. First, the worst epidemics in history---the Great Influenza epidemic of 1918, the Black Death, and AIDS--were spread among groups with considerable contact with one another historically. Thus, contact provides no absolute immunity, even to the worst killers. The point of the New World example is not that it models the relative level of contact between invaders/invaded, nor that it provides a perfect model for the number of potential non-combatant deaths, but instead that it illustrates the concept of asymmetrical immunity. I'm sure you would agree that the immunity of the Belgae to the Romans was less than that of the Romans to the Romans. It's simply the asymmetry that is needed to explain how, for example, it would be possible for Romans to spread diseases in Gaul from which the Romans themselves did not suffer in such numbers. Second, asymmetrical immunity is not the only cause of differences in susceptibility to disease and overall non-combat deaths. An army--unlike a village under seige--can break camp, leaving its latrines and waste (and pathogens!) behind them. An army--unlike a village under seige--can find new sources of water and replenish their food supplies (not that Caesar was any good at that), thereby maintaining their immunity over time. An army--unlike refugees from battles--has the luxury of choosing the grounds where to camp; refugees are left to camp in the places no other man would do so, including low lying areas that are likely to contain higher concentrations of malarial mosquitos and sundry pathogens. Thus, even if there was not an asymmetrical immunity, there were many other reasons that the Gauls would have faced a greater risk of disease than did the Romans.

Yes, he has an awful lot to answer for. So true.

As much as I'd hate to dispute Elliot Ness, I can't stand Kevin Costner, so here goes: he actual penalty described is slightly more mild than the real penalty, which involved being sewn up with three wild animals. Best I recall, one of Cicero's clients was facing this penalty (which was for parricide, not bribery), and though Cicero got the client off, the client returned the favor by fingering Cicero to that brutal thug Antony who had Cicero killed. Allegedly, Cicero had jested that the acquittal he acheived for his client was a blessing for the wild beasts...

LOL--that's what I was going to say! It's pure HG Wells.

So, malaria, one of the plagues, sundry parasites, and trichonosis could have led to greater cohort morbidity in Caesar's Gaul. Of these, there is archaeological evidence of malarial deaths in Rome and testimonia (from Sidonius Apollinaris) attesting to a malaria-like 'pestilence' in Gaul. Both are mentioned in this interesting NYT article from 1994. Though I do wonder whether an outbreak of malaria would have gone unreported by Caesar--presumably he would have taken precautions against his men contracting any pestilences known to afflict the enemy. What about animal borne diseases? If you have to flee your village with your livestock, you might find yourself sharing a bed in the forest with a sheep in order to keep warm. (Russian serfs often shared their homes with their livestock.) What about tuberculosis? Cases of tuberculosis have been reported as early as the 2nd century, and in medieval Lithuania, nearly 25% of the population were infected with it. If one-quarter of the Gauls had tuberculosis too (a big if), that alone could readily explain Caesar's high causalty estimates.

Inspired by Virgil's suggestion, I contacted an expert on the Roman republic about my theory. He thought the possibility posed "a very difficult question". On the one hand, early modern and modern wars (e.g., the Thirty Years War ) have led to many, many deaths, and in some cases, deaths due to disease and famine surpassed what could be attributed to actual combat. On the other hand (and it turns out there are many other hands!), there are some factors I hadn't considered. First, many of the big killers--like typus, cholera, or plague--didn't emerge in Europe before late antiquity (so far as we can tell--Pertinax??). Second, the historian David Henige has been busy debunking claims regarding the numbers of dead caused by the diseases spread by Europeans in the New World, and he also addresses issues regarding the numbers of dead reported in our ancient sources. These two factors are important issues to consider in trying to actually quantify the number of potential deaths caused by war but not combat. So, while the number of war dead could have been quite close to what Caesar claimed or even higher, it isn't certain by any means. If only we knew what communicable diseases were present in antiquity, it would help us enormously.

So if we abide by this hypothesis, the Spanish population must have been decimated upon their initial contact with the Carthaginians. First, there is no sense in oversimplifying biology. The impact of the Carthaginian presence in Spain would be a function of the number of foreign troops fighting there, the time they spent in contact with the Spanish, and how isolated the Spanish were with whom they had contact. Whether the Spanish population would have been 'decimated' (i.e., reduced by 1/10 th), centimated or merely millimated would depend on these factors. Without knowledge of these factors, it's impossible to predict how many Spanish would be expected to be killed by the spread of disease alone. Second, there is no sense in oversimplifying my theory. My claim is that Caesar is likely to have underestimated the number of Gauls he killed if he didn't reckon with the number killed by disease and famine. My claim is NOT--can you please read this FC??--that any contact between two groups leads to one of the groups being wiped out. There is no reason to expect a "great depopulation" when provicial auxiliaries, for example, are garrisoned far away from the locals, with hardly any long-term close contact, and no disruption to the normal harvest. In contrast, if you circumvallate an enemy fortification for a long period of time, you're putting large foreign bodies in close contact and raising the number of disease vectors. If, in addition to this, you also cut off the enemy supply of food and water, you are clearly engaged in a kind of biological warfare--you are trying to lower the enemy's defenses WITHIN the walls by lowering the defenses of the enemy body itself. Under these circumstances, it shouldn't be hard to imagine that the rate of infection from minor injuries, and the spread of common colds, typhoid, cholera, or any of those "diseases of filth" would have been likely, and that many of those who died from these causes would have been rightly described by Caesar as among his killings. And he probably didn't count them all because those who left with their lives later died prematurely or spread the diseases when they returned home.