M. Porcius Cato

For reasons that I've discussed ad nauseum elsewhere (see, for example, the threads on "Caesar's Crimes" and the "Gallic Wars" in the Republic subfora), I agree with Matyszak's assessment of Caesar's Gallic adventures, and I'd prefer not to rehash them here. With respect to this debate more generally, Goldsworthy had an interesting comment, "It is striking that while today academics are supposed to be trained to examine the past dispassionately, it is very rare to meet an ancient historian who does not have a strong opinion about Caesar. In the past some have admired, even idolized, him, seeing him as a visionary who perceived he huge problems facing the Republic and realised how to solve them. Others are far more critical and view him merely as another aristocrat with very traditional ambitions who scrambled to the top regardless of the cost to law and precedent, but then had no clear idea of what to do with his power. ... Opinion remains fiercely divided and it is unlikely that this will ever change." Had Matyszak's book been about Caesar rather than a general overview, of course you'd be right that he should have surveyed reasons behind both positions before offering his own evaluation. But in a general overview of 57 different leaders, a survey of this broad spectrum of opinion was simply impossible, so the author went with his own conclusions. All I can say is that's the price you pay for brevity--if you want more depth, you can visit UNRV.

Ave Cato! I haven't read Imperium yet. What's the basic thesis?

I really can't see why the book was written. After so many decent books about Caesar, one might expect that a new book appeared either because it had made use of evidence that had previously been neglected (it doesn't), or because it offered a new viewpoint (it provides a sometimes generous but otherwise middle-of-the-road interpretation of Caesar's motives) or perhaps a novel perspective (it's perspective is the standard "great man in context" approach taken by all contemporary biographies), or even because the author has a superlative sense of drama and keen eye for detail (but Goldsworthy is no Tom Holland). My overall impression is that the work is an unoriginal but bascially competent explication of Caesar's life. I think there are much more interesting works on Caesar and his times, but if you want a new and long book--Goldsworthy has written the perfect book for you. It is indeed both new and long.

And one best discussed in the Republic subforum rather than the HBO one, no?

I basically agree with your explanation because it accounts for the most salient fact that has to be explained--that the empire fell at different points in time in different locations (depending entirely on where the barbarians were invading). No internal conflict theory can account for this fact. That said, Rome had defeated far more formidable enemies in the past, and when defeated in the past (e.g., by the Gauls or by Hannibal), Rome recovered. Why don't you think Rome recovered from its final defeats? The loss of patriotism and the old Roman spirit? The lousy economy? The apocalyptic beliefs spread by Christians? Something else?

Given that it takes at least two sides to fight a civil war, quite obviously there were many who DID defend the republic--not only against Caesar but also against Octavian and Antony. Do you not recall the forces assembled at Pharsalus? Or Utica? Did you forget that the combatants at Phillipi involved more Roman forces than had ever met on a field of battle? To claim that no one defended the republic--I don't even know what to say.

Modern technology can't build a slanted pyramid with no steps????? Behold--one in Memphis, Tennessee, another in Las Vegas, still another in Paris, then there's the one in Salt Lake City, and yet another in Long Beach, California. Five counter-examples in about five minutes through Google. Please, check your facts BEFORE you post.

The Second Punic war ended in 200 BC, Tiberius Gracchus was born in 163 BC. That's about three or more generations of Romans, seeing as how they married quite younger than 20 years of age very often, especially in the rural areas. "Punic baby-boomers" is simply a short hand for the concept representing all the babies born of the generations involved in the Punic Wars (all three). Even the modern term "baby-boomer" doesn't correspond only to those born in 1946, but to a range of years.

But that's the premise that I think needs to be questioned very strongly. The discontent that Gracchus cites is testimony to the problem of too little land for so many people. This real problem could have been caused either by a reduction of available farm land with a constant population or a constant supply of available farm land for an increasing population. The widespread evidence of smallholdings from this period with a constant number of the type of villas and large-scale farming goods you would find on latifundia supports the latter hypothesis. Still further support comes from studies of demographics which find population booms following the cessation of war, and the fact that the Gracchan agitation occurred precisely when the Punic baby-boomers would have been coming of age and demanding a place in the world is still further support for the hypothesis. In my opinion, the holders of latifundia were being scapegoated in exactly the same way that the cossacks were scapegoated for Stalin's land-distribution scheme and the way the white farmers of Zimbabwe were scapegoated for Mugabe's land-distribution scheme. The only way to justify these three land redistributions was to claim that the initial landholdings were unfair (whether they were in actuality or not), and that's exactly the political game that the Gracchi played (whether by an honestly mistaken reading of the situation in the countryside or by a cynical political calculus--it isn't clear).

They were murdered. For a full discussion, see the article: Gray-Fow, M. J. G. (1990). The mental breakdown of a Roman senator: M. Calpurnius Bibulus. Greece & Rome, 37, 179-190. If you'd like a copy, send me a PM or download from JSTOR.

Lots of civilizations have built pyramids. From the standpoint of structural engineering, they're not that imaginative. A colossal statue whose legs spanned the harbor (so it has been described) is an engineering marvel. That's the reason I voted for the colossus against the pyramids.

I agree with Primus regarding the unanimity of ancient sources regarding the location of Cato's death. I'd also add that none of them hint that he died in a privy. He seems to have retired to his bedroom before retiring (so to speak).

An elegant hypothesis, WotWotius, but I respectfully disagree with its two basic premises. First, the archaeological evidence for small farms is quite robust during the period of their alleged decline, and there is no evidence for a concomitant rise in the prevalence of latifundia. Smallholdings and villas existed side-by-side; the latter did not wipe out the former. I grant that T Gracchus claims that the latifundia wiped out the small estates based on his one foray through Italy, but it's impossible for him to discern a trend from only one data point--an infinity of trends are consistent with only one data point: as far as he knows, the latifundia he witnessed in Italy had DECLINED from where they had been at an earlier time, OR (more likely) the latifundia did not increase or decrease but the countryside instead became overpopulated by the progeny of soldiers returning from war and breeding like little bunnies. Second, a large influx of slaves from foreign wars only means a permanent change in the labor pool if the slaves manage to survive. That, however, is a big if. The average lifespan of slaves on the farms was very short--only about two working years by one estimate I read. Thus, even if the Romans had imported a large number of slaves, they wouldn't have been accumulating quickly enough to support a permanent replacement force. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of slaves working beside free men throughout the period in which the slaves are supposed to be replacing the free labor workforce. There, again, is evidence against the notion that the countryside was being deprived of free labor. Finally, recall that immediately after the Punic Wars, there was legislation afoot requiring men to marry to replace all the dead from the wars--if anything, there was initially an insufficient number of workers, not a surplus of unemployed. Looking ahead to the time of Marius, the roles of the proletarii (who weren't even unemployed, just poor) only amounted to about 10% of Rome's population, which again isn't consistent with the notion of teeming hordes of the unemployed hanging around Rome due to their latifundia-caused life of landless restlessness. I realize that a case can be made for your point of view from some of our written sources, but the physical evidence that exists is also consistent with another point of view that exists in the testimonia. When the physical evidence favors one set of claims in the written literature over another, I think that's the one that we should go with--don't you? Again, for detailed empirical support on these matters, see Rome at War: Farms, Family, and Death by Nathan Rosenstein.

Just having some fun Ursus. Surely if people can seriously debate the veracity of Revelations we can place bets on the price of gasoline.

Without a doubt Caesar was one of the most influential men in history. Surely no one doubts his importance as an historical figure. His legacy was civil war and monarchy where there had been peace and a republic.

I basically agree with Gruen's theory, and I point to Caesar as the necessary cause and ALMOST sufficient cause. The scale and duration of the civil wars were caused by Caesar's policies and politics, and it was Caesar who put Octavian in his position ("You boy who owe everything to a name", Antony observed bitterly). Thus, Caesar's behavior explains most of the factors that led directly to the fall, and other factors aren't necessary to explain these.

The EIA is a federal agency that (inter alia) tracks average gasoline prices. If you follow the link, you can find the methdology used to sample prices across the nation, and the figure I cited was the average of all grades of gasoline. And yes I knew that everyone was forecasting lower gasoline prices due to seasonal and supply factors, which why I knew that the political explanation for lower gasoline prices was all wet. It may be a surpise in Octoboer, but it's not an "October surprise".

This is a choral ode to Dionysus (aka Bacchus). Is it the Italia that's throwing you?

Not to divert us again, but I always wondered about Bibulus here. On the one hand, Bibulus seems to have been having a nervous breakdown or something--Bibulus had just returned from Egypt where not only had his two sons been murdered but he had also inexplicably fumbled the chance to bring the murderers to justice, the guy who had humiliated him his entire life had just slipped through his grasp, and in an inconsolable rage he burns all the empty ships returning from port, and while searching for more enemy ships, he refuses to dock his own ship for re-supplies for so long that he actually dies of fever on board ship. All that says to me that Bibulus has completely popped his top. Then, according to Caesar's account, Bibulus makes a gesture that is almost touching in its self-awareness: Caesar sends envoys to Bibulus, Bibulus knows how important the deputation is, and because he also knows how enraged he is at Caesar, Bibulus declines to meet them in person for the good of the republic. Doesn't that sound awfully mature for someone is going through a mental meltdown?

I don't think it's unworthy at all--it's perfect for the Arena, and I wish all our debates would end in opposing, verifiable predictions with a clear answer. This is high drama: we can all find out in the future whether I'm wrong or I'm right.

OK, I can respect that (though I was looking forward to a new Roman history book). Now let's agree on a source for national gasoline prices on 11/22. Can we agree to those publised by the Energy Information Administration? As of 9/18, US gasoline was selling at $2.49. If on 11/22 prices are higher, you win; if not, I win. BTW, who heats with gasoline?

Is it Plutarch who has it that Bibulus bared his neck for Caesar to strike? Or that Caesar's goons smashed the consul's fasces? I don't recall Caesar saying, "I shall kill you M. Calpurnius Bibulus," but the violence and the mobs outside Bibulus' house were surely more meaningful threats. Certainly, having a mob outside his house wasn't very safe for Livius Drusus.

FC claimed that gasoline prices were falling for some reason connected with the upcoming elections. GO claimed that "elections affect markets" (which is vague enough to mean anything). Now, if you two--GO and FC--want to claim (and maybe this wasn't your intent) that recent prices are falling due to the upcoming elections, then in logic they should rise again after the elections are over. I'm willing to bet that claim is completely wrong--it could be right, but my guess is that gasoline prices are falling due to seasonal demand and will continue to do so up to Thanksgiving at least, and I'm willing to put money on my hypothesis against the alternative one. Any takers?

Everything-including-the-kitchen-sink theories haven't anything going for them--they amount to a mere redescription of the events leading up to the fall of the republic without identifying anything in particular that is causal. Einstein said it best: explanations should be as simple as possible--and no more. I'm not claiming that Caesar is the only factor that caused the fall--I'm claiming that he was necessary and NEARLY sufficient: obviously, he needed help and co-operation from many people and a little luck too.

That's like blaming Hitler's mom for the holocaust.