Antony, Dolabella, Cassius, Brutus

[M. Porcius Cato]

the two men you cite, Drusus and M Porcius Cato were, in my view at least, mavericks an failures. One was murdered, the other killed himself in ignominy.

 

That was my whole point--they took politically suicidal positions because they believed in the principles at stake. They weren't 'mavericks" just for the sake being weird--they believed in an unpopular position and they fought for it at (ultimately) their own peril. In any case, this is a digression.

[phil25]

But they were, clearly, exceptions and seen as such in their own day - hence they surely "prove the rule": in large measure, sustained consistent principle or philosophy was absent from Roman politics.

 

I think Roman politicians could come together, or seek to sustain a "programme" - land reform, resettling veterans etc; and I think they perceived these as inheritable in some degree (ie - my father, grandfather etc had this programme, so now its my job to take it forward).

 

One of the things that Goldsworthy's new biography of Caesar doesn't answer for me is when (if ever) he began to see himself as someone who had to change things.

 

His initial goal was, I think, no more than that shared by his peers - to gain relevant magistracies in "his year". He sought attention, did things that won him notoreity. But I have a feeling about Caesar that he did have a "principle" that he pursued - ironically you might disagree strongly with me on that Cato(!) - and a feeling he could change things even before the civil war. But the sources, to me, equally allow us to argue he was always self-serving, a man of the moment. Not that that would have been considered a failing, or immoral in his time.

 

Phil