Did Caesar Ultimately

[M. Porcius Cato]

Michael Parenti is a "hack"? You may not like his politics, and I suspect that 's your real beef, but calling him a hack is pure hyperbole.

 

I mean he's a political hack--i.e., a modern political partisan who fails to acknowledge the arguments from the other perspective. That's what a hack is. I don't mind that the guy has a forceful point of view--that's to be admired. Ronald Syme also had a forceful point of view (one that I happen to disagree with too) that he expressed in The Roman Revolution, one of the modern classics of Roman history and tremendously influential. The difference though between Syme's argument and Parenti's is that Syme also uncovered new facts which were brought to bear in support of his case. Thus, his book--unlike Parenti's--had a value above and beyond his political sympathies. (Purely as an aside, I should also mention that in television interviews with Parenti, he made errors that would be laughed off by this audience--e.g., referring to Pompey as Pompeii.)

 

Cato I think you're trying too hard to make the past shoehorn into a vision of the principles you think the U.S. was founded on. Unfortunately it was never the idyllic Republic the founding fathers thought it was, it was usually a far uglier affair.

 

I have no interest in turning Rome into a proxy for modern political arguments. My only interest is to understand Roman history for what it was rather than to accept uncritically the version of history offered by the victors in that political battle.

 

...(BTW, I think it's really important to purge oneself of the tendency to think of all opponents to Caesar as "for the rich" and of the populares as "for the poor"--it completely distorts clear-thinking about this period, and it contributes to cynicism about the prospects of the republic....

Perhaps not 'all' opponents to Caesar, most of them certainly. The opponents to the optimates (which I think is what you meant, not populares) weren't always strictly 'for the poor', but they tapped that deep-seated frustration with the optimates that characterized the history of the Republic since the struggle for the orders through the Gracchi and on down to this era. You can't tap frustration if it ain't there.

But you can create an impression of injustice when there is none. What do you think a demagogue is??

 

As you are undoubtedly aware - I wrote the favourable review.

I wrote an equally favorable review and he is aware. It's called baiting.

 

"Baiting" is too tendentious! I simply wanted to go on record with my disagreement, and I mean no disrespect to Germanicus or to you Virgil.

 

 

There is a hack who wrote a terrible book called "The Assassination of Julius Caesar," and his simple-minded reading of this period has been favorably reviewed here, but after reviewing more substantial works on this period written by actual classicists, I intend on subjecting that book to a hatchet job.)

 

As you are undoubtedly aware - I wrote the favourable review. I am however also aware, and made the point in the review that Parenti writes from one, biased perspective. Most of his other books give a Michael Mooreish treatment to their subjects too, and are not concerned with Ancient Rome. I have no doubt that there are other, more in depth studies of the period and events that I have yet to read, that provide different points of view.

 

As to your hatchet job, I look forward to reading it - it is what you're best at after all. (This is not a negative thing either - your posts always make me think, which is why I like this forum).

 

I actually forgot who wrote the review when I was writing my post. Also, my comment that Parenti is a hack was based on the Michael Mooreish treatment that you mention. I'm glad that my posts make you think (that's their purpose, not to argue for any Rome/US linkage as Virgil has alleged)--your posts have the same effect on me, which is why I love this forum too! I hope you didn't take offense at my strongly worded statement of disagreement with your appraisal of the book. I hope to convince you to change your mind, but I certainly don't want to imply an insult to you.

 

I'm glad I piqued your interest in other books on this period. My personal favorite is "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar" by Lily Ross Taylor, which helped to interest me in this whole topic.

 

[EDIT: fixed broken quote box]

Edited March 29, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Virgil61]

As you are undoubtedly aware - I wrote the favourable review.

I wrote an equally favorable review and he is aware. It's called baiting.

 

"Baiting" is too tendentious! I simply wanted to go on record with my disagreement, and I mean no disrespect to Germanicus or to you Virgil.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'm a bit disappointed you found little to like about the Parenti book. I don't particularly care for his politics but I think he put rather bluntly what many scholars have commented on around the edges. I also think his points, which are good ones for anyone reading history, of 'who' writes history, what their pov is and their own stake in the argument is important whether on Rome or any historical period.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm a bit disappointed you found little to like about the Parenti book. I don't particularly care for his politics but I think he put rather bluntly what many scholars have commented on around the edges. I also think his points, which are good ones for anyone reading history, of 'who' writes history, what their pov is and their own stake in the argument is important whether on Rome or any historical period.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that it is critical to know the limitations of our human sources. Unlike coint-counts or mean-height-of-cattle or what-not, our human sources of information about the Roman world (Sallust, Caesar, Cicero, and so on) have beliefs and desires of their own--some of these overlap with our own beliefs and desires, so our human sources can easily bias our representation of their world. I guess if readers of history aren't alert to this fact, and it takes someone like Parenti to remind them, good for Parenti. It's sort of hard for me to imagine that any adult reader of history should need Parenti's reminder, but (to get back on topic) I suppose some people could forget that Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, for example, were written for an audience that held Caesar's political fortunes in their hands.

[Virgil61]

...I guess if readers of history aren't alert to this fact, and it takes someone like Parenti to remind them, good for Parenti. It's sort of hard for me to imagine that any adult reader of history should need Parenti's reminder, but (to get back on topic) I suppose some people could forget that Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, for example, were written for an audience that held Caesar's political fortunes in their hands.

 

It may be hard to imagine but not only do readers need to be reminded so do historians. Readers and writers of history fall in this trap all the time, that's what the whole discipline of historiography is all about--who writes history, what's their vested interest, what's the interpretation, etc.

 

Roman history has been especially poorly serviced in this regard. Original sources are exclusively from the learned upper-class and the 17-19th century commentators and historians shared similar backgrounds, beliefs in primacy of their own class vested and so on. Add to this the issue of classicists themselves. Their training differs from that of historians whose training varies from economic to social to political and military history. Classicists tend to focus their initial training on languages and literary sources or sometimes archaeology.

 

This leads to a different sort of history by classicists, sometimes better sometimes not. Reading military histories by the current crop of classicists is a frustrating experience, they show little inclination towards military strategy or tactics, no understanding of organizational leadership and are unable to look at events with a 'soldier's eye'.

 

I digressed a bit, but Parenti, for all his faults--he can be quite irritating--challenges the basic assumptions of how we have learned Roman history from earlier writers of the last few centures and how these people like Gibbons, Mommsen, et al., have influenced our own contemporary understanding of the Rebublic. He looks at Rome from a different angle, often he's right, sometimes he's wrong, but the process is one seldom applied to ancient history (Fergus Millar is the only one who comes to mind).

[M. Porcius Cato]

when the Senate voted on a resolution that both Pompey and Caesar give up their commands and lay down their arms, the vote was 370 pro - 22 anti.

That resolution was defeated because Pompey had no damn intention of giving up his powers.

 

What are you talking about? The resolution passed--but it was vetoed. Moreover, you failed to address the larger point of the vote count. Nearly 95% of the senate was in favor of doing anything to avoid a civil war--what does this imply about Caesar's prospects upon returning to Rome with his (officially, but not practically) unarmed veterans?

 

Pompey was being completly manipulated by the Boni, and any chance for Caesar to escape unprosecuted or with some mediocum of power remaining was solidly, insanely and jealously opposed by the Boni, and yes, mainly by Cato.

Some modicum of power??? Are you joking? Who controlled the tribunes? Who controlled the tribal assembly? Who had the support of nearly 95% of the senate? Whose laws were passed? Who won every office for which he ran? Who had millions in gold and slaves? It was that darling of Venus, Caius Iulius Caesar! No power? Please.

 

Cato and the Boni forced Caesar to cross the Rubicon. They had no intention of letting him escape unprosecuted and exiled and stripped of all powers at least.

You could say the same of Verres, no? Or probably Crassus had he not had his *!@#$ handed to him by Parthia. Why should the law apply to everyone but Caesar?

 

They were doing this because Caesar demonstrated to them that he was better then them in every way; politically, militarily, intelligence wise etc. He showed the Boni to be the size they really are; he deflated the puffed-up opinions they had of themselves. Cato and the Boni of Caesar's time deserve no thanks for their "contribution" to the Republic.

Why don't you make a list of everything that the Republic needed to survive and to grow. Then create a list of all the Optimates and their achievements, and a list of all of Caesar's achievements, and match the two lists. If you have a good history book beside when you do it, you'll realize that your claim is so far-fetched as to be absurd.

[Tully]

[The republic was not completly failing at the time it simply needed modernisation and a change of senators not a dictator]

 

80 years of civil wars, civil unrest, and continued broken faith and trust in the senate and people's assembly causing prominent men on all sides to "break the laws" and pursue personal honor and survival above the needs of the state -- is this not failing?

 

I think many in the republic had lost hope that agreements between the orders could be maintained. Ceasar was merely yet another symptom of a more troubling cause: the inability of the orders to establish a mechanism for managing internal conflict without arms. Ceasar for all his genius had no real solution. Cicero, for all his genius and insight into governance, proposed solutions that were unworkable. It took Augustus some time 20 years later to find a solution.

[phil25]

[The republic was not completly failing at the time it simply needed modernisation and a change of senators not a dictator]

 

80 years of civil wars, civil unrest, and continued broken faith and trust in the senate and people's assembly causing prominent men on all sides to "break the laws" and pursue personal honor and survival above the needs of the state -- is this not failing?

 

I think many in the republic had lost hope that agreements between the orders could be maintained. Ceasar was merely yet another symptom of a more troubling cause: the inability of the orders to establish a mechanism for managing internal conflict without arms. Ceasar for all his genius had no real solution. Cicero, for all his genius and insight into governance, proposed solutions that were unworkable. It took Augustus some time 20 years later to find a solution.

 

The republic had been failing since Marius' time.

 

Had the system been healthy it would NEVER have allowed Marius six consulships, let alone so close together.

 

The Sullan response was inevitable, and the republic died in the welter of blood that ensued from both Marian and Sullan proscriptions.

 

That the constitition was terminally sick was further demonstrated by it's treatment of Pompeius Magnus - especially the consulship without having experienced the earlier steps of the cursus. The nature of the sickness was illustrated by Pomeius' activities -a government designed to rule a city was no longer capable of governing an empire of the size of that augmented by Pompeius.

 

In that context, Caesar, the Liberators, Antony and Cleopatra and Octavian/Augustus were simply experiments in designing new systems of government - that experimentation went on under Tiberius and Gaius Caligula, but it was Augustus who found the recipe - the later efforts were modifications to his constitution (though Gaius might have had a more radical and farsighted vision).

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

80 years of civil wars, civil unrest, and continued broken faith and trust in the senate and people's assembly causing prominent men on all sides to "break the laws" and pursue personal honor and survival above the needs of the state -- is this not failing?

 

I truly wonder what events *wouldn't* fall under a category that is as inclusive as "civil wars, civil unrest, and continued broken faith and trust in the senate and people's assembly". The "80 years" is completely superfluous, and you could just as well make it 8, 80, 800, or 8000 years given how nebulous your category is.

 

a government designed to rule a city was no longer capable of governing an empire of the size of that augmented by Pompeius.

 

Why not? And why do you offer claims without even an attempt at support?

[Tobias]

What are you talking about? The resolution passed--but it was vetoed. Moreover, you failed to address the larger point of the vote count. Nearly 95% of the senate was in favor of doing anything to avoid a civil war--what does this imply about Caesar's prospects upon returning to Rome with his (officially, but not practically) unarmed veterans?

 

Excuse my ill wording. At the time, i was a little miffed at your argument. What i meant by defeated was that it did not come to fruition. By the way old lad, i seem to recall an instance when Caesar offered to relinquish all his gallic provinces and six of his legions, provided that he be allowed to keep Illyricum and two legions, and allow him to stand for the next consulship in absentia. Gaius Marcellus Major and the two counsels-elect (members of which political group?) had no intention of putting it to vote (although, to be fair, at the time i believe there were barely enough Senators to form a quorum.) But with the Marcelli (Optimates), as consuls, the senate was bullied and controlled by the Boni.

And while we're on Caesar's lawlessness, i recall an incedent in the Senate when a chap named Mark Antony vetoed the passing of a Senatus Consultum Ultimum and (albeit rather violently) argued his case against it, Lentulus Crus ordered the lictors to remove him from the Senate. Given, he was acting on Caesar's behalf. But it has to be said that it was not the most lawful thing to do to expell a man from the Senate because he was trying to prevent the senate from relinquishing it's power to veto the Optimates.

 

Some modicum of power??? Are you joking?

 

Very well worded there old lad, especially when you know damn well what i meant. I meant that the Boni did not want Caesar to escape, whether he controlled all that you mentioned, or had next to no power at all. Please read my wording better, as i myself admit that when i wrote the former post, i wasn't typing particularly well.

 

You could say the same of Verres, no? Or probably Crassus had he not had his *!@#$ handed to him by Parthia. Why should the law apply to everyone but Caesar?

 

Why should Crassus have had his powers stripped from him, unless he too was an enemy of the Optimates? Caesar, will admit, was doing everything to save himself. But when he consistently gave options of peace to avoid war, it inevitably fell to the Boni (Specifically Cato, Ahenobarbus, Bibulus, the Marcelli, Lentulus Crus and more i cannot name right now) would cause these to be rejected, because they (again, motivated by the anger and jealousy of Cato and a few other diehards) did not want Caesar to escape total prosecution and exile.

 

Why don't you make a list of everything that the Republic needed to survive and to grow. Then create a list of all the Optimates and their achievements, and a list of all of Caesar's achievements, and match the two lists. If you have a good history book beside when you do it, you'll realize that your claim is so far-fetched as to be absurd.

 

You're rather good at twisting my words. Are you referring to every single Optimate in the history of the Republic? Because i sure as hell wasn't. Again, i was referring to the ultra conservative group that spearheaded the attack against Caesar i.e. Cato, Ahenobarbus, Bibulus and the others.

 

I believe this is just going to go around and around. That we are stolidly opposed on this point is a given, and i have no wish to persuade you away from your personal point of view. We must agree to disagree, M. Porcius Cato sir

[Tully]

[i truly wonder what events *wouldn't* fall under a category that is as inclusive as "civil wars, civil unrest, and continued broken faith and trust in the senate and people's assembly". The "80 years" is completely superfluous, and you could just as well make it 8, 80, 800, or 8000 years given how nebulous your category is.]

 

Nothing superflous about the number 80 or the nebulous about the category. 135-45 BC is quite different from 215-135 BC. In 134-45 the Republic fails to adequately deal with the string of individuals and military leaders (patricians and new men, optimates and populares) who contributed to its demise.

[Germanicus]

That we are stolidly opposed on this point is a given, and i have no wish to persuade you away from your personal point of view. We must agree to disagree, M. Porcius Cato sir

 

At least there are some things we can agree on. Nothing else can be proven beyond doubt. The reason this discussion goes round and round is that it's kind of like a "What if" thread. Would the republic have renewed itself if there were no Caesar - not in my opinion, it was doomed, but we'll never know, at least we know we don't agree.

 

I don't particularly care for his politics but I think he put rather bluntly what many scholars have commented on around the edges

 

Nice one Virgil, one of things I loved about the book was his bluntness.....and his disdain for Cicero, but that's just me.

[phil25]

That we are stolidly opposed on this point is a given, and i have no wish to persuade you away from your personal point of view. We must agree to disagree, M. Porcius Cato sir

 

At least there are some things we can agree on. Nothing else can be proven beyond doubt. The reason this discussion goes round and round is that it's kind of like a "What if" thread. Would the republic have renewed itself if there were no Caesar - not in my opinion, it was doomed, but we'll never know, at least we know we don't agree.

 

I don't particularly care for his politics but I think he put rather bluntly what many scholars have commented on around the edges

 

Nice one Virgil, one of things I loved about the book was his bluntness.....and his disdain for Cicero, but that's just me.

 

Anyone who has a disdain for Cicero has it right in my book.

 

One of the great distortions of history was the way the "Enlightenment" made a hero of old "Tully".

 

Never was there a more bombastic, ineffective, self-important and pusilanimous man. I don't wish him the death he eventually got, but I do deny him his claims to greatness save as an orator and lawyer. Even the, his reputation is more than partly due to his own self-publicity.

 

Cato - I'll even address your ill-mannered response to my post when I have a moment tonight. tell me, is your resemblance to your namesake natural or feigned?

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

One of the great distortions of history was the way the "Enlightenment" made a hero of old "Tully".

Never was there a more bombastic, ineffective, self-important and pusilanimous man. I don't wish him the death he eventually got, but I do deny him his claims to greatness save as an orator and lawyer. Even the, his reputation is more than partly due to his own self-publicity.

From my perspective the distance between the Enlightenment and our own time is measured less accurately in years than in the evaluation of Cicero. During the Enlightenment, his works were studied in great depth and breadth by even schoolboys (a requirement then for entering Harvard was the ability to provide an ex tempore oration in the Ciceronian style of Latin), so I seriously doubt that the difference in opinion comes from any ignorance on their part. The remainder of the difference, therefore, lies in the standards by which he is judged. Perhaps some critic of his on this forum would like to start a thread on the topic--as I'm eager to learn the standards which condemn Cicero yet praise Caesar.

 

 

Cato - ... tell me, is your resemblance to your namesake natural or feigned?

Cato's character and principles I admire. If you think I have a natural resemblance to him, my thanks to you. Nothing in my posts is feigned. Rhetorically exaggerated at times, but never feigned.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The reason this discussion goes round and round is that it's kind of like a "What if" thread. Would the republic have renewed itself if there were no Caesar - not in my opinion, it was doomed, but we'll never know, at least we know we don't agree.

 

Partly I agree with Germanicus' claim that the discussion goes round and round due to the "what if" component. I'd add another part comes from the evaluation of the agents' supposed motives, which are also difficult to infer. Were the optimates merely envious of Caesar and driven by personal jealousy?--not in my opinion, but we really can't know that with any more certainty than we can know what would happen if Caesar had faced his accusers in the Forum instead of Pharsalus.

 

However, probably the most important part of the non-resolvability of this debate concerns a competition between two sets of values--the values of liberty versus equality. Those who are more horrified by the evils of dictatorship than by the suffering of the needy will condemn Caesar for the effects he had on the 50 generations of men who had to suffer under an absolutist state. Those who are more horrified by the inequality of wealth that existed in Rome than by the loss of rights that were held by all citizens (but truly enjoyed by few) will praise Caesar for finally giving the rich a taste of the poor's suffering. (This, by the way, is why I think George Washington loved Cato, while Napoleon loved Caesar.) This conflict of values might be resolvable through a debate of facts (maybe not), but it's hard to see how the set of facts that are relevant are ones that Romanophiles should find interesting.

 

Where then to go from here? Here are some things that we can address without going around in circles:

*Were Caesar's actions in Gaul (and in Spain) legal and smart foreign policy--or was Caesar guilty of breaking the law and stirring up trouble with Rome's peaceful neighbors? (See the thread on the Gallic Wars.)

* Were the criminal courts in the age of Cicero and Caesar designed to maximize the likelihood of justice--or were they merely politics by other means? (No thread on this exists.)

* Who particpated in the government of the republic at various times--how was the vote delivered and who did this shut out? (Again, no thread on the voting system exists.)

* What factions benefitted from the manipulation of the state religion and how? (As far as I know, the political and legal aspects of the state religion is also threadless.)

* What laws undercut the promise of the republic and what laws were needed to fulfill it? (Again, as far as I know, there is not yet a thread devoted to examining a single law or even set of laws. For those who claim that the republic was "broken", there is a real opportunity here to show exactly how this was the case.)

* Was the form of government that Caesar initiated--a lifetime dictatorship--a form of government that benefitted Rome--did it bring her greater prosperity, liberty, justice, and security? (See the thread on the Principate.)

 

So, rather than just "agreeing to disagree", I suggest we move on to discuss the myriad subissues that are at stake. If we do, we might just learn something new about the republic. To me, that's the real fun, and I hope you agree.

[Primus Pilus]

*Were Caesar's actions in Gaul (and in Spain) legal and smart foreign policy--or was Caesar guilty of breaking the law and stirring up trouble with Rome's peaceful neighbors? (See the thread on the Gallic Wars.)

 

While important, this also makes the assumption that Rome's northern neighbors were indeed peaceful. While Caesar was clearly an aggressor, and nobody in their right mind should ever doubt that fact, the Gauls and Germanics had a long history of enmity with Rome. Yes, some tribes were allies and some were not, a condition absolutely manipulated by Caesar to his benefit but to call all the tribes peaceful is not a fair reflection of the entire state of affairs. I will not argue that Caesar did not 'stir up trouble', thats undeniable, I only contend that all was not quite so rosy between Gaul and Rome.