Did Caesar Ultimately

[M. Porcius Cato]

Ave Vespason:

Please don't think me rude, but your logic doesn't hold water. You argue from the particular to the general. A no-no.

 

Of course one can argue from the particular to the general. It's called induction--without it, there would be no science.

 

 

M. P. Cato:

Are we arguing science here or politics?

 

political science

[Gaius Octavius]

Ave M.P. Cato:

Political Science! Indeed! Once again I surrender to your superior mental agility. Of course, you realize that this means war. Meet you at the Mulvian Bridge. You are making me take to whiskey. :2guns:

[tflex]

If Rome had extended Italian rights to all its provinces (rather than relying on governors and martial law), the republican system would have secured the non-Italian territories to Rome through the bond of common interest.

 

In a perfect world yes, but realistically speaking

Edited April 7, 2006 by tflex

[Julia C]

To add to the rebuttul of Cato's point about the citizenship, Geta's act of universal citizenship removed the prize that could be attained by becoming the child of a Roman freedman or by enlisting in the auxiliaries.

 

I submit that universal citizenship would have been the worst thing to do. Isn't it curious, indeed, that the Italian socii stood by Roma during some of her most precarious situations, where Italia itself was invaded by Hannibal and Pyrrhus. Both leaders tried to get Italia to rise for them, but the socii--save for some Etruscan towns and the Samnites--stayed loyal.

[M. Porcius Cato]

[quote name='Julia C

[Julian]

I believe the truth is that there is no single or simple answer.

[TaylorS]

Hello everyone

 

 

IMO the seeds of the Republics fall can be traced back to the Punic Wars.

 

Before the acquisition of Sardinia, Corsica, and Western Sicily conquered cities were generally given a good amount of self-rule, their main obligation to the Roman state was in soldiers. The Roman Republic was, in effect, a sort of federation. The territories acquired in the First Punic War were governed in a new way, directly by Roman magistrates who came to treat "The Provinces" as cash cows to be milked for their own personal profit during their term of office.

 

The 2nd Punic War ruined the Italian peasantry as a result of constant conscription keeping people from their farms as well as the devastation caused by Hannibal's invasion, a lot of peasants lost their land to aristocrats, who turned the land into slave-worked latifundia. The dispossessed peasants that migrated into the cities would come to support demagogues pushing land reform, enter the Gracchi. Since Rome's military was based on the conscription of those with enough property to afford millitary equipment (technically it was wealth, but property generally meant wealth in an agricultural society) there was a problem. Enter Marius.

 

It was the fatal combination of provinces ran by magistrates from Rome and the Marian Reforms that doomed the Republic. It was only a matter of time before a proconsul decided to conquer Rome for himself with his personal army.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The 2nd Punic War ruined the Italian peasantry as a result of constant conscription keeping people from their farms as well as the devastation caused by Hannibal's invasion, a lot of peasants lost their land to aristocrats, who turned the land into slave-worked latifundia. The dispossessed peasants that migrated into the cities would come to support demagogues pushing land reform, enter the Gracchi. Since Rome's military was based on the conscription of those with enough property to afford millitary equipment (technically it was wealth, but property generally meant wealth in an agricultural society) there was a problem.

 

This is a common view, most notably voiced by P. A. Brunt, but I think it has some fatal problems.

 

First, family farms were worked by several generations, not just one married head-of-household, and farm work often leaves much free time during the summer months; therefore, the temporary conscription of young unmarried men into the legions was unlikely to have single-handedly led to the demise of the small-holders (aka "peasants").

 

Second, although there have been extensive excavations of Roman farms from the middle republic, the archaeological evidence shows no decline in the number of small-holdings during the period in question, nor a remarkable increase in the number of latifundia or associated artifacts (e.g., the large amphorae that were used to haul wine).

 

Third, there was significant chattel slavery available to work the farms due in part to the abolition of debt bondage which had brought a substantive end to the "struggle of the orders" of the previous generations. This fact would further buffer Italian agriculture against the effects of the longer campaigning seasons that became more commonplace after the Hannibalic War.

 

Finally, while the mortality rate in the army was very high during the Hannibalic War, this death rate also opened up opportunities for returning veterans, much like the lucky survivors of the Black Death many centuries later, who found more land, more women, and more wealth than they had ever expected prior to the deaths of their friends and countrymen.

 

Given these facts (see Rosenstein's "Rome at War" for a more complete discussion), I think the reform bills of the Gracchi should be completely rethought. Rather than being a rational response to a legitimate set of new conditions, they were simply political maneuvers designed to bring two blue-blooded aristocrats more power, more fame, and more glory than they could have achieved otherwise. Nor, indeed, were the proposals as revolutionary as is commonly believed (see Lily Ross Taylor's article on the subject in the Journal for Roman Studies), and they certainly shouldn't be viewed as contributing substantively to the crises that Marius, Sulla, and (above all) Caesar brought on the republic.

 

I believe the truth is that there is no single or simple answer.

 

Funny. Isn't yours too a single, simple answer?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Given these facts (see Rosenstein's "Rome at War" for a more complete discussion), I think the reform bills of the Gracchi should be completely rethought. Rather than being a rational response to a legitimate set of new conditions, they were simply political maneuvers designed to bring two blue-blooded aristocrats more power, more fame, and more glory than they could have achieved otherwise. Nor, indeed, were the proposals as revolutionary as is commonly believed (see Lily Ross Taylor's article on the subject in the Journal for Roman Studies), and they certainly shouldn't be viewed as contributing substantively to the crises that Marius, Sulla, and (above all) Caesar brought on the republic.

 

 

"commonly believed" - Commonly = usually , generally , ordinarily . Or Commonly = in a common manner .

If you are saying that the commons believe that the Gracchi were so and so , I would say that they (the commons) do not know who were the Gracchi...so we have to remove them (the commons) from the equation and your argument becomes problamatic (a least) .

But I think that you refer to scholars when you said "commonly believed" . Now , why we should accept some 1 or 2 scholars opinion and ignore the majority (of scholars) opinion that accepted the notion that the Gracchi were revolutionaries ? Ha ?

 

How do you know what went on the Garcchi minds when saying "...they were simply political maneuvers designed to bring two blue-blooded aristocrats more power, more fame, and more glory than they could have achieved otherwise" . Otherwise ? Since when a Roman could achieve "more power, more fame, and more glory" before he became Praetor and had an army ? What could he do as T.P. other than proposing laws ? Eat 50 egs in 2 minutes ? And actually T. Gracchus had more military fame in 134 (that is before 133...) than 99.99% of the Romans !

And if the Grachii's proposals were not revolutionary , how they could bring them "more power, more fame, and more glory" ? Ha ? And if their proposals were not revolutionary how did they brought them immortality or in your own words "fame" and "glory" ?

Edited January 26, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

But I think that you refer to scholars when you said "commonly believed" . Now , why we should accept some 1 or 2 scholars opinion and ignore the majority (of scholars) opinion that accepted the notion that the Gracchi were revolutionaries ? Ha ?

 

I certainly don't think one should dispense with the general opinion of experts casually. However, when a substantive new body of evidence has grown up to challenge the previously conventional wisdom, it's time to question and possibly reject the conventional view. Brunt's thesis has been on the receiving end of nearly a generation of scholars' criticism, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to ignore the archaeological, statistical, and demographic evidence that they present. I'd also add that one of the most refreshing things about ancient history is that it has been amenable to advances in other fields: simply knowing how to read sources in the original Greek and Latin won't cut it anymore, and it's the advances in these fields that have made it possible to account for both the sources and the archaeological evidence, rather than only one or the other.

 

 

How do you know what went on the Garcchi minds when saying "...they were simply political maneuvers designed to bring two blue-blooded aristocrats more power, more fame, and more glory than they could have achieved otherwise" . Otherwise ? Since when a Roman could achieve "more power, more fame, and more glory" before he became Praetor and had an army ? What could he do as T.P. other than proposing laws ? Eat 50 egs in 2 minutes ? And actually T. Gracchus had more military fame in 134 (that is before 133...) than 99.99% of the Romans !

One can't know what was in the minds of the Gracchi, but one does know that they were just as I claimed: blue-blooded aristocrats whose proposals, if enacted, would enhance their powers by expanding their base of supporters and Italian clients. By expanding their base of support, they would have been propelled further than the other tribunes and aristocrats of their year.

 

And if the Grachii's proposals were not revolutionary , how they could bring them "more power, more fame, and more glory" ? Ha ? And if their proposals were not revolutionary how did they brought them immortality or in your own words "fame" and "glory" ?

 

Many non-revolutionary acts had the effect of bringing the statesman more power, more fame, and more glory. There was nothing revolutionary in the careers of most Romans (by definition)--yet they increased their power. There was nothing revolutionary when Cincinnatus returned to his plough--yet it increased his fame. There was nothing revolutionary when Dentatus defeated Pyrrhus and all the other enemies of Rome--yet it brought him glory. Perhaps you'd care to redefine 'revolutionary' such that everything and nothing becomes revolutionary? Ha?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Perhaps you'd care to redefine 'revolutionary' such that everything and nothing becomes revolutionary? Ha?

 

 

Ha?

 

I realy trying to understand what do mean by that , but alas...Maybe it is just that you wanted to say something sophisticated ?

 

Now if one is saying that A was not revolutionist (and you said that about the Gracchi) one should know what he is talking about . It is up to you to define 'revolutionary' because it is you (based on a minority of scholars) that are trying to dismiss the common view .

 

Let me qoute just one scholar who saw (for you and me) the Gracchi as revolutionaries -

"In order to gain some insight into Cicero's reaction to the revolutionaries of his own day , it will be the purpose of this paper to try to focus attention upon his remarks cocerning two non-contemporary revolutionaries , the Gracchi , with whom the period of great unrest "officially" begun" (Cicero and the Gracchi, by Robert J. Murray Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association)

 

I realy can't see how Cincinnatus and Dentatus came to your argument but if you want an example of an earlier revolutionaries just read (again) about the Licino-Sextian Laws of 367 Var.

 

And again , why the Gracchi are so remembered ?

[Gaius Octavius]

I certainly don't think one should dispense with the general opinion of experts casually. However, when a substantive new body of evidence has grown up to challenge the previously conventional wisdom, it's time to question and possibly reject the conventional view. Brunt's thesis has been on the receiving end of nearly a generation of scholars' criticism, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to ignore the archaeological, statistical, and demographic evidence that they present. I'd also add that one of the most refreshing things about ancient history is that it has been amenable to advances in other fields: simply knowing how to read sources in the original Greek and Latin won't cut it anymore, and it's the advances in these fields that have made it possible to account for both the sources and the archaeological evidence, rather than only one or the other.

 

I get the impression that you pick and choose your 'evidence' according to your prejudices. Because it is modern, doesn't make it so.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I listed four specific lines of contemporary evidence undermining Brunt's thesis that the wars of expansion in the middle republic led to an economic displacement of Italian small-holders and thereby unraveled the cultural and political fabric of the republic. If you want to dispute the evidence, I'm all ears. Otherwise, what's the point of quoting authorities at me? I happily admit that the evidence suggests conclusions that contradict the conventional wisdom--indeed, since I celebrate the fact that the evidence contradicts the conventional wisdom, quoting authorities at me is worse than useless.

 

Also, let me clarify my unconscionably vague claim that the proposals of the Gracchi were not "as revolutionary as is commonly believed" (vague because what exactly is 'as revolutionary as is commonly believed'???). First off, I'm not saying that the Gracchi's proposals were totally uncontroversial, conservative, and without popular support. That would be absurd. My point was that there were precedents to the bills put forward by the Gracchi (and I'd be very happy to discuss them in another thread if someone wants to discuss the matter). The reason for my somewhat vague claim was that I wanted to dispute (1) the notion that the Hannibalic War in particular led to some extraordinary set of circumstances that led to the need for their agrarian laws, and (2) the notion that Marius and Caesar are in any meaningful sense continuing to address the problems that the Gracchi sought to address.

 

To bring this whole digression back to its original topic. My (working) thesis is that the Hannibalic War did not cause the fall of the republic; the Gracchi did not cause the fall of the republic; it was caused chiefly by the long civil wars that lasted from Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon to Octavian's victory at Antium, which were themselves partially an outcome of Sulla's reactionary politics paradoxically weakening the authority of the senate and thereby leaving it vulnerable to Caesar's talent and lust for power.

[Gaius Octavius]

A long time ago, I read a tome about economic decline (and fall), of nations past. I remember neither author nor title. One of the ideas attributed to Rome's collapse in the west, and Italy in particular, was the deforestation of Italy, particularly the south, during the Punic wars. This deforestation is still evident today.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

Lots of people put forward odd theories about why the west collapsed. Tree felling may have been a contributing factor, but not a major cause. There were other such factors, such as the silting up of harbours, lead poisoning, etc. All of them on their own couldn't bring down the west, but together these factors added to the wests woes. Just a few more straws on the camels bacjk as it were.