Symptoms Of The Triumvirate Not The Republic

[Furius Venator]

Sure but when the Senate wavered over the Catiline conspirators, Cato didn't waffle. He rallied them to their 'duty' with a ferocious speech. Not so here... Was his intent to frustrate Caesar into illegality?

 

Do you agree that the triumvirate was a direct consequence of the failure to settle Pompey's troops? Or do you think that Pompey and Crassus would have allied anyway as they had done before (though that was of course when they combined against a senate that would not settle with either).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Sure but when the Senate wavered over the Catiline conspirators, Cato didn't waffle. He rallied them to their 'duty' with a ferocious speech. Not so here... Was his intent to frustrate Caesar into illegality?

The two meetings were very different in nature. One was an emergency meeting of the Senate conducted by Senate rules. The other was a meeting in the forum conducted by a different set of rules. On the first occassion, Cato had the opportunity to speak; on the second occasion, he did not.

 

NEVERTHELESS, Cato did speak out against the land bill, though, as his very first act of the new consular year--and he was arrested for it. Unfortunately, we don't know what he had to say.

 

Do you agree that the triumvirate was a direct consequence of the failure to settle Pompey's troops? Or do you think that Pompey and Crassus would have allied anyway as they had done before (though that was of course when they combined against a senate that would not settle with either).

 

I think that at some point everyone in politics over-reaches, whether Cato or Caesar or whomever. It's simply impossible to please everyone. Given this fact, some conflict between one of the triumvirs and the rest of the Senate had to occur on one matter or another. Consequently, even if Pompey's troops had been settled on the first day of Caesar's consulship, the triumvirs could always find some pretext to rail against the senate and moan about how their dignitas was being offended by all the onerous rules, etc etc etc. So, basically, No--the triumvirate was not a direct consequence of the failure to settle Pompey's troops. And, more importantly, the fact that Pompey's troops WERE settled and the triumvirate did not immediately dissolve proves the point--the triumvirate was the product of three men who had monarchical ambitions and believed themselves above the law. (Heck, smooth Caesar thought he was descended from Venus herself!)

[Furius Venator]

NEVERTHELESS, Cato did speak out against the land bill, though, as his very first act of the new consular year--and he was arrested for it. Unfortunately, we don't know what he had to say.

 

Caesar had him removed (stupidly) for filibustering, he was not being relevant to the point, merely trying to talk the bill out. This, contrary to your assertion, was when Caesar first presented the bill before the senate.

 

On the second issue, I think perhaps I was not being clear. Why did the senate not settle with Pompey before the formation of the triumvirate? By Caesar's consulship, it was too late. I suppose they simply did not see that.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Furius Venator

[M. Porcius Cato]

NEVERTHELESS, Cato did speak out against the land bill, though, as his very first act of the new consular year--and he was arrested for it. Unfortunately, we don't know what he had to say.

 

Caesar had him removed (stupidly) for filibustering, he was not being relevant to the point, merely trying to talk the bill out. This, contrary to your assertion, was when Caesar first presented the bill before the senate.

I don't have my books with me, but are you sure that this wasn't Caesar's first bill of the new year?

 

Why did the senate not settle with Pompey before the formation of the triumvirate? By Caesar's consulship, it was too late. I suppose they simply did not see that.

 

By my reading of events, there was effectively an all-out Stop Pompey movement. Again, having just survived the reign of Sulla--for whom Pompey was the "teenage butcher"--there was probably a fair amount of (understandable) paranoia that Pompey would turn out to follow in his mentor's footsteps.

[Furius Venator]

I can assure you that although you are correct in that it was the first bill that he presented to the senate and Bibulus did indeed make heavy going of trying to sink it, Cato spoke toward the end of the day with the clear intent of filibustering. Caesar then had him removed by force (after some time), many senators objeted, Cato was released and Caesar resolve to outflank the obstructionists by going direct to the people.

 

there was probably a fair amount of (understandable) paranoia that Pompey would turn out to follow in his mentor's footsteps.

 

Well he hadn't ten years previously, when apparantly thwarted he'd combined with his arch-rival Crassus rather than using force. Granted he was in an even stronger position pre 60 but if the senate were that nervous of him launching a coup, why did they attempt to thwart him at every turn? It'd be like poking a tiger with a sharp stick in order to keep it at arm's length...

 

But really all this surely just underlines that the constitution had no effective safeguards against it being subverted by force, be it armed coup or intimidation in the forum. Hence the triumvirate was the result of attempting to meet radical threat by constitutional means, exposing the basic weakness of the post Marian constitution very clearly.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Furius Venator

[M. Porcius Cato]

But really all this surely just underlines that the constitution had no effective safeguards against it being subverted by force, be it armed coup or intimidation in the forum.

 

No constitution has such a safeguard. The only thing keeping any constitution working is the dedication of men to uphold it.

[Julia C]

Rise to where? To dictatorship? Do you think total power is a just reward for service to the state? That for serving the republic, a man has the right to destroy it? If not, then those opposed to the power-grabs of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar had the foresight to see what did in fact happen--that puffed-up thugs were aiming at abolishing the liberty of the people to become bloody tyrants.

 

Were they after total power? Can you prove that, absent extenuating circumstances, any of them would have taken absolute power if it were not necessary?

 

They simply wanted their due. Pompeius Magnus and C

[tflex]

What I've always found so conceptually correct about Cato's argument is not necessarily the inherent bashing of tyranny, but the notion that the Republican system was not itself a failure. I think sometimes we get a bit blindsided by Cato's style and ignore the substance of the argument.

 

My argument with Cato was never about the Republican system being a failure as a whole, on the contrary, I think and I've said before, the republic was very much a success and that

Edited April 30, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think and I've said before, the republic was very much a success and that

[M. Porcius Cato]

[quote name='Julia C

[tflex]

What about MacArthur going rogue on Truman? Or Robert E Lee going rogue on Lincoln? It's not the system that keeps the MacArthurs and Lees in check--it's a shared ideology.

 

C'mon Cato, MacArthur didn't march on Washington DC and force Congress to declare him dictator and kill anyone who opposed him. You prove my point exactly, MacArthur was an influential general who was overly ambitious, but still couldn't get far. The system made it impossible for him to gain true popular support for his personal ambitions. In Lincoln's time the system was far from a modern democracy, especially with slavery. Still even that example cannot be remotely compared to what Roman generals were able to do.

 

Never happened. This is an old wives' tale based entirely on Plutarch's sketchy knowledge of Gracchus' sketchy knowledge...

 

I think I'll take their word over yours.

 

Compared to the dominate and all the other forms of petty tyranny that followed it, the principate wasn't all bad. But overall it was more exclusionary, less stable, and more poorly run than the republic.

 

Ofcourse it was more exclusionary, thats what an Imperial system is based on. I'm just saying that overall it did very well and thats why it lasted for 500 years, like the republic.

[Germanicus]

I think I'll take their word over yours.

 

I do it myself Tflex - take the sources word when it agrees with me (Gracchi), but not when it disagrees(Caesar).

 

Cato does the opposite - takes the sources word on Caesar, but not on the Gracchi.

 

I think we could all learn from that old saying - "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

[tflex]

I do it myself Tflex - take the sources word when it agrees with me (Gracchi), but not when it disagrees(Caesar).

 

Cato does the opposite - takes the sources word on Caesar, but not on the Gracchi.

 

Well, I admit Caesar was partly responsible for all the chaos that was going on, but Cato doesn't admit that his friends were also responsible, like Cato the Younger etc., or that the system had a major flaw that needed to be fixed.

 

I think we could all learn from that old saying - "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

 

Thats a nice saying, who said that?

[Germanicus]

Thats a nice saying, who said that?

 

Don't know Tflex - something my mother often said to me while growing up.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well, I admit Caesar was partly responsible for all the chaos that was going on, but Cato doesn't admit that his friends were also responsible, like Cato the Younger etc., or that the system had a major flaw that needed to be fixed.

 

The position you ascribe to me is almost wholly inaccurate. Far from believing that the republic was perfect, I started an entire thread on the question of how the republic might be reformed for the better, and I almost never fail to indicate that the republic needed reforms (especially with respect to provincial administration). Elsewhere, I also took to task many of the opponents of the triumvirate, specifically those who had supported Sulla and thus had no credibility in opposing the triumvirs. For the record, I think many of those who supported Cato were disingenuous, blood-stained Sullans who opposed Caesar only because they wanted to be Caesar (witness their abhorrent behavior while in camp with Pompey during the Civil War). You'd like me to extend this criticism to Cato, but I don't think it applies--his record of turning down extra-constitutional appointments, honors, and commands is the very thing I admire in Cato, and that lack of that respect for the law is the very thing I most despise in Caesar and the Sullans.

 

Never happened. This is an old wives' tale based entirely on Plutarch's sketchy knowledge of Gracchus' sketchy knowledge...

I think I'll take their word over yours.

 

Not my word--it's basic archaeology. See Nathan Rosenstein's Rome at War for a detailed analysis of the old wives' tale you've insisted on repeating.

 

What about MacArthur going rogue on Truman? Or Robert E Lee going rogue on Lincoln? It's not the system that keeps the MacArthurs and Lees in check--it's a shared ideology.

 

C'mon Cato, MacArthur didn't march on Washington DC and force Congress to declare him dictator and kill anyone who opposed him. You prove my point exactly, MacArthur was an influential general who was overly ambitious, but still couldn't get far. The system made it impossible for him to gain true popular support for his personal ambitions.

 

MacArthur didn't back down because he was forced to nor because he was unpopular. What on earth are you talking about?