Symptoms Of The Triumvirate Not The Republic

[tflex]

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.

 

It's one man's theory without hard evidence, nonetheless an interesting study. But, the system was still exclusionary and favored the powerful old families of Rome and Patricians. This is why there was widespread discontent towards the end of the late republic, and we have proof of this because we know some Roman armies marched on Rome with a fair amount of public support.

 

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

 

MacArthur was not able to march on the capital and take over the country; thats all I will say about it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

the system was still exclusionary and favored the powerful old families of Rome and Patricians. This is why there was widespread discontent towards the end of the late republic, and we have proof of this because we know some Roman armies marched on Rome with a fair amount of public support.

 

There was widespread discontent with Caesar before he left for Gaul (and, earlier, for Spain), so let's not pretend that Caesar marched on Rome at the head of a revolutionary army that sought to end the exclusionary system.

 

Moreover, the exclusiveness of the system was more of a statistical bias than a hard rule. For lower offices, there was nearly no advantage at all for being a member of a powerful old family. For higher offices, old families had the advantage of name recognition and (sometimes) wealth, but even then plebeians and new men very often held high offices. For hard numbers on this, see Erich Gruen's "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic," which contains a detailed analysis on the background of the magistrates of the Roman republic.

[Germanicus]

There was widespread discontent with Caesar before he left for Gaul (and, earlier, for Spain)

 

Assuming you mean discontent among the middle and lower classes - could you give me some examples of this "widespread discontent" by way of quotes ?

[M. Porcius Cato]

There was widespread discontent with Caesar before he left for Gaul (and, earlier, for Spain)

Assuming you mean discontent among the middle and lower classes - could you give me some examples of this "widespread discontent" by way of quotes ?

 

Good question.

 

First, I don't want to claim that Caear--or any elected official--was widely despised at the time he was elected. Despite the widespread accusations of bribery that are bandied about on this forum, I doubt bribery played that much of a role in determining who held office: there were courts for that sort of thing, and they were rarely used (which is remarkable given the incentive for the defeated parties to use them). At the same time, I don't think that election shows that the winning candidate was always popular either. Even in our own day, the popularity of an elected official can swing wildly during the course of a term (and even thereafter).

 

Second, lacking any polling data other than the elections themselves, all of our evidence regarding popularity is based on (1) testimony and (2) inference from the events that the sources describe. The latter I take to be the more diagnostic because it can actually be placed in time; in contrast, testimony regarding popularity invariably fails to tell us when exactly the candidate was popular, and there is a tendency for nostalgia to make even the worst dictators (such as Stalin) appear better to subsequent generations.

 

In contrast, here's an example of a quite telling event about popular opinion: In his description of the public debate regarding the Gabinian Law (which gave Pompey completely unprecedented powers against the Cilician pirates, who were a sort of ancient al Qaeda), Plutarch tells us that a tribunician proposal to give Pompey a colleague was met with such a roar of disapproval from the crowd that a crow flying overhead was struck down from the sky. While I doubt Plutarch's physics are right, I'm guessing his demographic inference was at least approximately correct--everyone was eager to give Pompey whatever he needed to rid Rome of the sea terrorists, and they weren't thinking at all about their traditional liberties. (No comment on the modern parallels.) From this, I take it that Pompey had the confidence of the people at the time the Gabinian law was proposed; thereafter, the high approval for Pompey cannot be assumed.

 

Using this general forensic strategy, I'd point to the following three incidents:

 

(1) Popular discontent with Caesar might be inferred from Caesar's association with the Bona Dea scandal, which drove Caesar from Rome to Spain. The Bona Dea scandal, which occurred at Caesar's house with his wife, chiefly involved Clodius, and the disgust with Clodius was shared by the Senate, which had voted 400 - 15 to move a bill of prosecution to the people, and the people as well. According to Cicero, after he delivered his testimony, "there came to me on the next day as large a crowd as that by which I was escorted home when laying down my consulate" (Cic, Att. 1.16). For his part, Caesar not only fled the city; he also famously divorced his wife, remarking cruely, "Caesar's wife must be beyond suspicion."

 

(2) To this incident, one might also add the popularity of the pamphlets and public postings that criticized Caesar after one of his tribunes attempted to murder Bibulus. According to two of Cicero's letters to Atticus (in 59), these texts were very popular and that the people used to "copy down and record his edicta and conditone" (Cic, Att., 2.20.4), with the crowd so great that one could not get past the throng gathered around them. Presumably, these were the source of Suetonius' allusions to Caesar's early career and Caesar's relationship with the king of Bithynia. In response, Caesar published his own texts, seditiously advocating that the people attack the house of Bibulus, but apparently Caesar's plea to the people fell on deaf ears, as Bibulus remained unharmed.

 

For his part, Pompey was deeply wounded by the attacks on his friend Caesar, enough so that Cicero felt empathy for the once popular general: "I could not hold back my tears when on July 25 I saw him addressing a public meeting about Bibulus' edicta. He who previously had been accustomed to preen himself so magnificently in that very place, with the most profound affection of the people, with all in support of him--how humble, how dejected he was; how he displeased not only those present but himself also." (Cic., Att. 2.21.3-5)

 

(3) A similar incident that concerns Pompey also reflects public opinion on Caesar's performance. In his letter to Atticus (2.19.3-4), Cicero observes that Bibulus had become highly popular, whereas Pompey was in disgrace. The incident (in 59) occurred at the ludi Apollinares, where the lines spoken in the theater ("to our misfortune, you are Magnus") were understood as referring to Pompey, and were met with thunderous applause. While Caesar's entry to the theater was met with a chilly silence, the arrival of Curio (who had been the only one to openly oppose Caesar in the Forum at this late date) was met with enthusiasm: "For him there is great applause and extremely favorable greetings in the Forum" (Cic. Att. 2.18.1)

 

In sum, Caesar's popularity seemed to ebb immediately prior to his illegal war in Gaul and his Spanish adventures (wag the dog?)

[Primus Pilus]

People certainly still remembered the games he provided so his temporary absence (escape) from Rome perhaps allowed scandal to run its course before more pleasant memories returned. The attention he gives to populares causes may also not only be an indication of his 'party politics' but his need to repair damage in the eyes of the people (though its not as if his ideology seems to noticeably change or become more "liberal"). At any rate I agree that prior to his military conquests it would be foolish to think of him as some great iconic figure, but in the end his funeral is fairly indicative of the ultimate sentiment of the Roman people.

 

In sum, Caesar's popularity seemed to ebb immediately prior to his illegal war in Gaul and his Spanish adventures)

 

We've certainly had this conversation before so probably no need to rehash, but the pretext for the Gallic War followed Roman military logic from the start... which was a response to calls for help from allies. Clearly Caesar pushed the envelope and some components of the war are open to intepretation of the law (ie crossing the Rhine), but clearly we disagree on the legality of the entire war.

[M. Porcius Cato]

At any rate I agree that prior to his military conquests it would be foolish to think of him as some great iconic figure

Good.

 

In sum, Caesar's popularity seemed to ebb immediately prior to his illegal war in Gaul and his Spanish adventures)

we disagree on the legality of the entire war.

 

You just won't led me end with a rhetorical flourish, will you? OK, read that to mean "prior to his partly illegal war in Gaul". We could parse this even further--the "war" in Gaul actually was several disconnected campaigns from the point of view of the Roman senate; some of the Gallic War didn't even take place in any of the three Gaul-parts; and Caesar's mostly clearly illegal action came from crossing the Rhine, so maybe his crime wasn't even technically in Gaul but going out of Gaul. In any case, my point still stands--Caesar had a habit of hightailing it out of Rome whenever his popularity needed a boost.

[Primus Pilus]

You just won't led me end with a rhetorical flourish, will you?

 

What would be the fun in that?

 

In any case, my point still stands--Caesar had a habit of hightailing it out of Rome whenever his popularity needed a boost.

 

I agree completely with the notion that he had a habit of "getting out of Dodge", but can we truly label it as an issue of popularity vs. self preservation/protection or even just opportunism on all sides. Clearly we can understand his reasons for fleeing the Sulla controlled Rome but this is also well before the series of events in question. However, did he flee the Cataline conspiracy and Clodian scandal or was the conservative faction of the Senate just as glad to be rid of him and Hispania served as a likely place to not only keep him occupied but to open up the possibility for failure?

 

The notion that Caesar and Cato (as well as various associates on either side) had already been developing an intense political rivalry is well established. Did Caesar flee, or was he also pushed out... similar to what Clodius did to Cicero (exile) and Cato (Cyprus). A stretch perhaps, but worth considering.

[M. Porcius Cato]

However, did [Caesar] flee the Cataline conspiracy and Clodian scandal or was the conservative faction of the Senate just as glad to be rid of him and Hispania served as a likely place to not only keep him occupied but to open up the possibility for failure?

That's a very interesting question. In the case of Spain, Caesar departed before his appointment had even been ratified by the Senate, so it sounds more like he was running away than that he was pushed. The bankers of Rome--who weren't popular with any faction--attempted to stop Caesar, who was indebted to them to the tune of 25 million sesterces, but Crassus intervened to help him get out of Rome. So to me, it seems like a real stretch to think that Caesar was pushed out.

[Primus Pilus]

However, did [Caesar] flee the Cataline conspiracy and Clodian scandal or was the conservative faction of the Senate just as glad to be rid of him and Hispania served as a likely place to not only keep him occupied but to open up the possibility for failure?

That's a very interesting question. In the case of Spain, Caesar departed before his appointment had even been ratified by the Senate, so it sounds more like he was running away than that he was pushed. The bankers of Rome--who weren't popular with any faction--attempted to stop Caesar, who was indebted to them to the tune of 25 million sesterces, but Crassus intervened to help him get out of Rome. So to me, it seems like a real stretch to think that Caesar was pushed out.

 

Indeed... probably more a case of fortuitous good riddance by his adversaries than an attempt to indirectly help him avoid the debtors.

[Furius Venator]

The bankers of Rome--who weren't popular with any faction--attempted to stop Caesar, who was indebted to them to the tune of 25 million sesterces

 

That is as good a reason as any for Caesar to have left early (ie to avoid his creditors).

 

As to his popularity/unpopularity, that merely depends on which rent-a-mob one chooses surely.

 

And as regards the legality or otherwise of the law, it would be for a court to decide whether he had overstepped his proconsular authority and we all know how well run and fair was the Roman legal system...

[M. Porcius Cato]

As to his popularity/unpopularity, that merely depends on which rent-a-mob one chooses surely.

See my post above. There wasn't a "rent-a-mob" in any of the indicidents I mentioned.

 

And as regards the legality or otherwise of the law, it would be for a court to decide whether he had overstepped his proconsular authority and we all know how well run and fair was the Roman legal system...

The Roman legal system worked pretty well, and it was certainly better to try people suspected of crimes than to let them all go. Of course, we all know how averse Caesar was to obeying the law...

[Furius Venator]

The Roman legal system worked pretty well

 

I'm sure Clodius would agree...

 

it was certainly better to try people suspected of crimes than to let them all go

 

Of course. But Caesar was unlikely to get a fair trial.

 

Please note, I'm not defending Caesar especially but his conduct whilst consul would give better grounds for prosecution than his actions as proconsul.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Furius Venator

[M. Porcius Cato]

it was certainly better to try people suspected of crimes than to let them all go

 

Of course. But Caesar was unlikely to get a fair trial.

 

Please note, I'm not defending Caesar especially but his conduct whilst consul would give better grounds for prosecution than his actions as proconsul.

 

OK--you play Cato for a while: how did Caesar's conduct as consul provide a good target for a successful prosecution?

[P.Clodius]

it was certainly better to try people suspected of crimes than to let them all go

 

Of course. But Caesar was unlikely to get a fair trial.

 

Please note, I'm not defending Caesar especially but his conduct whilst consul would give better grounds for prosecution than his actions as proconsul.

 

OK--you play Cato for a while: how did Caesar's conduct as consul provide a good target for a successful prosecution?

Furius play Cato? To do that he would need to be a miserly, twisted psychophant..However I will try to add some objective observations.

 

Lets take a look at the situation.

 

1) Thousands (perhaps 100K +)of demobed veterans and their dependants awaiting their rightfully earned allotments, (think of GI's returning from Iraq and having their DD214 and GI Bill rights witheld).

 

2) Confirmation of eastern treaties (stabilization of borders and buffer state alliances).

 

3) A bloc of 20 senators led by Cato who were set to filibuster the consular year into oblivion. A middle of the road senatorial bloc (majority)led by Cicero who advocated compromise as long as senatorial authority was maintained.

 

4) At this point the "Triumvirate" had yet to be "formed".

 

5) The Senate was a delibrative body not a legislative body.

 

6) The Comitia were the legislative bodies and through the Lex Hortensia the Plebiscitia were binding on ALL citizens. Addressing and proposing legislation directly to the Comitia by Consuls was not without precedent. Scipio A had gone this route when he was being shafted by none other than Cato the Elder.

 

So, Caesar proposes a reasonably drafted (and this can be backed up with numerous secondary sources, Meier, Gelzer, Holland) bill to settle the veteran issue. He is filibustered by Cato, he has Cato dragged off to prison by his lictors (his legal right as Consul to do so), but beats a tactical political retreat through acquiescence after the Cato cronies walkout in protest. Realizing nothing will be achieved going the normal route, he approaches the people via the Comitia Centuriata. He presents his bill, to which his co-consul Bibulus (a Cato crony) publicly decries with the famous statement "You shall not get it EVEN if you ALL want it!". Bibulus subsequently retreats to his house to "Watch the skies" in an effort to forsee "unlucky" days so any legislation passed on that day could be declared defunct. Caesar moving forward passes all his bills through the Comitia.

 

Find me the "illegality" in the above if you please.

 

Edit: Point 4, the "Triumvirate" was formed after Caesar initially presented the bill to the senate but before he addressed Centuries

Edited May 24, 2006 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well, I'm still waiting for Furius Venator to justify his claim that the legal case against Caesar was best found among his consular actions, but I'd simply point out that the exact origin of the triumvirate is up for debate. There are good arguments (by Fergus Millar) that the triumvirate pre-dates the lousy agrarian law that should have been fillibustered.