Opinions on Cicero

[theilian]

theilian, he could have kept his mealy mouth shut, rather than 'I praise you, yet condemn you'. He wanted to be up front, and played all sides to suit his proclvities and the present state of affairs..

Yes, it would have been best if he retired completely, and not to excuse him this weakness, but how many Romans voluntarily gave up on their dignitas? Not exactly admirable, but it's not as if he pursed such line for his personal hegemony.

If relying on Octavian to check Antony, or seeking to bring Pompey and Optimates together means playing all sides, I have nothing to say.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I certainly don't mean that suggest that Cicero was braver than Caesar and etc, or that he took more dangerous road than those. Of course, they were all 'braver' or rather reckless as they had to be in their quest for domination. They were basically soldiers, and their ambitions directly led to civil wars.

Cicero, for all his vanities and ambitions, did not seek that type of hegemony.

 

Indeed. Moreover, in an era of political violence, Cicero's freedom to act was greatly constrained. It's a lot easier to be brave when you have a couple of legions standing in front of you!

[caldrail]

Cicero seems to me to be someone who was a great actor. His oratories were supposed to be dramatic affairs with sweeping gestures. Perhaps then a passionate man, one who rested on his laurels somewhat, someone who saw himself as a privileged person and worked to protect his place in life. Despite his attempt to curtail the ambitions of up and coming personalities, when it all went wrong he finally chose to end his life with some dignity, at least if the story is true. Compared to some romans, a man of some principle if a little self-important.

[Gaius Octavius]

I wonder what stopped Cicero and the Senate from forming up their own legions to protect the Republic?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I wonder what stopped Cicero and the Senate from forming up their own legions to protect the Republic?

 

What do you think all those consular and proconsular armies were for????

[Adelais Valerius]

With Cicero's generally republican mindset, and wanting to save the republic, it seems that he should have gravitated toward the senate's side, and not have taken Caesar's side at all. That REALLY surprised me, even when I watched ROME, and I already knew beforehand,I was still taken back by it. God I wish I could have watched all this from the a first person point of view

[M. Porcius Cato]

With Cicero's generally republican mindset, and wanting to save the republic, it seems that he should have gravitated toward the senate's side, and not have taken Caesar's side at all.

 

Recall that Cicero was forced into exile until Cicero and his many friends managed to get the Caesar/Clodius boot off Cicero's neck. An experience like that tends to be intimidating, don't you think?

[theilian]

God I wish I could have watched all this from the a first person point of view

Actually, that is quite possible with Cicero's letters

(Or maybe you know that and I'm misunderstanding your words.)

Edited April 8, 2007 by theilian

[ModernMarvel]

Personally, I think Cicero was a brilliant orator and politician. I think that Cicero was extremely influential in the creation of my beloved United States (Ben Franklin, and some of the other founders were admirers of Cicero).

 

That being said, I feel that Cicero also was extremely close-minded. He tried so desparately to hold on the the republic that was obviously falling apart. I found it sad that he could not see past his own desires to keep "the good 'ole days". Personally, I think if he would have accepted the inevitable, many less lives would have been lost in the battle for power.

 

 

Marv

[theilian]

That being said, I feel that Cicero also was extremely close-minded. He tried so desparately to hold on the the republic that was obviously falling apart. I found it sad that he could not see past his own desires to keep "the good 'ole days". Personally, I think if he would have accepted the inevitable, many less lives would have been lost in the battle for power.

I absolutely agree with you on Cicero beng close-minded, seeing the malaise of the republic essentially as a matter of personnel problem rather than socio-economical and political crisis. But if you mean Caesarism by 'inevitable', I cannot agree in finding fault with him not accepting it. Moreover, I don't think the rise of Principate was inevitable, but that's another matter. Also I don't see how Cicero is responsible for any lives lost other than 5 Catiline conspirators. Are you suggesting that there would have been no civil war if he had not opposed Antony?

[caldrail]

I wonder what stopped Cicero and the Senate from forming up their own legions to protect the Republic?

Probably because they couldn't afford them. The generals on the other hand could offer their men booty from their victories. The senate tried more than once to relieve people of their command but the men were behind their commanders.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I wonder what stopped Cicero and the Senate from forming up their own legions to protect the Republic?

Probably because they couldn't afford them. The generals on the other hand could offer their men booty from their victories. The senate tried more than once to relieve people of their command but the men were behind their commanders.

The basic premise is absurd. All the armies of the republic were formed to protect the People and Senate of Rome. If one of these armies went rogue (e.g., Caesar's, Antony's), the others were called in to defeat it (e.g., Pompey in the case of Caesar's rogue army, Hirtius and Pansa in the case of Antony's rogue army). The notable exception, of course, was Octavian's little army. At any other time in history, it would have been immediately outlawed and crushed, as happened to the many private armies that plagued Rome since its founding--from the armies of Titus and Tiberius Junius Brutus, to the armies of Lepidus, Brutus (the elder), and Catilina.

[ModernMarvel]

That being said, I feel that Cicero also was extremely close-minded. He tried so desparately to hold on the the republic that was obviously falling apart. I found it sad that he could not see past his own desires to keep "the good 'ole days". Personally, I think if he would have accepted the inevitable, many less lives would have been lost in the battle for power.

I absolutely agree with you on Cicero beng close-minded, seeing the malaise of the republic essentially as a matter of personnel problem rather than socio-economical and political crisis. But if you mean Caesarism by 'inevitable', I cannot agree in finding fault with him not accepting it. Moreover, I don't think the rise of Principate was inevitable, but that's another matter. Also I don't see how Cicero is responsible for any lives lost other than 5 Catiline conspirators. Are you suggesting that there would have been no civil war if he had not opposed Antony?

 

No, what I mean is that Cicero should have accepted the fact of the Republic dying. Whether it be by Caesar or someone else. The republic was having death throes. I'm not saying that the principate was inevitable, but what was inevitable was the faltering of the republic.

 

Furthermore, whether Cicero opposed Antony or not, there would have been civil war. By then, the damage had been done. I don't think Cicero was a cause of the civil war, but it didn't help matters with him trying to use Octavian against him. I think that his motives were good, but he way underestimated the saavy nad personal ambition of Octavian.

[Primus Pilus]

I wonder what stopped Cicero and the Senate from forming up their own legions to protect the Republic?

Probably because they couldn't afford them. The generals on the other hand could offer their men booty from their victories. The senate tried more than once to relieve people of their command but the men were behind their commanders.

The basic premise is absurd. All the armies of the republic were formed to protect the People and Senate of Rome. If one of these armies went rogue (e.g., Caesar's, Antony's), the others were called in to defeat it (e.g., Pompey in the case of Caesar's rogue army, Hirtius and Pansa in the case of Antony's rogue army). The notable exception, of course, was Octavian's little army. At any other time in history, it would have been immediately outlawed and crushed, as happened to the many private armies that plagued Rome since its founding--from the armies of Titus and Tiberius Junius Brutus, to the armies of Lepidus, Brutus (the elder), and Catilina.

 

And Pompey "adulescentulus carnifex" Magnus' private army that was tolerated by Sulla.

 

At any rate, what stopped the Senate from forming their own legions was the law. They authorized Pompey to gather and prepare legally sanctioned legions instead. Had Pompey not been available, they would've legally authorized another Consular army. Opinions may differ on moral stances and causes, but there was no need to raise a private army when a fully sanctioned official army could be raised instead.

[Adelais Valerius]

God I wish I could have watched all this from the a first person point of view

Actually, that is quite possible with Cicero's letters

(Or maybe you know that and I'm misunderstanding your words.)

 

I mean see it with my own two eyes, not read it. Though reading it is quite enthralling, I don't think there would be anything better than seeing Cicero give a speech.