Optimates and Populares

[M. Porcius Cato]

The terms 'optimates' and 'populares' are batted around fairly often, typically with the assumption that they were stable groups, somewhat like political parties. I'm not convinced that these groupings are ultimately that coherent, but I'm liable to change my mind. So, here's an experiment we might try: For the years 70-49, list 12 regular populares and 12 regular optimates, and explain a rule that reliably differentiates just these 24 men. If these categories are really well-defined, the lists should be easy to generate, the categorization of the names on the list should be fairly non-controversial, and a simple rule (say, one paragraph) should suffice to justify the two lists.

[Primus Pilus]

The terms 'optimates' and 'populares' are batted around fairly often, typically with the assumption that they were stable groups, somewhat like political parties. I'm not convinced that these groupings are ultimately that coherent, but I'm liable to change my mind. So, here's an experiment we might try: For the years 70-49, list 12 regular populares and 12 regular optimates, and explain a rule that reliably differentiates just these 24 men. If these categories are really well-defined, the lists should be easy to generate, the categorization of the names on the list should be fairly non-controversial, and a simple rule (say, one paragraph) should suffice to justify the two lists.

 

By non controversial, are you suggesting we avoid all of the major faction leaders and attempt to fill in the back benchers or supporting casts?

 

An example... Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Cos. 49 BC but more famous for his accusation against Clodius in the Bona Dea scandal. He was an optimate by general affiliation but is his adversarial relationship with Caesar considered too controversial for this exercise?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I mean the application of your definition of optimate/populare should be non-controversial.

 

As an example, one might take the man's position on tribunician power to be the defining feature of the optimate/populare categories. Using this definition, one could--without controversy--put Sulla in the optimate category (since he sponsored the laws depriving them of power) and put Pompey and Crassus in the populare category (since they sponsored the laws that returned power to tribunes). An example of controversial placement would be the categorization of people who had no known position on the power of tribunes (e.g., Catulus).

 

Some definitions, I think it's easy to see, would be inherently controversial to apply. The notion that the 'optimates' were the "good men", for example, couldn't be applied without controversy. After all, was Cicero a good man? Obviously the matter is controversial. Alternatively, the notion that the 'populares' were "for the people" also couldn't be applied without controversy since everyone claimed to be "for the people". (Recall Nasica's contio in which he told the crowd, "Silence, please, Citizens; for I know better than you what is good for you."!)

[Primus Pilus]

I mean the application of your definition of optimate/populare should be non-controversial.

 

As an example, one might take the man's position on tribunician power to be the defining feature of the optimate/populare categories. Using this definition, one could--without controversy--put Sulla in the optimate category (since he sponsored the laws depriving them of power) and put Pompey and Crassus in the populare category (since they sponsored the laws that returned power to tribunes). An example of controversial placement would be the categorization of people who had no known position on the power of tribunes (e.g., Catulus).

 

Some definitions, I think it's easy to see, would be inherently controversial to apply. The notion that the 'optimates' were the "good men", for example, couldn't be applied without controversy. After all, was Cicero a good man? Obviously the matter is controversial. Alternatively, the notion that the 'populares' were "for the people" also couldn't be applied without controversy since everyone claimed to be "for the people". (Recall Nasica's contio in which he told the crowd, "Silence, please, Citizens; for I know better than you what is good for you."!)

 

Very well... that's quite clear then I should think.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Very well... that's quite clear then I should think.

If there were a good descriptive list of Roman magistrates, it might help.

[Primus Pilus]

Very well... that's quite clear then I should think.

If there were a good descriptive list of Roman magistrates, it might help.

 

Allow a simple generality for a moment... In my opinion, the Optimates and Populares were much the same. Each group essentially had the interests of the Republic at heart, while attempting to advance those interests in line with a course that would support their own individual positions. There are extreme circumstances of personal demagoguery, rigid conservatism and/or personal enmity that taint the averages, but for the most part I believe the typical politician (both "parties") was trying to his job to the best of his abilities. I think this exercise will also help illustrate that all magistracies were not cases of greed and/or personal advancement as has been sometimes suggested.

 

With that said, familial holiday obligations beckon, so I will be slow in suggesting a list.

[Julius Ratus]

I would consider the difference between the Optimates and Populares is how they operated. The Optimates recieved their authority from tradition and the Populares harnessed current popular sentiment to give them power.

 

With this as the criteria I would consider Caesar and Pompey to both be Populares. Likewise, I would add Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Marius, Clodius, and even Milo to the list of Populares. I am not as familiar with the Optimate politicians so I would say that M. P. Cato, most of the Scipii and Metelli, and the Tribune Octavius to be examples of the Optimates.

 

I will not try to convince you that they were stable groups because I don't believe they were. Look at my list of Populares, Caesar fought Pompey and Clodius fought Milo. Both Milo and Pompey fought for the Optimates, but I believe they were Populare in methodology. I think that the Populares and Optimates were examples of Roman ideologies.

 

Thanks MPC for starting this thread, this should be an interesting discussion.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I would consider the difference between the Optimates and Populares is how they operated. The Optimates recieved their authority from tradition and the Populares harnessed current popular sentiment to give them power.

But many of the optimates had popular sentiment on their side. When Caesar, for example, displayed a placard depicting the deaths of Scipio and Cato at his triumph, the crowds groaned and booed him. Likewise, when Caesar and Pompey shared power in the triumvirate, they were openly booed, hissed, and yelled at in the theater. Moreover, had they had popular support, why would it have been necessary for them to use violence in the forum for them to pass their legislation?? I don't think the "popular sentiment" standard is defining even of the few names you list as populare.

 

With this as the criteria I would consider Caesar and Pompey to both be Populares. Likewise, I would add Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Marius, Clodius, and even Milo to the list of Populares. I am not as familiar with the Optimate politicians so I would say that M. P. Cato, most of the Scipii and Metelli, and the Tribune Octavius to be examples of the Optimates.

Three of your seven populares were not even contemporaries of the other four. Hardly a meaningful faction if they couldn't even work together since nearly half the faction was dead. Also, why would Milo make your list of populares? What is the evidence of popular support for him? Moreover, the tribune Octavius was not a contemporary of Cato, Scipio, and the Metelli. Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence that the Metelli derived their authority from tradition. This list simply won't do.

 

Thanks MPC for starting this thread, this should be an interesting discussion.

I hope this is a meaningful exercise. Personally, I strongly suspect that the labels 'populare' and 'optimate' mark utterly incoherent groups, and they merely serve as fictional devices for simple-minded undergraduates.

Edited April 9, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Publius Nonius Severus]

If there were a good descriptive list of Roman magistrates, it might help.

 

 

I am sorry I came to this discussion so late. In furtherance of Cato's concept, I am compiling a list of notable politicans who were alive and active in the poltical arena during the time period proposed (70-49) to see if we can collectively compile a list of individuals who can "consistently" be considered aligned with one group or the other. I will include links to sources for references as applicable as well.

 

I hope to have something in a couple of hours...be back soon!

[M. Porcius Cato]

If there were a good descriptive list of Roman magistrates, it might help.

I hope to have something in a couple of hours...be back soon!

 

Here are a few to get you started:

M. Licinius Crassus Dives (cos. 70, 55)

triumvir; client of Sulla; defeated Spartacus; patron of tax-farmers; led army to annihilation in Parthia

 

Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, 55, 52)

triumvir; client of Sulla; voted unlimited imperium to defeat Cilician pirates; resotred Ptolemy Auletes; led republican army at Pharsalus

 

Q. Hortensius Hortalus (cos. 69)

renowned orator and "king of the courts" before Cicero; clients included Pompey, Nicomedes, Dolabella, Verres, Murena; opposed Gabinian and Manilian laws

 

L. Sergius Catilina (pr. 68)

client of Sulla; leader of failed putsch; advocated universal cancellation of debts

 

M. Tullius Cicero (cos. 63)

renowned orator and philosophe; served under Sulla; accused Sullan favorite of murder in his defense of Sextus Roscius; left for Greece and Rhodes, met with republican idealists, Rufus and Posidonius; studied rhetoric with Molon; quaestor in Sicily, discovered tomb of Archimedes; successfully prosecuted Verres for extortion; as consul, defeated conspiracy of Catiline, declared Pater Patriae by Cato; refused to join triumvirate, persecuted by Clodius; governor of Cilicia; during Caesar's dictaorship, devoted himself to writing; led opposition to Antony, proscribed by the second triumvirate

 

C. Julius Caesar (cos. 59, 48; dict. 46, 45, 44)

triumvir, pontifex maximus; campaigned in Spain; proconsul of Illyricum and both Gallic provinces; conquered all Gaul, killing and enslaving unprecedented numbers; marched on Rome, defeated several armies of the republic in civil war; annexed Egypt; held lifetime dictatorship and was acclaimed a king outside Italy; assassinated in senate meeting; deified by political supporters

 

M. Calpurnius Bibulus (cos. 59)

follower of Cato; relentlessly attacked by Caesarians; nervous breakdown as admiral in Dyrrachium

 

Cn Cornelius Lentulus Spinther Clodianus (pr. 59)

 

C. Alfius Flavus (tr pl 59)

 

A. Gabinius (cos. 58)

client of Pompey; proposed lex Gabinia; defended by Torquatus

 

M. Porcius Cato Uticensis (pr. 54; propr. 57, 56)

renowned Stoic, ardent constiutionalist, leader of opposition to triumvirate; reformed treasury and prosecuted Sullans; advocated capital penalty for Catilinarians; annexed Cyprus; in Utica, committed suicide in protest of Caesar's victory over last republican forces; later celebrated as fallen hero of the republican cause

 

M. Terentius Varro (pr ?; sp cm 59)

Historian, philosopher, naturalist, grammarian, poet, "most learned of all Romans", responsible for Varronian chronology, author of over 600 books; joined Pompey in civil war, twice surrendered to Caesar; withdrew entirely from public life, but proscribed by Antony anyway

 

L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (cos. 58)

Proconsul in Macedonia, defeated Bessi

 

C. Memmius (pr. 58)

patron of Lucretius; opposed Caesar's acta

 

P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (cos. 57)

carried bill to recall Cicero; opponent of triumvirate

 

Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (cos. 57)

Proconsul in Nearer Spain; defeated Vaccaei; enemy of Cato yet abandoned Pompey to oppose triumvirate

P. Vatinius (cos. 47, pr. 55)

cl

ient of Caesar; organized soldiers in Forum to push through the land grant to Pompey's veterans; suborned Vetteius' charges of 'conspiracy' against Pompey; legate under Caesar in Gaul; expelled from Macedonia by Brutus in 44

 

P. Clodius Pulcher (aed cr 56)

led mutiny against Lucullus; caused Bona Dea scandal; client of Caesar; exiled Cicero and destroyed his house and villas; organized street gangs to pass triumviral legislation

 

T. Annius Milo (pr. 54)

client of Pompey; organized gangs to fight Clodius'; worked for Cicero's recall; led unsuccessful revolt against Caesar in 48

 

L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 54)

follower of Cato; recalled Cicero from exile; opponent of triumvirate, threatened Caesar with prosecution

 

Cn. Domitus Calvinus (cos. 53, 40)

Head of election laws court

 

L. Manlius Torquatus (pr 49)

patron of Catullus, Epicurean philosophe and orator; prosecuted Sullans; fought Caesar at Oricum, Dyrrhachium

 

Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (cos. 52)

follower of Cato; commanded army at Thapsus

Edited April 10, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Here is my first go of "Define and Divide" as I call it. Below is a list of about 25 individuals (total) who met the requirements of being politically active in some substantive form (time or signficant action or both) during the time period of 70-49 BC. I then tried to divide them into one of three categories: Optimates, Populares, or Inconsistent/Independent.

 

The first and most difficult part of this exercise, as emphasized by Cato, is trying to define the labels. The difficulties have been discussed above. Personally I cater to the idea that optimates and populares didn't have vastly different ideologies in and of themselves. They all wanted the same power, they just had different ways of pursuing it/maintaining it.

 

As such, I roughly defined an optimate as someone who had had an established base of power though dominance of the Senate and the high magistracies, preserving the mos maiorum and status quo through the traditional means established by the centuries of Republican rule.

 

I defined populares as those that used the popular assemblies and preferential treatment to the masses through cheap/free grain, land redistribution, and legislative reform to obtain/maintain power.

 

I defined an independent as someone who used both means or switched allegiances or maintained independence (as much as possible)

 

I know these are not perfect definitions, I just wanted somethng to get me started and be able to have rough guidelines to sort individuals out. The list is weighted more heavily with consuls and praetors, because there is more info. I hope to add some more tribunes later. There are some other famous names missing: Some of the Caecilii Metelli, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, etc. Again, they were either not active enough in the time period or other similar reasons.

 

The result was a fairly even division between the three categories, which I think support Cato's proposal that these labels are at most devices as opposed to true representations of ideologies (Especially considering some of the names in the Inconsistent category).

 

Please note in a lot of cases someone has been labeled "by association". Much may not be attributable to them personally, but displayed consistency in their allegiances. These are in no particular order. below each name is a short justification, if there is nothing written, it should be pretty clear why. This is a starting ground, not a final list.

 

I have not included reference to source material as I mentioned before, it got a little cumbersome. All of these individuals should be well-known or easly Googled, Wikipediafied, or found in other major works:

 

 

Optimates

======

 

1. Quintus Hortensius Hortalus - Consul 69

Assosciation, Legal Defense of Optimates

 

2. Gaius Calpurnius Piso, consul 67

By Association

 

3. Decimus Junius Silanus, Consul 62

Limits on certain legislative aspects

 

4. Marcus Valerius Messalla Niger, Consul 61

By Association

 

5. Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus - Consul 50

Opposition to First Triumvirate

 

6. Appius Claudius Pulcher - Cconsul 54 BC

Association

 

7. Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus Consul 54 BC

Association

 

8. Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, Consul 52

Association

 

9. Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Consul 51 BC

Association

 

10. M. Porcius Cato

 

 

Populares

=======

 

1. Lucius Aurelius Cotta, Consul 65

Caesar Supporter

 

2. Lucius Julius Caesar, Consul 64

Caesar Supporter

 

3. Gaius Julius Caesar, Consul 59, 48, 46, Dictator

 

4. Publius Clodius Pulcher - Curule Aedile 56

 

5. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Consul 58

Association with Clodius

 

6. Aulus Gabinius, Consul 58

Pompey's command vs. pirates while Tribune in 67

 

7. Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, Consul 53

Caesar Supporter

 

 

Inconsistent/Indepedent

================

 

1. Marcus Tullius Cicero, Consul 63

Tendency towards optimates for defense of republicanism

 

2. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus - Consul 70, 55, 52

Tendency Towards Populares - Only joined Optimates to oppose Caesar

 

3. Marcus Licinius Crassus - Consul 70, 55

Tendency towards Optimates, Wealth

 

4. Lucius Licinius Murena, Consul 62

Tendency towards optimates by association

 

5. Titus Annius Milo Papianus

Cicero recall, support of P. CLodius Pulcher

 

6. Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, Consul 57

Supported Caesar and Pompey

 

7. Lucius Marcius Philippus, Consul 56

Friend Caesar and Cicero, Stepfather Octavian

 

8. Marcus Junius Brutus

Optimates and then Caesar support

[M. Porcius Cato]

To me, this list looks like it can be more simply divided into: pro-triumvirate versus anti-triumvirate. Otherwise, support for the status quo doesn't really work very well for the optimates group (I can provide counter-examples if you'd like), and support for cheap grain/agrarian laws doesn't work very well for the populares group (again, counter-examples come to mind). If we really apply the proposed definition, a lot more people will be stuck in the 'independent group'. For example, Cato proposed a bill for free grain and co-operated with Caesar to prosecute the Sullan establishment, whereas Cicero opposed agrarian laws consistently and defended those prosecuted by Cato and Caesar.

[Primus Pilus]

...pro-triumvirate versus anti-triumvirate. Otherwise, support for the status quo doesn't really work very well for the optimates group (I can provide counter-examples if you'd like), and support for cheap grain/agrarian laws doesn't work very well for the populares group (again, counter-examples come to mind).

 

This "pro vs. anti" seems to be the key as I've been trying to come up with some sort of list of my own. Much support and opposition often seems based on the who rather than the what or the why. Aside from certain key players who led their own factions the affiliations often change based on the nature of the proposed law or ideology. Yes there are some tendencies that are easy to see, but defining the optimates or populares as a "party" ignores the more typical factional/patron-client basis of Roman politics.

 

Notice that the key events of the late Republic are tied to dynamic and overwhelming personalities. The events themselves (agrarian issues or magistrate eligibility for instance) had been a part of the political battle from the earliest days of Rome. It is with the arrival of these particular personalities that the political processes and reasonable compromises are thrown out the window as the factions lined up on one side or the other. I am not attempting to suggest that the Plebes or even Italian allies had no right to make various demands throughout Rome's history, but it was the demagogues who forced the people and the aristocracy to take a defined stand on one side or another. I am also not trying to suggest that such tactics were not occasionally effective and at times a necessity, but it is in these times only that stringent political affiliations seem to take place. When compromise was reached, these strict affiliations made room for a less defined factional environment.

 

When one really looks through the whole history of the Roman Republic, the "struggle of the orders" was not a constant battle as much as it was a relatively healthy political debate. Again, I don't mean to suggest that everything was a rose garden utopia by any stretch of the imagination, but am merely pointing out that it is the extremes that are most remembered. These extremes make up relatively short portions of the whole of Roman history.

 

Again forgive me for rambling without citing any clear references on my thoughts, but this is what I have been struggling with while trying to define the lists per Cato's criteria.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Notice that the key events of the late Republic are tied to dynamic and overwhelming personalities.

 

Yes, and not just one or two but several. If we're looking at events from the death of Sulla to the passage of the lex Gabinia, it becomes terribly difficult to determine how to categorize Catulus, Pompey, Crassus, Lucullus, Catiline, Murena, Cicero, Caesar, and Cato into any clear factions, let alone the optimate/populare divide. The alliances at this point were constantly shifting and appear almost totally ad hoc.

[Mosquito]

My candidates for populares:

 

Appius Claudius Crassus - decemvir - 5th century BC - the one who was making first roman written laws

 

Gaius Marcius Rutilus - first plebeian dictator, censor, consul four times - 4 BC

 

Appius Claudius Caecus - the one who built via Appia 4/3 century BC

 

Appius Claudius Caudex - the one who fought Mamertines on Sicilly 3rd BC

 

Gaius Flaminius Nepos - the one who died at Lake Trasimene - 3rd century BC (anyway there were no others of this name)

 

Both brothers Gracchi - no need to explain why

 

Publius Claudius Pulcher - consul 184 BC

 

Marcus Licinius Crassus - triumvir - as well as the other two but this one was even more "popular" than Caesar for being the leader of Rome's buissnes class which was usually against nobilitas

 

Gaius Marius - no need to explain

 

Clodius - definatelly - he had it in his genes

 

Oh damn, I just noticed that you wanted list only for the last decades of Republic, sorry

Edited April 10, 2007 by Mosquito