Optimates and Populares

[M. Porcius Cato]

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

 

Right, the reasoning is that if the populares were a faction or party, there had to be enough of them to work together at some particular moment in history. The particular moment is totally arbitrary--I chose the late republic only because that's where we have the most source material. Without the time constraint, the "faction" idea loses all force. You wouldn't say that Cato, William of Orange, and George Washington were all in one faction, even if they all supported similar political ideals, because they couldn't possibly support one another.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

It appears to me that it's going to be very difficult to compile a complete list of Romans that can be classed as solely Optimates or solely Populares, it seems that except for the odd one or two, the major players in the timescale given swapped and changed between parties depending on the path their careers were taking.

Just a thought but maybe you could start by signaling out the individuals who stayed loyal to their party throughout their lives and never strayed in order to further their careers.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It appears to me that it's going to be very difficult to compile a complete list of Romans that can be classed as solely Optimates or solely Populares, it seems that except for the odd one or two, the major players in the timescale given swapped and changed between parties depending on the path their careers were taking.

Just a thought but maybe you could start by signaling out the individuals who stayed loyal to their party throughout their lives and never strayed in order to further their careers.

But if there were no parties, there was nothing for them to stay loyal to!

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I'm not saying that there were no parties because there obviously were, there would always be the two opposing factions, what I was trying to say was that some of the major players that have been mention have at some time or other changed sides so you couldn't really state them as being either Optimate or Populare.

Like you said in a previous post

It becomes terribly difficult to categorize Catulus, Pompey, Crassus, Lucullus, Catiline Murena, Cicero, Cato and Caesar into any clear faction, let alone the optimate/populare divide. The alliances at this point were constantly shifting and appear almost totally ad hoc.

What I was suggesting is that you pick out the individuals who weren't constantly shifting their alliances, then they are the ones who you could truly call Optimate or Populare.

 

Does this make any sense or am I just rambling?

Edited April 10, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[theilian]

This is a fascinating stuff.

 

But I have to disagree about there being no populares party or limiting the discussion of party to contemporaries. I think Gracchi, Drusus, Cinna, etc represented certain tradition which was claimed by populares. Also populares had some degree of shared ideology that appealed to common populace.

As in many other cases, I think the most sensible approach to late Republican politics is to take a middle course and recognize both party ideological component and personalities component.

There are a lot of occasions when they crossed party lines because of personalities involved, as such the factions were not even close to today's political parties, but there still remained ideological factions that dominated the politics in the absence of very close personal connections. So someone like Piso, Appius Claudius were more affected by personal loyalties, but once such consideraton was removed (death of Clodius, Caesar's outright treason), they followed the party line.

 

In fact, there is exact passage to such effect in a letter from Caelius that says:

The polling was heavy, and the voting was evidently on party lines: only a very few voted from personal connection or obligation.

 

As for the grouping, I'd say

 

Populares:

Crassus

Caesar

Clodius

Catilina

Vatinius

Gabinius

 

Optimates:

Hortensius

Lucullus

Catalus

Cato

Bibulus

Scipio Nasico

Domitius

Lentulus Spinther

Cicero (in heart)

 

Independent:

Pompey and his supporters including Varro, Milo, Cicero (in action)

younger generations such as Curio, Caelius, etc

Edited April 10, 2007 by theilian

[M. Porcius Cato]

It becomes terribly difficult to categorize Catulus, Pompey, Crassus, Lucullus, Catiline Murena, Cicero, Cato and Caesar into any clear faction, let alone the optimate/populare divide. The alliances at this point were constantly shifting and appear almost totally ad hoc.

What I was suggesting is that you pick out the individuals who weren't constantly shifting their alliances, then they are the ones who you could truly call Optimate or Populare.

 

But alliances to what? to an individual? to a legislative agenda? to a constitutional issue? choose whatever defining characteristic you'd like, and I still think it's impossible to come up with a dozen consistent populares and a dozen consistent optimates.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But I have to disagree about there being no populares party or limiting the discussion of party to contemporaries. I think Gracchi, Drusus, Cinna, etc represented certain tradition which was claimed by populares. Also populares had some degree of shared ideology that appealed to common populace.

Did any of these men call themselves 'populares'? I don't think so. Moreover, we can't read the mind of a common populace that lived over 2000 years ago (or even 2 months ago), so this seems like an inherently controversial standard.

 

In fact, there is exact passage to such effect in a letter from Caelius that says:

The polling was heavy, and the voting was evidently on party lines: only a very few voted from personal connection or obligation.

That's a good passage to cite. What word did Cicero use for "party"? Factio? Also, what was the issue? And, really, how does Cicero know how anyone voted? Balloting was secret. Given the depiction of the voting scene on coins from the period, secrecy was well-protected by a number of devices. Cicero himself complained about this.

 

Populares: Crassus,Caesar,Clodius,Catilina,Vatinius,Gabinius

Except that Crassus and Caesar turned on Catilina; Clodius and Gabinius turned on Caesar. Vatinius had no popular positions: he was just a political tool.

 

Optimates: Hortensius, Lucullus, Catulus, Cato, Bibulus, Scipio Nasica, Domitius Ahenobarbus, Lentulus Spinther, Cicero (in heart)

What do these guys have in common other than opposing Caesar? If that's all, I don't see why I couldn't add Clodius and Gabinius to this list too.

[Mosquito]

But alliances to what? to an individual? to a legislative agenda? to a constitutional issue? choose whatever defining characteristic you'd like, and I still think it's impossible to come up with a dozen consistent populares and a dozen consistent optimates.

 

So, do we came to thesis that division on populares and optimates existed only (look also on my list) when there was a strong individual who was creating short time populares party or program, who was followed by group of people - which also followed him for many different reasons (like money, power, glory of Rome, personal loyalty)? And the optimates were just people who were against this strong individual, being against changes or considering them only as a tool to get support and full power in the Republic by just one person? Isint it typical for populares that they usually had only one real and true leader while optimates were usually the group of important people.

 

Just look for people like Caesar, Marius, Flaminius, Appius Claudius Crassus or Appius Claudius Caecus - they had no equals in the camp of populares. In fact they were the only and sole leaders having against themselves majority of the senate. All they had were followers but not colleagues or comrades.

And you cannot count the trivumvirates as the reign of popular party. It was in fact reign of 3 people but they represented only themselves (well, maybe Crassus was unique - I think he really represented the richest Romans).

 

So tell me MPC - is it the conclusion you wanted us to find out? That division was being ad hoc created by just 1 person and those who followed him in opposition to those who ddint want any strong people to come to power?

Edited April 10, 2007 by Mosquito

[M. Porcius Cato]

So, do we came to thesis that division on populares and optimates existed only (look also on my list) when there was a strong individual who was creating short time populares party or program, who was followed by group of people - which also followed him for many different reasons (like money, power, glory of Rome, personal loyalty)? And the optimates were just people who were against this strong individual, being against changes or considering them only as a tool to get support and full power in the Republic by just one person?

 

This is a more attractive definition than others, but if it's true, the terms "faction" and "party" don't do the definition any justice.

 

Also, I have no preset conclusion on the matter. I'd be just as happy to find stable, ideological factions as to find none.

[Mosquito]

So, here we have what we found in our debate:

 

Populares - people who are following a leader, strong politician who want to make some new legislations and get popularity and power bigger than the power of senate and to feel at least for a while like the only ruler of Rome. Other people just follow him for many different reasons, the leader is the center of their "movement" and the only factor uniting them all.

 

Optimates - the people who want to keep the balance of power, status quo, usually group of individuals united only by one aim - to not allow the leader of populares to get the power in the Republic or at least to not let him get uncontrolled power.

 

 

This also explain why so often after "defeating" populares, optimates were enacting reforms which were part of populares legislative program. They were doing it to finish the case and to not let anyone new start everything again under the same banners.

 

In this theory division on populares and optimates dont exists permanently, we cannot talk about parties or even factions, it appears when someone new appears on the politic scene, dissapears with his death (they usually finish in this waym, those poor populares).

Edited April 10, 2007 by Mosquito

[theilian]

Populares - people who are following a leader, strong politician who want to make some new legislations and get popularity and power bigger than the power of senate and to feel at least for a while like the only ruler of Rome. Other people just follow him for many different reasons, the leader is the center of their "movement" and the only factor uniting them all.

This woud be the definition according to Optimates.

Since the the aristocrats monopolized the power and wealth, any effort to spread it to populace would require strong and bold politician and attract people dissatisfied with status quo. This would include both people who are genuinely committed to reform and people who pursue selfish agenda.

 

That's a good passage to cite. What word did Cicero use for "party"? Factio? Also, what was the issue? And, really, how does Cicero know how anyone voted? Balloting was secret. Given the depiction of the voting scene on coins from the period, secrecy was well-protected by a number of devices. Cicero himself complained about this.

The quote is actually by Caelius descrbing Augur election, in which Domitius lost and Antony won. I must confess I am not well versed enough to know which of various comitia voted in election of augur. In any case, in his speeches, Cicero refers to 'popular party', 'popular cause', etc.

 

Except that Crassus and Caesar turned on Catilina; Clodius and Gabinius turned on Caesar.

It would be hard for any populare to support an open revolt or conspiracy.

In any case, I certainly do not think that optimates or populares were cohesive political factions. As I said, pesonalities involved played a huge role. But each of these people championed or claimed to champion people's cause and worked against the Senate.

[Primus Pilus]

The quote is actually by Caelius descrbing Augur election, in which Domitius lost and Antony won. I must confess I am not well versed enough to know which of various comitia voted in election of augur. In any case, in his speeches, Cicero refers to 'popular party', 'popular cause', etc.

 

What Cato means here is what was the actual Latin. The word or words that were translated to party in English may not quite have the meaning in the original. If you happen to have it handy or the actual passages, I'll look it up.

[theilian]

What Cato means here is what was the actual Latin. The word or words that were translated to party in English may not quite have the meaning in the original. If you happen to have it handy or the actual passages, I'll look it up.

XIV. Scr. Romae mense Septembri. a.u.c. 704. (F 8.14)

CAELIUS CICERONI SAL.

Tanti non fuit Arsacen capere et Seleuceam expugnare, ut earum rerum, quae hic gestae sunt, spectaculo careres: numquam tibi oculi doluissent, si in repulsa Domitii vultum vidisses. Magna illa comitia fuerunt et plane studia ex partium sensu apparuerunt: perpauci necessitudinem secuti officium praestiterunt.

[Primus Pilus]

Magna illa comitia fuerunt et plane studia ex partium sensu apparuerunt: perpauci necessitudinem secuti officium praestiterunt.

 

The concept of partium is readily understood, and the rest of the translation perfectly acceptable. We still might argue that the definition of the term from the Roman context to modern is completely different, but I don't think its actually necessary. I am still left somewhat torn on this and the passage actually helps support my sentiment. I believe that these "party" alliances existed in extreme situations, but that the patron/client obligation was a more important factor in less turbulent situations. I am still of a mind that these extremes created temporary and perhaps more strictly defined factions, but that otherwise, political alliances were far less static.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Populares - people who are following a leader, strong politician who want to make some new legislations and get popularity and power bigger than the power of senate and to feel at least for a while like the only ruler of Rome. Other people just follow him for many different reasons, the leader is the center of their "movement" and the only factor uniting them all.

 

In the above formulation, there are at least six different characteristics taken to define populare (populares are followers; populares are followers only of "strong" leaders; populares only follow leaders who want to pass legislation; the leaders of populares want to get popular; the leaders of populares want more power than the senate; the leaders of populares want to feel kings pro tempore).

 

At the outset, it seems to me that the longer your definition, the harder it's going to be to find 12 figures who fit it even on an ad hoc basis. Dropping some of these characteristics would help.