Catiline's conspiracy

[Minerva]

Could Catiline realy have pulled it off even if Cicero was not having a eagle eye on him? Cicero finally managed to convince the state that the situation was serious enough to issue an S.C.U but in reality how great a threat was it?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

In terms of political assasination, the senators had a lot to fear. Otherwise, not much really, he had only one legion to take over Rome. Some imperator or dux in Northern Italy coulda just mobilized back to Rome within a month with at least 2 legions to put down a revolt.

 

But of course, my opinion is completely not deeply intellectual.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I still doubt the whole conspiracy was as much a threat as it was made out to be, IMO the threat was blown way out of proportion by Cicero. firstly because he loathed Catiline, and secondly, the whole affair would make Cicero's term as consul one of the most memorable in history and help to cement his name in the history books a "The man who saved Rome".

 

The fact that Catiline was a bad apple and a want to be 'demagogue' is pretty clear but the accusations of overthrowing and murdering the senate were far fetched to say the least. Catiline was everything that Cicero hated, for a start he had been Cicero's opponent in the run for the consulship, he lived a playboy lifestyle, was handsome, good with the ladies, wealthy, with impeccable Patrician ancestry, he had everything handed to him on a plate where as Cicero had to work extremely hard against all the odds to get where he was. Cicero needed a target to make his consulship one to remember and Catiline fit the bill perfectly.

 

I'm not saying that Catiline was an angel or anything because he wasn't, he was a nasty peace of work, his actions during Sulla's proscriptions prove that, but what I do think is that Cicero turned the whole affair into a witch hunt and forced Catiline down the road he eventually took.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[ASCLEPIADES]

Could Catiline realy have pulled it off even if Cicero was not having a eagle eye on him? Cicero finally managed to convince the state that the situation was serious enough to issue an S.C.U but in reality how great a threat was it?

Salve, Amici.

I have to agree with both FVC and GPM on this one; MT Cicero was always trying to impress his audience (he was quite successful) and he even used the old trick of the arsonism menace. He presented himself as the true saviour of the Roman city, people and state from global annihilation by a mixed Gaul-traitors attack.

 

That was quite unlikely, to say the least. The known core of the Conspiracy, as you can check here, were a dozen Senators, all from noble families (four were patricians), including three previous consuls and a tribune of the Plebs elected for the next year.

Their most probable sponsors were the future triumvirs ML Crassus and CJ Caesar.

 

They were clearly no radicals; what they almost surely wanted was a bigger share of the Republican government.

Indiscriminate destruction and terrorism were presumably of no use for them.

The selective suppression of their political opponents (eg, MT Cicero and MP Cato) was their most obvious immediate goal.

 

The Allobroges' connection was probably overstated by Cicero, as an easy way to get useful confessions; not being Roman citizens, torture use was not prevented for them.

Edited July 21, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Salve, Amici.

I have to agree with both FVC and GPM on this one; MT Cicero was always trying to impress his audience (he was quite successful) and he even used the old trick of the arsonism menace. .

 

Yes, Cicero accused Catiline and his accomplices of trying start fires all across Rome to signal the start of the rebellion but according to Cicero these arson attacks were stopped by his guards and the rebellion was thwarted. This is just nonsense. Everyone knows that like every ancient city, Rome was like a tinderbox, if anyone with half a brain wanted to ignite Rome they could have done it quite easily and in a city the size of Rome it would have been almost impossible for Cicero and his guards to stop it.

 

 

That was quite unlikely, to say the least. The known core of the Conspiracy, as you can check here, were a dozen Senators, all from noble families (four were patricians), including three previous consuls and a tribune of the Plebs elected for the next year.

 

According to Cicero, "Catiline's accomplices were composed of debtors, gamblers, layabouts, parricides, assassins, debauchers, effeminate degenerates and louche characters of every sort." Against Catiline II.4,22.

Doesn't sound much like the eventual accused does it? It makes you think that Cicero really didn't have a clue who Catiline was supposedly in league with. And if these were the sort of no good wasters that Catiline was supposed to taker over Rome with then they don't sound like much of a serious threat do they?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

To save going over old ground HERE'S a discussion we had last year about that dastardly character Lucius Sergius Catilina.

 

[Minerva]

To save going over old ground HERE'S a discussion we had last year about that dastardly character Lucius Sergius Catilina.

 

[

 

Thanks Alot for the earlier thread it realy did save alot of repetition. My personal view on the matter when i statd this thread was that: there was a problem but - Cicero blew it out of propotion and even if Catitiline had managed to survive and keep his coup d' etat floating for a little while Pompey would have arrived and flattened him. THE END.

After reading all the posts i'm not sure what to believe about the 1st attempt, but as for the rest -the attempt at senatorial massacre might be more likely a fabrication of Cicero. He himself most probably sent the anonymous leters to Crassus because the senate didn't pay much attention to the issue.

After all Cicero was the Ancient world's greatest lawyer. Therefore his eloquence if nothing else would have succee

[Minerva]

To save going over old ground HERE'S a discussion we had last year about that dastardly character Lucius Sergius Catilina.

 

[

 

Thanks Alot for the earlier thread it realy did save alot of repetition. My personal view on the matter when i statd this thread was that: there was a problem but - Cicero blew it out of propotion and even if Catitiline had managed to survive and keep his coup d' etat floating for a little while Pompey would have arrived and flattened him. THE END.

After reading all the posts i'm not sure what to believe about the 1st attempt, but as for the rest -the attempt at senatorial massacre might be more likely a fabrication of Cicero. He himself most probably sent the anonymous leters to Crassus because the senate didn't pay much attention to the issue.

After all Cicero was the Ancient world's greatest lawyer. Therefore his eloquence if nothing else would have succeeded in painting Catiline's conspiracy as a great threat. Which in turn would add another feather on to Cicero's hat and not a bad addition at that because he was incapable of attaining military glory and this was the closest he could get + he hated Catitline so why not?

[Minerva]

Thanks for the list Asclepiades. What was Cicero thinking? but I have a few points needing clarification question. Sura I believe confessed. If there was no conspiracy how did this happen? And the Allobroges got conspiratory documants signed by some of the conspirators. So were they forgeries?

Edited July 21, 2008 by Minerva

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Thanks for the list Asclepiades. What was Cicero thinking? but I have a few points needing clarification question. Sura I believe confessed. If there was no conspiracy how did this happen? And the Allobroges got conspiratory documants signed by some of the conspirators. So were they forgeries?

 

The letter from Lentulas Sura was hardly hard incriminating evidence, the only parts of the letter that are quoted by Cicero are a part where he urges Catiline to "stand firm" and another part "to enlist the aid of all, even the lower class". This could be taken many ways, it could come across as a letter of support to a friend , telling him to stand firm against the adversity he's facing and to seek support from where ever he can, but it could also been taken from a sinister point of view too. But in my opinion it hardly counts as stalwart evidence.

 

Where the Allobroges were concerned the chances are they were looking after No 1 and doing what would favour them in the long run. Either they co operated on the promise of a substantial reward or they would make themselves some unwanted enemies in Rome.

I'm dubious of the signed documents, I mean were the conspirators so thick that they would put their own personal seals on such incriminating evidence.... I don't think so.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks for the list Asclepiades. What was Cicero thinking?

Do you mean by defending PC Sulla and LC Bestia? As usual, I would think MT Cicero has both political and economic incentives for doing it so.

 

but I have a few points needing clarification question. Sura I believe confessed. If there was no conspiracy how did this happen? And the Allobroges got conspiratory documants signed by some of the conspirators. So were they forgeries?

Don't get me wrong; I think there's no question the conspiracy was for real, not just for all the collected evidence, but especially for the ulterior rebellion of Catiline and his partisans that actually rose at Etruria.

 

Judging by their numbers, it was no surprise they would have welcomed any support from the Allobroges.

 

I just think MT Cicero exaggerated the actual risk; the conspirators' aim was presumably not Rome's destruction, but gaining the control of the Republican government for themselves.

[Primus Pilus]

I just think MT Cicero exaggerated the actual risk; the conspirators' aim was presumably not Rome's destruction, but gaining the control of the Republican government for themselves.

 

The monopolization of power as an objective, especially via the measures espoused by the Catilinarians, should not (in my opinion) really be discounted as a lesser form of harm than what we may label as destruction. One can never know for sure what the ramifications of either possibility might be.

 

In any case, I don't think there's any question that the affair was exaggerated to some degree, but Catiline did show a certain tenacity in continuing his pursuit of political status despite several successive electoral defeats. It seems that the clash between Catiline and the "State" is one of those almost inevitable moments of history. Even had he legally won the consulship at some point, what seems to have been a lust for demagoguery may not have been abated anyway.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I just think MT Cicero exaggerated the actual risk; the conspirators' aim was presumably not Rome's destruction, but gaining the control of the Republican government for themselves.

 

The monopolization of power as an objective, especially via the measures espoused by the Catilinarians, should not (in my opinion) really be discounted as a lesser form of harm than what we may label as destruction. One can never know for sure what the ramifications of either possibility might be.

 

In any case, I don't think there's any question that the affair was exaggerated to some degree, but Catiline did show a certain tenacity in continuing his pursuit of political status despite several successive electoral defeats. It seems that the clash between Catiline and the "State" is one of those almost inevitable moments of history. Even had he legally won the consulship at some point, what seems to have been a lust for demagoguery may not have been abated anyway.

The two most likely sponsors of Catiline & Co., the previous consul and censor Marcus Licinius Crassus (denounced by the conspirator L. Tarquinus) and the elected praetor Caius Julius Caesar (accused by Catullus and Piso) eventually reached both the (illegal) supreme power over Rome under the First triumvirate just four years after the Catiline

[Primus Pilus]

Their rule was hardly exempt from violence, but it was still quite far from the city's destruction depicted by Cicero.

 

Indeed, but it did ultimately lead to the destruction of the Republic. While not exactly the physical destruction predicted by Cicero, some have equated it's demise in a similar fashion. Cicero probably would've thought so anyway... especially when relating his personal fate. A discussion for a completely different thread I suppose.

[ASCLEPIADES]

While not exactly the physical destruction predicted by Cicero, some have equated it's demise in a similar fashion.

Here comes Marcus Tullius Cicero, Oratio in Lucium Catilinam Tertia, habita ad poplulum, cp. I:

 

Rem publicam, Quirites, vitamque omnium vestrum bona, fortunas, coniuges liberosque vestros atque hoc domicilium clarissumi imperii, fortunatissimam pulcherrimamque urbem, hodierno die deorum inmortalium summo erga vos amore, laboribus, consiliis, periculis meis e flamma atque ferro ac paene ex faucibus fati ereptam et vobis conservatam ac restitutam videtis.

 

You see this day, O Romans, the republic, and all your lives, your goods, your fortunes, your wives and children, this home of most illustrious empire, thus most fortunate and beautiful city, by the great love of the immortal gods for you, by my labours and counsels and dangers, snatched from fire and sword, and almost from the very jaws of fate, and preserved and restored to you.