Furius Venator

But surely Caesar's Gallic campaigns paid for themselves? And further brought an influx of wealth to Rome in the form of slaves if nothing else. Also unauthorised how? (I know Caesar was 'pushing it') but technically he was acting in defence of Roman allies. Nobody could find fault with Caesar's land bill in the senate (hence Cato's filibuster to block it). It proposed the following: Communally owned land, except in Campania for some reason, to be divided up. No expense there. Pompey's loot to be used for purchase of land. No expense to the state there. Voluntary sale of land at the value assessed by the census. Nobody losing money there. Priority given to veterans, any residual land to the urban poor. Caesar was prepared to debate this point by point. Nobody in the senate challenged it. Pompey of course had legal dispensation to govern through legates. This is surely a fault of the system. Government by precedent is an invitation to abuse.

I hope its to his best standard. I've noticed that since he became a full time writer some of his books (or collaborations) have lacked a wee bit of punch.

Hearing rumours that they are to be disbanded, the veteran legion mutinies, the legate only narrowly escaping with his life. They are fortifying their camp... The army to the north is at least 70 miles away. That to the east now identified as two full strength legions currently camped about 25 miles away. Roman citizens in the town have approached you wondering if they are to be abandoned. To be clear, the town must not fall to the enemy (or if it does, you'd better get it back pronto). The citadel could easily be held by a small force, the town itself would require either a strong garrison (at least one legion) and/or active help from the townsmen, the bulk of whom are non citizens keen for peace.

It could be the battle against the Nervii BG II 25 It doesn't seem to be Alesia A quick scan of the Civil War doen't seem to have Caesar plunging into the fray. But you're correct, PP at no point did Caesar utter anything as crass as that. There is of course the incident at Dyrrachium where he is nearly killed by one of his routing troops but that isn't it either I suspect.

resistance to what though? Offices for their supporters? Land reform? Cancellation of debt? (Can't see Crassus being keen on that...) I mean why would Crassus form alliance with Pompey, whom he cordially hated, unless he was forced into it? I don't immediately see what was unconstitutional about Pompey's land bills for instance. Rather they threatened the influence of Cato's faction.

Of course, I was forgetting that, sorry. I'd be interested to know how you regard Cato's surprising support for the prosecution of Murena, given that had he been found guilty and stripped of his consulship, Catiline would have filled the vacant place. It doesn't really strike me as the shrewdest of moves, even though in the event Murena was acquitted. were this so then he seems to have made some poor long term judgements, not least as I've said, driving Crassus, caesar and Pompey into collusion. Of course the Sullan constitution was pretty rigorous (in theory). I'm surprised that a traditionalist wouldn't have defended it rather than attempted to restore the pre-Marian constitution (which, with hindsight, would surely have been impossible due to the utterly changed nature of the army). But then of course, Cato would not have reaped political reward from defending the Sullan constitution.

How about this? It is a time of civil war. You have just come to the command of four legions, of which one is veteran but has only recently joined your forces after long service with another commander who, you have just heard, joined the opposition last week. Your veteran legion is at half strength, your recruit legions at nearly full strength. You also have a small force of Numidian cavalry and some auxiliary light troops. Desertion is becoming a problem and discipline seems lax. You have two subordinates with sufficient authority to exercise independent command. One has a reputation for extreme loyalty but is notoriously lacking in initiative and, to be frank, a bit dense. The other is a very clever man and a shrewd political operator. He may not be entirely trustworthy. The opposition consist of two forces. Two veteran legions under a very able commander devoted to his cause lie somewhere to your north. Another is rumoured to have landed by sea thirty miles east of your position. It consists of an unknown number of troops but is unlikely to be more than three legions strong. Their experience is unknown but probably low. Their commander is a decent man but has a very poor reputation as a commander of troops Your forces are grouped in two camps (one of veterans, one of the recruits) around a walled town that is critical to hold. Supplies are sufficient for at least two months but in the event of siege, relief is unlikely (but not impossible)within that time. What orders will you give?

Surely the right to be tried by a Roman court rather than a by local law?

Cato, my lovely, that is correct. Other than the rattling of Servilia there would appear to be none. I'm quite convinced that Cato wasn't bothered one whit by that. I don't have Sallust to hand so I'll take your word for that. Did Cato in fact argue for a trial by jury? But you concur that the killing of the conspirators was against Roman law? Though IIRC Caesar said that it would be better to follow the law and not put citizens to death without trial. I'm well aware that Nepos had armed thugs guarding him. Nonethless Cato used violence against him, though I grant you he had a tame tribune in tow when he did so. Why was Cato present at all? Why could the silencing of Nepos not be left to the tribune? Filibustering is a device used to thwart a bill that will otherwise pass. It deliberately seeks to thwart the spirit of the constitution. There was nothing unconstitutional about applying to satnd for consul in absentia. Precedent existed. No, I'm sure Cato was very careful to keep his hands clean. Land reform could have been debated in the senate. In fact when Caesar presented his bill to the senate, there was little debate. Mainly because his bill seems to have been very fair, it was difficult to object too. Hence Cato's filibuster. Clearly he was opposed to any debate otherwise he could have debated/proposed amendment etc while it was before the senate. My criticism of Cato is really that his pursuit of vendetta, disguised (possibly even to himself) as concern for the constitution actually helped precipitate the collapse of the republic. He drove Pompey into the hands of Crassus and Caesar thus creating the triumvirate that you so detest. 'Blind and stupid force'. Come now, it was very effective use of force, applied when they had been 'talked out' of the senate.

Well let's take it that their feud started at the time of Cataline and that Cato was unmoved by Caesar's dalliance with Servilia, merely following a course of moral rectitude and high mindedness, opposing all those who sought to undermine the constitution by 'gansterism'. So the first time Cato thwarts Caesar is when he launches his speech that incites the senate to the judicial murder of the conspirators associated with Cataline. Here Cato is exploiting the unwritten constitution, clearly the execution of citizens without trial was not strictly constitutional, but 'expediency' appears to have ruled Cato here rather than concern for precedent. Caesar may have been suspended from office as praetor at this time also (but was quickly reinstated if so). He then uses violence against a tribune, Nepos (Pompey's creature). This of course defended the rights of the senate but had the consequence of bringing them into conflict with Pompey. Then Caesar seeks to stand for consul in absentia to allow him to triumph also. Cato filibusters (the only way of preventing senatorial acceptance). Hardly the action of a man pursuing anything but vendetta, the filibuster clearly thwarted the wishes of the senate. Caesar gives up his triumph and enters the race for consul. He and Lucceius indulge in the traditional heavy bribery of electors. Bibulus (the crony of Cato) does likewise. Cato once again displays a lack of moral principle in pursuit of political ends. To be fair to him of course, the sources indicate that he only stooped to this because he felt the republic was at stake. I would suggest that perhaps you don't know what a slush fund is if you think that money accrued to spend on buying votes is not a slush fund. Caesar becomes consul and submits a land bill to the senate. Now the bill would have increased Pompey's influence as it would have settled large numbers of his veterans in Italy but Cato's only solution is to filibuster once more. Caesar then made a dreadful misjudgement and had Cato removed by force but quickly changed his tune when the majority of senators would not stand for it. He then took the legislation to the people and used Pompey's veterans to push it through by force. Now to my mind the above suggests that Cato must simply be opposed to any notion of land reform if he is unmoved by any personal prejudice against Caesar. But of course the land bill was ratified in the end anyway. So what had his posturings achieved? Why would the optimates not propose legislation settling Pompey's veteran's themselves. It was inevitable that something would have to be done for them surely? They opposed land reform precisely because it was not in their vested interests. But what evidence do you have that Pompey became a ' constitutionalist'? as far as I can see he continues with his old policy of doing what was best for Pompey. Now clearly you believe that Cato was honest, noble and upright, a fearsome defender of the constitution (or at least his preferred version of the constitution) against the power hungry populares. And there is some truth in that, he consistently opposed all such. But the methods he used to do so were often unconstitutional themselves (or against the spirit of the constitution at least). You seem to believe though that he was the only man in Rome who was unmotivated by personal gain or gain for his faction. Caesar was unscrupulous to say the least but Cato did little to effectively thwart him and in fact most of his actions, or those of his cronies seem to have made things worse for his faction (or senatrorial government if you prefer).

But he has no army nor history of successful military command, so perhaps not... Neither does his principal opponent seem to be a pompous, hypocritical windbag hellbent on pursuing grudge over sense. Surely he's more Crassus than Caesar?

To clarify, I don't for a moment believe that the 'love letter' was the root of Cato's hatred (though I doubt it helped). Cato's faction was very 'vested interest', anti-equestrian, anti-land reform, naturally opposed to Caesar and he had opposed Caesar well before the Catiline conspiracy came to light. But why on earth would you dismiss a personal hatred based on Caesar's notorious dalliance with Servilia? It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that personal grudge and political emnity should feed off one another, preventing any consideration of reconciliation. Cato defending a principle of law? How noble from the man who collected a 'slush fund' to secure the election of Bibulus. What explains Cato's actions best is his seeking advantage for his faction, whether by hiding behind a respect for the law, by bribing the poor through an extension of the corn dole, by supporting Lucullus' attack on Pompeius' eastern stettlement, by attacking the equestrian tax farmers (these last two propelling Pompey and Crassus into political accord that became the triumvirate), etc. Settling Pompey's veterans might not have solved the 'client army' problem but of course it would hardly have made it any worse. You really think Cato convinced Pompey to uphold the law? I think you mean that Cato convinced Pompey that his ambitions wopuld be served best by siding with Cato and his faction against Caesar. What on earth would Pompey care about the law? He had no qualms about flouting it when it suited him. And of course he exacted a heavy price from the Catonians for his support. Look at the events. The consuls for 54 are impeached for bribery (Ahenobarbus, a prominent member of the Cato faction being one of them). The scandal is revealed, Pompey's faction propose him as dictator, he declines. we then have public business suspended , and the death of Crassus ends the triumvirate. Rioting is widespread, Milo prominent for the 'optimates', Clodius for 'the people' After the death of Clodius, the Cationian faction come to an arrangement with Pompey. Pompey becvomes sole consul. To the grief of the Catonians, Milo is impeached, despite their efforts to save him. Pompey then allies with the Metelli. Cato is defeated for the consulship. So at first, Cato's faction make an attempt to bring Pompey on their side (whilst answering the violence of Clodis with violence from their own creature, very in the spirit of the law, I'm sure). Pompey appears to agree, but when he becomes sole consul, uses his powers to secure his own position, gain new allies, undermine the strength of the 'optimates' and unsucessfully undermine Caesar too. So really it was only the decision not to reach accomodation with Caesar, rather to provoke civil war, that at last propelled Pompey and Cato together. Of course alliance does not presuppose liking or friendship, merely expediency.

Well I could answer 'ditto'. Let's take your question. Cato reached accomodation with nearly everyone but Caesar. Okay, we'll take that as read. So why did he not seek a peaceful resolution with Caesar? after all, one was offered and the majority of the senate were for it, only Cato's hardline faction of 22 (IIRC) opposing. We must presume either personal feud (beyond repair) or that he felt Caesar was genuinely going to overthrow the state once he became consul for the second time. Yet Caesar would be no greater (arguably less) threat as consul than rebellious proconsul with a dozen legions at his back. Why do you so stubbornly refuse to believe that Cato was as short sighted and stubborn as Caesar was ambitious and unscrupulous? After all, had the faction of Cato not opposed all attempts at settling Pompey's veterans on Italian soil then the whole triumvirate might have never come about. His later alliance with Pompey merely shows the levels of hypocrisy to which he would stoop in pursuit of his feud with Caesar.

Come now, what evidence is there that he wished to be dictator pre-Rubicon? Or even sought civil war? Cato presented him with the choice of civil war or political extinction. The weakness of the post-Marius republican system had delivered the ability to choose civil war into Caesar's hands. What on earth was he exected to do? Sure, Caesar used violence, I've never disputed it. But the 'boni' did too. In fact violence was used quite often, even in the 'good old days' of the republic pre-Marius. The use of thugs in the forum is hardly clear evidence of a wish to rule as a tyrant. But why would Caesar wish tyranny? Surely it fits more with his character for him to lord it over his 'equals' as the constitution encouraged then to destroy them. Why else his aversion to proscription or his policy of clemency to captured senators in the Civil War? Sure, he wished to be seen as a defender of the constitution not its destroyer for propoganda purposes, but that doesn't mean that his underlying agenda was to destroy it. Really, the man was an unscrupulous rogue with a genius for intrigue and generalship. There seems little evidence that his ambitions exceeded that of Pompey, dominance within the constitution (such as it was) rather than tyranny.

Tish tosh! Mere opinion. Further by the time Caesar wished to stand for his second consulship, Crassus (and hence the triumvirate) was long dead. Cato merely pursued his feud with Caesar (as any 'good' Roman would have done). I order to 'save' the republic he destroyed it by his petty vendetta. Where is the evidence that Caesar wished to be anything more than 'leading citizen', the hero of the mob and envy of his peers as Pompey (and others, even pre Marius) had been before him.

So why did the 'great pragmatist' Cato oppose Caesar so bitterly? Where is the evidence that Caesar would have taken military action had he been allowed to stand for consul in absentia (which was precedented and hence 'constitutional'). A 'domination of Caesar', similar to the 'domination of Pompey' would have left the form of the Republic intact. So why did Cato take action that was highly likely to bring about horrendous civil war (and also possibly proscriptions etc, though Caesar of course did not go down that road). Indeed. And of course the prosecution of Cicero for killing Roman citizens without trial (Cato of course was blameless in that act I'm sure). But as the whole system was hopelessly undermined post-Marius, it's all rather academic.

Consider the career of Pompey. It was far less conventional than that of Caesar, and he was a supporter of the 'traitor' Sulla. Yet Cato was willing to side with this man against Caesar. Why? Pragmatism of course, he needed Pompey's legions. So he was willing to be pragmatic and support one man whose entire career had been founded on illegality and pursued through extraordinary appointments and laws, yet he would not be pragamtic and seek compromise with Caesar. Why? Because he had a personal grudge (how humiliated he must have been by the notorious love-letter incident in the Catiline debate). The weakness of the senate is clearly shown by their inability to separate Pompey from his armies, leading to one extraordinary command against another. You might object that as the senate could pass extraordinary laws, and give retrospective sanction to otherwise illegal acts that this meant the constitution was working just fine. But the careers of Marius, Sulla, Lepidus, Sertorius, Pompey, Catiline etc etc pointed the way for Caesar. You say bribery was not widespread, yet clearly vast sums were spent on elections and those were surely spent on lining the pockets of prospective voters. The fact that few were prosecuted shows up thr hypocrisy of the system. Whilst I agree with much of PPs excellent post, I must take issue with the statement that It is niaf in the extreme to expect ambitious men, who have examples of previous illegal actions being unpunished and no real constitutional safeguards that can be brought against them, not to exploit the system to their own advantage. That is a failing of the morality of individuals (which is commonplace and to be expected) and of the system of government. Apologies for the somewhat 'bitty' post but I'm pressed for time.

In the late republic/early empire many of the troops had specialisms (medic, clerk, ballista operator), but they fought in the line as required. Large numbers of slaves accompanied the army also. Many of the more menial tasks (mule handling etc) were handled by them. Contrary to the extraordinary statement of roman wargamer, it is blindingly obvious from the sources and the history of all armies on campaign that most legions went into battle understrength. The auxiliaries were never counted as part of a legions strength but by the late republic they would upply the bulk of the cavalry and light infantry.

I wondered about them too, but excluded them on the grounds that they were more a reserve than bodyguard. It's an arguable point though.

Well Pompey is allaged to have participated in hand-to-hand fighting in his younger days as general (pre civil war). Presumably he did so with a bodyguard. I grant you, that is no earlier than Sertorius and not conclusive. As time allows I'll scour the sources, it's a very interesting question.

Cato, I really think that you are allowing your (understandable) antipathy to Caesar and your (less understandable) veneration of Cato to cloud your judgement. Yes, the triumvirate used every available device to work their own ends. No less so Cato and his faction in opposing them, but their lamentable short-sightedness in failing to acqire a source of reliable soldiery to back them meant that they could not enforce their will in the same way as the triumvirs. But how did the situation arise that Caesar, Crassus and Pompey could use the tactics that they did? It was precisely because of the Marian reforms, the example of Marius (and later Sulla) that showed the way clearly. The post Marian decades are rife with rebellions, intrigues and civil war. That simply does not happen in a healthy political system. At least one could say that for the period 60-50BC that civil war (if not civil strife in Rome) was averted through the triumvirate, and only brought on by Cato's insistance that Caesar be prosecuted. That does not excuse Caesar, but Cato is culpable. He grossly underestimated Caesar. This failure of judgement was in the end catastrophic.

Well, as I said before:

Caes Rather ironic considering his advancing baldness... I too was under the impression that statues were often painted.

The thing with Arminius is that the Germans were generally very loyal indeed. It is unfortunate that Varus trusted 'a bad 'un' but it's hardly rank stupidity. As I've said elsewhere Carrhae was won mainly because the Parthians has an effectivel 'inexhaustable supply of arrowws brought up by camel train'. More generally missile troops could discomfit close order armoured foot and might injure many but they could rarely break them unaided.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. What Brady has done is to erroneously claim that ancient battle was more lethal than modern battle. He has given us one out of context example to 'prove' this. Go and read Caesar, Xenephon, Thucydides or any other ancient writer and you'll see that casualties were generally low. The Romans only had 2' between shields in open order. We have only one dubious quote from Polybius that asserts they fought in open order. I really can't bear this any longer. Perhaps I am being deliberately obtuse. If so I apologise. But we're going round in circles. If you want to come back to me with ancient evidence proving substantial losses, or with ancient evidence that can be interpreted quite unequivocally showing men replacing ranks whilst actually engaged then well and good. Otherwise this has degenerated into "'tis so". "'tis not".