Favonius Cornelius

Not a bad idea. Cato is always good with his sources, and as for me my job was made easy by Goldsworthy and Stephenson...though perhaps my reference format is not perfect, I'll let Primus clean that up for me!

Yes lets take a fresh look, but I prefer this form. In fact allow me to reference a resource available online so that all can read it and judge its content: Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic by Andrew Stephenson I'll even provide the details right here and express my opinions as based on the full accounting. The problem with all land bills of any color is the fact that eventually, one way or another, no matter how fair you try to be about it, someone will gain some political benefit from it. It is a failure of the Republic to not be able to come to grips with this fact. You can blame it on the system or the senators, take your pick, the same results is fated. As read above, Pompey's first attempt at getting his soldiers landed resulted in total opposition by the senate for these reasons. This is the backdrop to Caesar's later efforts, and by extension of course those of Pompey and Crassus. Already once the senate choose to say no to an effort which would have benefited the Republic for reasons of political influence, so their next attempt would have to address this fact. Here they again they raise the land bill, this time with more amendments to strive to make it more palatable to the boni. Here again they resist. MPC you took me off balance I admit when you made your claims about Caesar waiting for the last minute to propose his bill. It looks to this account that another story is told of the timing. The truth is Caesar initiated the discussion, and the total objections made by the senate as usual despite the discussion being had. It was clear that the bill would not pass the senate no matter form, so Caesar intended to take it to the people. As I mentioned many times before, if the senators would only be a little more flexible on their stances on land bills, these extremes would not have to be taken, but that was all that was left. Were the assembly meetings completely fair on this bill? No, their circumstances were probably as fair as any land bill coming to the senate. The problem with the land to be allocated was the fact that the state never in the past made that ager publicus private land of those people they put on it. If the senate was soon good natured about these farmers, would they not have secured their ownership of it so that their status was not constantly an unknown? It would have been a simple matter to do this, and then to find taxation and funds from new forms and sources, but it didn't happen. Why is probably because men who's status was always in an unknown and uncertain state would be more pliable than men who were their own, on land of their own by law. If the noble Cato and others cared so much for the people and the Republic then surely they could have realized that a return to their forefather's demands that soldiery be obtained from the landed, if even in part, would have done the state a lot of good. I think the truth stinks more of politics as usual. In the end, was the lex Julia and land allocation completely fair to all? No, it would never had a chance to be just like every other land bill. In the end, we see soldiers who risked their lives and with families occupying these lands, and yes the squatters who once leased this land from the state were evicted. We do not know that all of these squatters had families or just worked the land with slaves. Nor is it certain that there would not be other land even in Italia for them to work, which could easily be allocated to the ex-squatters and doubtless supported by the triumvirate who did not want to be unpopular with them.

That's splitting hairs. It hardly matters if the day before no one knew. The moment the proposition is made, it was obvious to all and their usual tactics were as usual resorted to. You're not saying anything new here, and my response to this is the same as my points before: it would hardly matter if it was well debated or not. It would not be passed under any conditions for my stated reasons. The big three were in a position when they used their strong arm tactics to force terms, why not rob these bickering fools of their electorial support and force them to agree to it as well? WELL thank you oh experienced expert for clarifying it all for us! Or, perhaps I just don't agree with you. It happens sometimes in debates. I guess I could easily say that even the best historians allow their political stances to color their interpretation of the past to suit their beliefs.

Primus I share your disgust for both parties. Hell I have a hard time picking out even individual politicians today aside from Barak Obama who have not in some way or another disgusted me (but give him time ) Monday though was clearly a Republican campaign event. You say the dems did the same thing, but from what I saw and heard in the news papers, they did not respond to the Republican 9/11 humping until the next day. Clinton spoke out on 9/11, but then after being smeared by the ABC special he kind of has a right to. What you have is Bush doing everything he can to resurrect the fear craze about terrorists, and trying to make and remind everyone of using 9/11 as an excuse for anything and everything he wants to do, most of which has little to do with terrorism and actually seems to have invigorated these groups (Bush has done a great job with the war, torture camps and rhetoric to make sure he quite lives up to everything these insane bastards say about us Americans). What you have are countless programs with the endless propaganda of 'stay-the-course.' I saw no critical analysis, no counter points on that day. Couple that with an ABC special which clearly lays the blame for the whole shebang on the Clinton administration, and its obvious the kind of election year scoundrels these Republicans (at least these current ones) really are.

It's true that Caesar used a tactic when he choose his time to submit his bill. Why would he do that? Because he felt that the bill was somehow unreasonable? The minor talking points you have brought up on the devilish details are actually weak matters, and the man most interested in getting it approved, Pompey, would easily have supported compromise on those matters so long as the bulk of his soldiers got their land. No, they knew that the optimates would stall and bicker as they always do when a land bill comes to the floor, or the high and mighty Cato would resort to the low filibuster as he does all the time. (He might not be able to filibuster all the time, but combine that with Bibilus delay tactics and a variety of others, and you only need so many of those). Perhaps it is as I said, it is because of the votes, perhaps as our fellow forum member Pompieus has mentioned it would to knock the big three down to size (a compelling idea I haden't though of). Whatever the case, it was the same old kind of stalling and pig headed stubbornness of the senate when confronted with dealing with quite necessary laws and changes of state that could not be separated from also being connected with a fellow politician, in a word jealously, which precipitated tactics like this and others in the last 50 years and years to come.

Misinterpretation? I said 'proposed' law. The first was much more reasonable was it not? But look where Cato and friends eventually got themselves. The optimates did their level best to make sure this is exactly what happened, and I'll explain why: So, is all of this pure conjecture, or can you give me some proof that any one of your possible concerns of the law were actually raised by the senate? If there is no mention, and I would be surprised that there would not be if this were true, then we could just as easily speculate that the big three DID actually address these concerns. I think the bottom line of the optimates' resistance to this land bill, and yes Cato's as well, is the fact that these old families had many of their clients on these lands, nice and close to Rome, close enough that an election time visit to Rome would be feasible. This first law moves out those clients to possibly (and probably likely) further areas of Italia or beyond, and replaces them with Pompey's men, who of course would be voting his way. This had nothing to do with romantic ties to the land, fair appointment or fair prices. It was politics plain and simple. From the view of the whole Republic however, it was a good deal, a very good deal indeed. Not only did the previous occupiers have their land's worth which they could take somewhere else and create the same farm, but tens of thousands of men without occupation now could be landed. The Republic gains a net productivity, paid for by the money which Pompey could have otherwise hoarded like a Lucullus, and shows the people that if you fight well for the Republic you will be rewarded. One does have to wonder though, if Cato thought back to these days when Pompey was calling his old veterans to the senatorial flag as Caesar marched into Italia, and actually thanked Caesar for making such a population assuredly loyal to Pompey by following through with his promises of land. No doubt? Well I doubt! Unless you can prove to me these were raised and valid concerns, then we can just as easily assume that their true opposition was as I say, about votes, and not about the law or the Republic. I could understand Caesar tossing out Cato, after rambling on and on using an underhanded political tactic, and much of the senate could follow him (en masse minus the sizable contingent of senators in the party of Crassus, Pompey and Caesar) because they shared the fear of losing their votes. It is unfortunate that Caesar, Crassus and Pompey responded with their own underhanded political tactic of violence to land Pompey's veterans, but then that was the nature of these times. Stirring rhetoric! Cato would be proud! Usually that's a sign of progress.

Wow cool. For a while now I could not shake the impression of a squirrel with its tail high in the moonlight.

Wow, a hoplite/Celtiberian hybrid equipped soldier. He's suppose to be Roman? No you're not helping Pertinax.

Firstly: 'Caesar' by Adrian Goldsworthy (2006) pg. 164-170 And this section mostly references: Dio 38. 1. 1-7 Suetonius, Caesar 20. 1 'The Dating of Major Legislation and Elections in Caesar's First Consulship,' Historia 17 (1968), pP. 173-193 Gelzer (1968), pp. 71-74 Meier (1996), pp. 207-213 Seager (2002), pp. 86-87 Cicero, ad Att. 2. 7.

You know, there are instances in Roman battle history when pilum discharge was not possible. In fact, the barbs had a height advantage and the moment the Roman lines started to move forward, they rushed forward. Downward momentum could have easily not allowed the Romans time. My gripe about the scene was the lack of Roman unit cohesion after the lines met.

You've got some compelling thoughts there Moon. Is there any way to return to the days before, or is empire our doomed future?

Thankfully... I do remember getting a bit heated in the exchanges. Bah, the thread deserved it.

Hey Viggen, what exactly is your avatar?

I never said that he fitted into a "Gracchi-vs-the-Senate template" of any kind, but simply made it clear that in this particular instance he was an optimate to the point that it conflicted with what would be good for the Republic. Until the end, he allowed his personal hatred of Caesar to get in the way of that, and it was exactly his obstance which probably formed the hard core which led to the final showdown, and the true death of the Republic. As far as the land bill proposed during Caesar's consulship, you have it wrong I believe. The land was to be purchased with Pompey's eastern money (1. the treasury was swelled with most of it), so depriving such a powerful man of money and distributing it to the poor (most soldiers) could not have been a bad thing for the Republic. Additionally this land was to be purchased from willing land sellers, who could apparently then afford and be willing to buy more of their own land elsewhere. The clauses of Caesar's law expressly prohibited the aquisition of land of people who did not want to be moved so I fail to see where you are getting the eviction idea. Ager publicus would remain with the state. The law even was to assign 20 commissioners to distribute the land, specifically forbidding Caesar himself from being one of them, to avoid the concept of personal loyalties forming from the newly landed. How any of that is unreasonable is beyond me, and Cato's objections were just personal. If he had a mind of keeping men from becoming too powerful, he only succeeded in forcing powerful men to thwart the system and continue to provide a lawless precident, and you know where that went. Cato's heart was in the right place, and he had many admirable personal qualities and a unique political persona, but as a Roman politician he was pretty much a failure for not coming to grips with the reality of it all.

One of the first books I ever read I remember was an account of Cortez and his conquest of the Aztec. At the time, it was just a story in a book for me, so I viewed the whole exploit as a heroic adventure, sailing the high seas in search of gold with barely a handful of men. Course now I look at it and wonder at the brutality. In fact I'm pissed at the movie Disney put out about Cortez, making his expoits like a happy-go-lucky adventure, which I think is highly inappropriate and in bad taste.

Hm, I still cant shake the idea that there are some monopolies which could be very dangerous. No one cares of a paper clip monopoly, but what of oil, power and weapons manufacture? If you removed all oversight on monopolistic moves in America, I am sure that in a matter of months most oil companies would have joined togeather. Oil companies have already used their money in this country, hire mercenaries in others to influence their way. Could you imagine what one conglomeration could do? Small corporations can be altruistic, but I know of no large corporation that really cares about much else than expanding its abilities. That is what they are made for, and what capatalism tells them they must do to survive. Anyway, war is the true mother of invention, not total control. Hell just look at the Roman Republic and Empire. During the Republic the competion and the prohibition of consolidation of power was what kept men ambitious and doing great things. By the empire, you have little in the way of achievements or progress with a few exceptions. I suppose you could be right about the fake Utopia, but it seems more like you have two choices on how the 'system' equlibrates itself. One you can try and control the inbalances, or two you can just let it go and have the violence and economic disruptions you mention.

MPC, I'll have to get back to you tonight on the land reform and some points I have on it, but you make some very interesting comments. I do have two things to add though which you can dwell on in the mean time: 1. I'm not going to let you get away with explaining Cato's actions as a Stoic without explaining exactly how his actions reflect the beliefs of Stoicism! 2. Cato both made fruitless efforts and/or a bad situation worse during Caesar's consulship, which make me question your assertion of picking battles.

I was asleep. Not very glamorous, but eventually I woke to a phone call from an Indian friend of mine living in Arizona. We talked about what it all meant and what it would mean for a 'brown skin' like him (not racist we're good friends). The most memorable thing for me on that day was looking out of my apartment and seeing this Muslim family in a jalopy of a car parked across the street. They looked terrified for their lives, probably having fled wherever they lived due to irate neighbors and I felt very sorry for that.

I'd say the reason basically deals with power being increasingly focused into the aristocracy, coupled with a disenfranchisement of the bulk of the citizen body. After a while there were plenty of citizens with nothing to loose and a tight, greedy and jealous group with everything to give. As Primus says though, take a look through our forums we have many discussions on this, and it

That's all well and good Cato, but giving out grain to the poor rather than empowering them, be it through the senate or assemblies, still flies in the face of what Cato seemed to stand for as a man and politician. At least publicly. I use to think Cato was genuine, but the more I reinvestigate the period the more I believe that he was just another fat cat aristocrat who had a gimmick to use in politics (his Catoness adopted from the elder Cato). Fact is, many people tried to get land back into the hands of citizens through the senate first, but were always blocked by jealous and greedy senators, then these people had to go through the assemblies and cause a scene. In the end, the senate should have allocated that land to the citizens, because then it would be occupied and later generals would not become kings in their own right by being able to give all this extra available land to their soldiers.

Etruscans and Latins (Romans) were two different peoples. It is a current great mystery where exactly the Etruscans are from. The most convincing argument I have heard is that they migrated from the Lycia area in Asia Minor, but to this day archaeologists and historians are stumped. Even their language is unique and does not provide many clues.

ALL politicians and media outlets, vs. normal citizenry. Not true, you try to be too balanced sometimes Primus, and loose sight of some truth. I was saddened tonight to see so much prophaganda of an obvious conservative bias, with a plainly smearing ABC special. It distracted from the tragedy entirely. The only Democrat who I saw engaging in politics yesterday was Clinton unfortunatly.

I might agree with you if it were not for the fact that Cato the Younger and countless boni constantly blocked land grants to the poor...men with families who just wanted a chance to earn their keep...

What is the evidence that makes it certain? We know a few picked troops had hoplite armor, but what's the evidence that enough had the armor and training to use hoplite tactics? A good question, one which I would like to get to with the next installment of the timeline, where I'll present more information on the introduction of such things (or lack thereof ). This is more of the very dawn of the Roman identy, the tribal existance.

It takes more than a few instances in ancient history to form an economic science, certainty and consensis. With regard to judging Diocletian on this, I'm only saying that you cannot say he necessairly should have known this or that or was a fool for trying. It would be like blaming Caesar for not developing gun powder and conquering more of the world. It isn't proper history to judge the past in such a form. In order to really bash Diocletian, you would have to provide ancient examples of inflation being beaten. I know of none, and I figure they just didn't have enough of a grasp of the flow of economics to understand why things were the way they were.