M. Porcius Cato

I was surprised to see Brutus and Cassius on the lowest level of hell with Judas. But I guess that's the medieval mindset for you--Dante had a true and passionate love for authority and a superstitious fear of anything that opposes it. Overall, I think the Inferno is overrated--Boccaccio's Decameron is better and much more fun.

I'm glad somebody did. Brutus and the other conspirators do not deserve any thanks or feting for their deed. One thing about Brutus; Wasn't he supposed to have a knack for making and managing money? Which is why, when he was Appius Cladius' quaestor in Cilicia, he helped to totally financially strip the province through his money lending. What's the evidence? No, the law concerned not engaging in sea trade, but I know of no law making money-lending illegal. If it were illegal, the law should have been abolished. Economies without money-lending are invariably backward and stagnant.

Caesar and Octavian each had a military machine at their beck and call. Cicero had none. What would you have had him do against Clodius' imposition of exile? Having the benefit of your professional historical expertise, I'm really very curious. Earlier you depicted Cicero's circulation of the second Phillipic as 'craven'. Again, given Antony's military power and known disregard for the law, what would you have had Cicero do? As an historian, you are no doubt aware that in any evaluation of primary sources one must consider whether the author was at liberty to write what he wished. In point of fact, Antony had legions and was rapidly assuming dictatorial powers more onerous than any assumed by Caesar, thereby putting Cicero in exactly the same position as Renaissance atheists, Soviet dissidents, and Iranian critics of Islam. To call Cicero's Phillipics, most of which he delivered publicly and with full knowledge that he was risking his life, "craven" is astoundingly unjust.

Most of Cicero's correspondence was released by Augustus and edited by his anti-Republican (and anti-Antony) lackeys. The picture of Cicero that emerges from these writings is no different from that of other sources, so there's no point attempting to disparage primary sources in favor of rank speculation and pedestrian cynicism. That Cicero had little power cannot be disputed, and he often behaved less boldly against the enemies of the Republic than he should have and often too late. However, once the political disputes of Rome passed into the hands of complete thugs and brigands such as Anthony and Clodius, there was little he could do except work to give the law the power it needed to be enforced. Which is why, I suppose, Cicero decided to prosecute Milo, who technically broke the law by having Clodius finished off after the brigand attacked, despite Clodius' violent vendetta against Cicero. Here, Cicero's dedication to his principles was greater than his desire for vengeance, which is more than I can say for most people. History, though, is sometimes just. When the authors of petty violence completed their blood work, their handiwork remained lying in the streets for only a day or so until buried. Today, hardly anyone remembers men like Clodius except as an obscure footnote in the annals of history (or as the guy who slept with his sister Clodia). Yet when a brilliant lawyer and insightful political philosopher left his work on the page for anyone to read, his name could be seen for two thousand years. Ultimately, this is why any schoolchild can tell you who Cicero is, yet hardly one could remember the petty thug who forced him into exile. Are you saying he was a product of his environment ? No, just not a Christian and so not particularly worried about whether he appeared humble. For my own part, I agree with Aristotle that humility (like arrogance) is a species of dishonesty and should be considered a vice rather than a virtue. But this issue is better left to the thread on moralia.

I don't know if this is the right place for humble requests, but I'd like to see three new features added to the main site. The first feature is a geneaology for at least some of the major families during the late republic and principate. We're getting a fair number of visitors thanks to the HBO/BBC Rome series, and I'd bet that a geneaology might help fill in some of the missing pieces for them. The second is a more complete list of magistrates from the Republic. Last I checked, the list was more of a placeholder than a full list. Third, it would be nice if we had portraits of the major figures who are covered. I'd be happy to help out as far as I can.

Cicero was one of only 10 or so New Men to serve as consuls since the office was opened to them in the 4th century. He was able to rise because he was a brilliant defense attorney (almost never a prosecutor), made many friends, and generally went out of his way not to make enemies. As consul, he saved Rome from Catiline, who was one of the two biggest scumbags to ever besmirch the streets of Rome (Clodius was the other). As governor of Cilicia, he was the model of what needed to be done to establish the security of Rome amidst her possessions, which was the key to Rome's longevity. Sure, Cicero was a self-promoter, but so what? He was a Stoic, not a Christian, so he would have thought it odd to ask humility from him. No Roman went for humility. They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors. Cicero did that, and he earned the everlasting fame he achieved.

Not the version I read. Cato was never captured by Caesar's troops, who would have been orders to take him alive so Caesar could conspicuously pardon him and thereby diminish the resolve of the forces of the old Republic. Before they arrived, however, Cato stabbed himself after getting away from his family and friends, who had tried to prevent him from suicide. Finding him dying, his family had Cato's wounds bound, but when he awoke, he ripped open his dressings and killed himself with his own hands. Cato was about 40 at the time (younger than Caesar and Cicero by quite a bit), and he was survived by 2 sons and 3 daughters.

Don't forget CYNTHIA--to whom Propertius dedicated so many poems! Also, ordinary Latin-derived names can be nice too, such as Amanda.

While we're on the topic, I've often heard that legionnaries were paid in salt and that the English word 'salary' derives from this widespread practice, yet I've never come across any literary evidence that this was the normal way to pay soldiers (not that I was looking very hard). I can't imagine salt would be the preferred currency, not that it wouldn't do in a pinch (so to speak...)

What were the typical rations given to a Republican legionary while on campaign?

Cicero said it best. The liberators had the courage of men, but the foresight of children.

I can't see why not. If Caesar had not moved to stop the migration of the Helvetii, Rome would possibly have lost allies in Gaul, upset relations with the other gallic allies setting back diplomatic efforts by a long way and allow a large and potentially hostile tribe to settle on Italia's doorstep. With his continuation into Gaul, again the only argument i can reiterate is allegiance and obligation: Rome was obliged to assist tribes with "Friend and Ally" status; Caesar upheld this, and gained further allies in Gaul. We are in agreement that it was important to come to the aid of an ally. However, Caesar wasn't very good at this, which is how the migration of the Helvetii turned into a vast war with all Gaul united against Rome. First, he initially failed to come to the aid of the Aedui--a very old and dear Friend of Rome--when it was under attack by Ariovistus and the Suebi; rather, he had the Senate declare Ariovistus a Friend. Not good foreign policy. Next, after Ariovistus was declared Friend, Caesar attacked Ariovistus and routed him from the lands of the Aedui. The reason? Ariovistus insulted him by reminding him that there were noble Romans who would be happy to see Caesar vanquished. Letting personal feelings dictate Roman foreign relations? Not good foreign policy. Then, after Caesar ejected Ariovistus from the lands of the Aedui, Caesar took control of the nation rather than returning to southern Gaul, where he was governor. This was of questionable legality--the threat was vanquished, and there was no justification for the military occupation. These things tend to go badly (ask East Germany, for example). With a bunch of fearsome Romans standing around with their boots on the necks of their former friends, you can guess what happened next--the neighbors to the North got organized to defend themselves from an ambitious plutocrat with no sense of honor, and ultimately all Gaul was united to eject Caesar. So, was Caesar just out to help a Friend? Not hardly. By his own count, Caesar killed a million Gallic warriors, women, and children, and took another million or so as slaves. He destroyed the economic base of an iron age people who had been trading partners and friends of Rome. Worst, Caesar taught the Gauls that with Friends like Romans, you don't need enemies. This is the kind of behavior that (much, much later) turned otherwise peaceul friends (such as the Goths) into marauding, raping, baby-splitting, Rome-destroying enemies. Again--NOT GOOD FOREIGN POLICY. The argument that Caesar invaded Britain and Germania as a show of force to prevent future incursions across the French Channel (just kidding) and the Rhine doesn't change the illegality of the actions, and I really don't see any military justification. All Caesar did was give the Celts and Germans notice that it was time to prepare for war with Rome. Germania did, and the rest is history.

Ummm--is that still in print? It's about to be again and can be yours for $598! I think I'll stick to the version on perseus.tufts.edu.

He never filched a dime from the province, and no one has ever accused him of it. Every single historical source praises his governorship as the model of fiducial responsibility. What are your sources otherwise? I'd really like to know. Perhaps the same sources that put him in Crete?

Ummm--is that still in print?

Thanks for that valuable post! Aside from Volubilis (where there was an excellent bust of my namesake found btw), do we know the status of many of the cities of the Roman world? I'd love to be able to find a map that's color-coded with these.

Pertinax, what would be a very clear example of fast episodic adaptation? And can you point me to a reference?

An interesting topic for a thread not on the Gallic Wars: Given the history of Sulla, what could possibly have prevented another march on Rome without (at least also) subjecting Caesar to the law?

Not that this is relevant at all to this thread, but why did Cato not support overturning the agrarian bill and the governorship of Cyprus (I assume you meant) when Cicero wished to vindicate himself over Clodius? Presumably for the same reason Cato urged Cicero to go quietly into exile after Clodius had him purged in the first place. Cato was, for once, compromising. I assume he felt no particular pride in this, which is why he refused all the honors the senate wanted to bestow upon him once his returned from Cyprus.

I think only because there was a Crassus and Caesar around to thwart him... Even when they were all in league together, Pompey's best days were behind him. He was an old lion that could only be roused when attacked.

Cato's governorship was supported by Caesar, and his tenure was a model for all future governors. Frankly, I don't know what response you're looking for.

Pompey was resting on his laurels, so I'd expect nothing from him. Antony would have been the next one up, but if he were no match for Decimus Brutus, he'd be toast too.

Why not? It was strong enough to punish Verres, in spite of all the advantages he enjoyed.

Except that the rate of evolutionary change is not a universal constant. Some species evolve more quickly than others due to differences in geography and length of the reproductive cycle.

Am I correct to infer that opposing archers with archers was very expensive and that Rome's vulnerability to horse-mounted archers would be greatest when Rome was poorest? Also, did Rome have a training regime for archers that was as comprehensive as their training for infantry (i.e., not just training individuals, but training archers at larger units of organization)? Also, what were the best tactics for massing fire while retaining flexibility?