Is this true?

[Minerva]

Salve, Amici.

Interesting points, as "those who had political power and those who aspired for it" were basically proud Senators.

Personally, I consider "moral weakness" to be one of those comfortable terms that can mean whatever you want, from everything to nothing, both in classical and present times.

 

 

All proud senators did not always stay togeather though did they? For example both Marius and Ceasar preffered to go as leaders of the populance than members of the senate. but taking them as senators which they technically were; dissention within the senate proves the senate's (moral)weakness.

 

considering the Bibulus Vs Ceasar issue - if I'm not mistaken, Bibulus was the candidate forwarded by the senatorial party. His "non"consulate still shows the senate's weakness. But then agian He didn't try too hard did he? all he did after receiving a basket of dung during an attempt to veto ceasr was to stay at home and proclaim ill omens.

 

 

 

"moral weakness" -definitely a nice comfortable term that can mean whatever you want and therefore extremely usefull

[ASCLEPIADES]

All proud senators did not always stay togeather though did they? For example both Marius and Ceasar preffered to go as leaders of the populance than members of the senate. but taking them as senators which they technically were; dissention within the senate proves the senate's (moral)weakness.

Why "technically"? Who were the "non-technical" senators?

 

Both the Optimates and the Populares factions were leaders of some portions of the "populace" (or "proud Roman people"; that's in the eye of the beholder).

 

considering the Bibulus Vs Ceasar issue - if I'm not mistaken, Bibulus was the candidate forwarded by the senatorial party. His "non"consulate still shows the senate's weakness. But then agian He didn't try too hard did he? all he did after receiving a basket of dung during an attempt to veto ceasr was to stay at home and proclaim ill omens.

Both the Optmates and the Populares were Senatorial factions.

Bibulus' "non"consulate showed one faction and one consul were stronger than the others.

Edited July 11, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Minerva]

Why "technically"? Who were the "non-technical" senators?

 

"technically" because certain Romans, though senators, acted independently of and often oppossed to the senate though they were members of the senate themselves, which any one who was elected queastor became.

didn't use the term as opposed to "non-technical" senators so I can't name any.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Why "technically"? Who were the "non-technical" senators?

 

"technically" because certain Romans, though senators, acted independently of and often oppossed to the senate though they were members of the senate themselves, which any one who was elected queastor became.

didn't use the term as opposed to "non-technical" senators so I can't name any.

Technically, all senators were as senators as any other.

Edited July 11, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

...certain Romans, though senators, acted independently of and often oppossed to the senate though they were members of the senate themselves, ...

If you mean an isolated senator (or a couple) illegally opposing the senate as a whole by force, I don't think that happened so often.

That would basically mean open rebellion, therefore high treason.

I can only think of a fistful of examples;ie, ME Lepidus (cos MCLXXVI AUC / 78 BC), LS Catilina and of course CJ Caesar at DCCX AUC / 44 BC; and not many more.

 

At any other circumstance, we would be talking about a conflict between factions, senators vs senators; even at civil war (ie, Marius vs Sulla, Triumvirs vs Liberatores). Both of any such factions were an integral part of the senate; no one was "THE" Senate.

Even the isolated Quintus Sertorius was one of the remains of a major senatorial faction at war.

 

Then, when the Populares opposed the Optimates, they weren't opposing "the senate", but just another faction of the senate.

[Minerva]

If you mean an isolated senator (or a couple) illegally opposing the senate as a whole by force, I don't think that happened so often.

That would basically mean open rebellion, therefore high treason.

I can only think of a fistful of examples;ie, ME Lepidus (cos MCLXXVI AUC / 78 BC), LS Catilina and of course CJ Caesar at DCCX AUC / 44 BC; and not many more.

The Men were few but the duration of the magnitude of opposition was not. The instances were grave enough to contribute to undermining the Republic (and even have people arguing over them even 2 milenia later ).

[Minerva]

At any other circumstance, we would be talking about a conflict between factions, senators vs senators; even at civil war

 

I believe that I did formerly say that "dissention within the senate proves the senate's (moral)weakness" So i'm not contradicting you on that.

[caldrail]

At any other circumstance, we would be talking about a conflict between factions, senators vs senators; even at civil war

 

I believe that I did formerly say that "dissention within the senate proves the senate's (moral)weakness" So i'm not contradicting you on that.

 

 

Moral weakness? I would describe it as political weakness. The Senate wasn't a unified organisation with an identifiable command structure, it was an exclusive club for wealthy and influential men, and since those guys were mor concerned with their own privilege and status as opposed to being the 'state patrons' they wanted to be seen as, they were acting for their own individual purposes, forming factions, and sometimes supporting those that threatened a new order like Caear. By doing so each senator was hoping to curry favour and 'get with the winning team'. Its not so much weakness as divided objectives.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Moral weakness? I would describe it as political weakness. The Senate wasn't a unified organisation with an identifiable command structure, it was an exclusive club for wealthy and influential men, and since those guys were mor concerned with their own privilege and status as opposed to being the 'state patrons' they wanted to be seen as, they were acting for their own individual purposes, forming factions, and sometimes supporting those that threatened a new order like Caear. By doing so each senator was hoping to curry favour and 'get with the winning team'. Its not so much weakness as divided objectives.

Salve et gratiam habeo, C.

 

I would never been able to put it in such eloquent terms.

[Minerva]

Moral weakness? I would describe it as political weakness. The Senate wasn't a unified organisation with an identifiable command structure, it was an exclusive club for wealthy and influential men, and since those guys were mor concerned with their own privilege and status as opposed to being the 'state patrons' they wanted to be seen as, they were acting for their own individual purposes, forming factions, and sometimes supporting those that threatened a new order like Caear. By doing so each senator was hoping to curry favour and 'get with the winning team'. Its not so much weakness as divided objectives.

Salve et gratiam habeo, C.

 

I would never been able to put it in such eloquent terms.

 

...and it's eloquence silences me.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

...and it's eloquence silences me.

 

I hope not,this has been fun to read.