Who Was Responsible For Fall Of Republic

[Germanicus]

I agree with Primus too, and I don't doubt for a moment that Cato contributed to the civil war: he contributed to it in exactly the same way that the intransigence of a policeman contributes to a shoot-out with a criminal who is resisting arrest. Obviously the policeman could let the criminal go if he weren't so 'obstinant', but the rule of law demands obstinancy.

 

By the same principle, Cato should have been prosecuted along with the rest of the Senators who supported Cicero's move to execute those in the Cataline conspiracy without trial, it was against the rule of law.

 

Laws were changed to accomodate the whims of senators from time to time, why was Cato happy to pass the Setatus Consutatum in this instance, but would not budge on Caesar ? He was principled to a point, but the fact is all his actions in relation to Caesar were personal, they had nothing to do with what he believed about the republic. IMO of course.

[M. Porcius Cato]

By the same principle, Cato should have been prosecuted along with the rest of the Senators who supported Cicero's move to execute those in the Cataline conspiracy without trial, it was against the rule of law.

The men who were executed had already been found guilty of treason by the Senate. Their guilt was so certain that even Caesar moved that anyone who brought up the matter of their guilt again should find themselves charged with treason. The only question was whether the young men, one descended of consuls, should be executed. As I understand it, the law not only provided for the execution of traitors but demanded it.

 

Cato had many enemies in Rome and in the Senate, yet none ever charged him with breaking the law.

[Germanicus]

even Caesar moved that anyone who brought up the matter of their guilt again should find themselves charged with treason

 

Caesar also moved that they not be excecuted.

 

The law allowed for the excecution because the Senate voted (Post Sentance) to legalise Ciceros actions.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The law allowed for the excecution because the Senate voted (Post Sentance) to legalise Ciceros actions.

Maybe someone with a better knowledge of Roman law can clarify this--were ex post facto laws traditional?

 

If Germanicus is right (my memory is that traitors were normally hurled from the Tarpeian rock), then the legality of the execution was totally up in the air--first it was illegal, then legal, then illegal again once Clodius passed the laws which exiled Cicero (and notoriously confiscated his house) for his part in the execution. Bona dea!

[Virgil61]

I agree with Primus too, and I don't doubt for a moment that Cato contributed to the civil war: he contributed to it in exactly the same way that the intransigence of a policeman contributes to a shoot-out with a criminal who is resisting arrest. Obviously the policeman could let the criminal go if he weren't so 'obstinant', but the rule of law demands obstinancy.

 

Whatever mistakes Cato made (e.g., he should have condemned Milo), his lifelong love of the Republic and hatred of dictatorship (which btw predate his grudge against Caesar) was of *some* value in preserving the first and preventing the second. With the possible exception of the Gracchi, I don't think the same could be said of anyone else on this list, which is why none of them were controversial choices and almost all have received votes.

 

If by policeman you mean a Southern county-sheriff in a small Georgia town circa 1933, then yeah, you're right. Like that "law-n-order" sheriff upholdin' da' law for the benefit of the "gentlemen" and betters of the county at the expense of poor whites and all blacks, Cato's role as "noble" Roman Republican was as a defender of the state-feeding trough for influential families at the expense of the citizenry.

 

Not being aware of the existence of an anti-Cato argument in Roman studies you might be interested in a few more morsels of Cato-ology.

 

Plutarch's "Life of Cato", where he claims a young Cato asked to slay Sulla and was overheard, is suspect. Sulla proscribed men for far less and went after JC for much less than threatened murder as well and there's no doubt he would have killed Cato as well. The truth is that Cato's family were close to Sulla and like most his friends, probably thrived under his dictatorship.

 

He was honest, but in his usual hypocritical fashion when his bumble-headed son-in-law Bibulus lavishly--even according to the standards of the day-- bribed voters to get his way into the the consulship of 60 BC, he approved of it saying it was good for the Republic. He voted against a public thanksgiving for Cicero's time in Cilicia but but voted for one for the same son-in-law who did nothing special. But as usual, he could always bend the rules when it suited him.

 

Cato, that defender of the Republic, also liked to twist the rules in his buddies favor even when it meant going against the old traditions such as when he tried to make tribunes be required to deposit a large sum of money to hold their offices, not exactly constitutional, but a fine way to limit the power of the populares.

 

Of course he hated JC, so true to form, he again violated the constitutional tradition he's so enamored of defending, when he recommended Pompey as sole consul in 52 BC. Even then the stubborn old-mule or "dogmatic fool" as Mommsen called him, wouldn't let slaves be granted freedom if they took up arms because it wasn't right to deprive owners of their "property".

 

Who can forget his murder of the Catiline conspirators in all contrivance to his dear Roman custom and his own defense of Milo's murder of a tribune of the people. That was Cato, when tribunes not in the pay of the optimates tried to impliment on behalf of the populares he was a stickler for legal formalities, but when optimates need to bend or suspend in order to protect their political and economic interests he treated the Roman constitutional formalities with the flexibilty of an olympic gymnast.

 

Always the upholder of Roman morals, he trafficked his wife to an old rich man while she was pregnant with his child, remarrying her when he died afterwards. Publicy drunk on more than one occasion, he upbraided others for their drinking habits.

 

Such is the "hero" of the Republic and we haven't even gotten to his rigid stupidity relative to the crisis with JC. His duplicity and reactionary policies were masked with the "love of the Republic" and became one of the great frauds of history. A fraud whose mythology when matched against his actions collapes and a hero to the "gentlemen" of the 18/19th century who despised and distrusted the common man as much as Cato did. By any stretch of the imagination he was certainly no better than JC.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Virgil61

[M. Porcius Cato]

Not being aware of the existence of an anti-Cato argument in Roman studies you might be interested in a few more morsels of Cato-ology.

You're kidding, right? I think every secondary source I've ever read contains an anti-Cato argument. I'm only astonished to hear him called the destroyer of the Republic, on par with Sulla and Octavian.

Plutarch's "Life of Cato", where he claims a young Cato asked to slay Sulla and was overheard, is suspect. Sulla proscribed men for far less and went after JC for much less than threatened murder as well and there's no doubt he would have killed Cato as well. The truth is that Cato's family were close to Sulla and like most his friends, probably thrived under his dictatorship.

It's a fun thing Roman history--when a little fact gets in the way, the source is probably unreliable. So I guess we should instead believe Caesar's Civil Wars, where Cato's entire motivation is chalked up to a personal grudge? Moreover, this little tidbit about Cato's family is the typical guilt-by-association number that's always hurled at Cato. Honestly, do you think a prepubescent orphan is to blame because his family tried not to get on the wrong side of a blood-thirsty dictator? And do you really think Sulla would be frightened by some kid?

He was honest, but in his usual hypocritical fashion when his bumble-headed son-in-law Bibulus lavishly--even according to the standards of the day-- bribed voters to get his way into the the consulship of 60 BC, he approved of it saying it was good for the Republic. He voted against a public thanksgiving for Cicero's time in Cilicia but but voted for one for the same son-in-law who did nothing special. But as usual, he could always bend the rules when it suited him.

And what rule was it that Cato bent? You've only mentioned that Bibulus was doing the bribery, not Cato. Again, typical guilt-by-associaiton number.

Cato, that defender of the Republic, also liked to twist the rules in his buddies favor even when it meant going against the old traditions such as when he tried to make tribunes be required to deposit a large sum of money to hold their offices, not exactly constitutional, but a fine way to limit the power of the populares.

He sponsored a bill that would put up an obstacle to the opposition. So what? Cato wasn't simply trying to defend tradition--he sponsored lots of bills, every one of which *by definition* is opposed to the longer tradition of that bill not existing. If you think this is equivalent to marching legions into Rome and celebrating a triumph over the dead bodies of Romans, you've an unusual sense of proportion.

Of course he hated JC, so true to form, he again violated the constitutional tradition he's so enamored of defending, when he recommended Pompey as sole consul in 52 BC. Even then the stubborn old-mule or "dogmatic fool" as Mommsen called him, wouldn't let slaves be granted freedom if they took up arms because it wasn't right to deprive owners of their "property".

Mommsen was a Bismarckist, and so it's hardly surprising that his hagiography of Caesar contains a slur on Cato. But I agree that after the first triumverate, Cato and many others were absolutely desperate. Between Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus was shared the bulk of Rome's military power, political control over the urban plebs, and poltical control over the Equites. Their private agreement essentially brought the entire state under the control of three princeps. It's no wonder Varro called it the Three Headed Monster--and it's no wonder Cato wanted to pull off one of the heads.

Who can forget his murder of the Catiline conspirators in all contrivance to his dear Roman custom and his own defense of Milo's murder of a tribune of the people.

The Catiline conspirators were guilty of treason, as even Caesar acknowledged, so the only question is whether they ought to have been executed. The history of the Republic up to that point was filled with executions of Roman citizens for far less than treason--Manlius Torquatus' son was tied to a stake for being too eager to fight FOR Rome. As for Cato's testimony on behalf of Milo, we really have no idea what he said except one obvious truth--the death of Clodius was good for Rome. It was--it brought an end to the political riots for some time thereafter. And, it's a funny thing calling Clodius a tribune of the people. The guy wasn't even a pleb, but another opportunisitc oligarch who had cynically had himself adopted by a younger pleb so that he would qualify.

Always the upholder of Roman morals, he trafficked his wife to an old rich man while she was pregnant with his child, remarrying her when he died afterwards. Publicy drunk on more than one occasion, he upbraided others for their drinking habits.

That's just nonsense. Plutarch says he got rid of his wife to show what a big Stoic he was and that some citizens once saw him drunk. It's trashy gossip, and even if it were true, it's hardly a threat to the rule of law and had no effect on the health of the Republic.

Such is the "hero" of the Republic and we haven't even gotten to his rigid stupidity relative to the crisis with JC. His duplicity and reactionary policies were masked with the "love of the Republic" and became one of the great frauds of history. A fraud when matched against his actions collapes. At any stretch of the imagination he was no worse than JC, certainly no better.

That's rich. Cato wasn't perfect because he divorced his wife so he's just as much to blame for the subseqent dictatorship as the guy who marched legions into Rome and had himself declared dictator for life. I guess by that reasoning John Kennedy was as responsible for Cuba becoming communist as Castro, and Franklin Roosevelt was as responsible for German fascism as Hitler. Wow! No wonder it's so hard to tell who's ultimately responsible for the downfall of the republic.

[Germanicus]

And what rule was it that Cato bent? You've only mentioned that Bibulus was doing the bribery, not Cato. Again, typical guilt-by-associaiton number.

 

Wasn't proposing that someone be named Consul without a collegue bending the rules ?

 

The Catiline conspirators were guilty of treason, as even Caesar acknowledged, so the only question is whether they ought to have been executed.

 

No one disputes that they should/should not have been excecuted, just that it was done without a trial and legalised through the senatus consultum.

 

 

If you think this is equivalent to marching legions into Rome and celebrating a triumph over the dead bodies of Romans, you've an unusual sense of proportion

 

It was Civil war, had Caesar lost in Africa, the Oligarchs would have been falling all over each other to be the one to stage a triumph. In terms of Caesars initial crossing of the Rubicon and march on Rome - it was essentially bloodless no ?

 

 

I guess by that reasoning John Kennedy was as responsible for Cuba becoming communist as Castro, and Franklin Roosevelt was as responsible for German fascism as Hitler. Wow! No wonder it's so hard to tell who's ultimately responsible for the downfall of the republic.

 

I don't think thats what Virgil is getting at. The people you mentioned were not of the same country/government. If they were, and a crisis ensued, and not prosecuting and exileing (possibly excecuting) someone who had done enormous things for that countries prestige would prevent a civil war, and the deaths of thousands of citizens, would it not be good idea to compromise ? The compromise would have had no detrimental consequence for Cato other than what....him having to bend some of his principles.....again.

 

I do agree with your last comment, it is hard to tell who was responsible....because many were. Including Cato. Mind you, the Catalinian affair should have been a wake up call for the oligarchy that their beloved republic was seriously sick. It's not like there weren't reasons for the conspiracy....reasons which people like Caesar and Clodius were serious about trying to address.

[Virgil61]

You're kidding, right? I think every secondary source I've ever read contains an anti-Cato argument. I'm only astonished to hear him called the destroyer of the Republic, on par with Sulla and Octavian.

 

When you stated

Edited December 2, 2005 by Virgil61

[M. Porcius Cato]

Wasn't proposing that someone be named Consul without a collegue bending the rules ?

Absolutely--it was an utterly desperate measure to pull Pompey and Caesar apart. Frankly, I think Cato and at least 21 other Senators were in full-panic mode by the time of this proposal. The triumvirate, which was initially a secret pact, seemed to have struck the fear of Tartarus in people, and Cato's measures--like those of many others--became increasingly paranoiac and myopic. The contest of political visions had morphed into a contest of wills and then a contest for survival.

 

Caesar later wrote that he would not return to Rome stripped of his arms because he preferred to die rather than to lose his dignitas. To me it looks like the panic had even spread to him.

 

It's impossible to know and probably irresponsible to speculate on the matter, but my guess is that the fear of Caesar would have dissolved soon after he returned to Rome as a private citizen. But I reiterate that it's unknowable, and the case for his laying down his arms could only be made by appealing to the rule of law, and for violating that even once (however understandably) Cato IS culpable though not AS culpable as the other guys on the list.

Edited December 2, 2005 by M. Porcius Cato

[Neos Dionysos]

It's impossible to know and probably irresponsible to speculate on the matter, but my guess is that the fear of Caesar would have dissolved soon after he returned to Rome as a private citizen.

 

Without his victorious army from Gaul he would not have been as much of a fear that he had been before, though I assume had he returned if the Senate felt him to still be too much of a threat and someone they could not handle then he would have been dealt with in one manner or another. For Caesar's part, I wonder how much of a choice did he have. Return to Rome with nothing, (save political image which would slowly dissappear when you are no longer doing anything for 'Rome's glory'.), and face likely death, fall on the sword which he could have done and it would not have been a loss of honor or dignity, at least I think. But as we know he chose the final option which was to march on Rome... and give the death blow to the Republic.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The law allowed for the excecution because the Senate voted (Post Sentance) to legalise Ciceros actions.

No, this is isn't correct. Cicero was acting under a Senatus Consutum Ultimum and thus his actions were completely legal.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree that the source thing can be

[Virgil61]

don't think the case is nearly as compelling as you seem to judge it. Caesar, being the nephew of Marius and also older than Cato, would have been suspected by the paranoid Sulla under any circumstances. Cato, being a mere boy and without any means of extra-family support, would have been an absurd target for Sulla's proscriptions, even if Cato had screamed his desire for tyrannicide at the top of his lungs.

 

You're right, I should have not used "compelling" but maybe just a bit odd. Be that as it may, Sulla's general political stance was up Cato's ally even if his methods weren't always.

 

In your charge of hypocricy, two facts are conspicuous for their absence. The first is that Cato was notoriously even-handed in upbraiding populares and optimates alike for their corruption and abuse of power. This fact simply doesn't square with your polemical charge that Cato's vision of the republic was as a feeding-trough for the nobiles. I doubt even Catiline would have made such a charge. The second is that you consistently fail to distinguish between what Cato did and what his fellow-travellers did. Cato himself was impervious to bribes of any sort, and he did not offer them himself. If Cato were such a hypocrite, he could have easily bribed his way to the consulship, yet when he ran for the post, the course he took was clean and ran straight to his defeat.

 

His reactionary defense of the status-quo which entailed enhanced rights for the optimates certainly show him as their defender. Enhanced rights that gave them claims over public-lands over populares qualifies as a public feeding-trough in my mind and Cato certainly defended that. The same land, benefiting his class, that he opposed land-reforms for and to be distributed to veterans.

 

He did notoriously upbraid those who practiced corruption--not the same as defending the status quo by the way--but it's his own failure to be consistent in upbraiding his own son-in-law and fellow-travelers, actually supporting their actions that paint him as a hypocrite.

 

If this is your position, I'd like to welcome you to the party of Cato! The whole debate between Caesar and Cato was over the method of punishment--with Caesar advocating exile (without a trial) and Cato advocating death (without a trial). No one advocated a trial for the simple fact that the conspirators had already admitted their guilt before the whole Senate, and so a trial would have been merely for form. Maybe it would have been in "nice" form, but that's as far as the matter went.

 

While exile was the common punishment at the time (though believe execution still technically legal), the harshness and finality of the death penalty as punishment would lend one to believe a trial more important than in the former penalty. The ramifications of not doing so had reprucussions on Cato and Cicero. No question the whole thing could have been handled better.

 

Yes, I agree it is odd. But, again your sense of proportion is lacking. While you criticize Cato merely for sponsoring a bill that would require a tribune have some property, neither you nor anyone bothers to criticize Caesar for placing himself above the veto-power of the tribunes. While Cato put up obstacles to Caesar and his partisans, Caesar--like Sulla before him--disenfranchised EVERYONE.

 

The fact is that Cato and his party played the major role in the polarizing of Roman politics that led to the Civil War by their refusals to compromise. They were wrong period, and they paid the price.

 

JC was a dictator like Sulla in name but most of the similarities end there. While dictator his partisans were the Tribal Assembly, representing the vast majority of the Roman populace, with whom he dealt with on state affairs--instead of the Senate. And in spite of ignoring the Senate he promoted 300 into their ranks, many of them from the populares including centurions, scribes and a few sons of liberated slaves. Perhaps outside the old constitutional structure the optimates liked but certainly an open move to a more democratic form of representative power ironically in spite of the dictatorship.

 

JC, much to the disgust of the Athenian aristocracy, mandated a democratic constitution for the citizens there. In addition to the above entry of populares into the senatorial class, he also extended the franchise to some Gallic tribes and--shockingly--introduced Gauls into the senate.

 

Yes he was still a dictator, ambitious and overstepped his bounds. The irony is that many egalitarian political gains took place. It wasn't an overthrow of the old order but in an inclusion into politics of a larger community of citizens. The reforms, mild by our standards, show how intransigent the old order was and what it took to move towards that inclusion.

 

Cato was rich, and he didn't need to rent his wife. Again, you're simply repeating an historical slander, the source of which (Plutarch) you've already impugned twice (with regard to boy Cato asking for a sword to kill Sulla and with regard to the body count in Gaul, which is btw corroborated by Caesar and Appian). I generally respect your scholarship, Virgil, but in this case you seem to want to have your sources and eat them too!

 

To be fair I only disputed his and other ancient sources on numbers, a stance most historians take I believe. I stated there was evidence that something more may have took place vis-a-vis Sulla and Cato, but I really didn't disparage Plutarch and that was probably my weakest argument in hindsight.

 

Anyway, I'm gettin' a bit Cato'd out.

[Germanicus]

The law allowed for the excecution because the Senate voted (Post Sentance) to legalise Ciceros actions.

 

No, this is isn't correct. Cicero was acting under a Senatus Consutum Ultimum and thus his actions were completely legal.

 

Okay, thanks. I thought they were sentanced by the Senate, then the Ultimum was passed to allow it. I guess it's kind of semantics anyway.