Please read Plutarch's account of one of the many "ambitious young men" who lived during what is sometimes called the age of Cicero. Pick out a key line that shows how this man's work might have tended to support or destroy republican government in Rome. Explain why you chose this particular line. Useful are these abridged biographies of Crassus, Cicero, Pompey, Sertorius, Cato the Younger, and Lucullus.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Crasus, Pompey, and their Contemporaries
Please read Plutarch's account of one of the many "ambitious young men" who lived during what is sometimes called the age of Cicero. Pick out a key line that shows how this man's work might have tended to support or destroy republican government in Rome. Explain why you chose this particular line. Useful are these abridged biographies of Crassus, Cicero, Pompey, Sertorius, Cato the Younger, and Lucullus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“Somewhat later, Crassus was accused of being mixed up in the conspiracy of Catiline, but he was tried and acquitted by the whole senate.” This would have helped to destroy the republic of Rome… When people think that their leaders are out to get one another the amount of trust that people have tends to go down. And when the people distrust you it makes getting things done difficult.
ReplyDelete“He was thirty years of age when he returned to his native city, so much improved in public speaking that he excelled all the other orators, and soon became the most popular of them.” This line is from the description about Cicero. I believe that since he was a good orator he could talk his way into and out of situations… Nothing have ever been solved by war. So maybe since he did hold positions of power there were times where he had to use his words to solve differences.
“The prisoners were not put to death; Pompey, was too humane for that; he gave them small tracts of land in various scantily-populated regions, thus offering them a chance to become honest citizens.” This would have helped the republic of Rome because it would have made people loyal to Pompey and his causes!
Cato the younger never seemed like he stopped doing things for Roman benefit. Aside from making sure the traitors were put to death without a trial, his every action seemed to be for the well being of Rome.
ReplyDeleteWhen Pompey returned Cato would not side with him, because it wasn't right. He did this even though the cost was loss of power. This wasn't the only time. "... everybody took an oath to observe them (new laws) except Cato, who did not think them wise or just. But it was ordained by the senate that any man who should attemt to alter the laws or refuse to take the owath should be severely punished." Even when begged by his wife, he wouldn't comprimise his values.
Also I think that his military style was benificial to Rome. He wasn't looking for honor, or prizes, but focused on getting the job done, and never made his soldiers do anything he wouldn't do first? I really doubt that a commander exists like that today.
Jon Hepola
"Pompey and Crassus were both made consuls. They seemed pleased at first, but it was not long before they began to quarrel to such an extent that they could accomplish nothing of importance to the country." This line shows how it would help destroy the Roman government. If the two consuls who are suppose to be working together are fighting each other, how are they suppose to run a country. It would do more hurt than good to the people.
ReplyDelete"This was a blow aimed at Cicero, who had executed those engaged in the Catiline conspiracy." Cicero had done something that would help destroy the Republic. When he had heard that Catiline and his supporters were conspiring to assasinate him he had arrested all of them. He then executed all of them without putting them on trial. By doing this you allow for more of these unjust acts to occur. Roman values used to be about being honest and just about the things you did. When Cicero decided to execute these people without giving them a trial, he went against these values.
ReplyDelete"Though Pompey and Crassus were consuls together, they never could agree on any point, but kept up a continual quarrelling." There are two consuls in the Roman Republic. If they are unable to agree on anything nothing would get done. In this case they are helping destroy the republic. I believe that the consuls should not agree on everything so that they can maintain a balance, but at the same time if you do not agree on anything you will be just as useless.
The line I pick is from Sylla to Pompey "I see, young man, that you are proud of your victory; and indeed it was a great thing for you to obtain the consulship for Lepidus, the worst man in Rome, in preference to Catulus, the best and most deserving; but beware, for you have made your enemy stronger than yourself." I thought this line was the forshadow of Pompey's legacy in Rome but he had the chance to be consul the second time around and be great. But Pompey choose to just be called upon as general to ge glory that way which cost him in the end. He was too ambitions for the fame early when he should just been thinking about consulship first then the glory.
ReplyDeleteThe next line I chose is in Crassus: "Pompey's ability for war was so great that Crassus soon felt how useless it would be to compete with him: he therefore turned his attention to affairs of state, and became very influential. He was ambitious and covetous, as we have said, but not ill-natured or bad-hearted, and he was always ready to serve those who needed [367] him."
ReplyDeleteThis line tended to destroy republican government in Rome because Crassus wanted the rule everything and have all the gold at the same time. The fact that he became consul with Pompey was for his on ambitions which cause hime as he got many Romans killed. All that led to his fate in the end. Crassus almost brought the Republic down.
"His authority at that time was very great, but he excited the envy of not a few because he was continually praising himself, and people grew tired of hearing him repeat again and again the benefit he had done his country in crushing Catilin"
ReplyDeleteI think that this hurt the Roman Republic. No longer was it about what one did for Rome but rather it was all about oneself. Rather than do something great to help Rome, leaders were only doing great things for their own benefit. This kind of falls away from Roman virtus and hurts Rome.
"Clodius hated Cicero so much that determined to ruin him, and with that object in view caused the old law to be renewed which declared any one guilty of treason who had a citizen put to death without a trial. This was a blow aimed at Cicero, who had executed those engaged in the Catiline conspiracy."
ReplyDeleteCicero was a well respected lawyer who knew the laws and politics of Rome inside and out. And yet he put to death the followers of Catilin who had conspired to assasinate him. Would not young men who wanted to get into the "game" follow Cicero's example? It would have had to occured to these young men that Cicero was a well respected lawyer who knew the law. And yet, when Cicero felt threatened, he violated the law. This was not a good example to be setting for future players of the "game".
I also found some aspects of Cicero's character to be detrimental to Rome. During the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar, Cicero waffled between the two more times then John Kerry during a presidential election race. Would the Civil War have ended earlier if Cicero had picked a side and stayed there?
"His triumph lasted two days, and Rome had never witnessed one more splendid. Pompey's greatest glory was not in the fact that he had triumphed three times, for other Romans had done likewise, but that he seemed to have led the whole world captive; for his first triumph had been over Africa, his second over Europe, and his third over Asia." This shows that Pompey was a great leader in the military. If he can lead an army to three victories in three different countries he knows how to be a great ruler. He has some good qualaties of being a good leader for a country. This may be a bad thing for a republic though, it could get to his head that he can be a good ruler and want to take over the republic.
ReplyDeletewhen Cicero executed the members of the Catiline Conspiracy he did so without a trial. This went against laws such as the Twelve Tables. This went against the values of the Republic and probably set a trend for future leadeers of Rome.
ReplyDelete“Then Sertorius said, "You see, my friends and fellow-soldiers how much more can be accomplished by perseverance than by force, and that things separated are not so strong as when united. Time is the friend of those who use their judgment and wait, and the enemy of those who rush forward on improper occasions." This quote shows how Sertorious was able to support the Roman Republic by not supporting quick decisions when in battle, but rather wait for the right opportunity. He was able to strengthen the Roman Republic by insuring the battles they engaged in were entered at the correct moment and not out of rage or fiery.
ReplyDeleteFrom the biography of Crassus. "Pompey's ability for war was so great that Crassus soon felt how useless it would be to compete with him: he therefore turned his attention to affairs of state, and became very influential. He was ambitious and covetous, as we have said, but not ill-natured or bad-hearted, and he was always ready to serve those who needed him. I feel that in this instance Crassus is working in the benefit of the Roman Republic. He is showing good Roman values and opening his services to those who need it. Values like these are the ones that brought Rome success and the ones that could keep it on the right path.
ReplyDeleteFrom the biography of Cicero He tried very hard to reconcile the two leaders, Pompey and Cæsar". From this quotation it apparent that Cicero was looking out for the greater good of Rome and trying to prevent a Roman Civil War to break out. Although he was unable to reconcile these two men's differences it important to see his efforts in trying to protect Rome from disaster.
when Cicero executed the members of the Catiline Conspiracy he did so without a trial
ReplyDeleteThis goes against the 12 tables as a right to a fair trail. Of course this would have been detrimental to Rome, in the fact that anyone with even half of Cicero's skill could now accuse someone of anything and boom off with your head. But this Had been happening since the time of Marius and Sulla, so it was still a comman occurance. This would have also weakened social trust in a Republic...
I found quite a few interesting things in the reading on Sertorious, but the one that stood out the most was:
ReplyDelete"You see, my friends and fellow-soldiers how much more can be accomplished by perseverance than by force, and that things separated are not so strong as when united. Time is the friend of those who use their judgment and wait, and the enemy of those who rush forward on improper occasions."
To me it was the perfect quote summing up the Romans' success you mentioned in class - they might lose battles, but they didn't lose wars. Perserverence - the ability to hunker down when things get tough and overcome initial setbacks to emerge triumphant. The key to success whether a country or an individual.
I read the piece on Pompey. I believe that his actions actually helped tear down the Roman Republic. He, along with other men at this time wanted power. By being top dog he could get all the power that he wanted. But the most important part is grabbing power at a time when you are able to use it. This is why I like the following quote:
ReplyDelete"Pompey returned to Rome when the civil war was at its height, and Crassus was in command of the army. A great battle had just been fought, and five thousand slaves had fled; but Pompey met them and put them all to death, and then sent this message to the senate: 'Crassus has beaten the gladiators in a pitched battle, but I have cut up the war by the roots.'"
Here, Pompey asserts his claims that he is the best because he did what Crassus was unable to do. Now if this was done in a time of "peace" people would have loved it, but since the revolution was at his height he not only gained peoples love, but their full support as well. This would tear Rome between different camps and eventually would lead to the overthrow of the Republic.
"He tried very hard to reconcile the two leaders, Pompey and Cæsar, but, failing to do that, showed himself miserably changeable and undecided, first favoring the one, then the other."
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, this shows Cicero's tendency to try to use politics to settle dispute. Like in the Struggle of Orders in the early Republic, he preferred peaceful means of getting his way. On the other hand, he often showed a weakness of will. If he had picked a side and used his powers of oration to back up his champion, things may have gone better.
I think that some of the things Pompey did helped keep the Republic alive for a while. In one instance of his story he got a hold of Perpenna's papers. but instead of reading them he burned them without looking at them because he was afraid they would defame powerful men in Rome and cause another war. And later on, after he had dealt with Mithridites he came back to Italy with his army, and he could have easily taken Rome and become dictator, as some feared he would. But instead he disbanded his army and only asked them to take part in the celebration.
ReplyDeleteJohn Rawerts