Cato is the definition of partisanship. He loved the stalemate, the anarchy in the streets. He could boast to all his constituents that the republic was failing, but he didn’t do anything to help it. Every chance at reform, he opposed, he’d rather watch Rome burn and make great speeches about it burning than putting out the fire.
Actually the Assembly passed things without the Senate all the time before the Second Punic War, so it wasn’t breaking president as it was previously precedent.
When you need a Plato, but instead you get Cato 😂 You have one of the most underrated channels on the platform with regards to Roman history! Keep up the awesome work 👏
He did worse. His squashing of the deal worked out by Caesar and Cicero (negotiating for Pompey and the Senate) was worse. By his own testimony, if Caesar won, the Republic was done. Yet he squashed a deal that defeated Caear politically but did not destroy him. His blind hatred for Caesar was such that he could not accept anything short of Caesar's destruction.
I mostly disliked Cato because he refused a compromise from shortly before Caesar crossed the Rubicon. A deal had been made where Caesar would be left with 1 province and 1 legion. Cato, however, demanded that they take away ALL of Caesar's legions- which noone wanted- which then caused the breakdown of negotiations, leading Caesar to occupy Rome, which ended the Republic. Screw Cato.
The republic did not end because of Caesar. He was only a dictator, a legal magistracy since the beginning of the republic. It was only after Actium, the day that Octavian became Augustus with all the powers: tribune and high pontiff.
My first introduction to Cato the younger was "Rome's last citizen" by Rob Goodman. On this video and after having read that book, I will say that maybe Cato was not necessarily acting on his own interest, but rather that he was crossing into the insane territory; as many of his life events show that he indeed might have been a man of true principle but his hatred for Caesar blinded him, then having delusions of grandeur and whatnot by trying to save the Republic. In the end, we will never truly know if he was principled or not, but after careful consideration, if we are to judge him solely by his actions it is true that he can come as despicable for negating the land grants to the legionaries and stubborn for his filibustering. At last, he contributed to the destruction of the Republic rather than to its preservation. Great work as always!
There really is no principled reason for refusing land grants to legionnaires. Even the one about honouring contracts against resetting rates for tax farmers Is more of a fig leaf as all contracts are subject to consideration of force majeure, and Roman laying waste to and looting your province is a pretty big extenuating circumstance which would force reconsideration.
I don't believe he was principled (just look at the example given in the video), but I believe he believed he was. I find fairly common with obnoxious people like him
This is one of those cases where modern understanding greatly suffers because of the aristocratic bias of having only aristocratic historians as primary sources. Cato and the Optimates made the Republican system untenable, the Triumvirate is far from blameless, but imo, there is no legitimate comparison to how destructive to the Roman State Cato's actions were.
Exactly - it's bitterly ironic that everything he did to shore up power for the senate really just made the body irrelevant and ensured that anyone who actually hoped to influence politic would bypass it.
@@tribunateSPQR Its also reminiscent of the english king, Charles I. It was his own unwillingness to compromise and surrender a meager amount of power and authority, that left his captors with little choice but to cut his head off, when they origionally just wanted to enforce a constitution on him.
Caesar had no other ambition than to serve a second term as consul. If they had let him be elected they could have neutralized him. Their hatred pushed them to declare him a public enemy and therefore to cross the Rubicon!
@@chrisrubin6445The problem throughout history is determining when there could be a slippery slope, and when there is not, and how to prevent it. One could argue that things like the french revolution could have been prevented with proper reforms, but with how the currents were going with society, and with the same character breed of opportunistic actors there, sometimes such things become inevitable. Take care and God bless
@@johnphipps4105 The french revolution would be mitigated had the King be more absolutist and screw the other 2 estates. Would it cause unrest? Sure, but it's not unique (see French wars of Religion). The fact that the last 2 kings didn't capitalize on the Sun King's power paints a picture where the revolution was bound to happen.
If you haven't already, you should make a video on the ideology of the state during the Roman republic, like how Patria Potestas plays a role in shaping how politicians viewed their power and responsibilities in the state. What were their ideas about consent of the governed if they had it and how did elections fit in with their politics. Great content btw!
Thanks and great idea! I've been researching plebs and their role in Roman politics for a big series on the struggle of the order - will defiantly have content on Rome's elite ideology to help contextualize this.
Yes! Though By this point the distinction between wealthy Plebian families and the patricians was insignificant, Cato was effectively carrying water for the very people and causes that had worked directly against his ancestors. Had those ancient patricians had their way Cato would never have even had the chance to rise to political prominence
@@tribunateSPQRBut this is always true, elites incorporate new people and those then want to "kick the ladder" because their interests align with their current standing, not with universal principles
@EremiasRanwolf-xz7ekplenty of Roman nobility at the end of Republic hailed from plebian gens. It didn't mean they weren't wealthy as although Cicero was born to a plebian family, he was born into nobility (equestrian)
It's basically entirely his fault that they had to link up. Pompey and Crassus HATED each other so it took a lot to bring them together. Turns out Cato was the only person they hated more than each other
People barely talk about this. I never knew that the filibuster was such a bad practice. I knew cato did it, but they never referred at it as the filibuster nor expressed the severity of this action
Cato exploited the levers of power to the single purpose of destroying his political opponents, and the fact that he at the same time made the government itself appear powerless and ineffectual only enhanced his own appearance of power. Creating chaos exposed his rivals as incapable of delivering policies, while Cato enhanced his prestige by showing he could crush any rival's ambitions. We can see politicians today who enhance their prestige by preventing any meaningful legislation from passing, and by exposing their opposition as being thereby ineffectual, and by extension incapable of governing. We end up with a leadership that demonstrates it's own power by destroying the actual governing institutions.
What makes Cato (and some other optimates like Bibilus) so pathetic in my eye is that despite being the most educated and wealthy men in Italy: they never failed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Caesar either needed to be placated or disposed of. What did they do? They wounded his political ambitions so he had a reason to hate him, and then heaped on powers so that he had the means to strong arm them.
Well said - Robert Morstein-Marx's excellent "Julius Caesar and the Roman People" really brought me around to the opinion that Caesar originally sought out to forge a normal political career but the refusal of optimates to follow convention and their obstruction essentially forced him to take equally radical steps
@@tribunateSPQR As Hirtius writes in Book 8 of the Commentaries, Caesar intended to run for a second term as consul. Which they refused to admit and which caused their downfall and that of the republic!
To be fair they did try and disposed of a lot of popular politicians, the problem is that Cesar was the culmination of this process. He knew the Senate will try to kill him so apart from being on top shape he was always accompanied by his killer veterans completely loyal to him.
I'm just curious. Who ever thought Cato was a hero? This video is just stating the obvious. You didn't even mention Cato preventing Caesar from retuning from the Gaul campaign and caused the civil war directly. Or creating gangs who terrorized the streets of Rome.
Plenty of the Stoics view him as courageous. And while I’m kinda prepared to grant that ascribing the virtue of courage to him MIGHT be merited, his over all political history and ideological positions were pretty damn awful morally.
The "tradition", Cato was attempting to preserve was a failing republic that showed clear signs of being unable to solve even the most basic challenges, both from outside the Empire and from within. Caesar may have killed the republic, but saved both Rome and the roman people, so i have no doubt as to which side i'm on
I feel like the claim that Cato was primarily motivated by greed makes little sense when he seemingly lived very modestly and rejected luxury. One would think that someone motivated by greed would be susceptible to bribery and corruption, but as far as I can tell, Cato legitimately opposed bribery and was known for shutting down extortion by the clerks during his time as Quaestor. I’m willing to admit that Cato’s actions clearly didn’t cause the best case scenario, but I think in the sense that he was acting according to the laws of the Roman constitution, it is difficult for me to say he is morally culpable for it’s collapse.
This Video IS Made by purely faction lenses View and since Cato IS superficially the optimate Guy they slander him for all the wrong doings all optimates Like legit half of the complaints are bullshit about Cato and apply to the actual optimates Leader mettelus scipio.
He actually didnt cato the Younger does pretty much everything the elder one did although the elder was even more of an Ass than the Younger, remember cato the elder IS the Dude WHO forced scipio africanus into exile
Crassus enters this story, listens for the few moments his attention span lasts and suddenly, shockingly, he realizes something. Lookin around uncertainly but with his eyes wide in amazement he utters: "I'm not the baddie?
@@iturnedintoamartian-cm6nd Thank you. Personally I really hope they don't. The Sith are way overexposed as it is. The Sith should be menacing, hidden in the shadows. They should be shrouded in mystery, each rumor and myth contradicted by a handful of other rumors and myths. The less that's shown about the Sith the better, otherwise they become a rogues gallery, each with their own silly little quirks and affectations. That said, the original author (Kevin Anderson, was it not?) does overexpose Exar Kun too much in the original books for my taste, so he's out of the shadows anyway. The other problem is that the guy (Kun) doesn't have much of a character arc. Fallen Jedi, doesn't redeem himself, keeps hanging around like a bad stench, still doesn't redeem himself. 😁
I just discovered this video. Therefore I'm quite late to discussion. My pick would be Quintus Servilius Caepio consul 106 BC. His actions at the Battle of Arausio not only caused the arguably worst defeat in the history of the Roman Republic but Oz created the conditions for Gaius Marius 7 times as consul. The casualties suffered by the Italian allies as well as their contribution in finally beating the Cimbri and Teutones, and how Rome didn't reward them for it, are probably a big part of the cause of the Social War 91-88 BC. Which in turn lead to Sulla's consulship. So this guy was partly responsible for getting Marius and Sulla in positions for them to fight their Civil War and do their respective marches on Rome. He was basically also everything Cato wanted to be but fortunately for Rome Cato never got there. I also picked Caepio because he embodies the type of pigheaded aristocrat that carries the lions share of the blame for the change from the Republic to the Principate (not to the Empire, the Republic was already an Empire at least since the 1st Punic War).
I came across the title of this video and thought ‘based’. Then I reached 17:10 and you said literally everything I’ve been thinking about our politics for the last 15 years. There is always a demand for governance. When legislative obstructionism takes root, the supply will be provided by other means - in our case, increasingly expansive court rulings and executive actions. The senate needs drastic reform, I personally think that the senate should only be given the power to propose amendments and reject legislation by 2/3s majorities, instead of effectively requiring 3/5s majorities to pass legislation
Id be interested to know where cicero would fit in this, since he was usually on the side of kato yet he is known as a great and pragmatic statesman which would be at odds with the shortsightedness of kato
Cicero was unfortunately all over the place during this time period - he was close to the triumvirs (particularly Pompey) after his recall in 57 but was always eager to work with Cato and the optimistes (he craved the approval of the old families) and drifted towards their camp eventually. But as war between Caesar and Pompey loomed he tried to avert it through compromise but was frustrated by Cato.
Cato would have been great in the earlier days of the republic, but his hardline attempts at trying to save something that doesn't exist anymore did more harm than good.
@@tribunateSPQRRandom question, I apologize, but are interested in any ancient chinese history, specifically pre han dynasty? I think you would find the fall of the zhou dynasty and the rise of the han(676 bc to 202 bc) pretty interesting. Take care and God bless
Cato was certainly a flawed individual and should take on his share of the blame for the fall of the Republic. There is a point I find an issue with here. Land grants were not a promise to the soldiers for time served by the senate at this point. They were a promise made by the general in charge to their soldiers. This bound the soldiers to their general and made his political relevance in Rome their concern. This was changed by Augustus, who brought the army under the auspices of the emporer. Thus, though Cato could be blamed for many things, saying he was purposely blocking the promised land grants to the soldiers is a bit misleading. He was blocking the senate from giving public land promised by Pompey to the soldiers. Pompey made the promise, not the state, and overall, Pompey was gaining political clout by delivering on the promised land. Overall, it was a very good and interesting video.
Wasn't this an extremely standard functioning of the roman state though? Didn't many many generals get land for their soldiers over the decades? even if the senate didn't technically promise it, it was still a normal function of the senate that was obstructed
@zachjordan7608 Not really, it was only in the Marian Reforms in 107 when opening recruitment to the landless Roman's into the legions was introduced. Prior to this, you had to own land to be a legionary. Even with this you weren't necessarily expected to serve longer than was necessary to wage whatever war was currently on and land grants only became a state promise to veterans in Augustus's time when terms of service were set at 25 years. So was Cato being unreasonable when it came to refusing to countenance giving land to Pompey's veterans? I can see an argument for this being the least of his bad decisions during this period.
@@adamreddaway2005 The issue there is less about the land grants itself I'd say and more about the blockade driving Pompey to ally himself to Caesar and Crassus and showing them that they needed to ignore the senate to get anything done.
@@HDreamer@HDreamer Which is a perfectly valid argument. As I said in my post Cato was a flawed individual. His inability to work with even the moderates of his own party helped destroy the Republic. I was just pointing out that of all the details of his legislative life to go over as problematic I thought the land grants issue was one he had a legitimate argument for.
I just found this channel, and I can only infer that it was by the will of the Fates. I've just completed Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar", a much more expansive look than the title implies, and found myself looking for more historical content about Rome, the Senate, and reasons for it's fall that was more than just blind recitation of Oligarchical missives and then this pops up on my timeline. Cheers and thanks for work you're doing.
Someone once tried to interest me in the Cato Institute. My first response was "Change your name". It went downhill from there. Caesar could have done without a war; so could have Pompey. But Cato wanted one and got it. Finis reei publicae (sp? LOL).
When Tiberius Gracchus became popular & started calling out hoe the senators were using their positions to become more powerful at the expense of the common ppl, he was accused of trying to become king & murdered.
Just for clarification, the filibuster in the US sense is not used all that often and is primarily used on issues that are genuinely controversial. It can be shot down with 60 votes which 60% of the whole Senate. This means that a bill with overwhelming support can easily defeat a filibuster depending on your definition of overwhelming support.
You are a boomer and it shows, filibuster since Obama is senate normal business, but unlike before, legislation that cannot break the filibuster does not even make it to senate floor. That's the reason everything is breaking in this country and no one is fixing anything. And 40 votes needed to block the filibuster and lets face it, it's all about republican senators is less than 10% of popular vote, so no, overwhelming support doesn't do jack shit to defeat filibuster in US senate. That's why we still have civil asset forfeiture. senate
Cato was certainly just as flawed as the Republic he tried to defend, but the Republic would have died with or without him. Rome had expanded too much, inequalities had grown too much and generals had become too powerful. After Sulla, the people who believed that the Republic could still be saved were just deluding themselves.
The generals had become too powerful because the Senate was deadlocked. Cato was just the last straw. Because he accelerated it beyond the point of no return. And Caesar's heir capitalized from it in the end.
The introduction is constructed of elegantly (and admirably) crafted acid. Take that, Cato Institute, which is unconsciously an accurate reflection of his “principles.”!
@@tomasrocha6139 his letters reflects his thoughts. Just like how we say the epistles of Paul reflects Pauline teachings in Christianity, Cato the Younger’s letters reflects his thoughts on how governance should be.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 Cato's Letters were essays by British writers John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, first published from 1720 to 1723 under the pseudonym of Cato (95-46 BC), they weren't written by Cato the Younger
The late republican Rome had a complicated political landscape. It is hard to find anyone that you can agree with all the time but I would say that Cato's filibustering was allowable by the law of the time however his reasons for it were wrong and it was not the precedent. The thing that makes me despise Cato was how he was the only one not to agree to the compromise that would have prevented the Roman Civil War (Caesar and Pompey Edition). On the other side of the argument Caesar had the power to jail Cato for filibustering but similar to the filibustering it was not the precedent. On the modern side I do not think the filibuster in the Senate is wrong, it is both allowed and has a precedent the silent filibuster is a problem. While the two track system that made the silent filibuster a thing was good because it allowed for Senate business to continue it makes it so anything 41+ people disagree with can be blocked. In the old system the filibuster must talk on and on something that can not go on forever since they need to eventually eat, drink, or sleep but they can show their opposition and in the prosses possibly bring other people to their side. The problem with it was that senators in alignment with the filibuster could ask "questions" long enough for the filibuster rest leading for Senate business being stopped for up to 60 days. By blocking these questions the longest filibuster can be reduced. The longest time I could find for a solo filibuster was 43 hours in the Texas Senate. While not stated in The Constitution I would say the filibuster supports it. The reason every state has 2 senators no mater it's size was a compromise made so that while the small states have less power in the House of Representatives each state holds the same power in the Senate. I can say more on this and I will if anyone asks but I fear I put too much in one comment.
And yet, in the U.S. over the last 10 years, 1,809 laws were passed by Congress and signed into law. I guess if you like a lot of laws, this isn’t enough.
It isn't. The average number of bills passed used to be between 700 and 900 PER YEAR. The last time it was that high was 1987's 100th Congress with 761 bills passed. The number has been declining ever since with the lowest at 284 with 2011's 112th Congress. It's fluctuated between that and a high of 443 bills since then, until the current deadlocked Congress with less than 50 bills passed so far.
@@longiusaescius2537The electoral college is an anti democratic system which says "Here's why some millionaire farmers should dominate the country and deserve 23x more votes per person"
Glad you liked it! We will do our part and continue pumping out anti-Cato content. We’ve got a future video planned on his role fomenting the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey
Stop glazing Caesar, calling Cato a villain when Caesar deserves all the blame he did for his authoritarian behavior. I dislike Cato more than Caesar, but calling Caesar anything other than blatantly authoritarian with complete disregard for law and precedents is extremely disingenuous, because as obnoxious and insufferable as Cato was, his opposition to Caesar was inspired primarily over his blatant authoritarianism. By this point, the Catiline Conspiracy had already happened, which Caesar absolutely was involved in, and he then backed Metellus to have Pompey bring his army and occupy Rome, over an issue that had ALREADY been fixed by Cicero, with Caesar resigning in solidarity with this Tribune over a really, really sketchy idea. Also, as you mentioned, he tried to use one of Caesar's favorite tactics of going straight to the Assembly to get it passed anyways. Gee, wonder whose idea THAT was?
Very interesting, the view of Cato as the advisory of democratic and meaningful reform actually played a huge role in my dissertation on the motivations behind Caesars actions during his political career. Good to hear another like-minded person on cato and his clique, the factio.
Cato never served as Consul (thank God), but it was because he refused to publically campaign. He believed that should the people ever want him, they would vote for him of their own accord. Clearly, they *never* wanted him, for obvious reasons.
I think many Roman Senators blocked Cato from being ever Consul Not Just Caesar because in reality Cato Had No political Side Just Look Up what crazy stuff Cato did AS a mere quaestor,He purged corruption Like crazy and when a censor aka a Former Consul Tried to Not Rock the boat too much He threatened to jail the censor for attempted bribery. Cato IS a legit crusader against corruption. The funniest Thing is that suddenly Senators around him suddenly behaves themselves properly and chilled with luxury and corruption because the Dude smelled that far away .
Judging the Roman Senate by today’s standards is a huge mistake. It leads you to perverse conclusions. The United States Senate was designed to take on the trappings of the Roman Senate, indeed Senators weren’t popularly elected until the 20th century. Who is to say that today’s Senate is any better than Jefferson’s or Cato’s?
Yes, this is true but its mostly based on the difference of moral standards rather than the cause and effect of actions and events. We are not that different even though our morality is also not the same.
In a lot of ways- he’s being explicit that we shouldn’t assume that the senate from Rome (which WAS NOT ELECTED BUT ELIGIBLE DUE TO WEATH LIMITS) is not like today’s America. I think it’s easily over looked to assume that the senates have similar motivations between ages. We also benefit from hindsight here so it’s reasonable to make some judgements on what worked or didn’t.
While I agree with the general argument of this video, the only thing I disagree with is that I think, rather than Cato alone, it was a group in the Senate who was responsible. For instance I think the filibuster was originally started and lead against Pompey by Metellus Calair. Meanwhile Cato never actually achieved the consulship.
I think that the narrator missed the reason why Caesar was insisting upon the dispensation to run for consul before dropping his imperium as proconsul. As proconsul, he could not be prosecuted. Caesar would have passed from the legal protections of a proconsul in his province to the protections of a consul. Caesar knew that charges had been laid and that he would be seized if he entered Rome without a sacrosanct status. This was why he had to cross the Rubicon.
I think the narrator was talking about Caesars first run for Consul, where he had earned a Triumph for his lesser known achievements in Spain after he was Praetor. IIRC the Senate lead by the Conservative faction tried to use the Triumph as a means to prevent him running for Consul, because they didn't think he would be pragmatic about it and just skip the Triumph and enter the city anyway. At this point he didn't need the Imperium for protection yet.
Cato is no hero of mine...and the filibuster has indeed sometimes been abused in the U.S. But if you can't get 60% of the votes on board re issues of great import to the Republic...maybe you want to go back and negotiate something that 60% *can* get on board with. If 51% of politicos are in favor of making electric cars mandatory in three years...should we applaud their "wisdom?" Small states have two senators...just like the large ones... Large states have far more congressmen than the small states... This tradeoff was required by the Founding Fathers... Small states feared having no voice...and large ones feared having their large populations count for nothing. The wisdom of this arrangement escapes some who would prefer that much of the Republic be dismissed as mere "flyover country..." As to the Congress abandoning decisions of peace or war to the Executive branch...that merely reflects the abandoning of their moral responsibility. -YP-
This was a great summary of the filibuster, it seems that a lot of people fail to comprehend and want to end it. Same thing with electoral college. Our founding fathers were very wise men
as much as I dislike Cato and the optimates, I do giggle to myself whenever I hear people who want to get rid of the guaranteed representation of small states in the Electoral College and the Senate, or allowing bills to pass with just 50.1% of the vote. I can already see how much secessionist sentiment will explode across the USA if they tried
@@Samuel-wm1xrYour sentiment is the exact opposite of true conservative republicanism (or Republicanism). You believe the power of the state should be greater than the will of the people. It was exactly this idea that the Founding Fathers fought against.
@@tty1975ful the filibuster was not created by the founding fathers. The filibuster that exists today has changed form and rules many times in US history. The first incarnation of this was in1805 when Aaron Burr was Vice President and governed the Senate, this was shortly after he had been indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton. He proposed changing the "Previous Question Rule". If you are praising what the Founding Father's put into place then try praising the "Previous Question Rule" which said that a simple majority of Senators could end debate on a bill to allow it to come up for a vote, which is what People who want to end the filibuster are in favor of. Burr thought that allowing debate to end naturally would allow the Senate to run more smoothly, letting everyone have a chance to speak, that's all. The word filibuster was an insult that started because the maneuver was being abused, filibuster was a term meaning pirate. I can see the point to 40 Senators signing their name to a piece of paper saying let's shelve this bill, I am against it. But that is not what happens today. What happens is that you have legislation that People are for. If it came up for a vote it would overwhelmingly pass. More that 60 Senators have announced that if it came up for a vote they would vote for it. But all that has to happen is that one Senator who is not even there can just send a text message challenging it. Then the other side needs to get 60 Senators to endorse it in order to advance it, which if one party doesn't have a super majority is impossible. Filibuster has been used to allow racial discrimination to continue and to allow things like gun registration, which a majority or the publics wants to not get enacted, also stopped Trump from building his Wall. It pretty much stops any party in office from getting anything major done. Democrats had to have a super majority to pass Obamacare. And the filibuster is just a Senate rule that can be changed by a party with majority. It is not in the constitution. They had to change it for presidential appointments when Republicans decided that they wouldn't confirm anyone, so basically it has already happened. I think that they can change it to something of a compromise, but one Senator can't trigger it. You should find a number of Senators put their name to something to extend debate and then they need to stay and debate it and come up with a compromise. Either compromise or let it come up for a vote. We are a democracy.
"..maybe you want to go back and negotiate something that 60% can get on board with." I don't disagree in principle, but in a world - not just in the US - where voting along Party lines has become pretty much mandatory, as well as "oppose everything the other side does, so we can win the next election", it just doesn't work in many cases. Even on laws half the voters of the opposing party would probably agree to.
Your comparison between the US Senate and Roman one is rather strange, because the Vast majority of laws passed and followed in the United States are not passed at the Federal level at all, but on the state and local levels.
How is that relevant? Federal law still takes precedent and often deals with the most pressing issues of the state, especially widespread reform. And even in Rome, many day to issues were devolved to local governors and generals. The only difference is that those local decisions didn’t necessitate legislation.
It's very similar. The fact that senators representing a tiny but incredibly wealthy minority can obstruct even extremely popular legislation is anti democratic. The Roman senate was driven to breaking point party by filibuster.
@@withlessAsbestosAccording to StatsAmerica, as of 2023, Wyoming is the 9th richest state in the U.S. with a per capita annual personal income of $77,837. There are also many property owners in Wyoming who own land with vast amounts of acreage, many of which are celebrities and current or former politicians, entrepreneurs, and tech moguls. So for a state with a fairly small population compared to size and no major urban centers like in California or New York, it's pretty wealthy.
@@withlessAsbestos What? Wyoming doesn't have wealthy people? And the people who founded this country absolutely, and deliberately modeled the American senate on the Roman one. Just because nation states did not exist then the way they do now does not negate comparison.
Requiring broad consensus to alter the status quo in the United States is a good thing. We are very diverse economically and geographically but are more-or-less a single culture. Looking to a true empire, where the dominant culture was not the majority culture and a city-state ran everything is apples-to-oranges
To the point you make about the American filibuster leading to the centralization of power that we are seeing: there is a difference between the Roman Empire and the United STATES. The US is not designed to have a large federal government that needs the will of the people to pass large reformitive legislation regularly, the framers designed this nation as a federation of states and not one monolithic empire. The federal government was designed for a very limited supervisory role over the states and intended to have a narrow scope (see the 10th amendment). Our system is set up to balance the tyranny of the majority and the rights of the minority, as such it IS a good thing that everything popular doesn't get passed. Should we allow a simple majority to execute their desire on the other 49% of the population? No, that's why we are a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy. The filibuster is useful because it slows the federal government and restricts it's actions to that which is so overwhelmingly popular that it transcends one party. If it can not do that then it shouldn't be federal law. The fact that the legislature is moving too slow in your opinion isn't a quirk, that was the intent. While you may argue that as a result we have concentration of power I would argue that would happen if the legislature passed laws saying it was okay or not. The issue isn't with the filibuster and the lethargic nature of our government, it's with people selling their freedom for an ounce of safety. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I always find comments like these hilarious because it ignores the fact that in the last 236 years since the constitution was passed the world has changed. We, the United States, have changed. The culture of this country of ours, our wealth, our prestige, our outlook, our foreign policy, and our technology has all changed. We've had a civil war between 1787 and now and that single event, by itself, changed nearly everything about the United States. Comments like this ignore the fact that the Framers were men, maybe well-intentioned, but fallible all the same-- they enshrined the fact that an unfree Black African slave still counted as 3/5 of a White man for purposes of counting the electorate and affixing state electoral votes... They were men who owned slaves, who saw no real hypocrisy between yelling for Liberty and Freedom and owning another Human Being. Your comment ignores that the very smartest of the Framers would have laughed in your face if you had intimated to them that YOU had thought that THEY were dumb enough to expect the world to remain unchanging now that they've passed a Constitution into law. Everything in the world changes and they were smart enough to know that, so why do you suppose they were so dumb as to think they intended this Nation to remain unchanged for all of time? There are mechanisms for changing the law and the Constitution itself built into the system they designed... Conservatism was never meant to be the ideology of closing your eyes, covering your ears, and screaming LALALALALALALALA as loud as you can when someone says, "This isn't working, we should change this". That's literally stupidity, its what a child does when they're confronted with an idea that they don't like even if it's true.
“The problem with legislative obstructionism isn’t the means by which politicians accomplish legislative obstructionism” You people prove more and more everyday what a terrible mistake democracy was
Hey it would be cool if you could provide the sources for this video. I noticed you started doing that on your more recent videos and it is really helpful.
00:11 Recovering lost classical literature and philosophy 02:44 Contrasting modern perception of Cato with historical reality 05:19 Cato used filibuster to prolong debate and prevent legislative business 07:53 Cato's extreme obstruction and power grab in the Republic 10:28 Cato's filibuster tactics obstructed relief bills and endangered the Republic's finances. 13:09 Cato's filibuster impacts Caesar's political ambitions 15:46 Caesar's reliance on popular assemblies was constitutional 18:23 Filibuster's impact on Senate's legislative ability
That Cato was a selfish oligarch at heart doesn't change the fact that by opposing Caesar, he was indeed defending the republican government. Don't forget the republic's greatest enemy was Caesar. He literally killed it with his March on Rome. Only despotism would come after that until the Principate begun in 27 B.C. Rome's greatest villain was Caesar, not Cato. Cato was fighting to preserve the republican institutions, which required the Senate to be very powerful. That he tried to do so out of personal ambition of becoming wealthier or other unsavory reason doesn't change the fact he was on the side of the republic. An optimate.
Was Cato a villain? No more than Caesar or Pompey, at the end of the day. All actors in the Civil War fought for their own interests and had their own stake in it. Cicero would probably be the closest thing we have to somebody operating for a greater interest, but that's only because he was primarily motivated by ensuring the Senate retains a modicum of power through the Civil War. Rome has no champions of the people. It never did. There were only elites and lesser elites in Rome.
America is not Rome. Rome was an empire conquered by the Roman city state to advance the city's state's interest alone. Washington was created by the pre-existing states to facilitate their common interest only where it exists and protect their right to otherwise govern themselves. So the US Senate and US federal government has almost a diametrically opposed purpose than the Roman state and its senate. Institutionally our system is also designed accordingly different. As mentioned we have 50 largely self-governing States with their own armies that in the literal sense do not require Washington DC to do anything. They can if necessary do as Texas did and defend themselves Even in federal responsibilities. This is the purpose of the design.
And yet the senate still allows a tiny yet powerful minority to undemocratically obstruct legislation. Just wait and see how long people put up with that.
@@boozecruiserIt was designed like that to prevent people from living life like one big popularity contest that carries huge consequences on real people's lives. The system is designed so everyone gets a voice that is HEARD and as such their rights may be protected. If the majo6does not like that, they can still continue living their own lives making laws that work well for them in their own localities, affecting their own rights and only their rights, as federalism allows.
You are using the word "ideologue" wrong. An ideologue is someone who sticks rigidly and frantically to a set of ideas of ideology. You call Cato an "ideologue" then accuse him being entirely motivated by selfish rivalries and sabotage without even bothering to come up with an ideological excuse and inventing using novel untraditional tactics like the filibuster. That is not an idealogue, that is just a git.
@@tribunateSPQR I like Stoicism a lot & can even grant we might find something-not all!!-about Cato’s character to be admirable, but in aggregate I find him to be morally detestable. So any Stoic praise of Cato I have to deeply temper at best.
@longiusaescius2537 I'm picking that up. The fact that Cato was reacting to Julius Caesar escapes him. That the process of republic in Rome broke down in the time of Cato the Elder and patriarchs snapping up the land of citizen soldiers while they were enriching themselves with the fruits of the Punic Wars doesn't fit the Marx narrative either.
While you raise some legitimate points about Cato, I think you did rather overstate things. For one, Cato wasn't purely a negative force of obstruction. He did support some necessary reforms. During his tribunate for instance he sponsored legislation that significantly expanded the number of Romans eligible to receive the grain dole. He also attempted to get legislation enacted that would have made equestrian jurors liable for accepting bribes. And he spoke out against invalidating Publius Clodius Pulcher's measures (and thus helped preserve the numerous populist measures that Clodius enacted.) It's also hard to credit the idea that Cato's goal was to enrich himself given his conduct while presiding over the annexation of Cyprus. (Where, unlike pretty much every other Roman governor that ever existed, Cato famously did not abuse his position as a Roman governor to personally enrich himself and his cronies.) As for Cato and the filibuster, while I agree that such a measure was unprecedented, I would dispute that Cato lacked support in the Senate for that tactic. Remember that when Caesar as consul got fed up with Cato's filibustering and ordered Cato's arrest for filibustering (an action that was perfectly lawful on Caesar's part), the entire Senate got up and walked out in support of Cato. As for Caesar's authoritarianism, the issue there is not Caesar taking his legislation to the assemblies without first getting the approval of the Senate (I agree that doing that was perfectly lawful on Caesar's part), rather the issue was Caesar filling the forum with violent supporters who then attacked Caesar's co-consul when he tried to disband the assembly and drove the tribunes of the plebs that were there to veto Caesar's bill out of the forum.
Agreed, this video is very one-sided and seemingly targeted towards analogizing the Roman Republic with the American Republic in order to present an argument for increased democratization.
Not to mention that that Cato did not approve of Ceasar invading Gaul and massacring the population. Not saying he cared about the well-being of Gaul natives, but it’s just one more example of the minority is right and majority is wrong.
@@cristianespinal9917If you're arguing against increased democratisation, you are the enemy. Whats pathetic is that you aren't rich or powerful, you wouldn't benefit from reduced democracy in any way whatsoever. The video holds up, you lose
My favorite story about Cato is the time that he and Ceasar were in a very serious senate meeting (I believe during the Cateline crisis) and he saw someone bring Ceasar a note. Cato jumped on the opportunity to expose Ceasar and asked him to read it aloud. It turned out the note was actually a "unchaste" love letter from none other than CATO'S OWN SISTER Servilia, whom Ceasar was having an affair with 😂 to me, that is the perfect representation of how Cato stacked up to Ceasar. He did everything in his power to stall and oppose Ceasar at every turn, but in the end, Cato was always the whiny, self righteous, entitled loser, and Ceasar was the cool, charming and talented guy who's also banging your sister 😂 the best thing I can say about Cato was at least the way he died was pretty metal (ripping off bandages and then ripping out his intestines)
I wonder if Cicero's critiques of Cato as a naive idealist unsuited to the realities of the late republic, enduring longer than those critiques of Cato voiced by Caesar in the Anticato is a testament to their efficacy rather than the mere chance of what writing endures.
Marius detaching the army from the state started it. His reforms ensured that troops were loyal to their general. Caesar just finished it off. I don't think you can blame Cato cuz he held little real power.
Hello. Interesting video. As a proponent of the current filibuster rule I disagree with your conclusions. The contemporary filibuster rule is to prevent a simple majority from creating new law. The logic behind that is that as public opinion is fluid it is reasonable to think that many issues on one day may have 51% agree and the next 51% disagree. The filibuster is meant to prevent long held policy being changed for light and transit reasons. If something is truly popular having 60% of the Senate to vote for it shouldn't be a problem. I concede that there are times when that it can be abused and used too often. But the principle of sustainable law is essential in any republic. In the the stort term the filibuster may be an obstacle in passing what you want, but in the long term it make your law more sustainable. Thank you.
The filibuster is to defend a losing, powerful minority from a law that the majority want. I like your optimism, but your ideas don't hold up to scrutiny
The problem as I see it, is there are too many people who want to have the law as they want it. They aren't concerned with procedure. So these people will be for the filibuster when it serves their needs and against when it doesn't. My veiw point is don't change or try to get around the rules. Accept them and allow them to determine whether something is law or not. If you can't get 60 senators. majority of the house, and President to all agree on something, then maybe it shouldn't be law. If it is truly popular, you will be able to achieve it. And once law, it will require the same to reverse it. It has worked for over 200 years. If it isn't broken don't fix it. Thank you for your cooperation.
My crash course in Republican Roman history comes from Colleen McCoughough's First Man in Rome series of historical fiction . Her research was meticulous ( as far as I could tell !) and her opinion of Cato was complicated . Nonetheless Cato seems to me to have been damaged goods since early childhood and his heavy drinking didn't help him cope .
Anytime I talk about the Roman civil war, end of the Republican and establishment of the empire and of course if I talk about Caesar, and had to mention Kato, I always accompany that saying that he was the worst, he almost single-handed ignite the civil war, just because he didn't like Caesar, yeah, he was worst.
you really shouldnt judge cato through such a modern political end, it really discounts the traditions and history at the time. also to leave out that the reforms that were being pushed by the triumvirate was mostly to benefit their own standing in power is incredibly disingenuous. Cato saw Caesar for the showboat he was and wanted to stop him from passing legislation that would continue to empower him, Cato wanted to stop Caesar, not to stop change as a whole, he even backed an increase to the grain dole to coop the popular reform by the caesarians, Cato Was an idiot, but should be judged fairely, he was not a poor politician and had strong princibles. He could've easily been consul but refused to campaign even with his wealth, wanting his reputation to speak for itself
Which individual do you believe is most to blame for the collapse of the Roman Republic?
Comfort.
@CelticLifer Sulla is a good pick for sure
@CelticLifer - Marius military reforms allowed Sulla to do what he did
Romulus
@@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes True, he dodges a lot of the blame but it none of this would have been possible without him
Cato is the definition of partisanship. He loved the stalemate, the anarchy in the streets. He could boast to all his constituents that the republic was failing, but he didn’t do anything to help it. Every chance at reform, he opposed, he’d rather watch Rome burn and make great speeches about it burning than putting out the fire.
Basically, the modern US GOP.
@@ElBandito Low IQ
it's always easier to manipulate the masses if they are in a constant state of crisis.
No wonder that think tank took his name
@@ElBandito The Modern Day US Uni-Party
Going to the public assembly may have breached precedent, but so did the filibuster
Exactly, we're not here to whitewash all of Caesar's legacy but oftentimes he was simply responding in kind to the tactics of his opponents
Actually the Assembly passed things without the Senate all the time before the Second Punic War, so it wasn’t breaking president as it was previously precedent.
Whether or not Caesar was good is separate question unrelated to the truth of Cato being bad.
@@tribunateSPQRCaesars rise to absolute power was a self fulfilling prophecy.
@@tribunateSPQR But weren't the Gracco brothers the first ones to make that a precedent with the agrarian reforms going to the assembly?
When you need a Plato, but instead you get Cato 😂
You have one of the most underrated channels on the platform with regards to Roman history! Keep up the awesome work 👏
Thank you so much! That's so encouraging and comments like this not only lift our spirits but also give us a much needed algorithm boost
Cato's refusal of ratification of Pompei's land grants might have been the dumbest mistake in history
He did worse. His squashing of the deal worked out by Caesar and Cicero (negotiating for Pompey and the Senate) was worse. By his own testimony, if Caesar won, the Republic was done. Yet he squashed a deal that defeated Caear politically but did not destroy him. His blind hatred for Caesar was such that he could not accept anything short of Caesar's destruction.
I mostly disliked Cato because he refused a compromise from shortly before Caesar crossed the Rubicon. A deal had been made where Caesar would be left with 1 province and 1 legion. Cato, however, demanded that they take away ALL of Caesar's legions- which noone wanted- which then caused the breakdown of negotiations, leading Caesar to occupy Rome, which ended the Republic.
Screw Cato.
The republic did not end because of Caesar. He was only a dictator, a legal magistracy since the beginning of the republic. It was only after Actium, the day that Octavian became Augustus with all the powers: tribune and high pontiff.
@@virgilius7036 Dictator for Life is a very different thing from Dictator for 6 months.
Also Octavian didn't become pontifix Maximus after Actuim. Lepidus was the Pontifix by then, and he held the title until his death 20 years later.
@@paprus5972 Sulla was dicator for life too I think
@virgilius7036 which was all made possible by....Caesar.
My first introduction to Cato the younger was "Rome's last citizen" by Rob Goodman. On this video and after having read that book, I will say that maybe Cato was not necessarily acting on his own interest, but rather that he was crossing into the insane territory; as many of his life events show that he indeed might have been a man of true principle but his hatred for Caesar blinded him, then having delusions of grandeur and whatnot by trying to save the Republic.
In the end, we will never truly know if he was principled or not, but after careful consideration, if we are to judge him solely by his actions it is true that he can come as despicable for negating the land grants to the legionaries and stubborn for his filibustering. At last, he contributed to the destruction of the Republic rather than to its preservation.
Great work as always!
There really is no principled reason for refusing land grants to legionnaires. Even the one about honouring contracts against resetting rates for tax farmers Is more of a fig leaf as all contracts are subject to consideration of force majeure, and Roman laying waste to and looting your province is a pretty big extenuating circumstance which would force reconsideration.
I don't believe he was principled (just look at the example given in the video), but I believe he believed he was. I find fairly common with obnoxious people like him
Words are meaningless. Only actions matter.
This is one of those cases where modern understanding greatly suffers because of the aristocratic bias of having only aristocratic historians as primary sources. Cato and the Optimates made the Republican system untenable, the Triumvirate is far from blameless, but imo, there is no legitimate comparison to how destructive to the Roman State Cato's actions were.
Exactly - it's bitterly ironic that everything he did to shore up power for the senate really just made the body irrelevant and ensured that anyone who actually hoped to influence politic would bypass it.
@@tribunateSPQR Its also reminiscent of the english king, Charles I. It was his own unwillingness to compromise and surrender a meager amount of power and authority, that left his captors with little choice but to cut his head off, when they origionally just wanted to enforce a constitution on him.
Caesar had no other ambition than to serve a second term as consul. If they had let him be elected they could have neutralized him. Their hatred pushed them to declare him a public enemy and therefore to cross the Rubicon!
@@chrisrubin6445The problem throughout history is determining when there could be a slippery slope, and when there is not, and how to prevent it. One could argue that things like the french revolution could have been prevented with proper reforms, but with how the currents were going with society, and with the same character breed of opportunistic actors there, sometimes such things become inevitable. Take care and God bless
@@johnphipps4105 The french revolution would be mitigated had the King be more absolutist and screw the other 2 estates. Would it cause unrest? Sure, but it's not unique (see French wars of Religion). The fact that the last 2 kings didn't capitalize on the Sun King's power paints a picture where the revolution was bound to happen.
If you haven't already, you should make a video on the ideology of the state during the Roman republic, like how Patria Potestas plays a role in shaping how politicians viewed their power and responsibilities in the state. What were their ideas about consent of the governed if they had it and how did elections fit in with their politics.
Great content btw!
Thanks and great idea! I've been researching plebs and their role in Roman politics for a big series on the struggle of the order - will defiantly have content on Rome's elite ideology to help contextualize this.
As a certified Cato hater I approve this video
Thank you! Please let me know where I can get certified as a Cato hater because I need to apply for the stamp and make it official.
Oh, we can get certificates now??? Can we get some club tshirts and sweaters too? Pls and thank u
“Cater”
Cato delende est
Cato was the original virtue signaller
Ironic how Cato was a plebeian.
Yes! Though By this point the distinction between wealthy Plebian families and the patricians was insignificant, Cato was effectively carrying water for the very people and causes that had worked directly against his ancestors.
Had those ancient patricians had their way Cato would never have even had the chance to rise to political prominence
@@tribunateSPQR and Caesar crossed the Rubicon because Cato chimped out at the negotiations between Anthony and Pompey
@@tribunateSPQRBut this is always true, elites incorporate new people and those then want to "kick the ladder" because their interests align with their current standing, not with universal principles
@EremiasRanwolf-xz7ekplenty of Roman nobility at the end of Republic hailed from plebian gens. It didn't mean they weren't wealthy as although Cicero was born to a plebian family, he was born into nobility (equestrian)
So were Cicero, Crassus, Pompey, Marius, Lucullus, Antony and Octavian (pre adoption).
Fascinating to hear how Cato fits into the formation of the first triumvirate
It's basically entirely his fault that they had to link up. Pompey and Crassus HATED each other so it took a lot to bring them together. Turns out Cato was the only person they hated more than each other
@@tribunateSPQR imagine hating someone so much you change the course of history(both sides). That is amazing
People barely talk about this. I never knew that the filibuster was such a bad practice. I knew cato did it, but they never referred at it as the filibuster nor expressed the severity of this action
Cato demanding Caesar read out his note like a power mad prefect at school was the funniest thing in Senate history. Bollocks to Cato.
One of the funniest unforced errors in the history of politics
Cato exploited the levers of power to the single purpose of destroying his political opponents, and the fact that he at the same time made the government itself appear powerless and ineffectual only enhanced his own appearance of power. Creating chaos exposed his rivals as incapable of delivering policies, while Cato enhanced his prestige by showing he could crush any rival's ambitions. We can see politicians today who enhance their prestige by preventing any meaningful legislation from passing, and by exposing their opposition as being thereby ineffectual, and by extension incapable of governing. We end up with a leadership that demonstrates it's own power by destroying the actual governing institutions.
What makes Cato (and some other optimates like Bibilus) so pathetic in my eye is that despite being the most educated and wealthy men in Italy: they never failed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Caesar either needed to be placated or disposed of. What did they do? They wounded his political ambitions so he had a reason to hate him, and then heaped on powers so that he had the means to strong arm them.
Well said - Robert Morstein-Marx's excellent "Julius Caesar and the Roman People" really brought me around to the opinion that Caesar originally sought out to forge a normal political career but the refusal of optimates to follow convention and their obstruction essentially forced him to take equally radical steps
No, they did everything to destroy it by going beyond the law. Which pushed Caesar to do the same and cross the Rubicon!
@@tribunateSPQR As Hirtius writes in Book 8 of the Commentaries, Caesar intended to run for a second term as consul. Which they refused to admit and which caused their downfall and that of the republic!
They learned nothing from Sulla
To be fair they did try and disposed of a lot of popular politicians, the problem is that Cesar was the culmination of this process. He knew the Senate will try to kill him so apart from being on top shape he was always accompanied by his killer veterans completely loyal to him.
You should also make a video destroying Sulla Apologia.
We've actually got one concerning the failure of Sulla's reforms in the works right now! Should be out in late April or Early May
@@tribunateSPQR Neat.
Ya know 88 BC happens to be the year 666 from the founding of Rome.
@@tribunateSPQR materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2024/04/sulla-and-666.html
I'm just curious. Who ever thought Cato was a hero? This video is just stating the obvious. You didn't even mention Cato preventing Caesar from retuning from the Gaul campaign and caused the civil war directly. Or creating gangs who terrorized the streets of Rome.
Plenty of the Stoics view him as courageous. And while I’m kinda prepared to grant that ascribing the virtue of courage to him MIGHT be merited, his over all political history and ideological positions were pretty damn awful morally.
I. Cato the younger was the best human being ever
I admire many of the Stoics and try to adopt alot of Stoicism myself, but I too am a proud Cato hater.
There’s a huge conservative think tank called The Cato Institute that’s named after him.
@@andydupree9091 I wonder if they are being ironic. Rebellion is subjective whether it is righteous or not.
The "tradition", Cato was attempting to preserve was a failing republic that showed clear signs of being unable to solve even the most basic challenges, both from outside the Empire and from within. Caesar may have killed the republic, but saved both Rome and the roman people, so i have no doubt as to which side i'm on
I feel like the claim that Cato was primarily motivated by greed makes little sense when he seemingly lived very modestly and rejected luxury. One would think that someone motivated by greed would be susceptible to bribery and corruption, but as far as I can tell, Cato legitimately opposed bribery and was known for shutting down extortion by the clerks during his time as Quaestor.
I’m willing to admit that Cato’s actions clearly didn’t cause the best case scenario, but I think in the sense that he was acting according to the laws of the Roman constitution, it is difficult for me to say he is morally culpable for it’s collapse.
This Video IS Made by purely faction lenses View and since Cato IS superficially the optimate Guy they slander him for all the wrong doings all optimates Like legit half of the complaints are bullshit about Cato and apply to the actual optimates Leader mettelus scipio.
While Caesar and his heirs plunged the final dagger which killed the Republic, Cato and his aristocratic faction gave them the weapon to do so.
We need more scathing but diligent reviews of historical figures and events. I loved this.
Cato the Elder was a real G tho.
Probably the first politician to ever understand just how important branding is. I bet he would have had a good twitter presence
@@tribunateSPQR"If you don't vote for my reforms, there we be a bloodbath!"
Cato the Younger shames the name
He actually didnt cato the Younger does pretty much everything the elder one did although the elder was even more of an Ass than the Younger, remember cato the elder IS the Dude WHO forced scipio africanus into exile
Crassus enters this story, listens for the few moments his attention span lasts and suddenly, shockingly, he realizes something. Lookin around uncertainly but with his eyes wide in amazement he utters: "I'm not the baddie?
Great avatar, they need to make a movie about him
@@iturnedintoamartian-cm6nd Thank you.
Personally I really hope they don't. The Sith are way overexposed as it is. The Sith should be menacing, hidden in the shadows. They should be shrouded in mystery, each rumor and myth contradicted by a handful of other rumors and myths.
The less that's shown about the Sith the better, otherwise they become a rogues gallery, each with their own silly little quirks and affectations.
That said, the original author (Kevin Anderson, was it not?) does overexpose Exar Kun too much in the original books for my taste, so he's out of the shadows anyway.
The other problem is that the guy (Kun) doesn't have much of a character arc. Fallen Jedi, doesn't redeem himself, keeps hanging around like a bad stench, still doesn't redeem himself. 😁
@@exharkhun5605 as much as I agree with Everything you said......
The kid in me wants more SW 😭
But not Disney SW 😒
I just discovered this video. Therefore I'm quite late to discussion. My pick would be Quintus Servilius Caepio consul 106 BC. His actions at the Battle of Arausio not only caused the arguably worst defeat in the history of the Roman Republic but Oz created the conditions for Gaius Marius 7 times as consul. The casualties suffered by the Italian allies as well as their contribution in finally beating the Cimbri and Teutones, and how Rome didn't reward them for it, are probably a big part of the cause of the Social War 91-88 BC. Which in turn lead to Sulla's consulship.
So this guy was partly responsible for getting Marius and Sulla in positions for them to fight their Civil War and do their respective marches on Rome.
He was basically also everything Cato wanted to be but fortunately for Rome Cato never got there.
I also picked Caepio because he embodies the type of pigheaded aristocrat that carries the lions share of the blame for the change from the Republic to the Principate (not to the Empire, the Republic was already an Empire at least since the 1st Punic War).
Thanks!
Thank you so much for the support!! Really glad you enjoyed the video!
I came across the title of this video and thought ‘based’. Then I reached 17:10 and you said literally everything I’ve been thinking about our politics for the last 15 years. There is always a demand for governance. When legislative obstructionism takes root, the supply will be provided by other means - in our case, increasingly expansive court rulings and executive actions. The senate needs drastic reform, I personally think that the senate should only be given the power to propose amendments and reject legislation by 2/3s majorities, instead of effectively requiring 3/5s majorities to pass legislation
Ngmi
Id be interested to know where cicero would fit in this, since he was usually on the side of kato yet he is known as a great and pragmatic statesman which would be at odds with the shortsightedness of kato
Cicero was unfortunately all over the place during this time period - he was close to the triumvirs (particularly Pompey) after his recall in 57 but was always eager to work with Cato and the optimistes (he craved the approval of the old families) and drifted towards their camp eventually. But as war between Caesar and Pompey loomed he tried to avert it through compromise but was frustrated by Cato.
so in other words CATO is the Mitch Mcconnell of Ancient Rome.
That’s actually a perfect comparison
"I'm the grim reaper of progress, empathy, and ethics". Cato sycophant
Cato is at least memorable. Mitch is a hemorrhoid not worth remembering
Excellent observation
That's a terrible comparison
Cato would have been great in the earlier days of the republic, but his hardline attempts at trying to save something that doesn't exist anymore did more harm than good.
I agree and I think that was his main problem. He took the early republican myths at face value and tried to apply them to the real world
@@tribunateSPQRRandom question, I apologize, but are interested in any ancient chinese history, specifically pre han dynasty? I think you would find the fall of the zhou dynasty and the rise of the han(676 bc to 202 bc) pretty interesting. Take care and God bless
Cato was certainly a flawed individual and should take on his share of the blame for the fall of the Republic. There is a point I find an issue with here.
Land grants were not a promise to the soldiers for time served by the senate at this point. They were a promise made by the general in charge to their soldiers. This bound the soldiers to their general and made his political relevance in Rome their concern.
This was changed by Augustus, who brought the army under the auspices of the emporer.
Thus, though Cato could be blamed for many things, saying he was purposely blocking the promised land grants to the soldiers is a bit misleading. He was blocking the senate from giving public land promised by Pompey to the soldiers. Pompey made the promise, not the state, and overall, Pompey was gaining political clout by delivering on the promised land.
Overall, it was a very good and interesting video.
Wasn't this an extremely standard functioning of the roman state though? Didn't many many generals get land for their soldiers over the decades? even if the senate didn't technically promise it, it was still a normal function of the senate that was obstructed
@zachjordan7608 Not really, it was only in the Marian Reforms in 107 when opening recruitment to the landless Roman's into the legions was introduced. Prior to this, you had to own land to be a legionary. Even with this you weren't necessarily expected to serve longer than was necessary to wage whatever war was currently on and land grants only became a state promise to veterans in Augustus's time when terms of service were set at 25 years.
So was Cato being unreasonable when it came to refusing to countenance giving land to Pompey's veterans? I can see an argument for this being the least of his bad decisions during this period.
@@adamreddaway2005 The issue there is less about the land grants itself I'd say and more about the blockade driving Pompey to ally himself to Caesar and Crassus and showing them that they needed to ignore the senate to get anything done.
@@HDreamer@HDreamer Which is a perfectly valid argument. As I said in my post Cato was a flawed individual. His inability to work with even the moderates of his own party helped destroy the Republic. I was just pointing out that of all the details of his legislative life to go over as problematic I thought the land grants issue was one he had a legitimate argument for.
I just found this channel, and I can only infer that it was by the will of the Fates. I've just completed Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar", a much more expansive look than the title implies, and found myself looking for more historical content about Rome, the Senate, and reasons for it's fall that was more than just blind recitation of Oligarchical missives and then this pops up on my timeline. Cheers and thanks for work you're doing.
Someone once tried to interest me in the Cato Institute. My first response was "Change your name". It went downhill from there. Caesar could have done without a war; so could have Pompey. But Cato wanted one and got it. Finis reei publicae (sp? LOL).
When Tiberius Gracchus became popular & started calling out hoe the senators were using their positions to become more powerful at the expense of the common ppl, he was accused of trying to become king & murdered.
How the hell did the UA-cam algorithm figure out that i am anti-cato?
Just for clarification, the filibuster in the US sense is not used all that often and is primarily used on issues that are genuinely controversial. It can be shot down with 60 votes which 60% of the whole Senate. This means that a bill with overwhelming support can easily defeat a filibuster depending on your definition of overwhelming support.
You are a boomer and it shows, filibuster since Obama is senate normal business, but unlike before, legislation that cannot break the filibuster does not even make it to senate floor. That's the reason everything is breaking in this country and no one is fixing anything.
And 40 votes needed to block the filibuster and lets face it, it's all about republican senators is less than 10% of popular vote, so no, overwhelming support doesn't do jack shit to defeat filibuster in US senate. That's why we still have civil asset forfeiture.
senate
I love that the Michael Parenti Ceasar lecture turned into a whole channel. Terrific work.
Cato was certainly just as flawed as the Republic he tried to defend, but the Republic would have died with or without him. Rome had expanded too much, inequalities had grown too much and generals had become too powerful. After Sulla, the people who believed that the Republic could still be saved were just deluding themselves.
calm down Octavian , LOL jk but totally agree
The generals had become too powerful because the Senate was deadlocked. Cato was just the last straw. Because he accelerated it beyond the point of no return. And Caesar's heir capitalized from it in the end.
The introduction is constructed of elegantly (and admirably) crafted acid. Take that, Cato Institute, which is unconsciously an accurate reflection of his “principles.”!
Thanks! I did have a lot of fun writing this one
The Cato Institute is named after Cato's letters, not directly after Cato the Younger
@@tomasrocha6139 his letters reflects his thoughts. Just like how we say the epistles of Paul reflects Pauline teachings in Christianity, Cato the Younger’s letters reflects his thoughts on how governance should be.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 Cato's Letters were essays by British writers John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, first published from 1720 to 1723 under the pseudonym of Cato (95-46 BC), they weren't written by Cato the Younger
You sound like the Told in Stone guy
Also I have yearrned to hear someone make this critique and you have my thanks
Two of the nicest things someone could say! Thanks, glad you enjoyed the video!
The late republican Rome had a complicated political landscape. It is hard to find anyone that you can agree with all the time but I would say that Cato's filibustering was allowable by the law of the time however his reasons for it were wrong and it was not the precedent. The thing that makes me despise Cato was how he was the only one not to agree to the compromise that would have prevented the Roman Civil War (Caesar and Pompey Edition). On the other side of the argument Caesar had the power to jail Cato for filibustering but similar to the filibustering it was not the precedent.
On the modern side I do not think the filibuster in the Senate is wrong, it is both allowed and has a precedent the silent filibuster is a problem. While the two track system that made the silent filibuster a thing was good because it allowed for Senate business to continue it makes it so anything 41+ people disagree with can be blocked. In the old system the filibuster must talk on and on something that can not go on forever since they need to eventually eat, drink, or sleep but they can show their opposition and in the prosses possibly bring other people to their side. The problem with it was that senators in alignment with the filibuster could ask "questions" long enough for the filibuster rest leading for Senate business being stopped for up to 60 days. By blocking these questions the longest filibuster can be reduced. The longest time I could find for a solo filibuster was 43 hours in the Texas Senate. While not stated in The Constitution I would say the filibuster supports it. The reason every state has 2 senators no mater it's size was a compromise made so that while the small states have less power in the House of Representatives each state holds the same power in the Senate.
I can say more on this and I will if anyone asks but I fear I put too much in one comment.
And yet, in the U.S. over the last 10 years, 1,809 laws were passed by Congress and signed into law. I guess if you like a lot of laws, this isn’t enough.
Video is basically half "here's why California and NYC should dictate the country"
It isn't. The average number of bills passed used to be between 700 and 900 PER YEAR. The last time it was that high was 1987's 100th Congress with 761 bills passed. The number has been declining ever since with the lowest at 284 with 2011's 112th Congress. It's fluctuated between that and a high of 443 bills since then, until the current deadlocked Congress with less than 50 bills passed so far.
@@longiusaescius2537The electoral college is an anti democratic system which says "Here's why some millionaire farmers should dominate the country and deserve 23x more votes per person"
Alot of those bills are unconstitutional, illegal laws such as making it illegal to boycott Israel over its crimes against humanity
@@longiusaescius2537 How would removing the filibuster allow 4 senators to dictate anything to the entire senate?
@UA-cam this video is the apex of what I want to consume. Please transform my feed wholly into videos dunking on Cato
Glad you liked it! We will do our part and continue pumping out anti-Cato content. We’ve got a future video planned on his role fomenting the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey
@@tribunateSPQR wheeeeeeeeeeeen , i despise cato too
@@abdelnasserwardani3346 then welcome aboard! We are all firm Cato despisers here
Is there a book about this? Would like to teach students about it.
I recommend “Julius Caesar and the Roman People” by Robert Morstein-Marx
Barring a few individuals, no greedy politician is ever going to have the common man's interests in mind. Almost everyone is sullied.
you have lost Rome without unsheathing your sword! you have lost Rome! - Cato , probably
Cato's idiotic interference undermined the strategy of the general he said this to (Pompey).
Stop glazing Caesar, calling Cato a villain when Caesar deserves all the blame he did for his authoritarian behavior. I dislike Cato more than Caesar, but calling Caesar anything other than blatantly authoritarian with complete disregard for law and precedents is extremely disingenuous, because as obnoxious and insufferable as Cato was, his opposition to Caesar was inspired primarily over his blatant authoritarianism.
By this point, the Catiline Conspiracy had already happened, which Caesar absolutely was involved in, and he then backed Metellus to have Pompey bring his army and occupy Rome, over an issue that had ALREADY been fixed by Cicero, with Caesar resigning in solidarity with this Tribune over a really, really sketchy idea. Also, as you mentioned, he tried to use one of Caesar's favorite tactics of going straight to the Assembly to get it passed anyways. Gee, wonder whose idea THAT was?
Clodius has entered the chat.
Someone please point me to good sources cause he didn’t post them
There are only 2 people who have served in the Roman Senate who i can say i like: Cicero and Marcus Agrippa
Very interesting, the view of Cato as the advisory of democratic and meaningful reform actually played a huge role in my dissertation on the motivations behind Caesars actions during his political career. Good to hear another like-minded person on cato and his clique, the factio.
Commenting for engagement, literally a perfect video. Cicero really cooked with that quote tho 😭
Commenting for extra engagement
Cato never served as Consul (thank God), but it was because he refused to publically campaign. He believed that should the people ever want him, they would vote for him of their own accord. Clearly, they *never* wanted him, for obvious reasons.
Haitian?
I think many Roman Senators blocked Cato from being ever Consul Not Just Caesar because in reality Cato Had No political Side Just Look Up what crazy stuff Cato did AS a mere quaestor,He purged corruption Like crazy and when a censor aka a Former Consul Tried to Not Rock the boat too much He threatened to jail the censor for attempted bribery. Cato IS a legit crusader against corruption. The funniest Thing is that suddenly Senators around him suddenly behaves themselves properly and chilled with luxury and corruption because the Dude smelled that far away .
Judging the Roman Senate by today’s standards is a huge mistake. It leads you to perverse conclusions. The United States Senate was designed to take on the trappings of the Roman Senate, indeed Senators weren’t popularly elected until the 20th century. Who is to say that today’s Senate is any better than Jefferson’s or Cato’s?
"NOOOO STOP COMPARING THE PAST AND PRESENT YOU CAN'T LEARN FROM HISTORY IT HAS TO BE A PASSIVE BORING HOBBY"
Yes, this is true but its mostly based on the difference of moral standards rather than the cause and effect of actions and events. We are not that different even though our morality is also not the same.
In a lot of ways- he’s being explicit that we shouldn’t assume that the senate from Rome (which WAS NOT ELECTED BUT ELIGIBLE DUE TO WEATH LIMITS) is not like today’s America. I think it’s easily over looked to assume that the senates have similar motivations between ages. We also benefit from hindsight here so it’s reasonable to make some judgements on what worked or didn’t.
"I do not mean to imply that America is on the verge of a Caesar..."
That aged well... 😐
While I agree with the general argument of this video, the only thing I disagree with is that I think, rather than Cato alone, it was a group in the Senate who was responsible. For instance I think the filibuster was originally started and lead against Pompey by Metellus Calair. Meanwhile Cato never actually achieved the consulship.
Julius Caesar and the Roman People by Robert Morstein-Marx is a really good analysis of this for anyone interested in a deeper reading.
Fully agreed - it has shaped my view of the late republic more than any other single book
This channel as a beautiful find ! Clear and insightful content that I haven't seen a lot elsewhere, thank you so much
Thanks, glad you appreciate the content!
I think that the narrator missed the reason why Caesar was insisting upon the dispensation to run for consul before dropping his imperium as proconsul. As proconsul, he could not be prosecuted. Caesar would have passed from the legal protections of a proconsul in his province to the protections of a consul.
Caesar knew that charges had been laid and that he would be seized if he entered Rome without a sacrosanct status. This was why he had to cross the Rubicon.
I think the narrator was talking about Caesars first run for Consul, where he had earned a Triumph for his lesser known achievements in Spain after he was Praetor. IIRC the Senate lead by the Conservative faction tried to use the Triumph as a means to prevent him running for Consul, because they didn't think he would be pragmatic about it and just skip the Triumph and enter the city anyway. At this point he didn't need the Imperium for protection yet.
Cato is no hero of mine...and the filibuster has indeed sometimes been abused in the U.S. But if you can't get 60% of the votes on board re issues of great import to the Republic...maybe you want to go back and negotiate something that 60% *can* get on board with. If 51% of politicos are in favor of making electric cars mandatory in three years...should we applaud their "wisdom?" Small states have two senators...just like the large ones... Large states have far more congressmen than the small states... This tradeoff was required by the Founding Fathers... Small states feared having no voice...and large ones feared having their large populations count for nothing. The wisdom of this arrangement escapes some who would prefer that much of the Republic be dismissed as mere "flyover country..." As to the Congress abandoning decisions of peace or war to the Executive branch...that merely reflects the abandoning of their moral responsibility. -YP-
This was a great summary of the filibuster, it seems that a lot of people fail to comprehend and want to end it. Same thing with electoral college.
Our founding fathers were very wise men
as much as I dislike Cato and the optimates, I do giggle to myself whenever I hear people who want to get rid of the guaranteed representation of small states in the Electoral College and the Senate, or allowing bills to pass with just 50.1% of the vote. I can already see how much secessionist sentiment will explode across the USA if they tried
@@Samuel-wm1xrYour sentiment is the exact opposite of true conservative republicanism (or Republicanism). You believe the power of the state should be greater than the will of the people. It was exactly this idea that the Founding Fathers fought against.
@@tty1975ful the filibuster was not created by the founding fathers. The filibuster that exists today has changed form and rules many times in US history. The first incarnation of this was in1805 when Aaron Burr was Vice President and governed the Senate, this was shortly after he had been indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton. He proposed changing the "Previous Question Rule". If you are praising what the Founding Father's put into place then try praising the "Previous Question Rule" which said that a simple majority of Senators could end debate on a bill to allow it to come up for a vote, which is what People who want to end the filibuster are in favor of. Burr thought that allowing debate to end naturally would allow the Senate to run more smoothly, letting everyone have a chance to speak, that's all.
The word filibuster was an insult that started because the maneuver was being abused, filibuster was a term meaning pirate.
I can see the point to 40 Senators signing their name to a piece of paper saying let's shelve this bill, I am against it. But that is not what happens today. What happens is that you have legislation that People are for. If it came up for a vote it would overwhelmingly pass. More that 60 Senators have announced that if it came up for a vote they would vote for it. But all that has to happen is that one Senator who is not even there can just send a text message challenging it. Then the other side needs to get 60 Senators to endorse it in order to advance it, which if one party doesn't have a super majority is impossible.
Filibuster has been used to allow racial discrimination to continue and to allow things like gun registration, which a majority or the publics wants to not get enacted, also stopped Trump from building his Wall. It pretty much stops any party in office from getting anything major done. Democrats had to have a super majority to pass Obamacare.
And the filibuster is just a Senate rule that can be changed by a party with majority. It is not in the constitution. They had to change it for presidential appointments when Republicans decided that they wouldn't confirm anyone, so basically it has already happened.
I think that they can change it to something of a compromise, but one Senator can't trigger it. You should find a number of Senators put their name to something to extend debate and then they need to stay and debate it and come up with a compromise. Either compromise or let it come up for a vote. We are a democracy.
"..maybe you want to go back and negotiate something that 60% can get on board with." I don't disagree in principle, but in a world - not just in the US - where voting along Party lines has become pretty much mandatory, as well as "oppose everything the other side does, so we can win the next election", it just doesn't work in many cases.
Even on laws half the voters of the opposing party would probably agree to.
Well spoken, but id be intrigued as to what sources you consulted
Your comparison between the US Senate and Roman one is rather strange, because the Vast majority of laws passed and followed in the United States are not passed at the Federal level at all, but on the state and local levels.
How is that relevant? Federal law still takes precedent and often deals with the most pressing issues of the state, especially widespread reform.
And even in Rome, many day to issues were devolved to local governors and generals. The only difference is that those local decisions didn’t necessitate legislation.
It's very similar. The fact that senators representing a tiny but incredibly wealthy minority can obstruct even extremely popular legislation is anti democratic. The Roman senate was driven to breaking point party by filibuster.
@@boozecruiser And Wyoming is extremely wealthy?
@@withlessAsbestosAccording to StatsAmerica, as of 2023, Wyoming is the 9th richest state in the U.S. with a per capita annual personal income of $77,837. There are also many property owners in Wyoming who own land with vast amounts of acreage, many of which are celebrities and current or former politicians, entrepreneurs, and tech moguls. So for a state with a fairly small population compared to size and no major urban centers like in California or New York, it's pretty wealthy.
@@withlessAsbestos What? Wyoming doesn't have wealthy people?
And the people who founded this country absolutely, and deliberately modeled the American senate on the Roman one. Just because nation states did not exist then the way they do now does not negate comparison.
You forgot to check if Tribune Aquila was okay with your posting of this video.
Requiring broad consensus to alter the status quo in the United States is a good thing.
We are very diverse economically and geographically but are more-or-less a single culture. Looking to a true empire, where the dominant culture was not the majority culture and a city-state ran everything is apples-to-oranges
This is the kind of video I go to UA-cam to find. Liked; subscribed.
To the point you make about the American filibuster leading to the centralization of power that we are seeing: there is a difference between the Roman Empire and the United STATES. The US is not designed to have a large federal government that needs the will of the people to pass large reformitive legislation regularly, the framers designed this nation as a federation of states and not one monolithic empire. The federal government was designed for a very limited supervisory role over the states and intended to have a narrow scope (see the 10th amendment). Our system is set up to balance the tyranny of the majority and the rights of the minority, as such it IS a good thing that everything popular doesn't get passed. Should we allow a simple majority to execute their desire on the other 49% of the population? No, that's why we are a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy. The filibuster is useful because it slows the federal government and restricts it's actions to that which is so overwhelmingly popular that it transcends one party. If it can not do that then it shouldn't be federal law. The fact that the legislature is moving too slow in your opinion isn't a quirk, that was the intent. While you may argue that as a result we have concentration of power I would argue that would happen if the legislature passed laws saying it was okay or not. The issue isn't with the filibuster and the lethargic nature of our government, it's with people selling their freedom for an ounce of safety. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I always find comments like these hilarious because it ignores the fact that in the last 236 years since the constitution was passed the world has changed. We, the United States, have changed. The culture of this country of ours, our wealth, our prestige, our outlook, our foreign policy, and our technology has all changed. We've had a civil war between 1787 and now and that single event, by itself, changed nearly everything about the United States. Comments like this ignore the fact that the Framers were men, maybe well-intentioned, but fallible all the same-- they enshrined the fact that an unfree Black African slave still counted as 3/5 of a White man for purposes of counting the electorate and affixing state electoral votes... They were men who owned slaves, who saw no real hypocrisy between yelling for Liberty and Freedom and owning another Human Being. Your comment ignores that the very smartest of the Framers would have laughed in your face if you had intimated to them that YOU had thought that THEY were dumb enough to expect the world to remain unchanging now that they've passed a Constitution into law. Everything in the world changes and they were smart enough to know that, so why do you suppose they were so dumb as to think they intended this Nation to remain unchanged for all of time? There are mechanisms for changing the law and the Constitution itself built into the system they designed... Conservatism was never meant to be the ideology of closing your eyes, covering your ears, and screaming LALALALALALALALA as loud as you can when someone says, "This isn't working, we should change this". That's literally stupidity, its what a child does when they're confronted with an idea that they don't like even if it's true.
“The problem with legislative obstructionism isn’t the means by which politicians accomplish legislative obstructionism”
You people prove more and more everyday what a terrible mistake democracy was
@@BoredomxProductionzCan you tell me, what would you need to change? Constitution works, rights are enshrined. So what do you want more?
Hey it would be cool if you could provide the sources for this video. I noticed you started doing that on your more recent videos and it is really helpful.
00:11 Recovering lost classical literature and philosophy
02:44 Contrasting modern perception of Cato with historical reality
05:19 Cato used filibuster to prolong debate and prevent legislative business
07:53 Cato's extreme obstruction and power grab in the Republic
10:28 Cato's filibuster tactics obstructed relief bills and endangered the Republic's finances.
13:09 Cato's filibuster impacts Caesar's political ambitions
15:46 Caesar's reliance on popular assemblies was constitutional
18:23 Filibuster's impact on Senate's legislative ability
That Cato was a selfish oligarch at heart doesn't change the fact that by opposing Caesar, he was indeed defending the republican government. Don't forget the republic's greatest enemy was Caesar. He literally killed it with his March on Rome. Only despotism would come after that until the Principate begun in 27 B.C. Rome's greatest villain was Caesar, not Cato. Cato was fighting to preserve the republican institutions, which required the Senate to be very powerful. That he tried to do so out of personal ambition of becoming wealthier or other unsavory reason doesn't change the fact he was on the side of the republic. An optimate.
Was Cato a villain? No more than Caesar or Pompey, at the end of the day. All actors in the Civil War fought for their own interests and had their own stake in it. Cicero would probably be the closest thing we have to somebody operating for a greater interest, but that's only because he was primarily motivated by ensuring the Senate retains a modicum of power through the Civil War.
Rome has no champions of the people. It never did. There were only elites and lesser elites in Rome.
Elites always exists, just make their interests and incentives are tied to the people
No Cato only fought for the interest of Rome. That’s what made him different.
That wasn't the case in the middle of the 20th Century in Central Europe, but the rest of the world decided to destroy it.
@@elcidleon6500what?
Could you provide a list of sources?
You are wrong about the US Senate
We got 21st century Caesar propaganda before GTA 6
Amazing video. thank you
Thanks! Glad you found it informative!
Awesome video. Really enjoyed it - thanks a lot!
Subscribed.
America is not Rome.
Rome was an empire conquered by the Roman city state to advance the city's state's interest alone.
Washington was created by the pre-existing states to facilitate their common interest only where it exists and protect their right to otherwise govern themselves.
So the US Senate and US federal government has almost a diametrically opposed purpose than the Roman state and its senate.
Institutionally our system is also designed accordingly different. As mentioned we have 50 largely self-governing States with their own armies that in the literal sense do not require Washington DC to do anything.
They can if necessary do as Texas did and defend themselves Even in federal responsibilities. This is the purpose of the design.
Sources please
And yet the senate still allows a tiny yet powerful minority to undemocratically obstruct legislation. Just wait and see how long people put up with that.
@@boozecruiserIt was designed like that to prevent people from living life like one big popularity contest that carries huge consequences on real people's lives. The system is designed so everyone gets a voice that is HEARD and as such their rights may be protected. If the majo6does not like that, they can still continue living their own lives making laws that work well for them in their own localities, affecting their own rights and only their rights, as federalism allows.
I had no idea that anyone shared my view of Cato. A breath of fresh air!
You are using the word "ideologue" wrong. An ideologue is someone who sticks rigidly and frantically to a set of ideas of ideology. You call Cato an "ideologue" then accuse him being entirely motivated by selfish rivalries and sabotage without even bothering to come up with an ideological excuse and inventing using novel untraditional tactics like the filibuster. That is not an idealogue, that is just a git.
I have always wished to find pre-emperor claudius's 10 book history of the Etruscans. That's my number one if I could get it
I disagree with some of these premises
Listening to you describe Cato the Younger's career I almost thought you were describing Mitch McConnell.
Thankyou, this was the first vid ive seen so far that gave clear and specific examples on how rome was weakened!
Definitely good to point out Cato's flaws, but...basing it on Caesar's testimony, and a polemic at that?
The Anti Cato is lost, this isn't based on the polemic but basic historical understanding. Comprehension gets worse every year
Hey, this is quite good. I am a Roman Historian as some background. Good job and good research
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.
As a hard core Cato the Younger hater, I greatly appreciate this!
Hell yeah. If anything this video has made me happy as it has convinced me I am not alone as a staunch Cato hater
@@tribunateSPQR I like Stoicism a lot & can even grant we might find something-not all!!-about Cato’s character to be admirable, but in aggregate I find him to be morally detestable. So any Stoic praise of Cato I have to deeply temper at best.
@@tribunateSPQR I’m happy you’ve realized you’re not alone in your view of him.
If you think Cato is bad, you should take a gawk at what Julius Caesar did and why he did it in Gaul.
He's mad at that too, anyone who's not Marx
@longiusaescius2537 I'm picking that up. The fact that Cato was reacting to Julius Caesar escapes him. That the process of republic in Rome broke down in the time of Cato the Elder and patriarchs snapping up the land of citizen soldiers while they were enriching themselves with the fruits of the Punic Wars doesn't fit the Marx narrative either.
@@I_Art_Laughing keyed
@@longiusaescius2537 censored, per usual.
While you raise some legitimate points about Cato, I think you did rather overstate things.
For one, Cato wasn't purely a negative force of obstruction. He did support some necessary reforms. During his tribunate for instance he sponsored legislation that significantly expanded the number of Romans eligible to receive the grain dole. He also attempted to get legislation enacted that would have made equestrian jurors liable for accepting bribes. And he spoke out against invalidating Publius Clodius Pulcher's measures (and thus helped preserve the numerous populist measures that Clodius enacted.)
It's also hard to credit the idea that Cato's goal was to enrich himself given his conduct while presiding over the annexation of Cyprus. (Where, unlike pretty much every other Roman governor that ever existed, Cato famously did not abuse his position as a Roman governor to personally enrich himself and his cronies.)
As for Cato and the filibuster, while I agree that such a measure was unprecedented, I would dispute that Cato lacked support in the Senate for that tactic. Remember that when Caesar as consul got fed up with Cato's filibustering and ordered Cato's arrest for filibustering (an action that was perfectly lawful on Caesar's part), the entire Senate got up and walked out in support of Cato.
As for Caesar's authoritarianism, the issue there is not Caesar taking his legislation to the assemblies without first getting the approval of the Senate (I agree that doing that was perfectly lawful on Caesar's part), rather the issue was Caesar filling the forum with violent supporters who then attacked Caesar's co-consul when he tried to disband the assembly and drove the tribunes of the plebs that were there to veto Caesar's bill out of the forum.
Agreed, this video is very one-sided and seemingly targeted towards analogizing the Roman Republic with the American Republic in order to present an argument for increased democratization.
Not to mention that that Cato did not approve of Ceasar invading Gaul and massacring the population. Not saying he cared about the well-being of Gaul natives, but it’s just one more example of the minority is right and majority is wrong.
@@cristianespinal9917If you're arguing against increased democratisation, you are the enemy. Whats pathetic is that you aren't rich or powerful, you wouldn't benefit from reduced democracy in any way whatsoever. The video holds up, you lose
agreed on every point. Well reasoned and clear-eyed analysis.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
@@tribunateSPQR it's nice to hear someone else holds Cato Uticensis in low regard as a politician and human being
Inspector Clouseau voice: "CATO YOU FOOL!"
I got that reference!
Very interesting and informative. Thank you!
My favorite story about Cato is the time that he and Ceasar were in a very serious senate meeting (I believe during the Cateline crisis) and he saw someone bring Ceasar a note. Cato jumped on the opportunity to expose Ceasar and asked him to read it aloud. It turned out the note was actually a "unchaste" love letter from none other than CATO'S OWN SISTER Servilia, whom Ceasar was having an affair with 😂 to me, that is the perfect representation of how Cato stacked up to Ceasar. He did everything in his power to stall and oppose Ceasar at every turn, but in the end, Cato was always the whiny, self righteous, entitled loser, and Ceasar was the cool, charming and talented guy who's also banging your sister 😂 the best thing I can say about Cato was at least the way he died was pretty metal (ripping off bandages and then ripping out his intestines)
I am in the process of writing an episode about their dueling speeches due the cataline conspiracy and you’d better believe that this is included.
I wonder if Cicero's critiques of Cato as a naive idealist unsuited to the realities of the late republic, enduring longer than those critiques of Cato voiced by Caesar in the Anticato is a testament to their efficacy rather than the mere chance of what writing endures.
Marius detaching the army from the state started it. His reforms ensured that troops were loyal to their general. Caesar just finished it off.
I don't think you can blame Cato cuz he held little real power.
Good vid! Are there any sources you used for this?
@@milkmessiah5192 some rubbish bin
Hello. Interesting video. As a proponent of the current filibuster rule I disagree with your conclusions. The contemporary filibuster rule is to prevent a simple majority from creating new law. The logic behind that is that as public opinion is fluid it is reasonable to think that many issues on one day may have 51% agree and the next 51% disagree. The filibuster is meant to prevent long held policy being changed for light and transit reasons. If something is truly popular having 60% of the Senate to vote for it shouldn't be a problem. I concede that there are times when that it can be abused and used too often. But the principle of sustainable law is essential in any republic. In the the stort term the filibuster may be an obstacle in passing what you want, but in the long term it make your law more sustainable. Thank you.
The filibuster is to defend a losing, powerful minority from a law that the majority want. I like your optimism, but your ideas don't hold up to scrutiny
The problem as I see it, is there are too many people who want to have the law as they want it. They aren't concerned with procedure. So these people will be for the filibuster when it serves their needs and against when it doesn't. My veiw point is don't change or try to get around the rules. Accept them and allow them to determine whether something is law or not. If you can't get 60 senators. majority of the house, and President to all agree on something, then maybe it shouldn't be law. If it is truly popular, you will be able to achieve it. And once law, it will require the same to reverse it. It has worked for over 200 years. If it isn't broken don't fix it. Thank you for your cooperation.
@@boozecruiser Yes, it's unhealthy for narrow majorities to get their way.
@@MA-go7ee It's even worse for powerful minorities to get their way.
I think the biggest problem is not filibuster, but a lack of gradual representation in government. Aka, only two homogeneous parties.
My crash course in Republican Roman history comes from Colleen McCoughough's First Man in Rome series of historical fiction . Her research was meticulous ( as far as I could tell !) and her opinion of Cato was complicated . Nonetheless Cato seems to me to have been damaged goods since early childhood and his heavy drinking didn't help him cope .
I’m a big Cato hater, so thanks for this vid . Would you ever go on a livestream with Thersites the Historian?
Glad you enjoyed it!
I like his content alot so I certainly wouldn't be opposed, haven't done any livestreams before but it could certainly be fun.
Anytime I talk about the Roman civil war, end of the Republican and establishment of the empire and of course if I talk about Caesar, and had to mention Kato, I always accompany that saying that he was the worst, he almost single-handed ignite the civil war, just because he didn't like Caesar, yeah, he was worst.
you really shouldnt judge cato through such a modern political end, it really discounts the traditions and history at the time.
also to leave out that the reforms that were being pushed by the triumvirate was mostly to benefit their own standing in power is incredibly disingenuous. Cato saw Caesar for the showboat he was and wanted to stop him from passing legislation that would continue to empower him,
Cato wanted to stop Caesar, not to stop change as a whole, he even backed an increase to the grain dole to coop the popular reform by the caesarians,
Cato Was an idiot, but should be judged fairely, he was not a poor politician and had strong princibles. He could've easily been consul but refused to campaign even with his wealth, wanting his reputation to speak for itself
I may be a far right radical and very much on the opposite side of the political spectrum compared to you but I thoroughly enjoyed this work
Euro "far right" or American?