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.
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.
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!
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 👏
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.
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)
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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).
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 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.
It would seem to me that, quite unlike the Roman Republic, the U.S. has other assemblies that can solve the problems of the people in the vast majority of cases; in this case the local state legislatures. Ergo deadlock at the national level legislature is absolutely more desirable.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
(realizing my pfp will make this comment funny but. still) I don't really agree with this take on Cato tbh. I will put on my Cato Defender Hat. For one, the optimates/populares divide wasn't as clear-cut historically as this video makes it out to be (it also doesn't map well onto modern politics at all, and a general issue i have though i do like this channel is the modern politics haze obscuring the history). as for Cato himself and his personal character of course he wasn't nearly the ideal of virtue that Roman writers and later people made him out to be, but only a person. It's odd to attribute all Cato's actions to a desire for self-advancement when most other Roman politicians' actions also were, so it doesn't really mark him out as a uniquely bad person; but it's especially odd considering that I don't think he was nearly as cynical as this video makes him out to be. I think his convictions were sincerely held (even if he could sometimes be hypocritical, i think he tried not to be for the most part) but he was just kind of a genuine nutcase. As the video states, few people actually agreed with him in a lot of his positions, and he was in a lot of ways a contrarian. But I think the reason that people respected him was partly his intentionally created 'traditionalist' image and partly the fact that he did seem to have these deeply held convictions and follow them as best he could - he was kind of the 'guy rigidly following a code of morals only he understands and no one else can see'. He certainly wasn't good for the politics of the era but I do think that reading him as flatly evil-for-no-reason obscures how interesting of a person he really was. in conclusion he's my emotional support male hysteric he is everything to me. tbh. even if he definitely did have a large part in wrecking the republic
also to be honest i would also love to have the text of the anticato too, although I believe most of it would probably be just. personal slander as roman politicians were wont to do; especially considering that it didn't seem to change many minds after it was published. I think the only accusation that survived from it is that cato was a drunk lol (which tbh i totally believe)
Cato was just Marjorie Taylor Greene with more wit. I'm sure she'd say she has genuinely-held principles and honors tradition -- that's certainly the mythos she holds for herself -- but that doesn't make any of it true.
@@andrewbecker1013 this is exactly what i'm talking about in my comment. in my opinion this is the most boring way to form opinions about history, by just searching for some tired corollary to current day issues when it's not relevant.
My ethics professor one said, Plato’s republic was the most influential book ever written, even more than the Bible. It makes me sad to think what other works that were lost. What knowledge could we have learned from the ancients?
This is a well-written and well presented argument. It is not news or history, as such. The argument starts rhetorically with a document that does not exist, as if it did. Each sentence is peppered with superficial negative characterizations. Then the argument cherry-picks facts for the argument, which are true in part, but not wholly truthfully presented. Listen carefully for all the rhetoric that is intended to persuade, but not teach as such. There are two sides to the story. Cato was also revered in real-time for integrity, was a devout Stoic, which is essentially about discipline of self, clearly not a hypocrite, dying by his own hand holding the book of death of the wise Socrates. The politics may be argued, but this is a clear attack on the man and is not supported. We can note, from a 21st century view, that Cato argued in the Cataline Conspiracy for death of the "accused" without trial, while Caesar argued for trial, using morality time travel. Caesar was a powerful demagogue, with Roman legions, and Cato had no trust for him, for a reason. The premise that one powerful force is causation for its contradiction is certainly true, so certainly the power of Cato draws a political contradiction, even creating the seed of civil war, such as it always is. But glazing over, with negative characterizations, that Cato was in it for self, while all the evidence that actually does in fact exist demonstrates Cato as living a life of denial, is rather irresponsible speculation. Excellent presentation is facade, not necessarily untrue, but we should be careful with it.
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.
The legislature has already given its power to the executive. Laws called regulations and ordinances now passed by executive departments such as the SEC, FDA, and other alphabet soup agencies.
Thanks! The founders' ideological blind spots and affinity for Rome prevented them from taking away key isights that could have been gained from the collapse of the Roman Republic
We don’t need to get rid of the filibuster in the US Senate, we just need to make it a real thing; if you really want to filibuster do it, the threat of a filibuster shouldn’t be seen as the same thing.
In the emperor claudius's early years, He had written a history of rome, which was destroyed at the behest of Ophelia wife of augustus That is what I would choose to read.
Gaius Marius and Sulla killed the republic. Sulla for showing that one can seize the power with arms, and Marius for giving the capitee censii the right to join the army.
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"
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 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
Don't want to be mean, but your microphone (a very good one) unfortunately picks up the mouth-smacking! I enjoyed reading the transcript, but I have a problem watching your video because of my personal issues.
comparing Cato's filibuster with the current US filibuster is just silly. OK, just rename it as for some things you need a super majority, say 60%. I was half expecting, somehow this was going to end up blaming this all on Trump.
I prefer Historia Civilis, to be honest. This CZcamsr claims that Cato was trying to enrich himself which, as most would agree, is an absolute falsehood. Cato lived a stoic life and was renowned for his frugality. I agree with another commenter, who stated that Cato's rhetoric and actions were poisoned by his hatred for Julius Caesar. Not saying that Cato was steadfast in his principles, but that vindictiveness clouded his ability to see where common sense should have overrode ideology. His ideology in itself, was a sound one committed to Republican principles, but his inability to compromise undermined the value of those principles. ⚔️
@@MatthewLum11so committed to the republic that he broke its primary governing body. He was committed to his vision of the republic, but living in a republic necessitates compromise.
@@benjaminhorwitz593 It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback and place a damning judgement on Cato's life choices. In the end, Cato himself accepted that he fcuked up by committing a truly bloody and gruesome suicide after years of getting his hands dirty in a war of principle. ⚔️
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 .
He was a conservative who was politically pretty useless, who rambled endless bullshit to block reforms that were necessary to maintain the state. Make of that what you will
No one cares gay weeb, OP has other videos saying that Caesar was a mass murderer. Thanks for boosting channel engagement with your inane opinion, more people will see this video thanks to you
Actually today in the English language all the term ‘Republic’ means, is a state in which the head of state is not a monarch. Using the term ‘Republic’ for a state run by the people has been obsolete for at least 150 years. There are reasons why places like Australia, Britain & Canada are referred to as ‘Constitutional Monarchies’ not ‘Republics’.
IMO, the equivalent body to the late roman republic senate in the US is not the US senate, its the supreme court. Its currently blocking plenty of things + the congress & president can strip it of nearly all of its power, down to its original jursdiction, leaving it powerless on anything that isn't states suing eachother or cases involving individual government appointee conduct.
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
I don’t really think this is a good assessment of the man, nor the situation as a whole: -criticizing filibuster because it was not an established practice, i counter it wasn’t illegal either, same as Cesar’s bypassing the senate to pass laws. -land grants had been opposed time and time again during the history of Rome, it was nothing new, plus those mentioned were grants by Pompey, not the senate. The senatorial faction had two choices: give Pompey a lot of following a political weight by conceding the grants or risk disgruntled ex-legionaries roaming around. Both are bad, one’s certain, the other not. -Cato as a man had mostly a good reputation, and was criticized by others in his own faction for being too unyielding. His one flaw was his great dislike of Cesar, but even then, he managed to separate Cesar and Pompey, albeit too late for his faction’s sake (hindsight here) -the one critique I support is to his opposition to Crassus’s law mentioned at the beginning. -saying he is one of the bigger causes for the downfall of the republic is quite a claim: where do you put Marius and Sulla? The generals holding sway over their assigned armies, instead of the state having such power and legislating to safeguard such condition? (Imagine if Lucullus decided to pull a Sulla-like move instead of just hoping for a triumph) The armed bands roaming the streets of rome? The mess made post-Cesar’s-death by both the second triumvirate and the cesaricides? The shortsightedness of the whole noble faction? The widespread willingness to ignore laws and norms? Edit: my assessment is that Cato was out of touch with the times and blinded by antipathy towards Cesar, not as consequential as many paint him, in either direction. Want to dunk on someone from the noble faction? Try Cicero (he deserves some dunking, but who didn’t in that period?)
"While then" Did he say these things simultaneously or one after the other? Which is it? Your grammar is childish and makes it impossible to take you seriously
Your argument is peurile nonsense anyway, but thanks for coming along and commenting, each comment boosts the video and makes i visible to more people! Cheers for growing the channel
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.
As a simple comment, majority public opinion does not in itself validate a law as just or righteous. Minority opposition is critical to a healthy and balanced government.
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.
Which individual do you believe is most to blame for the collapse of the Roman Republic?
Sulla - he showed that the Republic was effectively available for the taking
Comfort.
@@CelticLifer Sulla is a good pick for sure
@@CelticLifer - Marius military reforms allowed Sulla to do what he did
Romulus
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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).
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!
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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).
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!"
Clodius has entered the chat.
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).
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 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.
Listening to you describe Cato the Younger's career I almost thought you were describing Mitch McConnell.
It would seem to me that, quite unlike the Roman Republic, the U.S. has other assemblies that can solve the problems of the people in the vast majority of cases; in this case the local state legislatures. Ergo deadlock at the national level legislature is absolutely more desirable.
@CZcams 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
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This is the kind of video I go to CZcams to find. Liked; subscribed.
Reading the Anti-Cato and it's just:
Chapter 1. Euphoria
Chapter 2. In occursum Catos
Chapter 3. Non sicut nos
Lmao 😂😂😂
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
(realizing my pfp will make this comment funny but. still) I don't really agree with this take on Cato tbh. I will put on my Cato Defender Hat. For one, the optimates/populares divide wasn't as clear-cut historically as this video makes it out to be (it also doesn't map well onto modern politics at all, and a general issue i have though i do like this channel is the modern politics haze obscuring the history). as for Cato himself and his personal character of course he wasn't nearly the ideal of virtue that Roman writers and later people made him out to be, but only a person. It's odd to attribute all Cato's actions to a desire for self-advancement when most other Roman politicians' actions also were, so it doesn't really mark him out as a uniquely bad person; but it's especially odd considering that I don't think he was nearly as cynical as this video makes him out to be. I think his convictions were sincerely held (even if he could sometimes be hypocritical, i think he tried not to be for the most part) but he was just kind of a genuine nutcase. As the video states, few people actually agreed with him in a lot of his positions, and he was in a lot of ways a contrarian. But I think the reason that people respected him was partly his intentionally created 'traditionalist' image and partly the fact that he did seem to have these deeply held convictions and follow them as best he could - he was kind of the 'guy rigidly following a code of morals only he understands and no one else can see'. He certainly wasn't good for the politics of the era but I do think that reading him as flatly evil-for-no-reason obscures how interesting of a person he really was. in conclusion he's my emotional support male hysteric he is everything to me. tbh. even if he definitely did have a large part in wrecking the republic
also to be honest i would also love to have the text of the anticato too, although I believe most of it would probably be just. personal slander as roman politicians were wont to do; especially considering that it didn't seem to change many minds after it was published. I think the only accusation that survived from it is that cato was a drunk lol (which tbh i totally believe)
Ay! another Cato defender!
Cato was just Marjorie Taylor Greene with more wit. I'm sure she'd say she has genuinely-held principles and honors tradition -- that's certainly the mythos she holds for herself -- but that doesn't make any of it true.
@@andrewbecker1013 this is exactly what i'm talking about in my comment. in my opinion this is the most boring way to form opinions about history, by just searching for some tired corollary to current day issues when it's not relevant.
@@andrewbecker1013based and correct
Fantastic video, you've upset alot of pop history fans with this
My ethics professor one said, Plato’s republic was the most influential book ever written, even more than the Bible. It makes me sad to think what other works that were lost. What knowledge could we have learned from the ancients?
This is a well-written and well presented argument. It is not news or history, as such. The argument starts rhetorically with a document that does not exist, as if it did. Each sentence is peppered with superficial negative characterizations. Then the argument cherry-picks facts for the argument, which are true in part, but not wholly truthfully presented. Listen carefully for all the rhetoric that is intended to persuade, but not teach as such. There are two sides to the story. Cato was also revered in real-time for integrity, was a devout Stoic, which is essentially about discipline of self, clearly not a hypocrite, dying by his own hand holding the book of death of the wise Socrates. The politics may be argued, but this is a clear attack on the man and is not supported. We can note, from a 21st century view, that Cato argued in the Cataline Conspiracy for death of the "accused" without trial, while Caesar argued for trial, using morality time travel. Caesar was a powerful demagogue, with Roman legions, and Cato had no trust for him, for a reason. The premise that one powerful force is causation for its contradiction is certainly true, so certainly the power of Cato draws a political contradiction, even creating the seed of civil war, such as it always is. But glazing over, with negative characterizations, that Cato was in it for self, while all the evidence that actually does in fact exist demonstrates Cato as living a life of denial, is rather irresponsible speculation. Excellent presentation is facade, not necessarily untrue, but we should be careful with it.
Who are you? Your mini essay is light on any kind of facts or references. You sound like a lawyer or English teacher trying to critique history (LOL)
Commenting for engagement, literally a perfect video. Cicero really cooked with that quote tho 😭
Commenting for extra engagement
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.
The legislature has already given its power to the executive. Laws called regulations and ordinances now passed by executive departments such as the SEC, FDA, and other alphabet soup agencies.
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!
Fascinating and well reasoned application of a lesson from history regarding some of the basic problems at the core of our government institutions!
Thanks! The founders' ideological blind spots and affinity for Rome prevented them from taking away key isights that could have been gained from the collapse of the Roman Republic
We don’t need to get rid of the filibuster in the US Senate, we just need to make it a real thing; if you really want to filibuster do it, the threat of a filibuster shouldn’t be seen as the same thing.
In the emperor claudius's early years, He had written a history of rome, which was destroyed at the behest of Ophelia wife of augustus
That is what I would choose to read.
Honestly, i enjoy the idea that the US government cannot function. The less regulations they make, the better off i feel.
Cato:
❎ Project 2025
✅ Project 55BC
One of the worst things about Cato is the people he inspired
Very interesting and informative. Thank you!
Inspector Clouseau voice: "CATO YOU FOOL!"
I got that reference!
Gaius Marius and Sulla killed the republic. Sulla for showing that one can seize the power with arms, and Marius for giving the capitee censii the right to join the army.
Someone please point me to good sources cause he didn’t post them
Thanks!
Thank you so much for the support!! Really glad you enjoyed the video!
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
You are wrong about the US Senate
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.
Definitely good to point out Cato's flaws, but...basing it on Caesar's testimony, and a polemic at that?
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
Don't want to be mean, but your microphone (a very good one) unfortunately picks up the mouth-smacking! I enjoyed reading the transcript, but I have a problem watching your video because of my personal issues.
Cato was chuck Schumer of Rome 😮😢
Amazing video. thank you
Thanks! Glad you found it informative!
Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger both fall into this.
The younger concluded what the elder upheld
Cato had his sanctimonious head up his stoic _asino._
comparing Cato's filibuster with the current US filibuster is just silly. OK, just rename it as for some things you need a super majority, say 60%. I was half expecting, somehow this was going to end up blaming this all on Trump.
The histories of Rome by Claudius. I would like to see these.
His resemblance to American politicians like mitch McConnell is obvious.
Historia Civilis should watch this, maybe
I prefer Historia Civilis, to be honest. This CZcamsr claims that Cato was trying to enrich himself which, as most would agree, is an absolute falsehood.
Cato lived a stoic life and was renowned for his frugality. I agree with another commenter, who stated that Cato's rhetoric and actions were poisoned by his hatred for Julius Caesar.
Not saying that Cato was steadfast in his principles, but that vindictiveness clouded his ability to see where common sense should have overrode ideology. His ideology in itself, was a sound one committed to Republican principles, but his inability to compromise undermined the value of those principles. ⚔️
@@MatthewLum11so committed to the republic that he broke its primary governing body. He was committed to his vision of the republic, but living in a republic necessitates compromise.
@@benjaminhorwitz593 It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback and place a damning judgement on Cato's life choices. In the end, Cato himself accepted that he fcuked up by committing a truly bloody and gruesome suicide after years of getting his hands dirty in a war of principle. ⚔️
@@benjaminhorwitz593How could one reach compromises with those seeking or potentially, knowingly or not, to destroy it? Take care and God bless
@@johnphipps4105 herp derp, the time for compromise was prior to the crisis. Did you even watch the video?
Awesome video. Really enjoyed it - thanks a lot!
Subscribed.
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 .
So what you’re saying is although hailed as a great Roman republican he was actually a democrat.
Not in his view but yes
Are you being funny or thick?
He was a conservative who was politically pretty useless, who rambled endless bullshit to block reforms that were necessary to maintain the state. Make of that what you will
This is crazy Caeser glazing lol
No one cares gay weeb, OP has other videos saying that Caesar was a mass murderer. Thanks for boosting channel engagement with your inane opinion, more people will see this video thanks to you
Actually today in the English language all the term ‘Republic’ means, is a state in which the head of state is not a monarch. Using the term ‘Republic’ for a state run by the people has been obsolete for at least 150 years. There are reasons why places like Australia, Britain & Canada are referred to as ‘Constitutional Monarchies’ not ‘Republics’.
IMO, the equivalent body to the late roman republic senate in the US is not the US senate, its the supreme court. Its currently blocking plenty of things + the congress & president can strip it of nearly all of its power, down to its original jursdiction, leaving it powerless on anything that isn't states suing eachother or cases involving individual government appointee conduct.
We rolling back incorporation too?
Optimates delenda est
That's right
Cato could reeaaalllly drive the Green Hornet's car, The Black Beauty.
Do Mitch McConnell next!
About 90% of what I said about Cato applies to him
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
Well spoken, but id be intrigued as to what sources you consulted
Thanks to this video i have done a 180 on Cato.
I used to hate him due to my love of Ceaser but now i see Cato as unfathomably based.
Lol so your position is that you love elites not doing shit
If only that did nothing.
@HerodotusVon you love them importing foreigners and waving gay flags
I don’t really think this is a good assessment of the man, nor the situation as a whole:
-criticizing filibuster because it was not an established practice, i counter it wasn’t illegal either, same as Cesar’s bypassing the senate to pass laws.
-land grants had been opposed time and time again during the history of Rome, it was nothing new, plus those mentioned were grants by Pompey, not the senate. The senatorial faction had two choices: give Pompey a lot of following a political weight by conceding the grants or risk disgruntled ex-legionaries roaming around. Both are bad, one’s certain, the other not.
-Cato as a man had mostly a good reputation, and was criticized by others in his own faction for being too unyielding. His one flaw was his great dislike of Cesar, but even then, he managed to separate Cesar and Pompey, albeit too late for his faction’s sake (hindsight here)
-the one critique I support is to his opposition to Crassus’s law mentioned at the beginning.
-saying he is one of the bigger causes for the downfall of the republic is quite a claim: where do you put Marius and Sulla? The generals holding sway over their assigned armies, instead of the state having such power and legislating to safeguard such condition? (Imagine if Lucullus decided to pull a Sulla-like move instead of just hoping for a triumph) The armed bands roaming the streets of rome? The mess made post-Cesar’s-death by both the second triumvirate and the cesaricides? The shortsightedness of the whole noble faction? The widespread willingness to ignore laws and norms?
Edit: my assessment is that Cato was out of touch with the times and blinded by antipathy towards Cesar, not as consequential as many paint him, in either direction.
Want to dunk on someone from the noble faction? Try Cicero (he deserves some dunking, but who didn’t in that period?)
Honestly i'd feel bad for anyone attempting to be a ceaser in america, we're lead by a bunch of catos
Good thing this is not happening in any other countries in the current world.
I identified with the principled Cato I was sold. Now I realize I’m closer to that ideal than him
Awesome video!
If I could, I would recover Cicero's Hortensius
Complaining about the constitution being subverted while then complaining about how senate seats are set is funny
Ideologue moment
"While then"
Did he say these things simultaneously or one after the other? Which is it? Your grammar is childish and makes it impossible to take you seriously
Your argument is peurile nonsense anyway, but thanks for coming along and commenting, each comment boosts the video and makes i visible to more people! Cheers for growing the channel
@@boozecruiser Remarkable display of insecurity.
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.
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
As a simple comment, majority public opinion does not in itself validate a law as just or righteous. Minority opposition is critical to a healthy and balanced government.
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?
Liked and watched the ads
Amazing, thanks for that!!
Good vid! Are there any sources you used for this?
@@milkmessiah5192 some rubbish bin
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?
Well done .😎🥃