Cato, the Filibuster, and the Death of the Republic

[@tribunateSPQR]

Which individual do you believe is most to blame for the collapse of the Roman Republic?

[@scoon2117]

Comfort.

[@kelownatechkid]

@CelticLifer Sulla is a good pick for sure

[@WorthlessWinner]

@CelticLifer - Marius military reforms allowed Sulla to do what he did

[@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes]

Romulus

[@tribunateSPQR]

@@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes True, he dodges a lot of the blame but it none of this would have been possible without him

[@garrow12225]

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.

[@ElBandito]

Basically, the modern US GOP.

[@loserinasuit7880]

​@@ElBandito Low IQ

[@whattowatchrightnow]

it's always easier to manipulate the masses if they are in a constant state of crisis.

[@Kedai610]

No wonder that think tank took his name

[@m.c.martin]

@@ElBandito The Modern Day US Uni-Party

[@WorthlessWinner]

Going to the public assembly may have breached precedent, but so did the filibuster

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@kurtsell8376]

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.

[@brokoblin6284]

Whether or not Caesar was good is separate question unrelated to the truth of Cato being bad.

[@alejandromaldonado6159]

​@@tribunateSPQRCaesars rise to absolute power was a self fulfilling prophecy.

[@Sebastianbertolotto1880]

​@@tribunateSPQR But weren't the Gracco brothers the first ones to make that a precedent with the agrarian reforms going to the assembly?

[@benitoharrycollmann132]

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 👏

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@paprus5972]

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.

[@virgilius7036]

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.

[@paprus5972]

@@virgilius7036 Dictator for Life is a very different thing from Dictator for 6 months.

[@williamide9191]

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.

[@Grivian]

@@paprus5972 Sulla was dicator for life too I think

[@Michael-bn1oi]

​@virgilius7036 which was all made possible by....Caesar.

[@antonio5478]

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!

[@azankhan88]

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.

[@RomaInvicta202]

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

[@amendingamerica]

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!

[@tribunateSPQR]

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.

[@HistoriaMoneta]

As a certified Cato hater I approve this video

[@tribunateSPQR]

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.

[@frameddonut1056]

Oh, we can get certificates now??? Can we get some club tshirts and sweaters too? Pls and thank u

[@cougar2013]

“Cater”

[@Carelock]

Cato delende est

[@freemason4979]

Cato was the original virtue signaller

[@CliffCardi]

Ironic how Cato was a plebeian.

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@CliffCardi]

@@tribunateSPQR and Caesar crossed the Rubicon because Cato chimped out at the negotiations between Anthony and Pompey

[@FOLIPE]

​@@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

[@mkepioneet]

​​@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)

[@Carelock]

So were Cicero, Crassus, Pompey, Marius, Lucullus, Antony and Octavian (pre adoption).

[@chrisrubin6445]

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.

[@tribunateSPQR]

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.

[@chrisrubin6445]

@@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.

[@virgilius7036]

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!

[@johnphipps4105]

​@@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

[@tyvamakes5226]

@@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.

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

Fascinating to hear how Cato fits into the formation of the first triumvirate

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@zulazhar1259]

​@@tribunateSPQR imagine hating someone so much you change the course of history(both sides). That is amazing

[@meguemil8542]

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

[@mueezadam8438]

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.

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@virgilius7036]

No, they did everything to destroy it by going beyond the law. Which pushed Caesar to do the same and cross the Rubicon!

[@virgilius7036]

@@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!

[@mynameisantonis]

They learned nothing from Sulla

[@bruno17289]

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.

[@benjaminprewitt4281]

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.

[@Kuudere-Kun]

You should also make a video destroying Sulla Apologia.

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@Kuudere-Kun]

@@tribunateSPQR Neat. Ya know 88 BC happens to be the year 666 from the founding of Rome.

[@Kuudere-Kun]

@@tribunateSPQR materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2024/04/sulla-and-666.html

[@spencermarks7644]

Cato the Elder was a real G tho.

[@tribunateSPQR]

Probably the first politician to ever understand just how important branding is. I bet he would have had a good twitter presence

[@backalleycqc4790]

​@@tribunateSPQR"If you don't vote for my reforms, there we be a bloodbath!"

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

Cato the Younger shames the name

[@omnipitous4648]

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.

[@conrad4852]

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.

[@TheWeedmonkey123]

I. Cato the younger was the best human being ever

[@antalonampreel861]

I admire many of the Stoics and try to adopt alot of Stoicism myself, but I too am a proud Cato hater.

[@andydupree9091]

There’s a huge conservative think tank called The Cato Institute that’s named after him.

[@omnipitous4648]

@@andydupree9091 I wonder if they are being ironic. Rebellion is subjective whether it is righteous or not.

[@BaldricOutremer]

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.

[@pinchevulpes]

calm down Octavian , LOL jk but totally agree

[@MS-io6kl]

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).

[@swa5026]

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.

[@ajwestgate3066]

so in other words CATO is the Mitch Mcconnell of Ancient Rome.

[@tribunateSPQR]

That’s actually a perfect comparison

[@backalleycqc4790]

"I'm the grim reaper of progress, empathy, and ethics". Cato sycophant

[@emknight84]

Cato is at least memorable. Mitch is a hemorrhoid not worth remembering

[@Xaviar_St.Thomas]

Excellent observation

[@gustavopaolucci6383]

That's a terrible comparison

[@MrSimmonds699]

Cato demanding Caesar read out his note like a power mad prefect at school was the funniest thing in Senate history. Bollocks to Cato.

[@tribunateSPQR]

One of the funniest unforced errors in the history of politics

[@eek6764]

@KZbin this video is the apex of what I want to consume. Please transform my feed wholly into videos dunking on Cato

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@abdelnasserwardani3346]

@@tribunateSPQR wheeeeeeeeeeeen , i despise cato too

[@tribunateSPQR]

@@abdelnasserwardani3346 then welcome aboard! We are all firm Cato despisers here

[@Riot_Games_Support]

How the hell did the KZbin algorithm figure out that i am anti-cato?

[@SoapBark]

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.

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@johnphipps4105]

​@@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

[@danhossley2833]

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?

[@boozecruiser]

"NOOOO STOP COMPARING THE PAST AND PRESENT YOU CAN'T LEARN FROM HISTORY IT HAS TO BE A PASSIVE BORING HOBBY"

[@linming5610]

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.

[@pinchevulpes]

you have lost Rome without unsheathing your sword! you have lost Rome! - Cato , probably

[@davidhoward4715]

Cato's idiotic interference undermined the strategy of the general he said this to (Pompey).

[@williamcurtin5692]

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).

[@ThaddeusCorn]

I love that the Michael Parenti Ceasar lecture turned into a whole channel. Terrific work.

[@stevematthews4489]

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.

[@frereM]

The introduction is constructed of elegantly (and admirably) crafted acid. Take that, Cato Institute, which is unconsciously an accurate reflection of his “principles.”!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thanks! I did have a lot of fun writing this one

[@tomasrocha6139]

The Cato Institute is named after Cato's letters, not directly after Cato the Younger

[@dogberry20]

This is the kind of video I go to KZbin to find. Liked; subscribed.

[@mrswb]

Cato's refusal of ratification of Pompei's land grants might have been the dumbest mistake in history

[@Roman_Eagle]

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.

[@ValentinCheval-b1e]

Awesome video. Really enjoyed it - thanks a lot! Subscribed.

[@adamreddaway2005]

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.

[@zachjordan7608]

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

[@adamreddaway2005]

@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.

[@HDreamer]

@@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.

[@adamreddaway2005]

​@@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.

[@markalbert9390]

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.

[@longiusaescius2537]

Video is basically half "here's why California and NYC should dictate the country"

[@whiteknightcat]

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.

[@boozecruiser]

​@@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"

[@boozecruiser]

Alot of those bills are unconstitutional, illegal laws such as making it illegal to boycott Israel over its crimes against humanity

[@roborovskihamster5425]

@@longiusaescius2537 How would removing the filibuster allow 4 senators to dictate anything to the entire senate?

[@HerodotusVon]

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

[@longiusaescius2537]

Ngmi

[@nashtheneet]

There are only 2 people who have served in the Roman Senate who i can say i like: Cicero and Marcus Agrippa

[@redcamaro9401]

Clodius has entered the chat.

[@gingerpotter21]

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

[@tribunateSPQR]

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.

[@bobholly3843]

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.

[@exharkhun5605]

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]

Great avatar, they need to make a movie about him

[@exharkhun5605]

@@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. 😁

[@iturnedintoamartian-cm6nd]

@@exharkhun5605 as much as I agree with Everything you said...... The kid in me wants more SW 😭 But not Disney SW 😒

[@rodolphlengrand4715]

This channel as a beautiful find ! Clear and insightful content that I haven't seen a lot elsewhere, thank you so much

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thanks, glad you appreciate the content!

[@raychumon]

Julius Caesar and the Roman People by Robert Morstein-Marx is a really good analysis of this for anyone interested in a deeper reading.

[@tribunateSPQR]

Fully agreed - it has shaped my view of the late republic more than any other single book

[@rafaelalexie2417]

Barring a few individuals, no greedy politician is ever going to have the common man's interests in mind. Almost everyone is sullied.

[@larskaaber9869]

Excellent and groundbreaking.

[@jimdale9143]

Very interesting and informative. Thank you!

[@wdwuccnxcnh7022]

Amazing video. thank you

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thanks! Glad you found it informative!

[@ryangreeney7413]

This. Showing McConnell at the end was perfect. CATO was exactly as "principled" and "honorable" as MM.

[@18proletariat83]

Commenting for engagement, literally a perfect video. Cicero really cooked with that quote tho 😭

[@boozecruiser]

Commenting for extra engagement

[@kurtsell8376]

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.

[@user-wy7wl5on7l]

Hey, this is quite good. I am a Roman Historian as some background. Good job and good research

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.

[@erik0073]

Interesting video!

[@stevebecker2486]

Excellent video.

[@Zeroground300]

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.

[@MattCellaneous]

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

[@davidingle8983]

You sound like the Told in Stone guy Also I have yearrned to hear someone make this critique and you have my thanks

[@tribunateSPQR]

Two of the nicest things someone could say! Thanks, glad you enjoyed the video!

[@matthewharrison6345]

We got 21st century Caesar propaganda before GTA 6

[@conrad4852]

As a hard core Cato the Younger hater, I greatly appreciate this!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Hell yeah. If anything this video has made me happy as it has convinced me I am not alone as a staunch Cato hater

[@conrad4852]

@@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.

[@conrad4852]

@@tribunateSPQR I’m happy you’ve realized you’re not alone in your view of him.

[@Mmm14829]

Someone please point me to good sources cause he didn’t post them

[@LukoHevia]

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

[@samright4661]

You are wrong about the US Senate

[@JPOGers]

We have politicians like this on both sides of the spectrum

[@Harroi]

Well spoken, but id be intrigued as to what sources you consulted

[@KGchannel01]

Fascinating and well reasoned application of a lesson from history regarding some of the basic problems at the core of our government institutions!

[@tribunateSPQR]

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

[@stevenleslie8557]

The histories of Rome by Claudius. I would like to see these.

[@robertdindoffer9846]

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

[@restitvtororbis5330]

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)

[@tribunateSPQR]

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.

[@tb1974]

Finally, I never thought I'd run into someone else who thought like I, Cato was most responsible for the destruction of the Roman Republic. Cato the Younger was one of the most evil people in human history.

[@f1nalgambit381]

Awesome video!

[@muse5722]

Historia Civilis should watch this, maybe

[@MatthewLum11]

I prefer Historia Civilis, to be honest. This KZbinr 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. ⚔️

[@benjaminhorwitz593]

@@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.

[@MatthewLum11]

@@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. ⚔️

[@johnphipps4105]

​@@benjaminhorwitz593How could one reach compromises with those seeking or potentially, knowingly or not, to destroy it? Take care and God bless

[@benjaminhorwitz593]

@@johnphipps4105 herp derp, the time for compromise was prior to the crisis. Did you even watch the video?

[@kw19193]

Cato never changed with the times. As Rome grew and began to organically evolve from a republic to an empire Cato failed to see that his, erm, philosophy simply was not up to the task of governing the nascent empire. Tribunate is quite correct to point out Cato's greed which, like any good oligarch, informed much of his political and philosophical thinking. Cheers!

[@tcironbear21]

Great video

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you!!

[@donaldmcclelland3210]

Well said

[@khlousy1]

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.

[@neilsharpson996]

Inspector Clouseau voice: "CATO YOU FOOL!"

[@Onezy05]

I got that reference!

[@etienneporras7252]

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.

[@longiusaescius2537]

Haitian?

[@gregorylittle1461]

Thanks!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you so much for the support!! Really glad you enjoyed the video!

[@Doosteroni]

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

[@longiusaescius2537]

Euro "far right" or American?

[@johnmurdoch8534]

Cato the elder was part of the generation that helped clear the italian countryside of those small independent farmers he so romanticized.

[@NotQuiteAllHere]

Complaining about the constitution being subverted while then complaining about how senate seats are set is funny

[@longiusaescius2537]

Ideologue moment

[@boozecruiser]

"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

[@boozecruiser]

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

[@NotQuiteAllHere]

@@boozecruiser Remarkable display of insecurity.

[@Marassandar]

Coming to comment on this 11 monthes later to say that Caesar going to the popular assemblies wasn''t a breach of precedent but a breach of the Sullan order. And the Sullan order was a pretty new thing at that time.

[@sitrakaforler8696]

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

[@rddubs]

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."

[@BoredomxProductionz]

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.

[@yankeepapa304]

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-

[@tty1975ful]

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

[@Samuel-wm1xr]

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

[@davidhoward4715]

@@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.

[@movieloverfan18]

​@@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.

[@HDreamer]

"..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.

[@trisblackshaw1640]

Could you provide a list of sources?

[@Т1000-м1и]

Ha! Just wait until the next Cato rally and see how many people truly support him! No one can get such crowds but Cato!

[@PerpetualAbidance]

Abolish the Senate.

[@UncagedJDog89]

Cato sounds like an ancient Mitch McConnell, and should be just as reviled

[@carrickrichards2457]

Alexis de Tocqueville explained the inherent stability in society. He used examples through history from ancient Greece and Rome to USA to show how gradual abrogation of power by vested interests and elites undermined government legitimacy. He predicted this to be an almost inevitable evolution and never (until now) lasting more than ~300 years.

[@freemason4979]

Cato was the original virtue signaller

[@KRYPTOS_K5]

Excellent.

[@vasp99]

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 .

[@crimsonbaron4418]

Reading the Anti-Cato and it's just: Chapter 1. Euphoria Chapter 2. In occursum Catos Chapter 3. Non sicut nos

[@brodyarbon8924]

Lmao 😂😂😂

[@CGoody564]

The road to hell is paved with good intent. I believe Cato truly thought what he was doing was in service of the republic, as misguided as he was.

[@親日家]

Rome fell 3 times once when the kings were overthrown, next when the senate was usurped by Emperors and again when the Germanic hordes picked her bones clean.

[@Monx-ci9hh]

Definitely good to point out Cato's flaws, but...basing it on Caesar's testimony, and a polemic at that?

[@philbuttler3427]

The Anti Cato is lost, this isn't based on the polemic but basic historical understanding. Comprehension gets worse every year

[@Elsidu13]

This a very intresting video.

[@jasoncopin]

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.