Breakdown of the Republic

Conspiracy of Catiline: a "case study" in the problems of the Late

Republic: Sulla’s dictatorship in 82 B.C. - Caesar’s dictatorship
in 44 B.C.
Lucus Cornelius Sulla dictator (81-79)

first to turn a Roman army against the city of Rome

remembered by Cicero's generation as "the" civil war
proscriptions: list of names of "enemies of the state," published by
dictator; could be killed with impunity, property seized by state
veterans, settled on farms but unsuccessful, later become followers of
Catiline
Cicero career in the Late
Republic
first great speech: defending an enemy of the dictator Sulla in 80
BC
consul 63 (suppresses Catilinarian conspiracy)
supported die-hard conservatives in the senate (optimates)
negotiated with both Caesar and Pompey, but preferred Pompey
invited to join the First Triumvirate (a private alliance with Caesar
and Pompey) but turned it down
driven into exile 58-57 by his political enemies, recalled with
Pompey's help
sided with Pompey in the Civil War 49-46 BC
pardoned by Caesar
after Caesar's death, bitterly attacked Caesar's lieutenant Mark
Antony
died 43 BC in the proscriptions when Antony and Octavian joined
forces
had a front seat on the fall of the Republic – we see these events
through his eyes
MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO
Cicero’s Political Alignments
Optimates & Populares
popularis (plural = populares): one who uses unorthodox
methods (usually appealing to groups of people outside the
senate) to gain political power
optimate: one who defends the traditional ways of the senate
distinction is one of METHOD only
both optimates & populares are usually senators
both optimates & populares want political power
many populares wealthy, aristocratic, even patrician (Catiline,
e.g.)
some optimates “new men” (Cicero)
the same person might switch sides several times: Pompey
starts out as a popularis (gaining power in unorthodox
ways), but ends as an optimate (fights at head of
senatorial faction opposing the new popularis, Caesar)
question to ask: is X acting like a popular politician in a
specific situation? If so, why?
 ROMAN POLITICS

politics NOT issue-driven

politicians did fight over issues, but issues were not the heart of
politics

issues don't get you elected – personal loyalty does

politicians take different sides of an issue to signal their personal

loyalty

accounts for startling inconsistencies

consistency lies in being loyal to your friends and hostile to your

enemies
optimates and populares: shifting boundaries
political alignments fall roughly along the lines of optimates vs.
populares

but it isn't that neat or easy

some people are always optimates – Cicero

some people are always populares – Catiline, Clodius, Caesar

others shift over time: Pompey moves from being a popularis to

working with optimates; Caelius flip-flops repeatedly

optimates, populares are not neat, organized political parties

Friends and enemies in Roman Politics
friends = amici, friendship = amicitia

enemies = inimici, enmity = inimicitia

all of Roman politics organized around "factions" of friends and

enemies
("factio" originally an insult, but modern scholars use terms to
mean loose alliance based on personal relationships)

again, these can shift – friendships can be formed for convenience,

and dissolved just as quickly (e.g. Pompey and Caesar)

all of Roman politics is directed toward advancing one's own

career by helping your friends and hurting your enemies

importance of dignitas ("worth," status among your peers);

senators intensely concerned whether their status is rising or
falling