Georgetown Classics Professor: ‘Rome Is a Cautionary Tale’

Even a republic that has stood for centuries can be destroyed by a long civil war. Even a republic that has stood for centuries can be destroyed by a long civil war. Public domain

Josiah Osgood, one of the leading scholars on the subject of ancient Rome, is a professor of classics at Georgetown University and has written extensively on the subject of the fall of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. While on “The Sons of History“ podcast, he discussed his latest book, “Uncommon Wrath: How Caesar and Cato’s Deadly Rivalry Destroyed the Roman Republic,” which examines how two powerful political leaders, Julius Caesar and Cato the Younger, extensively divided the Senate and ultimately drove the republic toward civil war.

With the current political divide in the American republic, it’s a timely analysis.

The rivalry between the two ultimately began in 63 B.C., during the debate over what to do with five senators who had been found conspiring with Lucius Catiline, an aristocrat and politician who was plotting to overthrow the Roman government after losing the election for consul. The Senate had assembled and was debating on the punishment.

Rome had just experienced a civil war just 20 years prior, known as Sulla’s Civil War. The violent memories and the tyranny of Sulla may have played a role in the desire for quick executions of the senators.

“This is one of the haunting questions of the late Roman Republic,” Osgood said. “That was, in my view, one of the wounds that was still open. In the earlier civil war, there were a lot of atrocities; people were killing each other, grabbing each other’s estates. It probably did in a way brutalize a whole generation, even if people were trying to restore peaceful self-government. Tyrannicide, the fear of a dictator, could justify an extreme situation.”

Political Polar Opposites

Although the culprits’ guilt was certain, Caesar warned against hasty judgments and sentences without habeas corpus. The right to trial was one of the pillars of the Roman Republic’s rule of law and was obligatory for Roman citizens. Caesar forewarned that this type of decision would come back to plague the republic.

“But you say, who will criticize a decree passed against traitors to the Republic?” Caesar asked rhetorically—in Osgood’s recent translation—and then immediately answered:

“Changing circumstances will, and the passage of time, and Fortune, whose pleasure rules nations. Whatever comes to pass for these men will be deserved; but, Senate Fathers, consider what sentence you are passing on others. All bad precedents have arisen from good actions. When power comes into the hands of men who are not acquainted with it or are crooked, that new precedent is transferred from the guilty, who deserve such treatment, to the innocent, who do not.”

The Senate agreed with Caesar. That was, until Marcus Cato stood to speak.

“Other crimes you may prosecute after they have been committed. But if you do not take care to stop this one from happening, once it does take place, you will appeal to the courts in vain,” he stated, noting that Catiline and his army were planning to march on Rome and that other conspirators were already within the city. “In a captured city, there is nothing left for the vanquished.”

In a moment of extreme partisanship, he then directed an antagonizing and practically accusatory tone toward Caesar:

“If, therefore, Caesar fears dangers from these men, his proposal is useless. If, in the midst of universal terror, he is the only one not to be afraid, all the more should I be afraid for myself and for all of you.”

On his recommendation, the Senate agreed to sentence each of the five conspirators to death by hanging.

The Cost of Expedience

“Cato is in the short-term proven right in the sense that executing these conspirators was expedient, as a lot of the supporters melted away and it probably saved some of the lives of soldiers who would have been sent to put down this army. So that’s the one hand,” Osgood said.

“On the other hand, Caesar was warning the Senate that this would come back to cause problems and would be open to abuse. Once you start letting senators on a line vote say that we can kill some of our colleagues, that’s an extremely dangerous precedent. And the civil war that would come later reflected that mentality he was warning against—that if we view someone as enough of a threat, we will take up arms.”

Osgood noted that Caesar’s name was often used as an insult, citing figures from the American Revolution who would invoke his name to warn about an individual, such as Alexander Hamilton about Aaron Burr. But Caesar shouldn’t be viewed completely as villainous, Osgood suggests, and to do so misses a major point from this historical moment:

“Part of the point of my book is to show that Caesar does have principles. Part of the tragedy is that these differing viewpoints come into collision.”

The War of Politics

“Politics does need to be a fight, or an argument, to put it more positively,” he said. “The problem is sometimes one side—and it’s hard to say who does it first (of course, if you’re highly partisan you’ll ‘know’ it was the other side)—goes a little more extreme, and the other side feels justified in doing the same. As each side gets a little more extreme—and this is where I think Romans influence some of our rhetoric—they may say, ‘If this is allowed to happen, this will be the end of the republic.’ And once you get into that mindset, it becomes easier to start breaking norms.”

Osgood noted that each side often provides a logical argument, just as Caesar and Cato did during that debate in 63 B.C. But just as those two political figures saw each other’s proposals as extremes, American politics continues to do the same.

“I think that’s part of the explanation, that it’s logical for one party, or one politician, but collectively it starts to become corrosive. Collectively, you risk destroying the whole system,” he warned. “I think each side has to stand up for what they believe, but if both sides are always going to the extremes, at least the Roman Republic shows that it can be a very dangerous dynamic.”

Rome: The Cautionary Tale

Ultimately, the political showdown between Caesar and Cato devolved into a military showdown. It was known as Caesar’s Civil War, which ended with Caesar’s return to Rome in triumph and Cato’s suicide. After having been a republic for several hundred years, Rome would never be the same. Even the assassination of Caesar, an attempt by senators to return Rome to its republican form, would prove futile. The great republic regressed into an empire to be ruled by emperors.

“Rome is a cautionary tale. A republic that functioned very well, in many ways for hundreds of years, can suddenly become unhealthy, and even, if locked into a long civil war, ultimately destroy itself,” Osgood stated. “If you care about peaceful self-government, this is a possible outcome. It should caution us about always going to the extremes and failing to remind ourselves of what we have in common, and how we keep that as a part of our culture, a part of our debates, a part of our politics.”