I love the history of Rome

I was listening to Professor Bob ("History According to Bob" podcast) today talk about one of my favorite topics - the late Roman Republic, and he made an interesting point. He was talking about the first triumvirate  - the political alliance between Crassus, Pompey and Caesar which lasted roughly seven years following 60BC.  Prof. Bob's interesting point was that the triumvirate was formed in an attempt to break the stranglehold that ultra-conservative republicans had over the Senate.  The way Prof Bob described it was that a relatively small group of ultra-conservatives (which included Cicero and Cato the Younger) had banded together to block any reforms and any actions that appeared to lessen the control of the Senate.

Pompey and Caesar, independent of each other, were proposing certain reforms which were being blocked - in spite of the reforms' overall popularity and general senate support. But the ultra-conservatives, through coercion, filibuster and political dealing stopped every attempt. Prof Bob's point was that both Caesar and Pompey were not acting against the Republic, they were just trying to make needed reforms, and they were going through the normal channels. But because they couldn't get through the "no reform" wall, they had to go around it - and by acting together, and with the help (i.e money) of Crassus - they had the unified political power to force the reforms through.  The irony is that by stopping all reform, the ultra-conservatives made the First Triumvirate necessary. And the First Triumvirate can be thought of as one of the first steps towards the destruction of the Republic and the establishment of the Empire.

Reformists or Just Politicians?

Pompey had just come back from the eastern Mediterranean where he had just completed two very successful military campaigns. While in the east he negotiated several excellent treaties and had also promised settlement rights to his veterans.  Now he needed the Senate to ratify his deals - but Cicero and company were against this headstrong young man making such deals without the traditional Senatorial oversight and held them up. Had Pompey done what his predecessors had done (Sulla and Marius) he would have kept his army and marched into Rome and forced the Senate to approve his deals. And had he been Sulla or Marius, about 1/3 of the Senate would be dead by the end of this. But no - Pompey was a good Republican and was sick of the murder and mayhem of the prior 50 years - so he did everything by the book - only to be stopped by small group of "traditionalist".

Caesar at this point wasn't the military genius of later years but was nonetheless very popular among the general population. He had proposed some very popular land reforms to counter the trend of farm land falling into the hands of the wealthy Senators, leaving a growing population of unemployed, poor citizens in the city.  Again, Cicero and company were against all reform.

I don't know why Crassus was in the deal, though since he was by far the richest man around ("as rich as Crassus" is a phrase still used today), I can see why Pompey and Caesar where happy to have him around. Apparently Crassus and Pompey weren't on the best of terms and Caesar, the weakest of the three triumvirates, was the glue that held the three together.

So by standing in the way of the man with the army (Pompey), the man with the people (Caesar) and the man with the money (Crassus), the ultra-conservatives accelerated their own eventual downfall.

Or at least that is one conclusion. I must say that even as I wrap up this episode of history with a tidy bow, I know that such conclusions are not to be trusted. As much fun as it is to look back at history and say "event 'A' leads to event 'B' and then ultimately to 'C'", we really don't know. But it is still fun to think about.