Romans

[Germanicus]

As citizen Cato mentioned of Romans in another thread "They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors".

 

To what extent do you think this competetive nature and ancestor worship, indeed the need to surpass the deeds or actions of ones ancestors and fellow Romans help in producing men like Sulla, Cicero and Caesar ?

 

My own view is that nothing is entirely based on ones environment, but I can certainly see why and how a society so geared to competition for dignitas and esteem would produce the likes of Sulla and Caesar where they may not have been produced in a different situation.

[P.Clodius]

I'm not altogether sure whether the concept of Dignitas changed from the beginning of the republic to the end. The same desires were there from the original Brutus, Cinncinatus, down to Caesar. It was the means to achieve via Mos Maiorum that changed. In Brutus' time there were no tribunes, no Concilium Plebis , etc. In Caesar's time there was. Just different means to achieve the same end.

[Germanicus]

It was the means to achieve via Mos Maiorum that changed. In Brutus' time there were no tribunes, no Concilium Plebis , etc. In Caesar's time there was. Just different means to achieve the same end.

 

Good point !

[P.Clodius]

Having said that, I think the "price" to attain dignitas did change. More elaborate games etc...This inpart came about I think from the evolution of the political system, its inclusiveness. ex. The opening up of the consulship to the plebians. Competition for posts became very tough.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Germanicus, what do you mean by "men like Sulla, Cicero, and Caesar"? What distinguishing common denominator did you have in mind?

[Germanicus]

Germanicus, what do you mean by "men like Sulla, Cicero, and Caesar"? What distinguishing common denominator did you have in mind?

 

I guess men that pushed the limits. IE - Men that saw a precedent and wanted to surpass it. With that in mind I suppose Cicero doesn't really need to be in there, I put him in there as you were referring to him when you said "They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors".

 

What I was aiming at was whether after a Marius, Sulla and a Pompey, did the competative makeup of Roman society guarantee there would be a Caesar ? IE - was it in their nature ? My question could have been clearer.

[Zeke]

I think the idea of owning land, having a family name and worshiping the ansestors helps spur on conservative traddition and can spur on the economy with competativness. The Romans were very proud of their family name and I think this had something to do with their success.

Sorry is this was a tab bit vauge.

Zeke

Edited December 27, 2005 by Zeke

[M. Porcius Cato]

OK, Germanicus, that clears things up. I think there were three factors working together to produce men who are willing to push the limits of the constitution--that is, men like Marius, Caesar, and Sulla.

 

The first factor is the meritless ambition produced by naive nativism. Caesar's weeping at the bust of Alexander may sound like a Plutarch-style legend, but I don't doubt it. In one of Cicero's best orations (against that half-witted father-in-law of Caesar, Lucius Calpurnius Piso), Cicero delightfully dumps scorn on the pretentions of the aristocracy, on their fawning over the "commendation of smoky wax images," and on the defeated candidate who weeps, "What shall I say to the images of my ancestors?" The notion that one's ancestors conferred some divine right upon these men--and Caesar and Sulla would have been first in line to drink the "Ancestry is Destiny" KoolAid--was a powerful factor in producing an ambition that cannot be defeated by evidence or by law.

 

The second factor, related to the first, is the exclusivity of the Roman aristocracy. As long as advancement was produced by coalitions of blood-lines rather than merit (not mutually exclusive of course), the magistracies presented themselves as nearly an impenetrable thicket of family connections--just count the number of magistracies held by the patrician Claudii, Aemilii, Cornelii, and Valerii. And these noble families were merely the tip of the iceburg--beneath them were the 50+ patrician households who hadn't held office in ages, including the Julii and that mediocrity Servius Sulpicius Rufus whom Cicero defeated.

 

Plebian families had to fight tooth and nail to cut through this thicket--among them, great champions of the Republic and inveterate enemies of the monarchy, including Catulus, Metellus Pius, Lucullus, Domitius, and Cato. Others plebes, however, including Pompey and Marius, were quite willing to toss aside the constitution for advancement, though notably not to the same degree as patricians such as Sulla and Caesar.

 

To cut through the thicket of blood-lines, Pompey and Marius--unlike Cicero and Cato--relied on the force of arms rather than the power of persuasion. By this means, anyone of military talent or just dumb luck--whether degenerate patricians like Caesar and Sulla or new men like Marius and Pompey--could roll the dice and attain office. What prevented other great generals of frustrated ambition (such as the Scipii) from smashing the republic was simply their misplaced confidence that their aristocratic connections could ensure their political fortunes, much as it had for ages. When the old patrician families made it clear that this was not the case (qv the Gracchi) *and* they failed to recruit military talent to defend their interests, the stage was set for the rise of the politican generals, that is, men like Marius, Sulla, and Caesar.