Triumphus

[Favonius Cornelius]

The greatest honor a Roman general could hope to win was the right to a triumphal procession through the streets of Rome.

 

To earn this honor one must defeat an enemy of Rome, not suffer significant casualties, and kill a bare minimum of 5,000 of them.

 

Did this traditional stipulation have a far more influence than on this spectacle? Did it cause Roman generals to kill with reckless abandon, thus leading to greater conquests and a greater acceptance of conquest and war? Is there any direct historical evidence of this? Does the Empire owe its existence to a parade?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Did this traditional stipulation have a far more influence than on this spectacle? Did it cause Roman generals to kill with reckless abandon, thus leading to greater conquests and a greater acceptance of conquest and war? Is there any direct historical evidence of this? Does the Empire owe its existence to a parade?

 

Obviously Caesar was only running up the body count in Gaul for the sake of his triumph. He killed and enslaved on a scale was completely unnecessary for tactical reasons, and even by Roman standards, his carnage was unprecedented. So, I'd say in some sense the Empire does owe its very existence to a parade of vanity.

[Primus Pilus]

Did this traditional stipulation have a far more influence than on this spectacle? Did it cause Roman generals to kill with reckless abandon, thus leading to greater conquests and a greater acceptance of conquest and war? Is there any direct historical evidence of this? Does the Empire owe its existence to a parade?

 

Obviously Caesar was only running up the body count in Gaul for the sake of his triumph. He killed and enslaved on a scale was completely unnecessary for tactical reasons, and even by Roman standards, his carnage was unprecedented. So, I'd say in some sense the Empire does owe its very existence to a parade of vanity.

 

Well it was also an attempt to prevent granting triumphs for every Consul and Praetor from requesting a triumph for every minor victory. 5,000 deaths as a factor may be a rather morbid detail, but at least its understandable. While I am not denying that some generals may have been a bit more brutal than they might have been without this requirement, Caesar hardly qualifies as a good example since he killed some 200 times as many as were required.

[Kosmo]

5.000 men it's not much for a major victory. Most of the bitter battles were much bloodier. But, 5000 kills meant that the enemy was forced to flee because only in the front line engagement the casualties were smaller.

This is a sign of the extended use of reason that it's specific for the romans and that made them effective conquerors.

[L. Quintus Sertorius]

I think that more than anything else, the requirements for a triumphus were a symptom of a greater affliction among the patriciate of the Republic. The pursuit of glory was more than just a pastime for the Roman nobility - it was the very reason for their public career.

 

From the moment that a Roman male was literally lifted into the family, he was regaled with tales of the feats of his ancestors and admonished to equal or surpass them. The portrait busts of generations past stared down upon the young aristocrat, calling on him to uphold the dignitas of his family. It was expected that a young man be extraordinarily ambitious - for after all, who had won the Republic such renown as men like Furius Camillus, Scipio Africanus, Domitius Ahenobarbus, even Lucullus and Pompeius Magnus? It was on the backs of great and ambitious men that the Republic strove to greatness.

 

The lengths that Roman generals would go to in order to win a triumph is easily understandable in the context of their upbringing and culture. The greater the general's conquests, the more audacious his feats, the more influential his words and deeds - these were the marks of greatness in a Roman.

 

Thus the triumph is not the cause of the reckless Empire-building embarked upon by men such as Pompey and Caesar, merely another goal that they strove toward in a path already set by their predecessors. The hunt to be the best, to win more glorious victories, to hold more offices than their peers - this was what made the Roman aristocrat tick.

 

In the end, the most resonant phrase in a Roman general's mind was not the famous quotation of the triumph, whispered in his ear as he rode godlike through the streets of Rome.

 

Ibi sed pro gloriam eo; There but for glory go I.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Welcome to the board, Sertorius. (And what a great choice for a namesake!)

 

Just to quibble a bit with your post, you may note that many among your list of notables were not patricians, yet your opening line suggests that it was the patriciate who were alone in striving for excellence.

 

More substantially, I agree with Primus that SOME standard was needed, but I see no reason why it should be 500, 5000, or 50000 slain--the NUMBER you kill is far less meaningful what WHO you kill, WHEN you kill, and WHY you kill. Moreover, sometimes arms should give way to togas, and triumphs should have been given to more substantive services to the republic than the mere making of deserts where men once lived.

 

Nor is it clear that ambition (who called it "the vice nearest virtue"?) should have led to emulating the butchery of one's ancestors when there were so many more interesting things done by great Romans. Publicola's extension of civil rights to plebeians, the Fabii's defensive works at Cremera, Cincinnatus' resignation of the dictatorship, Appius Claudius' construction of the Via Appia and Appian aqueduct, Dentatus' construction of the Fall of Terni, Cato the Elder's Lex Porcia, Cato the Younger's reform of the treasury, Cicero's wise administration of Cilicia--all were far more beneficial to the republic than merely killing off another 25,000 Celts! And, yes, one could emulate the great military successes of a Scipio and do great service to the republic, but wasn't the real value of Scipio's success in the protection of Rome from Hannibal rather than the scale of the carnage per se?

[L. Quintus Sertorius]

An excellent critique, and one that is entirely in line with your namesake's thinking.

 

To respond to the point you proffered about the social background of my examples - only Camillus can really be counted as neither a member of the Ordo Equester or the patriciate, as none of his ancestors held distinguished posts - the others are either from the most respected families (Cornelii Scipiones, Licinii Luculli) or distinguished families of equestrian origin (Domitii, Pompeii). Now while it is true that the aristocracy was not the sole class motivated by the obsession with dignitas, they and the richer members of the Ordo Equester were the only people with sufficient power and influence (or even distinguished ancestors) to follow in the cursus. However, you are entirely correct in pointing out that I was rather narrow in my premise.

 

I was not advocating that the only path to glory was to butcher your way to a triumph, but as the topic was indeed about whether the glory of a triumph was a main motivating factor in the composition of the Imperium Romanorum, I thought it necessary to distinguish the sole glory of the triumph from the pursuit of glory in which a triumph was merely a piece (and probably not even the most important one).

 

The points about the greater accomplishments of Roman magistrates in peacetime is also well-founded, but after the fall of Hannibal, what real threat was there to the existance of Roman dominion for a prospective "Scipio" to oppose? Mithridates? He only really threatened the Roman hold on the provinces of Asia and Greece - and even then he only survived as long as he did because Sulla was first too preoccupied with the Cinnans in Italy to pursue the war to its end; and then Lucullus was racked by mutiny fomented by P. Clodius.

 

So in conclusion, I agree heartily with your points about the Roman greatness in peacetime administration, but maintain my position that the triumph was merely a symptom of a greater sickness, perhaps one that eventually caused the fall of the Republic when the resources of the men competing on the cursus became too great - the hunt for glory.

 

Edit - The negotiations between Sertorius, the Cilician pirates, and Mithridates might have formed a coalition capable of threatening, at the least, the Sullan hold on Rome; however, the assassination of Sertorius and the successive appointments of Lucullus and Pompey to the war against Mithridates and (in Pompey's case, the pirates) effectively ended any outside force capable of facing down Sullan Rome. So while there might have been an outside force for a young "Africanus" to be pitted against, fate had other avenues in mind.

 

I still rather wish Sertorius' vision for a Romanized Hispania had come to fruition.

Edited August 16, 2006 by L. Quintus Sertorius

[M. Porcius Cato]

All good points Sertorius, and I do agree that the triumph really wasn't the primary cause of the fall of the republic. After all, the rule-of-thumb about the triumph had been around a long time without inspiring men to resort to the kind of rotten, unconsitutional, Machiavellian machinations that Caesar went to to run the world's freest superpower into the doldroms of dictatorship. (Sorry, like my namesake, I get riled up about that bald whoremonger.)

 

In any case, again welcome to the board, and I hope to hear from you much more often.

 

Edit - The negotiations between Sertorius, the Cilician pirates, and Mithridates might have formed a coalition capable of threatening, at the least, the Sullan hold on Rome; however, the assassination of Sertorius and the successive appointments of Lucullus and Pompey to the war against Mithridates and (in Pompey's case, the pirates) effectively ended any outside force capable of facing down Sullan Rome. So while there might have been an outside force for a young "Africanus" to be pitted against, fate had other avenues in mind.

 

I still rather wish Sertorius' vision for a Romanized Hispania had come to fruition.

 

A wondrous vision! I always admired Sertorius as a true patriot.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Does anyone actually know what the official requirements for a triumph were? There certainly were official requirements because we know that while he was still a tribunus plebis, Cato passed a bill that raised the requirements, but for the life of me I can't find what he raised them to be.

 

One further requirement we do know was that a person had to have imperium by a lex curiata before a triumph could be granted. On these grounds C. Pomptinus was denied a triumph for his victory over the Allobroges in 61. Not to be deterred by a mere legality, Pomptinus actually camped outside the pomoerium for several years while his friends pressed his claim. After several years of waiting, in 54, Pomptinus' former legate Galba finally brought a bill before the people for an illegal, pre-dawn vote, and Pomptinus got to enter the city in triumph. (Now if only Caesar had thought of that!)

 

I guess the story simply illustrates how desperate people can be for a little parade.

Edited August 17, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I guess the story simply illustrates how desperate people can be for a little parade.

 

"How hard someone will fight over a piece of ribbon." - Napolean

 

 

Things are still the same as they were 2000 years ago.

[M. Porcius Cato]

after the fall of Hannibal, what real threat was there to the existance of Roman dominion for a prospective "Scipio" to oppose? Mithridates? He only really threatened the Roman hold on the provinces of Asia and Greece - and even then he only survived as long as he did because Sulla was first too preoccupied with the Cinnans in Italy to pursue the war to its end; and then Lucullus was racked by mutiny fomented by P. Clodius

 

Funny you should mention Mithridates. Cato opposed a triumph for the victory over Mithridates because he said it had been a war won against women. Not that they couldn't fight or anything.

[Guest Manslaughter the Great]

Killing five thousand men is not as easy as it sounds. Cannae among others was an exception but ancient warfare was much more tenative. Truly horrific casualties came from flanks and from routing the enemy. 5000 is almost an entire Roman Legion as well and Rome considered the loss of any one of these a tragedy.

[L. Quintus Sertorius]

If the requirements for a triumphus were easy to accomplish, its attainment would be a credit to no one.

Edited August 17, 2006 by L. Quintus Sertorius

[Dominus Rex]

If the requirements for a triumphus were easy to accomplish, its attainment would be a credit to no one.

 

 

Well put. If it were too easy, then a triumph would mean nothing.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

What were the requirements to get a triumphal arch?

Edited August 18, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia