The Mos Maiorum: Origins of the Roman Republic's Ethical Collapse

[00:00:05]The Mos Maiorum, meaning the way of the elders or  ancestors, was effectively the moral and ethical   code of Ancient Rome. Never officially  codified, the ideas of the Mos Maiorum   underpinned all aspects of Roman life, from their  politics, to relationships, to individual conduct.   Many Romans thought that its teachings were  ignored and that this led to the fall of   the Roman Republic. In this episode, we shall  give a general breakdown of the Mos Maiorum,   and consider the arguments for and against the  Mos Maiorum leading to the fall of the Republic.

[00:00:42]Shoutout to MagellanTV for sponsoring this video  and being our most loyal partner! We have been   enjoying our MagellanTV subscription and hope  that our viewers love it too. MagellanTV is a   documentary streaming service, run by filmmakers,  that has over 3,000 documentaries among them   hundreds of historical documentaries. We recommend  The Hidden History of Rome and Meet the Romans, as   both of these titles provide so much fun knowledge  of Roman history. You can watch both anytime,   anywhere, on your television, laptop, or mobile  device and it is compatible with most devices.   Our viewers can now take advantage of an exclusive  offer: 30% off an annual membership - this gives   you an entire year for less than $3.50 a  month! Every documentary I've watched has   been worth double that and there are now 3000 in  the MagellanTV collection! This offer is available   to the returning users, too! Simply click on the  link in the description to claim your discounted   annual membership today. Support our channel and  do that at try.magellantv.com/kingsandgenerals.   Start your free trial today!

[00:01:46]The core tenets of the Mos Maiorum  were fides, pietas, religio, cultus,   disciplina, virtus, dignitas and auctoritas.  Cicero and others discussed the concepts,   giving us a general idea of what they meant.  Furthermore, the Romans often used mythical,   semi-mythical, or ancient historical  figures as exempla, effectively role models   who encapsulated an aspect of the Mos Maiorum. The first one - fides – is the root of the modern   English word “fidelity”; it can best be translated  as honesty or reliability. At a personal level,   it was the expectation that  someone would keep their word,   and at a political level, that the politician  would fulfill the expectations of their office.   Prime exempla for this idea are the dictator, who  was trusted with extraordinary powers, but did not   abuse these, resigning after saving Rome. Pietas – The root of the modern word   “piety” - related to the respect and honouring of  not just the gods, but also family and homeland.   In Cicero’s words, it is “justice to the gods”  and the virtue that “pushes us to do our duty   to our country or our parents or any other blood  relation”. Legendary Aeneas embodied these ideas,   and he is often paired with the epithet  “pious”. A good example from the Aeneid   is when after the fall of Troy he  helps his wife and child escape,   carrying his father on his back, saving the city’s  sacred idols in the process, but asking his father   to carry them so he does not commit a sin by  touching the idols with his bloodstained hands.  Religio and Cultus – the two concepts that go  hand in hand. Religio, the root of the modern   word “religion”, was the proper observation of  religious practices; in Cicero’s words, “the   proper performance of rites in veneration of the  Gods”. Cultus, the root of the modern word “cult”,   was the maintaining of the Romans’ relationship  with the gods, the “cultivation of the gods”   according to Cicero. The Romans thought they  were in an eternal relationship with the gods,   the pax deorum, peace of the gods. This  peace could only be maintained, by observing   religious holidays and rituals - religio - and  performing them correctly - cultus. This could   relate to building and maintaining temples, or  performing sacrifices. The Romans believed that it   was their adherence to the gods that led to their  success; their religio and cultus was recognised   and rewarded by the gods. Perhaps the best exempla  of these attributes was the old Roman king,   Numa Pompilius, who introduced many of Rome’s  most important religious institutions, such as   the Vestal Virgins, the Cult of Mars, the Cult  of Jupiter, and the office of Pontifex Maximus.  The next one - Disciplina – denoted  training, method and self-discipline.   This could be applied to a large military context,  such as the training and drilling of soldiers,   and on a personal level, such as having the  self-control and discipline to practice a skill,   for instance rhetoric, on a daily basis. In  a military context, it was this virtue to   which the Romans attributed a lot of their  martial success; because their generals and   soldiers adhered to disciplina, they would  always triumph over those who did not.   A particularly striking exempla of this concept  was Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus. During   the Republic’s early wars with the Latins, Manlius  is said to have insisted upon strict discipline,   particularly that no man was allowed to leave  his post upon pain of death. Manlius’ son,   after being taunted by a Latin champion, rode  out to duel the champion, winning and bringing   the spoils of victory back. Nevertheless, Manlius  had his son executed for failing to follow orders.   To the Romans, courage on the battlefield could  only function within the framework of disciplina.  Gravitas and constantia – another dual concept;  gravitas is perhaps best defined as dignity or   seriousness, and carried with it a  sense of responsibility and commitment,   while constantia is perseverance. A true Roman  should have been able to face adversity with   a calm and dignified attitude, and persevere  against any odds, showing stoicism. These were   two of the most important virtues for Roman  leaders. A perfect exempla of these concepts   was Gaius Mucius Cordus Scaevola. Captured by the  Etruscans, he declared “We Romans act bravely and,   when adversity strikes, we suffer bravely. Watch,  so that you know how cheap the body is to men   who have their eye on great glory”. Then held his  hand in a fire, without showing any sign of pain.   His captors were so impressed by his  gravitas and constantia that he was released.  The literal meaning of Virtus was manliness, but  it included universal connotations of bravery,   justice, knowing what is honourable and  dishonourable, and temperance. It is perhaps   best understood as “excellence”. A person who has  virtus applies all their best attributes for the   benefit and glory of the Republic. For the Romans  it was the defining attribute of a true Roman.   Cicero wrote: “Virtus is the badge of the  Roman race and breed. Cling fast to it,   I beg you men of Rome, as a heritage that your  ancestors bequeathed to you. All else is false,   and doubtful, ephemeral and changing; only  virtus stands firmly fixed, its roots run deep,   it can never be shaken by any violence, never  moved from its place”. Exempla of virtus were   the greatest of Roman heroes, such as Horatius  Cocles, the Roman who defended a bridge alone   against the Etruscans thus saving the Roman army. Dignitas and Auctoritas – the two culminating   attributes of the Mos Maiorum. These two were  the result of all the other virtues in practice.   Dignitas was akin to prestige, it was the  person’s influence and personal reputation.   Auctoritas was the ability to use that  influence, and to rally support. Theodore   Mommsen describes it as “more than advice and less  than command, an advice which one may not ignore”.   Exempla of these attributes are figures like  Romulus and Aeneas, who through their own personal   strength of will, rallied their people. Following the fall of the Republic,   a number of contemporary historians writing in  the early days of the Empire suggested that Rome   had experienced a period of moral decline,  and a failure to adhere to the Mos Maiorum.   There are two main events that the  ancient historians often pointed to   as being turning points; the destruction  of Carthage and the conquest of the East.  The fall of Carthage meant that Rome no longer  had an external power threatening her, forcing   her to improve to survive. As a result, men became  more focused on advancing their own positions and   glory, rather than that of the Republic. This,  of course, would be counter to the teachings of   the Mos Maiorum, particularly fides, pietas, and  virtus, all of which stressed the prioritising   of the Republic in some way. In Sallust’s view  “before the destruction of Carthage the people   and senate of Rome together governed the republic  peacefully and with moderation…fear of the enemy   preserved the good morals of the state” and  after its destruction “the nobles began to abuse   their position and the people their liberty”. The conquest of the East by the likes of Pompei,   Sulla and Lucullus brought huge amounts of wealth  to Rome. In Florus’ opinion, men no longer sought   office for the good of the Republic, but because  they wanted to become rich. The luxuries also   allowed indulging in previously inaccessible  vices: “It was the conquest of Syria which   first corrupted us…the resources and wealth thus  acquired spoiled the morals and ruined the State”.   Lucan shared this sentiment “Through Roman gates  the booty of the world, the curse of luxury, chief   bane of states, fell upon her sons. Farewell the  ancient ways!”. It is important to remember that   materialism, and the gathering of wealth, were  never considered admirable by the Mos Maiorum.   The focus of Roman ethics was always on benefiting  the state, and in Florus and Lucan’s opinion,   these ideas now took a back seat to  ambition for personal wealth and greed.  Perhaps the earliest and most strident supporter  of the idea of the Republic being in a moral   decline was Cato the Censor in 184 BC, who became  notorious for his attacks on luxury and decadence,   which he blamed largely on influence from Greece,  and saw as leading to corruption, and detracting   from the traditional Roman ideals of self-control.  A century later, Cicero would come to a similar   conclusion, though he blamed the Romans themselves  for becoming greedy, not the Greeks. For him, the   Republican system was a greater form of government  than any other, largely due to the ethics and   morals which supported it, the Mos Maiorum. “The  customs of our ancestors produced excellent men,   and eminent men preserved our ancient customs  and the institutions of their forefathers… What   is now left of the ancient customs on which the  Republic was founded firm?... They are not only   no longer practiced, but are already unknown”. Whether it was through Hellenic influence,   or riches of the East, or the destruction of  Carthage, or simply something within Rome itself,   it’s clear that a number of ancient  writers concluded that the Mos Maiorum   was ignored. For them, this was the ultimate  reason for the decline and fall of the Republic.  Meanwhile, although the majority of classicists  agree that a break from Rome’s traditional values   did happen during the Late Republic, very few  would argue that this was a primary reason for   the fall of the Republic. There are a number  of reasons why modern historians have come   to this conclusion. Ancient Roman writers  had a deep and passionate pride for the Mos   Maiorum and the constitution that it formed, the  Republic. As a result, they were very reluctant   to criticise the institution of the Republic,  as that would also be an implicit criticism   of the values of the Mos Maiorum. They saw the  Republic as being a near perfect constitution   and, with that mentality, had little choice  but to blame specific individuals. After all,   if the system and ethics were perfect, then the  only way it could have fallen is if men did not   abide by it. Because the Mos Maiorum stressed that  a man’s actions should be focused on furthering   the glory and excellence of the Republic, one  could even argue that if a Roman had criticised   the Mos Maiorum, or the Republic, that it would  in itself be going against the Mos Maiorum.  Inevitably, ancient Roman historians were  not interested in critiquing socioeconomic   or political issues. Furthermore, they believed it  was Great Men who dictated the course of history   and forces of change deriving from economic,  cultural or institutional factors were not   considered as important. They saw Caesar as  a force of change based on his personality,   rather than seeing the actions of Caesar as a  culmination of numerous other factors. Modern   historians tend to take a different view, being  far more focused on social and economic issues,   seeing moral and ethical factors as a precarious  basis on which to base the history of a nation.  Of course, many Romans wished to embody the  values of Mos Maiorum, and they certainly   made an effort to present themselves as  following those values to non-Romans,   but how many actually did? Let’s take the popular  American idea of “pulling yourself up by your   bootstraps”. This is a value which many Americans  may aspire to, but it would be wrong to say that   the majority of them do actually embody that idea.  Moral and ethical codes in society almost always   describe the virtues that a society aspires to,  rather than accurately describing the virtues the   society actually has. With that in mind, would it  really be fair to assume that all Romans stuck to   the values of the Mos Maiorum and that those  who didn’t were problematic to the Republic?  The Roman authors’ focus on moralistic  history and the Mos Maiorum can also lead   to paradoxes. Let’s consider Caesar again.  He had extraordinary influence, charisma,   and an ability to rally huge numbers to his  cause, dignitas and auctoritas. He also had fides,   as he resigned the dictatorship twice,  pietas, as he had a deep love of his family,   and his countrymen as shown by his mercy for  those who fought him, religio and cultus,   as he adhered to the rituals being the pontifex  maximus for the majority of his career,   disciplina, as he always insisted upon  strict discipline among his armies,   and accompanied them on campaigns, fighting,  camping and eating rations alongside them,   gravitas and constantia, as when faced with  the possibility of dying on the battlefield,   Caesar pushed to the front lines to fight  alongside his men. How then could someone   who embodied the virtues of the Mos Maiorum  hasten the decline of the Republic? For the   Roman moralistic historians, this is a difficult  question to answer and often leads to the   “No True Scotsman” fallacy; if someone’s actions  furthered the decline of the Republic, then they   have not been adhering to the Mos Maiorum. Of  course, this argument only works in hindsight.   Caesar, Sulla, the Gracchi brothers, all  likely thought that they truly were doing   what was best for the people of the Republic and  were abiding by the virtues of the Mos Maiorum.  But what about men of the time, like Cicero and  Cato the Elder, who knew that the Republic was   in a period of moral decline? It is important  to remember here that both men were staunch   conservatives. They ultimately believed that power  in Rome should be held by the most virtuous men,   which effectively meant that power should  not come from the people who, in their minds,   could not be trusted with that power. Cicero, for  instance, strongly opposed the introduction of   secret ballots in Roman voting, thinking that  it would give too much power to the people.   Populares like the Gracchi and Caesar were  therefore considered to be disrupting the   traditional constitution of the Republic and  were thus labelled immoral by the Optimates.  For modern historians, the moral decline of the  Republic, if indeed there was one, is secondary.   They instead point to flaws  in the Republic constitution,   economic issues such as monopolization of land  and rural depopulation through bankruptcy,   and social issues such as the  alienation of the lower classes.   Meanwhile the Roman historians ignore these in  favor of the morality and ethics of the Republic.  We would lie to hear your opinions on the  matter. Were the Roman historians correct   in their assessment, or are modern historians  correct to dismiss moral decline as a primary   cause in the fall of the Republic? Don’t forget to  leave a comment, we read them all. More videos on   the history of Rome are on the way, so make sure  you are subscribed and pressed the bell button.   Please, consider liking, commenting, and sharing -  it helps immensely. Our videos would be impossible   without our kind patrons and youtube channel  members, whose ranks you can join via the links   in the description to know our schedule, get  early access to our videos, access our discord,   and much more. This is the Kings and Generals  channel, and we will catch you on the next one.