2

Unit 3:  The Ancient Romans

The Roman Republic was born, according to tradition, in 509 BCE and lasted for nearly 500 years before a series of civil wars ushered in the age of the Roman Empire in 27 BCE. For roughly five more centuries the Empire would endure, surviving war, plague, fire, and terrible leadership until it finally collapsed under the stress of internal and external pressures in 476 CE. Rome has left behind testaments to its glories that still fascinate us to this day.

The Roman Republic came into being after the expulsion of Etruscan kings. Politically the Republic was dedicated to breaking up power into various office holders and political bodies in order to prevent any one person or group from becoming too strong. The Senate, popular assemblies such as the Plebeian Council, and magistrates such as consuls, censors, and tribunes all worked together, and at times against each other, to maintain this balance. This governmental system would be expanded and copied as Rome engaged in a series of wars that greatly extended the amount of territory under its control, beginning on the Italian peninsula but soon encompassing Sicily, Spain, North Africa, Greece, and Macedonia. The Romans were a polytheistic people, with numerous local deities such as Vesta, Ceres, and Janus. Contact with Greeks and their rich mythology led to a process called syncretism, a combination of religions and cultures. Many of the most notable Greek gods took on Roman names but retained the same powers, such as Zeus becoming Jupiter and Ares becoming Mars. Socially the Republic was patriarchal, with the pater familias, or highest-ranking male of an extended family, having complete control over his wife and children and great authority over other family members. The Romans also tended to be stoic, frugal, and practical people during this time. These traits can be seen in decisions to expand Roman citizenship as a means of binding different peoples together, the construction of roads and aqueducts across the Roman-controlled world, and the reverse engineering of Carthaginian ships in order to construct their own navy. While these character traits were share by many Romans, and many believed they are what made Rome that power that it was, the desire for political power and the vast riches that could be gained through conquest soon brought the Republic to its knees. The political system began to break down as the Senate and popular assemblies competed for control and preeminence, while Julius Caesar and Pompey gained the loyalty of entire armies and began to believe the current system needed overhauling. Civil war between the two men led to more civil war between the next generation of leaders, Octavian and Marc Antony, resulting in Octavian becoming the sole leader of the Roman world and reforming the republic into an empire.

The Roman Empire thus began in 27 BCE with Octavian being given the name Augustus, or “Revered One” by the Roman Senate. The civil wars were over, but Augustus had to work hard to solidify his own reign and prevent more civil strife. He thus put up a facade of returning to the republic roots of Rome while working behind the scenes to concentrate more and more power in his own hands. Calling himself the Principate, or First Citizen, he was able to convince people that under him Rome would return to the golden age of the Republic and its values of virtue, duty, honor, and hard work. Augustus’ successors, however, would give up the pretense and fully embrace the idea of Rome as an empire with them as its unquestioned leaders. For two centuries, despite continued warfare abroad and some catastrophically bad emperors, Rome was prospering, growing, stable, and relatively peaceful. Some of the most notable architecture from Roman history was created during this period, inlcuding the Colosseum, Trajan’s Column, the bathhouse of Caracalla, and Hadrian’s Wall. Trade networks expanded, and goods from Britain, Spain, Egypt, Greece, and Syria could be had in the city of Rome. Contact was even made with the Han Dynasty in China as goods and ideas flowed between East and West. This era, known as the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, came to an end in 180 CE with the death of Marcus Aurelius and the ascension of his son, Commodus, which marked the beginning of instability and Rome’s long decline.

The sources for Unit 3 begin with a look at the constitution of the Roman Republic from the Greek historian Polybius, who describes the powers and responsibilities of the consuls, the chief magistrates in the Republic, the Senate, and the popular assemblies as well as how each brand co-existed with the others. We then have two documents from the Roman historian Livy and his work History of Rome. The first excerpt, presented in Source 2, tells us of the Plebeians, those people without access to political power, and their seceding from Rome in a time of need in order to force those with political power, the Patricians, to reform the political system to make it more inclusive. Source 3 then describes how the Plebians won access to the top magistrate position in the Republic, the consulship, due to the efforts of two officials named Gaius Licinius and Lucius Sextius. Together these two sources demonstrate how the Republic expanded the number of those who could participate in Roman politics while still maintaining a distinct separation of powers as explained in Source 1. For Sources 4 and 5 we return to Polybius, who in Source 4 examines the character of Roman officials during the height of the Republic, especially how they handled government finances, and gives examples of trustworthy Romans to set their behavior against Greek and Carthaginian officials. Source 5 is a brief look at state funerals in Rome, in which Polybius mentions what takes place during and after funerary rites and explains what larger public service such funerals serve for Rome. With Source 6 we move away from political affairs and into Roman religion with a link to the Ancient History Sourcebook, an online collection of primary and secondary sources covering a vast span of time and a wide geographical breadth. The document in question is a compilation of various texts that describe aspects of Roman religious belief and practice. Such famous authors as Cato the Elder and Cicero are included, illustrating for us various important religious offices such as the Flamen Dialis and the Vestal Virgins as well as specific rituals and how they should be practiced around planting and harvest seasons. Source 7 takes us into the era of the Roman Empire with the first emperor, Augustus. The link is to the Ancient History Encyclopedia entry on the various reforms Augustus enacted in an effort to revitalize Rome after decades of strife and civil war. Social, economic, and religious reforms are covered and evaluated for their success and impact on Roman society. Historian Mary Beard’s documentary Meet the Romans is included as the eighth source for this unit, and is a terrific look at how Roman people lived and defined themselves at this point in Roman history. Professor Beard takes us across the city, examining grave stones, markets, housing units for ordinary Romans, as well as a mound of broken clay pots to investigate how regular Roman citizens got on and how people from numerous cultures all became Roman. Finally for this unit, Source 9 comes from one of the most famous figures of the Roman Empire, the emperor Marcus Aurelius, Stoic philosopher and last of the “Five Good Emperors.” The excerpt present here comes from his work Meditations and describes the character of his predecessor as emperor, Antoninus Pius. The text gives us a window into traits that made Pius a successful emperor as well as Aurelius’ worldview and how it was influenced by Stoic philosophy.

1. Polybius-The Histories

The Greek historian Polybius lived in Rome for a time and traveled around the Mediterranean basin interviewing eye witnesses of the events he would later include in his book The Histories. The main thrust of his work is the emergence of Rome, specifically its rise to prominence on the Italian peninsula and the war against Carthage. In the excerpt below Polybius tells us about the three parts of Rome’s republican system of government-the Consuls, the Senate, and the People-and how each interacts with the other.

As for the Roman constitution it had three elements, each of them possessing sovereign powers, and their respective share of power in the whole state had been regulated with such careful heed to equality and poise, that no one could say surely – not even a native – whether the constitution as a whole were an aristocracy or democracy or despotism. And no wonder; on looking at the power of the Consuls it seems despotic; if on that of the Senate as aristocratic; and if finally one regards the power of the People, it would seem sheer democracy.

The Powers of the Consuls

The Consuls, before leading out the legions, remain in Rome and are chiefs of the [civil] administration. All other magistrates, save the Tribunes, are under them, and take their orders. They introduce foreign ambassadors to the Senate, bring matters requiring deliberation before it, and see to the execution of its decrees. If, again, there are any matters of state which require the authorization of the People, it is their business to see to them, to summon the popular meetings, to bring the proposals before them, and to carry out the decrees of the majority. In the preparations for war also, and in a word in the entire administration of a campaign, they have almost absolute power. They can impose on the allies such levies as they think good; also appoint the military tribunes, make up the roll for soldiers, and select those that are fit. Besides, they have absolute power of inflicting punishment on all who are under their command while on active service ; and they have authority to expend as much of the public money as they choose, being accompanied by a quaestor, who is entirely at their orders. A survey of these powers would in fact justify our describing the constitution as despotic, – a clear case of royal government.

The Powers of the Senate

[But on the other hand] The Senate has first of all the control of the treasury, and regulates the receipts and disbursements alike; for the Quaestors cannot issue any public money for the various departments of the state, without a decree of the Senate, except for the service of the Consuls, The Senate controls, too, what is by far the largest and most important expenditure, – that, namely, which is made by the censor every lustrum [fifth year] for the repair or construction of public buildings; this money cannot be obtained by the censors except by a grant of the Senate. Similarly all crimes committed in Italy, requiring a public investigation, such as treason, conspiracy, poisoning or willful murder, are in the hands of the Senate. Besides, if any individual or state among the Italian allies requires a controversy to be settled, a penalty to be assumed, help or protection to be afforded – all this is in the province of the Senate.

Or again, outside Italy, if it is necessary to send an embassy to reconcile communities at war, or to remind them of their duty, or sometimes to impose requisitions upon them, or receive their submission, or finally to proclaim war against them – all this is the business of the Senate. In like manner the reception to be given to foreign ambassadors in Rome, and the answers to be returned to them, are decided by the Senate. With such business the People have nothing to do. Consequently, if one were staying at Rome when the Consuls were not in town, one would imagine the constitution to be a complete aristocracy, and this has been the idea held by many Greeks, and by many kings as well, from the fact that nearly all the business they had at Rome was settled by the Senate.

The Powers of the Roman People

[After this one naturally asks what part is left for the People, but] they have a part and that a most important one. For the People are the sole fountain of honor and of punishment; and it is by these two things, and these alone, that dynasties, and constitutions, and, in a word, human society, are held together. The People are the only court to decide matters of life and death; also even cases where the penalty is a fine, if the assessment be a heavy one, and especially where the accused have held high magistracies. . . . Men who are on trial for their lives at Rome, while the sentence is in process of being voted – if even only one of the tribes whose votes are needed to ratify the sentence has not voted, have the privilege at Rome of openly departing and condemning themselves to a voluntary exile. Such men are safe at Naples, or Praeneste, or Tibur, and other towns with whom this arrangement has been duly ratified on oath.

Again the People bestow public offices on the deserving, which are the most honorable rewards of virtue. It [the Popular Assembly] has the absolute power of passing or repealing laws; and, most important of all, it is the People who deliberate on the question of peace or war. And when provisional terms are made for alliance, suspension of hostilities or treaties, it is the People who ratify or reject them.

These considerations would lead one to say that the chief power in the state was the People’s, – that the constitution was a democracy.

The Relations of Each Part to the Other

I must now show how each of these several parts can, when they choose, oppose or support one another.

The Consul, then, when he has started on an expedition, seems to be absolute, still he needs both the People and the Senate to help him, otherwise he will have no success. Plainly he must have supplies sent his legions occasionally: but without a decree of the Senate they can get neither corn, clothes, nor pay; so that all the plans of a general are futile, if the Senate is resolved either to shrink from danger, or to hamper his plans. And again, whether a Consul shall bring any undertaking to a conclusion or not, depends entirely on the Senate; for it has absolute authority at the end of the year to send another Consul to supersede him, or to continue the existing one in his command as [proconsul], [Again the Senate controls the matter of the much-prized triumphs] for the generals cannot celebrate them with the proper pomp, nor sometimes celebrate them at all, unless the Senate concurs and grants the necessary money. As for the People, that body ratifies or rejects treaties, terms of peace and the like; and especially when the Consuls lay down their office they have to give an account of their administration, before it. [Consequently the Consuls are obliged to court popular favor.]

As for the Senate, it is obliged to take the multitude into account and respect the wishes of the People. It cannot execute [death sentences] unless the People first ratify its decrees. Also in matters directly affecting Senators – e.g. laws diminishing the Senate’s traditional authority, or depriving Senators of certain dignities and office, or even actually cutting down their property, – even in such cases the People have the sole power of passing or rejecting the law. But most important of all is the fact that, if the [Popular] Tribunes interpose their veto, the Senate not merely cannot pass a decree, but cannot even hold a meeting at all, – formal or informal. How the Tribunes are always bound to execute the will of the People, and above things to have regard to the public wishes; therefore for all these reasons the Senate stands in awe of the multitude, and cannot neglect the feelings of the People.

In like manner the People are far from being independent of the Senate. For contracts innumerable are given out by the Censors to all parts of Italy for the repair or construction of public buildings; there is also the collection of revenues from many rivers, harbors, forests, mines, and land, – everything in a word that comes under the control of the Roman government; and in all these the People at large are engaged; so that there is scarcely a man, so to speak, who is not interested either as a contractor or as being employed in the works. For some purchase the contracts from the censors themselves; others go partners with them, while others again go security for these contractors, and actually pledge their property to the treasury for them. Now over all these transactions the Senate has absolute control; it can grant an extension of time, [in emergency it can lighten or release the contract, or enforce it on the contractors with such severity as to ruin all involved.] But most important of all is the fact that the judges are taken from the Senate for most lawsuits, whether criminal or civil, in which the charges are heavy. Consequently all citizens are at the Senate’s mercy ; they do not know when they may need its aid, and are cautious about resisting or actively opposing its will. For a similar reason men do not rashly resist the Consuls, because every one may become subject to their absolute [military] authority on a campaign.

The Excellence of the Roman Constitution

The result of this power of the several estates for mutual help or harm is a union sufficiently firm for all emergencies, and a constitution which it is impossible to find a better. Whenever any foreign danger compels them to unite and work together, the strength which is developed by the State is so extraordinary that everything required is unfailingly carried out by the eager rivalry of all classes, while each individual works, privately and publicly alike, for the accomplishment of the business in hand.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 43-48. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.87614/2015.87614.Readings-In-Ancient-History-Ii-Rome-And-The-West#page/n69

Discussion Questions:

1. What aspects of Rome’s constitution make it seem like a monarchy?
2. What aspects of Rome’s constitution make it seem aristocratic?
3. Why could one say that Rome’s constitution is actually democratic in nature?
4. How do the various organs of Rome’s republic balance one another, according to Polybius?

2. Livy-History of Rome

Livy was a Roman historian whose major work, History of Rome, covers the earliest Roman myths up to the reign of Augustus. Since he wrote about many things that happened well before his lifetime the, accuracy of his descriptions is questionable despite many historians’ reliance on Livy as a source. The selection included here discusses an extraordinary event in the development of Rome’s republic-the secession of the plebeians in their attempt to gain more rights and greater equality.

War with the Volscians was threatening, but the state was also sorely disturbed within itself, the animosity betwixt Senate and people glowing now to white heat, largely on account of the imprisonments for debt. Loud was the complaint that while men were fighting abroad for lands and liberty, they were seized and oppressed at home by their own fellow citizens; and that the “liberty of the people” was more secure in war than in peace. This feeling of discontent increasing of itself was still further aggravated by a case of individual suffering.

A certain aged man thrust himself into the Forum, with all the tokens of his miseries upon him. His clothes were utterly squalid; his very body was shocking, pale and emaciated as it was. His long beard and hair impressed, too, a savage wildness upon his features. Notwithstanding his wretched state he was nevertheless recognized, and it was repeated how he had been a centurion, and, while pitying him, men announced his other distinctions won in the public service, while he displayed the various scars on his breast, witnesses as they were to honorable battles.

[As the multitude gathered and questioned him he told how,] “while serving in the Sabine War, because he had not merely lost the produce of his little farm through the hostile ravagers, but also because his house had been burned, his goods stolen, his cattle driven away, and too because a tax had been imposed [on him at that very distressing time, he had fallen into debt. Then this debt had aggravated. First he had been stripped of his father’s and his grandfather’s farm, then of his other property.] Finally he was seized in person by his creditor, and haled away, not into mere slavery, but into a regular house of correction and punishment. He finally displayed his back, all covered with the marks of the stripes so lately inflicted.

Hearing and seeing this, the people rose in great uproar. No longer was the tumult in the Forum merely; it spread all over the city. Those who had been in bonds for debt and those also at liberty rushed into the streets from all quarters, begging the protection of the multitude. Everywhere there was a spontaneous banding together and sedition. Down all the streets they ran with clamorous shouting, and so into the Forum. Such of the Senators as they met there were hustled by the mob to their no slight peril; nor would the people have stopped short of extreme violence had not the consuls Publius Servilius and Appius Claudius bestirred themselves hastily to quiet the uproar.

Turning on the consuls, the multitude displayed their chains and other tokens of misery, and thus taunted the consuls; then they demanded, with threatenings rather than as petitioners, that they “assemble the Senate”; while they posted themselves around the Senate House in a body, resolved to witness and to control all the public counsels.

At first it was proposed to kill the consuls, in order to discharge the men from their oath of obedience; but when it was asserted that no religious obligation could be discharged by a mere crime, on the advice of one Sicinius, they retired without any orders from the consuls, to the “Sacred Mount” beyond the river Anio, three miles from Home.

There, without any regular leader, they fortified their camp with a rampart and a trench, and remained quiet, taking nothing but the food they needed. Thus they kept to themselves for some days, neither attacked themselves nor attacking others.

Meantime in the city was panic and mutual fear. The Plebeians, still in Rome, dreaded the violence of the Senators; these in turn dreaded the commons, and were doubtful whether they wished them to stay [as hostages for the rest] or to depart.

Therefore it was determined to send out an ambassador to the Plebeians, Menenius Agrippa, an eloquent man and withal acceptable, because he himself was of humble origin. When he was admitted to the camp, he is said to have related this story. “Once upon a time the parts of the human body did not agree together, but the various members had each their own policy; and it befell that the other parts were indignant that everything was procured for the belly by their care, while the belly did nothing but enjoy the pleasures they afforded it. So they conspired: the hands should no more carry food to the mouth, the mouth would not receive it, nor the teeth chew it. But while they wished to subdue the belly by famine, these parts themselves, and the whole body, were reduced to the last degree of emaciation. Thus it became evident that the service of the belly was by no means a slothful one [but that it had a most important purpose].  By comparing thus how similar was the sedition within the body to the resentment of the people against the Senators, he made an impression on the minds of the multitude. A commencement was accordingly made toward a reconciliation, and it was allowed that “the Plebeians should have their own magistrates, with inviolable privileges; and these men should have the right of bringing assistance against the Consuls; nor could any Patrician hold these [Plebeian] offices.”  Thus two tribunes of the Plebeians were created, Gains Licinius and Lucius Albinus.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 20-23. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/readingsinancien00davi#page/20/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. What internal problems did Rome have, according to Livy?
2. What set off the rioting by the people of Rome?
3. What did those who were in revolt do after the foreign invasion was repelled?
4. What did Menenius Agrippa do to get the plebeians to return to Rome?
5. What did the plebeians get as a result of their actions?

3. Livy-History of Rome

In this selection, also from Livy’s History of Rome, we see recounted the way in which plebeians were first granted access to the top political office in the Roman Republic-the Consulship. As you read this document pay special attention to what Sextius and Licinius are proposing as changes to Rome’s government and the back-and-forth between them and Rome’s patrician class.

The Proposals of Sextius and Licinius

There appeared a favorable opportunity for making innovations on account of the immense load of debt; since the Plebeians could hope for no lightening of the burden unless their own party gained control of the highest magistracies. To this end they realized they must exert themselves. After Gaius Licinius and Lucius Sextius had been elected tribunes of the Plebs, they proposed laws aimed directly at the Patricians and for the benefit of the commonalty. The proposal as to debt was that all interest previously paid should be deducted from the principal, the remainder to be paid off in three years by equal installments: the next, touching the limitation of land, was that no one should possess more than five hundred jugera of land: and the third was that the elections of military tribunes should cease, and that at least one of the consuls should be chosen from the Plebeians. These were all matters of vast importance, and such as could not be obtained without a desperate struggle.

So was opened a contest in which were staked all those objects for which men have ever had the keenest desires, -land, money, and public honors. The Patricians were terrified and dismayed. They could find no other remedy [than their old expedient] of winning over the colleagues [of these two tribunes] to oppose their bill.

[The vetoes of the other tribunes prevented the measures from being put to a vote in the assembly, but Sextius retaliated in kind.]

“Well is it,” spoke he, “that if it is intended that your protests should possess such power, that by this same weapon [of prohibition] we should protect the people. Come, Sir Patricians, call the assembly to select military tribunes. I will take care that the word Veto, which you hear our colleagues chanting with so much pleasure, shall not prove so very pleasant in turn to you.”

Nor were his threats vain. No elections were held, except those of the aediles and tribunes of the Plebs. Licinius and Sextius were reelected tribunes, and they did not allow any curule magistrates to be appointed. For five years this total absence of the [higher] magistrates continued. The Plebeians, however, continued to reelect the two [radical] tribunes of the Plebs, and these in turn prevented the election of military tribunes.

The same tribunes Sextius and Licinius were reelected at length for the tenth time; and they succeeded in passing a law which provided that of “The Board of Ten for attending to Religious Matters” one half should be Plebeians. This step seemed to open the way to the Consulship. [Soon after the dictator Camillas returned after defeating the Gauls] and by great struggles his opposition and that of the Senate were overcome. The elections for consuls were then held in spite of the resistance of the nobles, and Lucius Sextius was elected-the first consul of Plebeian rank.

This was not entirely the end of the contest. The Patricians withheld their consent to the proceedings, and matters were close to a “Secession of the Plebeians,” and other direful threats of civic tumult, but through the interference of the dictator matters were compromised,-the Patricians yielded to the Plebeians one consul; and the Plebeians in turn granted to the Patricians that one of the latter should be elected as praetor to administer justice in the city.

Harmony -being at length restored among the orders, the Senate [ordered that magnificent games should be held to celebrate the return of concord.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 23-27. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/readingsinancien00davi#page/22/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. What proposals did Licinius and Sextius make once they were elected as tribunes?
2. How did the patricians try to stop the reforms of Licinius and Sextius?  How did they respond?
3. What compromise did the patricians and plebeians eventually come to?
4. What does this event tell us about the nature of Roman politics?

4. Polybius-The Histories

The following text once again comes from the historian Polybius’ work The Histories. In this excerpt Polybius discussed the honesty of Roman officials, particularly in regards to money, and contrasts this aspect of Roman virtue with the behavior of Greeks and Carthaginians. 

The Roman customs and principles regarding money transactions are better than those of the Carthaginians. In the view of the latter nothing is disgraceful that makes for gain; with the former nothing is more disgraceful than to receive bribes and to make profit by improper means. For they regard wealth obtained by unlawful dealings as much a subject of reproach as a fair profit from the most unquestioned source is of commendation. A proof of the fact is this. The Carthaginians obtain office by open bribery, but among the Romans the penalty for it is death. With such a radical difference, therefore, between the rewards offered virtue among the two peoples, it is natural that the ways for obtaining them should be different also. . . .

Again as contrasted with the Greeks, the Romans have the advantage, especially through their more sincere religious faith. To my mind the Ancients were not acting at random when they brought in among the vulgar those opinions about the gods and the belief in the punishments in Hades; much rather do I think that men nowadays are acting rashly and foolishly in rejecting them. This is the reason, why apart from anything else, Greek statesmen, if entrusted with a single talent, though protected by ten checking clerks, as many seals, and twice as many witnesses, yet cannot be induced to keep faith; whereas the Romans, in their magistracies and embassies, have the handling of great sums of money, but from pure respect of their oath keep their faith intact. And again in other nations, it is a rare thing to find a man who keeps his hands out of the public purse, and is entirely pure in such matters; but among the Romans it is a rare thing to detect a man committing such a crime….

As evidence that I am making no impossible assertion, I would quote two names, which will command general assent, — I name first Lucius Aemilius, who conquered Perseus and won the kingdom of Macedonia. In that kingdom, besides all the other splendor and wealth, was found in the treasury more than 6000 talents of gold and silver [over $6,000,000], yet he was so far from coveting any of this that he even refused to see it, and administered it by the hands of others. And this though he was not at all very rich; on the contrary, very poorly off. At least I know that on his death, which occurred shortly after the war, when his own sons Publius Scipio and Quintus Maximus wished to pay his wife her dowry, amounting to twenty-five talents [say $25,000], they were reduced to such straits they would have been unable to do so if they had not sold the household furniture and slaves, and some landed property besides. This fact seemingly incredible can be readily ascertained on a few inquiries at Rome.

Again Publius Seipio, son by blood of this Aemilius, and grandson by adoption of Scipio the Great, when he got possession of Carthage, reckoned the wealthiest city in the world, took absolutely nothing of it for his own private use, either by purchase or by any other means of acquisition whatever, although he again was by no means a rich man, but of very moderate estate for a Roman. But he not only abstained from all the wealth of Carthage, but refused to allow anything from Africa at all to be mixed up with his private property….

Let my readers fully consider that the Romans more than any other people will take my books in their hands— because the most splendid and numerous achievements recorded therein belong to them ; and with them the truth about the facts could not possibly be unknown. No one then would voluntarily expose himself to certain disbelief and contempt. And let this be kept in mind when I seem to make a startling assertion about the Romans.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 48-50. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/cu31924088053032/page/n73

Discussion Questions:

1. In what way does Polybius contrast the behavior of Romans with that of Carthaginians and Greeks?
2. Why do you think Polybius highlights this aspect of Roman behavior?

5. Polybius-The Histories

In this excerpt from Polybius’ The Histories we read of state funeral practices in Rome, and Polybius tells us that there is a larger social good that such public demonstrations serve.

One example will be sufficient to show the pains taken by the Roman state to turn out men ready to endure anything to win a reputation in their country for valor. It is this: Whenever one of their famous men dies, in the course of his funeral, the body with all its paraphernalia is carried into the Forum to the Rostra, as a raised platform there is called, and sometimes is propped upright upon it so as to be conspicuous, or more rarely is laid upon it. Then with all the people standing around, the son of the deceased, if he has left one of full age and he is there, or failing him, one of his relations, mounts the Rostra and delivers a speech concerning the virtues of the departed, and the successful exploits performed by him in his lifetime.

By these means the people are reminded of what has been done, and made to see it with their own eyes: not only such as were engaged in the actual transactions, but those also who were not ; and their sympathies are so deeply moved, that the loss appears not to be confined to the actual mourners, but to be a public one affecting, the whole people. After the burial and the usual ceremonies have been performed, they place the likeness of the deceased in the most conspicuous spot in his house, surmounted by a wooden canopy or shrine. This likeness consists of a mask made to represent the deceased with extraordinary fidelity both in shape and color. These likenesses they display at public sacrifices adorned with much care.

When any illustrious member of the family dies, they carry these masks to the funeral, putting them on men whom they think as like the originals as possible, in height and other personal peculiarities. And these substitutes assume clothes, according to the rank of the person represented; if he was st, consul or praetor, a toga with purple stripes; if a censor, a toga wholly of purple; if he had celebrated a triumph or performed any like exploit, a toga embroidered with gold. These representatives also themselves ride in chariots, while the fasces and axes, and all the other customary insignia of the peculiar offices, lead the way, according to the dignity of the rank in the state enjoyed by the deceased in his lifetime. Upon reaching the Rostra they all take their seats on ivory chairs in their order….

There could not easily be imagined a more inspiring spectacle than this for a young man of noble ambitions and virtuous aspirations. For can we conceive any one to be unmoved at the sight of all the likenesses collected together of the men who have earned glory, all as it were living and breathing ? Or what could be a more glorious spectacle?

After the eulogy of the person just died, other eulogies are delivered recounting the great deeds of each ancestor represented. By this means the glorious memory of brave men is continually renewed; the fame of those who have wrought any noble deed is never allowed to die; and the renown of those who have done good service to their fatherland becomes a matter of common knowledge to the multitude and part of the heritage of posterity. But the chief gain comes from inspiring young men to shrink from no exertion for the general welfare, in hope of obtaining the glory that awaits the brave; and many Romans have indeed volunteered to decide a whole battle by single combat, and not a few have accepted certain death. There are many cases of heroic self-sacrifice for the sake of the fatherland.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 50-52. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/cu31924088053032/page/n75

Discussion Questions:

1. What, according to Polybius, seems to be an important function of public funerals?

6. Various Authors-Roman Religious Practices

The following link will take you to the Ancient History Sourcebook, a project from Fordham University dedicated to collecting primary and good secondary sources on Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Hellenistic World, the ancient Israelites, and others. The link here is a compilation of five excerpts all dealing with Roman religious practices. Some of Rome’s most recognizable writers are included here-Cato the Elder, Plutarch, Livy, and Cicero.

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/romrelig3.asp

Discussion Questions:

1. What does Cato’s description of the rituals for planting and harvesting tell us about Roman religions practices?
2. What do the quotes from the planting ritual tell us about how the Roman people viewed their gods and the rituals done for them?
3. What do the numerous restrictions on the Flamen Dialis indicate about religious officials in Rome and how Romans viewed their religion?
4. What do we learn about the Pontifex Maximus and the vestal virgins from Plutarch’s Life of Numa?
5. What does the Certificate of Having Sacrificed to the Gods tell us about Roman religious practices?

7. Ancient History Encyclopedia-Reforms of Augustus

The following article comes from the Ancient History Encyclopedia. The subject is Rome’s first emperor, Augustus, and the various reforms he made to Roman government and society in order to stabilize the empire after decades of civil war and assassinations. The author, has taught various eras of history at Lincoln College in Illinois.

https://www.ancient.eu/article/905/reforms-of-augustus/

Discussion Questions:

1. What powers was Augustus granted by the Senate when he returned to Rome in 27 BCE?
2. How did Augusts try to address the “moral decay of Rome”?
3. How did Augusts revive Roman religion?
4. What financial and bureaucratic reforms did Augustus enact?

8. Mary Beard-Meet the Romans

The documentary below is presented by Mary Beard, Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge in England. The video is part of a larger series on Roman society. This first part covers how the Romans viewed themselves, what it meant to be Roman, and how all of the various peoples that came together in Rome managed to coexist so successfully for so long.

Discussion Questions:

1. What does the inscription of the names of three Jewish slaves tell us about Rome and the concept of being Roman?
2. What did “Roman” mean during the age of the Empire?
3. What do we learn about the Roman world from the remains of “Broken Pot Mountain”?
4. What do the bread distributions in Rome tell us about Rome and its emperors?
5. Why did so many Romans highlight their professions on stone tablets, urns, and tombstones?

9. Marcus Aurelius-Meditations

Marcus Aurelius is one of the most well-known of Rome’s emperors. Last of the “Five Good Emperors,” Aurelius engaged in wars against Germanic tribes, and his reign marked the end of the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, a long period of peace and prosperity for Rome. Aurelius was also a Stoic philosopher, composing a text called Meditations, from which the following excerpt is taken. Here Aurelius describes the character of the previous emperor, Antoninus Pius, who ruled Rome from 138 to 161 CE.

In my father, Antoninus Pius, I observed his meekness; his constancy without wavering in those things which after due examination … he had determined. How free from all vanity he carried himself in matters of honor and dignity (as they are esteemed) ; his laboriousness and assiduity, his readiness to hear any man that had aught to say tending to any common good: how generally and impartially he would give every man his due: his skill and knowledge when rigor or extremity, when indulgence or moderation were in season. His moderate condescending to other men’s occasions as an ordinary man, neither absolutely requiring his friends that they should wait on him at his ordinary meals, nor that they should of necessity accompany him in his journeys. His sociability, his gracious and delightful conversation never reached satiety, his care of his body was within bounds and measures, not as one who did not wish to live long, or over studious of neatness and elegancy; yet not as one that did not regard it, so that through his own [care of his health] he seldom needed any medicine.

He was not easily moved and tossed up and down, but loved to be constant, both in the same places and businesses; and after his great fits of headache he would return fresh and vigorous to his wonted affairs. He was very discreet and moderate in exhibiting public sights and shows for the pleasure and pastime of the people; in public buildings, congiaria [i.e. general distribution of money or corn doles], and the like. He did not use the baths at unseasonable hours. He was never curious or anxious about his food, or about the style or color of his clothes, or about any mere matter of external beauty. In all his conversation, he was far from all inhumanity, boldness, incivility, greediness, or impetuosity; never doing anything with such earnestness and intention that a man could say of him, that he flew into a heat about it, but contrariwise, all things distinctly, as at leisure, without trouble, orderly, soundly, and agreeably. A man, in short, might have applied to him what is recorded of Socrates….

Remember Antoninus Pius’s constancy in things that were done by him in accordance with reason, his equability in all things; how he would never give over a matter until he understood the whole state of it fully and plainly; and how patiently and without any resentment he would bear with them that did unjustly condemn him ; how he would never be overhasty in anything, nor give ear to slanders or false accusations, but examine and observe with the best diligence the several actions and dispositions of men. He would easily be content with a few things — mere lodgings, bedding, the ordinary food and attendance. He bore with those who opposed his opinions and even rejoiced if any man could better advise him, and finally he was exceedingly religious without superstition.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 199-201. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/cu31924088053032/page/n223

Discussion Questions:

1. In what ways did Antoninus Pius live according to the principles of Stoic philosophy?
2. What does this brief look at Antoninus Pius tell us about Rome during the second century CE?