What were the traditional Roman values of the 1st century BCE?

[Old_Scratch]

I'm reading Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy and I find that there is a difference between most Roman patricians of the 1st century BCE and those that believed in traditional Roman values, like Cato. While I get a general idea of them, I don't really know exactly what traditional Roman values are, or how the behavior of the Romans at the time of Caesar differed from them. I know that later, Caesar Augustus had passed a number of initiatives in favor of traditional values, but I'm still not getting the context as to where they are coming from.

[SigniferOne]

Asking about 1st century BCE traditional Roman values is somewhat counter-productive, because as you say yourself they were then under severe erosion. The best ways to find out what they were is to study Polybius, Livy and Plutarch. If you want to see the most extreme personification of them, read Plutarch's Life of Cato the Younger.

[Old_Scratch]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Monarchist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_c...#Table_culture

There is always this, which is unfailingly Wikipedian in its potential to be fiction, but I post the link so that you might look to the books at the bottom. References galore speak of the etiquette of reclining in one's seat, when to eat, when to call for a poet, etc. It really is fascinating how lovely the Romans were in their obsession with order and hierarchy, even at dinner.

[clandestino]

Money, food, games, sexual deviations.

[RTW Fan]

I'm reading Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy and I find that there is a difference between most Roman patricians of the 1st century BCE and those that believed in traditional Roman values, like Cato. While I get a general idea of them, I don't really know exactly what traditional Roman values are, or how the behavior of the Romans at the time of Caesar differed from them. I know that later, Caesar Augustus had passed a number of initiatives in favor of traditional values, but I'm still not getting the context as to where they are coming from.

The mos maiorum. Extremely xenophobic, anti-gay, anti-woman, militaristic etc.

Very much governed by the rule of law, factions ruthlessly played out personal enmities through frivolous court cases.

Cato was basically full of the proverbial, a fanatic and slightly insane. He prospered in this enviroment.

[Arch-hereticK]

Cicero's letters are just from one man, but according to him, he was speaking on behalf of all novus homos. The fact that he doesn't see himself as a virtous man makes it all the more fascinating.

[SigniferOne]

The mos maiorum. Extremely xenophobic, anti-gay, anti-woman, militaristic etc.

Are you joking me or is this an uninformed caricature? One of the BIGGEST reasons why Romans prospered so much was because they were one of the least xenophobic societies of antiquity, they took everybody in, all of the immigrants, assimilated everyone from all walks of life to the Roman culture, and with that forged their empire. None of the Classical societies of antiquity were as open with new-comers and citizens of other nations, or other races. They might have been more 'anti-gay' than the Greeks were, but so has been 99% of humanity, so I'm not seeing what your point is there. Your argument about 'anti-women' is equally misinformed on every single level.

Very much governed by the rule of law, factions ruthlessly played out personal enmities through frivolous court cases.

Ughh, in what way is that the mos maiorum? Or are you describing the political culture of the 1st century BC by which point the mos maiorum was dying out (as I said)?

Cato was basically full of the proverbial, a fanatic and slightly insane. He prospered in this enviroment.

Yeah he was fanatic about being honest, holding to his principles without fail. You may be judging him as slightly insane as a comparison to your own devotion to such principles.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Your argument about 'anti-women' is equally misinformed on every single level.
.

by this could he be referring to the poor rights of women? but then again they had poor rights from pretty much as far back as we have records of their laws.

Roman laws were very much geared towards having the Patresfamilia (oldest male or father)as absolute ruler of the household and had the ppower of life and death over all of the members of the household but rarely exercised these powers because of public perseption of the Patresfamilia (really only in partrician families) they also were supposed to instill values in to their children like respect for elders and the Gods, courage and honesty/loyalty.

[RTW Fan]

Are you joking me or is this an uninformed caricature? One of the BIGGEST reasons why Romans prospered so much was because they were one of the least xenophobic societies of antiquity, they took everybody in, all of the immigrants, assimilated everyone from all walks of life to the Roman culture, and with that forged their empire. None of the Classical societies of antiquity were as open with new-comers and citizens of other nations, or other races. They might have been more 'anti-gay' than the Greeks were, but so has been 99% of humanity, so I'm not seeing what your point is there. Your argument about 'anti-women' is equally misinformed on every single level..

Romans hated Greeks. Thought that they were a bunch of faggots. In the first centruy BCE, the Roman world was torn apart many times by it's unwillingness to treat non-Romans with any sort of respect. Events such as the Social Wars, the Hellenistic support for Mithridates, Publius Clodius' assasination during his attempt to empower freedmen by Milo, Caesar's peaceful attempts to legislate citizenship for Northern Italians caught on the wrong side of teh Padua and the rebellion of Spartacus are all examples of violent reaction to Roman contempt for non Romans.

The Romans were very much anti-women as compared to the other cultures of western europe such as the different Spanish tribes, the Irish(afawk, the Gauls and the Germans.

It is worth noting how few novus hominem were elcted to high offices, and even of those, they had been Roman citizens for many generations on both sides or at the very least Italian.

Ughh, in what way is that the mos maiorum? Or are you describing the political culture of the 1st century BC by which point the mos maiorum was dying out (as I said)?


Yeah he was fanatic about being honest, holding to his principles without fail. You may be judging him as slightly insane as a comparison to your own devotion to such principles.

That is how Romans had always acted really. As far as we know, they always used respect for the rule of law to destroy their political opponents.

Caesar summed Cato up when he noted in his commentaries about Cato's comments in Sicily. He was full of the proverbial. He did his utmost to incite a civil war for absolutely no reason and than could not even take responsibility for his actions.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I'm reading Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy and I find that there is a difference between most Roman patricians of the 1st century BCE and those that believed in traditional Roman values, like Cato. While I get a general idea of them, I don't really know exactly what traditional Roman values are, or how the behavior of the Romans at the time of Caesar differed from them. I know that later, Caesar Augustus had passed a number of initiatives in favor of traditional values, but I'm still not getting the context as to where they are coming from.

It's not as easy as listing them. When a Roman politician was attributed to following traditional values, that was a good thing. It's like when an American politician is called a patriot, that sort of thing.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

RTW fan you need to distigusih between lack of female rights and an anti-woman agenda they didnt have, there is no evidence society was geared against women and the lack of right of women was to be honest common in hellenistic cultures and in the middle eastern cultures (something that has endured pretty much to mondern times) with only the celtic peoples having a much more equal view. Also not sure if they 'hated' the Greeks they disliked them saw them as pompus and arrogant and disliked there common homosexuality but they still respected there intelligence and scientific advancements.

[RTW Fan]

RTW fan you need to distigusih between lack of female rights and an anti-woman agenda they didnt have, there is no evidence society was geared against women and the lack of right of women was to be honest common in hellenistic cultures and in the middle eastern cultures (something that has endured pretty much to mondern times) with only the celtic peoples having a much more equal view. Also not sure if they 'hated' the Greeks they disliked them saw them as pompus and arrogant and disliked there common homosexuality but they still respected there intelligence and scientific advancements.

A lack of female rights is indicative of an anti female agenda. There were laws instituted that in the mid second century BC that effectively barred women from inheriting suggesting that there was an ongoing suppression of any form of female empowerment.

Some Romans loved the Greeks, even more some like Sulla had Greek boyfriends. But as a civilisation, the Romans did not like the Greeks, which can be seen by any number of events and attitudes.

[SigniferOne]

A lack of female rights is indicative of an anti female agenda. There were laws instituted that in the mid second century BC that effectively barred women from inheriting suggesting that there was an ongoing suppression of any form of female empowerment.

This is factually false. In the 1st century BC women could and did inherit large estates.

Some Romans loved the Greeks, even more some like Sulla had Greek boyfriends. But as a civilisation, the Romans did not like the Greeks, which can be seen by any number of events and attitudes.

This is equally false and misinformed. If Romans "did not like the Greeks" why and how did they write literature that learned from Greek literature and then proceeded to rival it? Why did they surround themselves with statues of chiseled bodies in a state of physical perfection, as inspired by earlier Greek art? You simply have no basis on which to substantiate such a sweeping statement.

[RTW Fan]

This is factually false. In the 1st century BC women could and did inherit large estates.



This is equally false and misinformed. If Romans "did not like the Greeks" why and how did they write literature that learned from Greek literature and then proceeded to rival it? Why did they surround themselves with statues of chiseled bodies in a state of physical perfection, as inspired by earlier Greek art? You simply have no basis on which to substantiate such a sweeping statement.

Since you are an artifex, I will bother to answer.

Lex Voconia de mulierum hereditatibus(169bc) removed the right of any women to be principal heir of an estate. There were notable exceptions like Fulvia, granddaughter of the Grachhi, but they were gained by what is believed to be senatorial dispensation. So your assertion that what I said is factually false is quite ironically factually false.

Romans did not like the Greeks because they were homosexuals. That does not mean that they rejected a superior culture. Kind of like the Chinese today and western culture except that the Chinese will never overtake the west. How many Italians did the Greeks of Asia Minor kill in one day again, was it 150 000? I cannot remember. Point is that the Romans and the Greeks did not like each other.

[bushbush]

Romans did not like the Greeks because they were homosexuals. That does not mean that they rejected a superior culture. Kind of like the Chinese today and western culture except that the Chinese will never overtake the west. You yourself have no basis on which to make such a blatently ignorant assertion.

lolol, more of your neo-nazi classics. cultural superiority....where are your balls to answer this in the other thread?

[SigniferOne]

Lex Voconia de mulierum hereditatibus(169bc) removed the right of any women to be principal heir of an estate.

Regardless of whether they wer "principal heirs" or not they were still inheritors, and that was not removed from their status. Secondly, lex Falcidia of 40 BC explicitly stated that the Roman citizen could leave his estate to any person he so chose. And it was Lex Falcidia, not Lex Voconia which was disregarded, that made its way into the Corpus of Roman Civil Law, and thus into posterity.

Romans did not like the Greeks

There was some dislike for some Greeks who were especially effeminate, and it is true that the state of culture in Greece at the time (1st century BC) could not offer an inspiring or impressive example, exhausted culturally, physically after a pinnacle prior to Alexander the Great. So the Greeks of the time did not often present an impressive example. Nevertheless, first it is factually wrong to say that Greeks were point blank "homosexuals" (only some were), and secondly many Greeks became close and personal friends to many Romans. Cicero's Greek friend Archias meant so much to him that he defended him in a celebrated law case which has made its way into children's schoolbooks for thousands of years afterwards. Augustus had a substantial number of Greek friends, as did Maecenas, and Virgil, and Horace. Greeks ascended to a considerable political eminence under Roman rule, and Greek cities had a tremendous explosion of growth in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Nero admired the Greeks so much that he declared for them an independence from the Roman Empire.

Plutarch rose to great political eminence in his native city of Chaeronea, and penned a rather towering monument to literature where he united the records of Greek and Roman statesmen into a famous series of biographies. In his writings you can see him familiarly and warmly addressing himself to eminent Romans, and from them their responses back to him. All this indicates a most close and intimate union between the Roman and Greek culture.

[bushbush]

i see you are just going off your old rant, answer in the proper thread then, there was one opened up specifically for you. Don't run away from questions.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=297696

[RTW Fan]

i see you are just going off your old rant, answer in the proper thread then, there was one opened up specifically for you. Don't run away from questions.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=297696

owned, i will ask you again, do you support child molesting or not?

Oh, but you won the race already, I am in no mood for a marathon.

[bushbush]

Oh, but you won the race already, I am in no mood for a marathon.

scared to answer the legitimate questions by more than two dozen members? i guess you just showed neo-nazi views are indeed hard to defend.