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. 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! 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.
I haven’t watched the video yet but I suspect it talks a lot about Mos Maiorum. For more information everyone should check out The Storm Before the Storm by Mike Duncan. It’s a great book, available on audible, and it discusses this topic in depth.
For all of human history, when the question is "Did a moral decline cause X?", the answer is no. Because human nature does not vary that broadly across generations or cultures, it's the individual's subjective opinion of what is correct morality based on their own limited perspective and social status that drives that assertion. Not only is their assertation of the current collective morality limited, but the connection of that to whatever societal ill of concern is usually tenuous at best, if not downright delusional.
No, it didn't.
Haven't watched the video, but if that really is the point they are even entertaining then K&G falls to ever growing category of bad youtube 'historians'.