Why did the
Romans rule the world? Was it their technology? No, they had similar technology
to the nations around them, they even copied and learnt most of it from those nations.
Was it their political system? No, they were not the only Republic, Carthage
was structured in a similar way, and Greece had trialled many forms of limited democracy long before the Romans became famous. Was it their location? No, Rome
was situated in the busy and shifting Mediterranean sea and was often assailed
from the mountains to their north, and the seas all around them, just as many
other societies in that region were.
The difference
was their character. The Romans, like the ancient Chinese, had a way of life
superior to virtually all those around them. Here is an excerpt from the life
of Pyrrhus in Plutarch’s Lives, contrasting one of the greatest Greek Generals
of his day to the character of the Romans. It should be noted that Pyrrhus was
a second cousin of Alexander the Great. But look at the superior character of
the Romans,
“After
this, an embassy came from the Romans to treat about the prisoners that had
been taken. The embassy was headed by Caius Fabricius, who, as Cineas reported,
was held in highest esteem at Rome as an honourable man and good soldier, but
was inordinately poor. To this man, then, Pyrrhus privately showed kindness and
tried to induce him to accept gold, not for any base purpose, indeed, but
calling it a mark of friendship and hospitality. But Fabricius rejected the
gold, and for that day Pyrrhus let him alone; on the following day, however,
wishing to frighten a man who had not yet seen an elephant, he ordered the
largest of these animals to be stationed behind a hanging in front of which
they stood conversing together. This was done; and at a given signal the
hanging was drawn aside, and the animal raised his trunk, held it over the head
of Fabricius, and emitted a harsh and frightful cry. But Fabricius calmly
turned and said with a smile to Pyrrhus: "Your gold made no impression on
me yesterday, neither does your beast today."
Again,
at supper, where all sorts of topics were discussed, and particularly that of
Greece and her philosophers, Cineas happened somehow to mention Epicurus, and
set forth the doctrines of that school concerning the gods, civil government,
and the highest good, explaining that they made pleasure the highest good, but
would have nothing to do with civil government on the ground that it was
injurious and the ruin of felicity, and that they removed the Deity as far as
possible from feelings of kindness or anger or concern for us, into a life that
knew no care and was filled with ease and comfort. But before Cineas was done,
Fabricius cried out and said, "0 Hercules, may Pyrrhus and the Samnites
cherish these doctrines, as long as they are at war with us."
Thus
Pyrrhus was led to admire the high spirit and character of the man, and was all
the more eager to have friendship with this city instead of waging war against
it; he even privately invited him, in case he brought about the settlement, to
follow his fortunes and share his life as the first and foremost of all his
companions and generals. But Fabricius, as we are told, said quietly to him:
"Nay, O King, this would not be to thy advantage; for the very men who now
admire and honour thee, if they should become acquainted with me, would prefer
to have me as their king rather than thee." Such a man was Fabricius.
And
Pyrrhus did not receive the speech with anger or like a tyrant, but actually
reported to his friends the magnanimity of Fabricius, and entrusted his
prisoners of war to him alone, on condition that, in case the senate should not
vote for the peace, they should be sent back again to him, though they might
first greet their relatives and celebrate the festival of Saturn. And they were
so sent back after the festival, the senate having voted a penalty ofdeath for
any that stayed behind.
After
this, and when Fabricius had assumed the consulship, a man came into his camp
with a letter for him. The letter had been written by the physician of Pyrrhus,
who promised that he would take the king off by poison, provided that the
Romans would agree to reward him for putting an end to the war without further
hazard on their part. But Fabricius, who was indignant at the iniquity of the
man, and had disposed his colleague to feel likewise, sent a letter to Pyrrhus
with all speed urging him to be on his guard against the plot. The letter ran
as follows:
‘Caius
Fabricius and Quintus Aemilius, consuls of Rome, to King Pyrrhus, health and
happiness. It would appear that thou art a good judge neither of friends nor of
enemies. Thou wilt see, when thou hast read the letter which we send, that the
men with whom thou art at war are honourable and just, but that those whom thou
trustest are unjust and base. And indeed we do not give thee this information
out of regard for thee, but in order that thy ruin may not bring infamy upon
us, and that men may not say of us that we brought the war to an end by
treachery because we were unable to do so by valour.’
When
Pyrrhus had read this letter and got proof of the plot against his life, he
punished the physician, and as a requital to Fabricius and the Romans made them
a present of his prisoners of war, and once more sent Cineas to negotiate a
peace for him. But the Romans would not consent to receive the men for nothing,
either as a favour from an enemy, or as a reward for not committing iniquity
against him, and therefore released for Pyrrhus an equal number of Tarentines
and Samnites whom they had taken; on the subject of friendship and peace,
however, they declared they would allow nothing to be said until Pyrrhus had
taken his arms and his army out of Italy and sailed back to Epeirus on the
ships that brought him.”[1]
What is
notable about this situation is that Caius Fabricius was typical of Roman men
in this period, not exceptional. Rome produced leader after leader just like
this man for centuries, down to the lowest foot soldiers this sort of character
was expected. These were men who could not be bought, who did not hanker after
luxury, and who saw no honour in taking the easy way. They were much like the Spartans
at their peak, except their society was structured far more successfully. Far
more Roman men were able to make up the legions of the Romans rather than
Phalanx of the Spartans, which enabled them to take more land and hold it.
It is not
that Rome always won, either. Their armies were often bested in the field. Pyrrhus
defeated several Roman armies. But such was the character of the Romans that
the more they were beaten, the more men there were willing to step into their
place and face the same enemy again and again. Because of this Pyrrhus was forced to withdraw even though he continually beat the Romans. From this comes the term 'pyrrhic victory'. Hannibal the Carthaginian would
learn this the hard way as well, and many, many others. This never say die spirit, that allowed Rome
to even come back from some of the kinds of defeats that would have caused many
other great societies to fold, stemmed from a unique character, which helped
them stand out amongst the decadent nations surrounding them. Oh, they would
become decadent too, eventually, but before they were pulled down by the weight
of their own success, they achieved more than any other nation in Europe, until
perhaps the British Empire. Such was the character which drove them.
[1]
Plutarch’s Lives, Volume 2, pp. 540-541, Castalia Library Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment