Triumphus

[Primus Pilus]

What were the requirements to get a triumphal arch?

 

Prior the imperial period, its seems that having enough independent wealth, political and social popularity were the keys. The earliest versions were more about honoring an event rather than the individual. Much like moneyers used coins to illustrate the importance of some ancestor or patron, aristocrats could use the arch for a similar effect. However, prior to the imperial period, most arches seem to have been temporary structures.

 

Here's an excellent summary courtesy of Lacus Curtius and the William Smith Dictionary....

 

Arcus Triumphalis

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Ahh, thanks.

[WotWotius]

How did triumphal arches from the Republican period differ from ones from the time of the principate?

 

I know there is little archaeological evidence for the existence of Republican triumphal arches, but surely textual description have been found.

[caldrail]

Does anyone actually know what the official requirements for a triumph were? There certainly were official requirements because we know that while he was still a tribunus plebis, Cato passed a bill that raised the requirements, but for the life of me I can't find what he raised them to be.

 

There were no official requirements for a triumph. It was an honour bestowed by the senate/emperor in appreciation of the victors efforts. Now obviously, that meant that the common pleb wasn't going to get one. A pat on the shoulders and a few coins for him. So you needed victory and status to be awarded a triumph, not to mention popularity. Parading an unpopular figure in front of the roman mob was courting disaster. cato would have raised this bill to prevent too many abuses of the triumph - to make it more exclusive. Not requirements, more like restrictions on abuse of a privilege.

Edited August 19, 2006 by caldrail

[M. Porcius Cato]

There were no official requirements for a triumph.

 

Of course there were. At a minimum, the requirement was that a triumph had to have been voted to you by the senate. In addition, you had to have imperium by a lex curiata; if a lucky captain managed to kill 5000, his general--not him--would be eligible for a triumph. Further, to claim that Cato's bill did not raise requirements--only restricted the abuse of a priviliege--raises the obvious question, HOW could a bill restrict "abuses" of the triumph without raising requirements? More to the point, do you actually have a source that supports your claim about Cato's bill (which he proposed as tribune, if it helps you find one), or is this pure conjecture on your part?

[caldrail]

Interpretation, not conjecture. I understand your point but ultimately somebody was going to get a triumph if the influential wanted him to despite any rules or regulations. The romans were noticeably ambivalent about these things. The problem was people were beginning to demand triumphs for more trival reasons - Why else would Cato bother raising a bill to restrict them? Was he merely envious?