Dev Diary: Marriage & Hierarchy

Hey, Lucas here! Today we’re gonna look at social status and social mobility in Historia Realis, in particular two institutions through which elite Romans achieved and maintained their position in society: conubio (marriage) and amicitia (literally “friendship”, but in fact more like a socio-political alliance). As we’ll see, these were interconnected.

Please note that the game is a work in progress, so everything I mention here can still change.



“I’d rather be first in a village than second in Rome.”
— Julius Caesar (as often paraphrased from Plutarch, Life of Caesar)

Romans were fiercely competitive, and Rome was an increasingly socially mobile society. The following video I made shows the data on which families held Consulships. Over time, we see more and more novi homines (”new men”, those with no ancestors that had held the Consulship before).
[previewyoutube][/previewyoutube]

Representing social mobility in the game also means representing social structure in some way. You can’t have social mobility without some kind of social ranking, places from which to climb and fall. This is where the Tier System comes in.

The Romans did have concrete structures of social hierarchy, the ordines (orders). But these were mostly to differentiate the elite from the rest. In Historia Realis, all simulated characters are part of the elite, men who could conceivably be elected into the cursus honorum, plus their families. So ordo (order) is not a useful concept here, since all men of the aristocracy were in the same order.

So how to rank these men?



The Tier system represents social position, even though there isn’t an exact historical equivalent to it. I believe that it captures the spirit of Roman hierarchy, if not its precise form. There is a danger here of being “too creative” with history and making something that is detached from how things actually worked in the past (I’m looking at you, pretty much every historical game). But I believe that part of making great games is taking risks and making bold, dangerous decisions – provided that they pay off. Only time will tell, but I like the results so far.

Another point in favor of this system is that it allows for the “top man” dynamic that the Romans liked so much. Their word for it was princeps, from which the word “prince” comes from, but which meant literally “first”. The most well-known use was princeps senatus, “first in the Senate”, and then the title of simply princeps by Augustus. However, Princeps was used in many contexts.



Being first (princeps) among peers was a crucial part of Roman life. In the game, therefore, there is a “first tier” among all tiers, which is where the top Romans are. Furthermore, each tier also has a “first place” slot. To simulate social mobility, the character in that first place gets promoted to a higher tier every five years (a period which the Romans called a lustrum, when new Censors took the census and rearranged the social hierarchy).

You gain points of Prominence in your tier by succeeding in your actions and endeavors, but also through other means. I will talk about this more in future diaries.


The concept of a Tier is represented by this stairs icon.



How did Romans in different rungs of society relate to each other?

There was the patron and client relationship between men of different orders. But, among the elite, since they were all of the same rank, they had a similar kind of relationship called amicitia, which sounded more respectful.

From my research, the essence of amicitia was:

• It was mutual and mutually beneficial.
  
• It could be between equals as well as between superiors and inferiors.
  
• It was limited in number. One wasn’t the amicus of everyone — even Cicero, who had many amici, was clearly not an amicus of Mark Antony. In fact, he was an inimicus (enemy), but that’s another diary.
  
• Although limited, it seems that men higher up could have many supporters. We find many names of Quaestors and other upstarts linked to men like Pompey and Caesar.
  
• It was fluid. Alliances could be made and unmade.
  

A character's main resources and attributes. Choosing allies with the right Aptitudes (the A, B, C letters at top of the bars) and the right Skills (the height of the bars) is crucial. A depleted, red bar means that an attribute has been used recently, but it will recharge and be ready for use again soon.

• Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Antony performed various duties in war and peace for Caesar, and Caesar supported Antony in elections and giving him positions, such as a legateship in Gaul.
  
• Julius Caesar and Labienus. Labienus served mostly in war, and then “betrayed” Caesar once the Civil War began, fighting in Pompey’s side.
  
• Pompey and Labienus. Even before the Civil War, Pompey had supported Labienus in his political career, and possibly introduced him to Caesar.
  
• There are many more examples of this kind of relationship. Octavian and Agrippa. Marius and the Metelli. Caesar and Pompey. Crassus and Caesar. The list goes on.
  

How did the relationship show up in practice?

• Support in actions, political or otherwise.
  
• Electoral sponsorship.
  
• Assignment of positions as legates in military campaigns and administrative staff in provinces.
  
• Tutoring of children and teens.
  
• Marriages to cement these alliances.
  

Right now I’ve only implemented the basic structure that will enable the above elements, so you can expect more details about each one in the future.


Did these relations of alliance create factions? Some common uses for the term ‘faction’ in Roman history are:

• Marian faction (Gaius Marius and then Cinna and his followers).
  
• Sullan faction (Under Sulla, in opposition to the above).
  
• The Gracchian faction (Gracchi brothers).
  
• The Triumvirates could be considered factions, and sometimes a “Senatorial faction” is mentioned in opposition to both.
  

It’s well-established that there were no political parties in the Roman Republic, but controversies remain among scholars about how the Romans organized. Most historians say that there were no groups such as the traditional optimates and populares, though it seems that at least the cause of the people did exist and was exploited by several politicians (Gracchi brothers, Saturninus, Clodius, etc), as also existed the cause of the aristocracy and its attempt to hold on to power (Sulla, Cicero, Cato, etc). There were also powerful families which could be conceived of as factions: the Cornelii Scipii, the Caecilii Metelli, perhaps the Julio-Claudians. But allegiances were fickle and there were often members of the same family on opposite sides of political disputes.

It seems that the Latin word factio was used in a derogatory way, as an accusation. “You are forming a factio!”. As if people who were organizing in factions were somehow cheating the political system, deviating from the mos maiorum (way of the ancestors).

Considering this complexity, I’ve decided to refrain, for now, from having factions in Historia Realis. I believe that implementing amicitia, which has more solid support from historical sources, might be enough (and conveys the complexity of social organization better).


We generally associate marriage alliances with monarchies. But the Roman Republic made use of them extensively. Perhaps the most notable example is the marriage between Pompey and Julia, the daughter of Julius Caesar. They got married when she was about 17 and Pompey was an accomplished 47-year old, which was not an uncommon age difference. When she died giving birth (to a child who didn’t survive), the alliance between Pompey and Caesar also ended, and the Civil War soon began.

Marriage is intrinsically connected with amicitia. You’d generally marry someone in your social circle, the daughter of an amicus, and you’d often form a relationship of amicitia with a relative. For example, Mark Antony was a distant relative of Julius Caesar. Antony’s mother, Julia, was probably a third-cousin of Caesar.



There’s a fantastic book about marriage in Ancient Rome called Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, by Susan Treggiari. Here are some of my notes from it. Please note that these are all about aristocratic marriage:

On Men

• Men were valued for two main factors: noble birth (nobilitas) and wealth.
  
• Young promising men often married right before their Quaestorship and after their 10-year military service (around age 30). But sometimes they’d marry around age 18, before starting their military service.
  
• Handsome men were valued.
  
• Male promiscuity could be a problem, but not always.
  
• Male achievement and rise in the cursus honorum mattered.
  

On Women

• Women were valued for beauty, health, pudicitia (good character) and wealth.
  
• Women who had produced children (and thus were fertile and healthy) were valued.
  
• Women were wed for their money too, because of the dowry men could get.
  
• Young virgins had low or no dowries, because their virginity was already considered valuable.
  

Other Interesting Notes

• Ugliness mattered in both genders. That is, people didn’t want to marry ugly people.
  
• Outsiders were marriageable sometimes. That is, up-and-coming wealthy men from the provinces could find wives in Rome.
  
• There was a possible increase of marriages for love in the Late Republic. But it was mostly a socio-economic alliance.
  
• The father was the initiator for finding suitors for his daughter.
  
• But the bachelor could also have initiative when searching for a wife.
  
• Cicero’s daughter marriage process, from brethroral to wedding, took about a year.
  
• Dowries could be higher depending on age and divorced status. Divorced women generally had to put up higher dowries.
  
• Ill-intentioned bachelors could marry promiscuous women with intention to divorce and take their wealth.
  
• Men needed to have enough family funds (father’s) to support the same lifestyle the woman was used to.
  
• There were different types of marriage. Perhaps the most meaningful difference was whether the husband became the legal guardian of the woman (cum manu) or if she remained under her father (sine manu).
  

This painting I made shows a Roman wedding. The wedding day was long and eventful, with many moments throughout. I decided to portray a scene towards the end, after the bride arrived at the groom’s house. There was a ritual where the bride symbolically offered the groom a spindle, representing her role in weaving the family’s clothes (though rich women likely just bought clothes), while the husband offered fire and water, probably representing his provisioning of resources fundamental for life and survival.

The flammeum, an orange veil covering the bride's face, is a commonly mentioned piece of clothing in weddings. White clothes for both the groom and bride were also tradition.



There’s much more to cover. I haven’t talked about genetics, inheritable traits and attributes, adoptions, divorce, dowries, brethrorals, inheritance of property, and so much more! I will discuss these things in future diaries as they are implemented, so make sure to follow the game on Steam if you don’t want to miss it!



Check out the website where you can sign up for the alpha, and join our Discord to discuss the game and get exclusive progress updates!

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2560540/Historia_Realis_Rome/