‘Without patronage and amicitia, a politician in the late Republic could not be successful.’
Assess how true this is in the cases of Cicero and Cato. Justify your response. You may use
Source A and/or your knowledge of the careers of Cicero and Cato as a starting point.
Overall, I believe the statement is dependant on the background of the individual. Cicero was
unestablished and thus amicitia and patronage was more necessary in order to gain status and
move up the cursus honorum to be successful. Conversely, Cato came from a family of
powerful and established individuals thus it was of less importance to his success to create
amicitia of his own.
Agree – Cicero
· Novus Homo
· Amicitia necessary in order to establish himself
· Patronage – Trial of Verres – he didn’t initially want to prosecute but realised it
would give him status so he agreed to take on the trial
· Voted against Lex Gabinia 67BC
· Voted for Lex Manilia 66BC
· Change in support shows a need for support for others rather than sticking to ideals
· Initially, he wanted the support of the optimates – he then realised he wouldn’t get it
so turned to pleasing Pompey in order to get support of a more powerful figure.
Disagree – Cato
· Already established – Great grandfather – Cato the elder – powerful figure
· 60BC – blocks caesar being able to run in absentia, blocks Pompey – veterans and
treatie, blocks Crassus’ tax rebates
· 59BC voted against lex campania
· Feels no need to establish himself, the fact he was able to block these shows his
influence and thus success.
However…
· Cato is arguably less successful as he doesn’t look to create more amicitia or
patronage
· Failure to become consul in 51BC
In conclusion, I agree with the statement as relationships were required in order to gain
support for individuals to help them gain status. Cicero required this support as he was a
novus homo so without it he wouldn’t have been able to gain power. Conversely, it could be
said amicitia was of less importance to pre established individuals such as Cato as they
already had status. However, ultimately this status had been earned by amicitia between their
ancestors and other powerful figures. Additionally, Cato didn’t look to create more
relationships which led to him having a less influential position whilst still having status.
Assess how true this is in the cases of Cicero and Cato. Justify your response. You may use
Source A and/or your knowledge of the careers of Cicero and Cato as a starting point.
Overall, I believe the statement is dependant on the background of the individual. Cicero was
unestablished and thus amicitia and patronage was more necessary in order to gain status and
move up the cursus honorum to be successful. Conversely, Cato came from a family of
powerful and established individuals thus it was of less importance to his success to create
amicitia of his own.
Agree – Cicero
· Novus Homo
· Amicitia necessary in order to establish himself
· Patronage – Trial of Verres – he didn’t initially want to prosecute but realised it
would give him status so he agreed to take on the trial
· Voted against Lex Gabinia 67BC
· Voted for Lex Manilia 66BC
· Change in support shows a need for support for others rather than sticking to ideals
· Initially, he wanted the support of the optimates – he then realised he wouldn’t get it
so turned to pleasing Pompey in order to get support of a more powerful figure.
Disagree – Cato
· Already established – Great grandfather – Cato the elder – powerful figure
· 60BC – blocks caesar being able to run in absentia, blocks Pompey – veterans and
treatie, blocks Crassus’ tax rebates
· 59BC voted against lex campania
· Feels no need to establish himself, the fact he was able to block these shows his
influence and thus success.
However…
· Cato is arguably less successful as he doesn’t look to create more amicitia or
patronage
· Failure to become consul in 51BC
In conclusion, I agree with the statement as relationships were required in order to gain
support for individuals to help them gain status. Cicero required this support as he was a
novus homo so without it he wouldn’t have been able to gain power. Conversely, it could be
said amicitia was of less importance to pre established individuals such as Cato as they
already had status. However, ultimately this status had been earned by amicitia between their
ancestors and other powerful figures. Additionally, Cato didn’t look to create more
relationships which led to him having a less influential position whilst still having status.
