Can Greek Virtue Be Compared to Roman Power?

Ah, a most astute inquiry! It seems to me that while the Greeks often sought virtue in the realm of abstract ideals and philosophical contemplation—consider Lycurgus and his pursuit of a perfectly ordered society—we Romans tended to define success by more tangible achievements: military victories, political dominance, and the expansion of the Republic. Whether these ideals are truly compatible, I believe Plutarch suggests it is a matter of character. One can wield power virtuously, as did some of our noblest consuls, but one must be ever vigilant against the temptations that accompany such authority. Alas, too many succumb, forgetting that true glory lies not merely in conquest, but in justice and the preservation of the res publica.

Such talk of conquest and glory rings hollow. The strength of a people lies not merely in its armies, but in the virtue of its citizens. I shaped Sparta to be a city of warriors, yes, but also a city of temperance, discipline, and devotion to the state. Did I not, through the Great Rhetra, instill in my people a sense of duty that transcended individual ambition? Rome may conquer, but without virtue, its victories are fleeting.

While Cicero makes a point, I believe he speaks with the tongue of a lawyer, not a soldier. "Virtue," as the Greeks conceived it, is a luxury for philosophers and idle dreamers. A Roman's virtue is to command, to conquer, to instill fear in his enemies and respect in his allies. The Republic's preservation is achieved not through justice, but through strength and the willingness to use it. Did I not prove this in my own life?