The Strength of Origins

The Mos Maiorum between History, Ethics, and Military Doctrine. 

The modern relevance of an ancient model

Abstract:

This article provides an in-depth examination of the concept of Mos Maiorum, the complex system of values, unwritten norms, and customs which founded and shaped the social, juridical, and military identity of ancient Rome. The analysis combines a historical perspective with an ethical-doctrinal interpretation, tracing the roots of the Mos Maiorum from its archaic origins, its evolution through the institutional changes of Roman civilization, and the transmission of its essential values—Virtus, Pietas, Fides, Maiestas, and Gravitas—up to the process of Hellenization and the emergence of Humanitas.

The article highlights the central difference between mos and consuetudo, the process of the normativization of the mores, and the related sanctions, emphasizing the role of these values as both the glue and regulatory principle of civic and military community. The central part of the article investigates the relationship between the crisis of values in contemporary society and the rediscovery or critical revision of the mores, offering a reflection on the defense of tradition, the risk of anachronism, and the possibility of updating classical virtues in a modern key.

A dedicated focus is given to the impact of the Mos Maiorum on the military sphere: ethical tradition as an unwritten code within the Armed Forces, the educational and symbolic value of the Italian Oath, and the ways in which the mores inform both ethical leadership and military command practices. 

This article, addressed to scholars, educators, and defense professionals, argues that the persistence and reworking of Mos Maiorum values can still today provide a robust model for the formation of responsible citizenship, institutional cohesion, and the growth of ethical leadership, capable of facing the challenges of the contemporary world with deep roots—especially in the fields of doctrine and military identity.

Introduction

By the term Mos Maiorum, the Romans meant the set of values and unwritten norms that constituted their national identity. At the base of Latin civilization, there was no sacred book as among the Hebrews, nor an epic text as in Greece[1]; instead, there was a series of customs and behavioral models to be imitated, transmitted directly by the maiores—the ancestors considered “greater” both in moral and ethical terms.
The term mos, although often simplistically translated as “custom,” actually has a much broader and deeper meaning, rich in ideal and pragmatic value. Suffice it to say that the Italian word “morale[2]” comes from the plural mores.

A fundamental principle of the Mos Maiorum was the absolute preeminence of the State over the individual citizen, who always had to put the collective interest above their own. The figure of the bonus, the virtuous person or man of honor, was distinguished not so much by personal qualities but because, through these, he contributed extraordinarily to the defense of the State, the well-being of the citizens, and the prestige of Rome.

1. ROOTS OF THE MOS MAIORUM AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

1.1 Historical Background

Originally, already from the 10th century BC, the sources of the mores were nothing other than the behaviors of the patres, considered founders of what would later become the familiae[3], the gentes[4]. These unwritten laws regulated society and the life of the Roman citizen even before the drafting of the Twelve Tables[5], based on orality and memory, deriving their auctoritas from repeated application over time. During this phase, the mores were guarded, administered, and interpreted by the priests.

Sextus Pomponius, in his De origine iuris[6], hypothesized that during the regal era most of the mores would have converged into the body of norms called leges regiae: “At the beginning of our city, the people, without a stable law and without certain rights, decided to act; everything was governed by the kings with their power.”

In that era, therefore, not only the priests but also the rex and the pontifices maximi were custodians of the mores, with the duty of interpreting and revealing them. Only in the Republican era[7], under strong pressure from the plebeians, was the law of the Twelve Tables enacted in 450 BC, a compilation of the mores in force up until then. The interpretation of these rules remained, however, in the hands of the pontiffs.

With the Imperial era[8], as Roman law became stronger and more codified, the role of the mores was progressively diminished, so much so that, according to the jurist Julian, the mores had to be followed only in the absence of contrary laws, and were thus reduced to prevailing almost exclusively in pagan religious rites, losing nearly all their legal relevance.

1.2 Difference between Mos and Consuetudo

Before examining and describing the values of Romanitas, it is essential to underline a crucial distinction to understand the civil and ethical importance of the mores: the substantial difference between mos and consuetudo.
Until recently, Roman law studies tended to consider the two terms as synonyms. However, in recent years—and thanks to a more in-depth examination of the sources—some significant differences have been recognized.

The mores can be defined as customs and practices revealed and promoted through the intervention of the priests, with the aim of pursuing the good of the entire community. Precisely for this reason, the mores were attributed a juridical and religious character of sanctity.

On the other hand, the consuetudo (or consuetudines in plural) consists of habits and customs followed by the people out of routine. These customs do not have a sacred character and are not sanctioned or revealed by any authority: they are simply behaviors lacking the ancestral factor, without authoritative components and, above all, without the purpose of collective good.

This distinction allows us to understand how the mores, in the Roman world, were not only simple social habits, but real regulatory principles of coexistence that deeply shaped the moral and civic structure of the community.

1.3 The Main Values

The Mos Maiorum was based on five essential values:

• Virtus
• Pietas
• Fides
• Maiestas
• Gravitas

With Hellenization[9], Humanitas was later included among these.

Virtus referred to personal courage, both physical and moral strength, the ability to stand out in battle, confidence in one’s own abilities, and the fate of the Roman State, combined with reverent fear toward the gods and respect for the laws. Virtus was to be exercised not for personal gain, but for the good of the community.

The concept of Pietas is more difficult to define: it included duty, religious devotion, justice, filial love, affection, and faithfulness. The meaning of “compassion” acquired in modern language is secondary compared to the original Roman value.

Fides was the oldest and most honored virtue in Rome, whose cult was established by Numa Pompilius and later restored by the emperors as fides militum, or “the loyalty of the soldiers.” Its core meaning is loyalty and fidelity to one’s word.

Maiestas represented the State as a direct expression of the people: first through republican institutions, later via the figure of the Emperor. It conveyed the sense of greatness, belonging, pride in being Roman, and superiority over conquered peoples.

Gravitas referred to all those qualities considered essential for the ideal Roman citizen: seriousness, composure, dignity, and self-control.

Humanitas, a concept and word introduced through contact with Greek culture—according to Terence[10]—meant the willingness to understand the reasons of others, to feel the pain of others as one’s own, to regard a man not as an enemy but as another human being to comprehend and help.

As Renato Oniga[11] emphasized: “The essence of Roman humanitas precisely lies in being the other face of a precisely ordered and strict set of values, integral to the code of conduct of the Roman citizen from the origins. The idea of humanitas encapsulated them all, but at the same time softened them, making them less rigid and more universal.”

1.4 Secondary Values

In addition to the main values already outlined, over time the authorities—emperors, priests—established further values to be pursued, aimed at making the homeland better. These values were selected both in reference to previous tradition and in response to contemporary needs, adapting and modeling them according to the reality of the civitas[12].

Among the main secondary values are:

• Amicitia: not simply in the modern sense of “friendship,” but also as an alliance or bond of respect toward other peoples.
• Ambitiosa morte: the value attributed to suicide, considered preferable to a life without dignity.
• Abstinentia: especially in relation to public administration, denotes honesty and moral integrity.
• Auctoritas: expresses credibility, charisma, and personal responsibility.
• Clementia: the ability, for those in power, not to be dominated by anger or vengeance.
• Constantia: firmness, tenacity, mental strength, consistency.
• Decorum: decorum, decency.
• Disciplina: discipline, education and training, both civic and military, of the citizen.
• Exemplum: the duty to imitate and multiply a glorious action accomplished by an ancestor; the importance of example.
• Honor: the centrality of honor itself as a guiding value.
• Magnitudo animi: greatness of spirit, magnanimity.
• Nobilitas: in an abstract sense, representing the aspiration to be worthy of the greatness and virtues of one’s ancestors.

Ancient scholars and jurists would often draw up genuine lists of such values, to be possessed in order to be considered bonus civis—the model citizen—so as to provide concrete examples to fellow citizens.

1.5 Sanctions for Non-Observance

As seen, at least until the full maturation of Roman law, the mores were considered true principles of enforceable law within the civitas. To violate these “norms,” which derived their auctoritas from patriarchal lineage, meant at the same time to break the civil order and to commit a religious crime.

Violations of the mores could produce different effects, depending on the gravity of the transgression. Consequences ranged from measures similar to infamy or ignominy up to the death penalty and even damnatio memoriae, i.e., the deliberate erasure of all public memory (portraits, inscriptions, historical remembrance) of the condemned.

It is worth noting that every decision concerning the violation of the mores constituted a genuine judicial precedent, capable of influencing future evaluations of similar cases.

2. THE MOS MAIORUM “IN” AND “OF” MODERN SOCIETY

The first crisis that led to the fall of the Roman Empire was principally a crisis of morals, already evident after the conquest of Carthage: the so-called “price of the Empire[13]”. Similarly, today we are experiencing a crisis of values which, at least since the end of World War II, has led to a progressive depreciation of the foundational principles of society. The other crises—political, religious, even the current economic one—are all connected to this original crisis of values, customs, and practices: Rousseau[14] warned of this centuries ago, describing them as “the most sacred laws of a people.”

Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman[15] has described contemporary society as “liquid,” a term that has now become common usage. But what, exactly, is a liquid society?

With the disappearance of the idea of community, rampant individualism emerges: no one is a fellow traveler anymore, but an adversary. This subjectivism undermines the foundations of modernity and renders it fragile. In the absence of true points of reference, everything dissolves in a sort of liquidity. Certainty of law is lost, leaving only the need to appear at all costs, and consumerism. This consumerism is no longer even aimed at acquiring lasting objects, but instead makes each object of desire quickly obsolete, causing the individual to move from one consumption to the next in a kind of “aimless bulimia.”

Liquid modernity, as Bauman observes, is “the belief that change is the only permanent feature and that uncertainty is the only certainty.” As a result, we are witnessing a rapid—and not so slow—erosion of values, even those until a few decades ago considered the foundation of a just society. This phenomenon is transversal and affects all institutions, creating a true vacatio[16], a lack of strong references.

This state is felt, but is often also exploited, especially by younger generations who have replaced the examples of the Patres with the pursuit of ephemeral values, convinced that these can lead to self-realization and a sense of belonging. Social networks further reinforce this trend, presenting misleading role models and a reality far removed from the ideals of the Latin Mores and even from the postmodern concept of society, thus opening the chapter of the “society of excess”.

In this new society, “too much” has become the norm and the sense of measure something archaic. Quantity replaces quality. Traditional values, emptied of their content, leave space for sheer accumulation and consumption.

On these grounds, two opposing lines of thought emerge:

• on one side, those who hope for a return to the Mores as an ethical backbone for a lost society;
• on the other, those who see these values solely as relics of the past, inadequate for the speed and requirements of the modern world, wishing to cut all ties with tradition.

2.1 In Defense of the Mores

As already mentioned, one vision of the Mos Maiorum holds that an ethical return to the origins can restore society and the State to their former glory. In this view, the people represent the main component of the State: they can support their leaders, aid their projects, acclaim them, but also protest and strip them of credibility or power. However, the community needs to be governed and guided by those capable of conveying security and stability.

The primary duty of the government, through its institutions, is not only to defend borders or protect the population who entrusted them with authority: authorities must safeguard the culture, customs, and traditions of the nation, so that these may be passed on to future generations. An aware citizen ought to know, appreciate, and defend the culture from which their Homeland originated, recognizing and admiring the accomplishments that rendered the Country a protagonist in the political, cultural, and artistic spheres.

Most Latin historiography defends the traditional values embodied by the Mos Maiorum, opposing change and renewal, and highlighting the need not to forget the roots of identity. At a time when the principles of culture, art, and foundational national values are often sidelined, it is even more essential to know, study, and conserve that doctrinal heritage which brought Rome to the center of the European stage.

According to this view, without the continual knowledge and transmission of memory, the testimonies of a civilization risk being buried in darkness. It is thus the duty of every bonus civis - the good citizen - to revive these values, remembering and transmitting them, not as relics but as examples to be contemplated, studied, and imitated.

Although the goal is noble, this vision may appear too idealistic or difficult to achieve, especially given the political and social complexity of the modern world. Nevertheless, for many, the defense and valorization of the mores remains an ethical bulwark in contemporary society.

2.2 The Anachronism of Tradition

The vision opposed to the one just described, instead, pushes for a definitive severing of the umbilical cord with the past, considered too anachronistic and “old” for today’s needs. According to this viewpoint, modern man’s actions are weighed down by values, uses, and customs belonging to distant times, which still persist in the collective memory.

For many, tradition is a pleasant memory, a ritual repetition of gestures and values not to be lost, or a last-ditch attempt to maintain habits that, in present society, may no longer be genuinely valid. Tradition is thus seen as a meta-historical phenomenon: a projection of the past perpetuated in the present through faithful and unvaried observance.

Yet, this approach can be limiting. In many cases, traditions—religious, cultural, or civic—are now outdated compared to new scientific and moral knowledge developed by society. Still, they are maintained almost exclusively by habit, even when they are remote from contemporary reality.

Why, then, should modern man still be interested in these ancient traditions? The knowledge and practice of what is familiar can bring security, as what is known can be controlled and predicted—what is performed correctly is believed not to fail. From here arises the comforting value of tradition: it guarantees stability in a world continuously changing and full of uncertainties.

To know that certain values have been seen as “immortal” for centuries can bring comfort, but not all that has long been followed is still relevant: often, these traditional garments become too tight, no longer fit for a society that is continually growing and changing. Hence, today we stand at a crossroads: either forcefully tear off the garments of tradition as we grow, facing all the ethical and social consequences, or more rationally build and wear new ones fitting for the adopted way of life.

In this vision, break with the past is clear. Tradition gives way to building an ethic and a society more coherent with current needs and values. However, a fundamental question remains: can a society in the midst of a value crisis generate others—different, but equally virtuous? And are we really aware of the kind of lifestyle we lead? 

Are we ready to answer such questions?

2.3 The Third Way

To return to the glories of the Mos Maiorum, or risk no future. 

To abandon old, anachronistic traditions, or again, risk no future. 

Which way should we go?

It does not have to be an exclusive choice. There can be a third path: to find a way that reconciles tradition with the needs of modern life, while at the same time autonomously forging forward. 

As the Romans themselves summarized: in medio stat virtus—virtue lies in the middle.

How can values from more than two thousand years ago be adapted to modern society? It may seem a tough challenge, but, perhaps, it is not so impossible. If suitably revised, many—if not all—of the Latin mores can still be found in everyday life. Values such as respect for laws, the sense of duty, filial love, loyalty, pride, are all principles permeating society in its various aspects. The same goes for the so-called “secondary” values: honor, friendship, honesty, consistency, the importance of example, and the ambition to be better. All of these can still be found in social interactions and even in both public and private legal models.

Given this, rather than hoping to return to the past or wholly abandoning our heritage, it would be advisable for the State, its representatives, and institutions—and also for each citizen—to focus their energies on keeping the mores alive, adapting them to modern times. Although present society can never be equated or compared to the Latin civitas, it is undeniable that both civilizations are still sustained by the same “old” pillars that endured through centuries.

The primary task lies with the State and its Institutions, but each citizen, in their own small way, can and must cultivate and transmit these values to future generations, like a modern pontifex, thus contributing to the common good. Therefore, there is an alternative—a solution that, while recognizing diverse lifestyles, habits, customs, modes, and parameters, can still provide a sure reference, a beacon, a guide, a goal that stands unshaken over time.

Probably, even the ancient maiores would appreciate such a capacity for mediation and adaptation.

3. MOS MAIORUM AND THE MILITARY CONDITION

We have seen how the mores still represent the ethical foundation of any just society. It is the duty of every citizen, as well as the Institutions, to preserve their meaning, importance, and pass down their legacy to future generations.

In the military context, these values take on a particular weight and significance. They can be considered the backbone of the Military Institution and the Armed Forces.

What distinguishes the Armed Forces from other areas of public service is, first and foremost, tradition. Brigades, fleets, and air wings are custodians of myths, symbols, and customs that outlast political changes, reforms, and historical shifts. The myths of heroes, martyrs, collective or individual feats, military ceremonies, and the sacredness of symbols such as the Flag and uniform go far beyond written rules, drawing strength from a collective and shared ethical heritage.

Conforming to the tradition of a Service, Corps, or Unit is not simply a psychological conditioning but a conscious act that preserves the ethical principles on which military life is based. Thus, tradition itself becomes an authentic ethical principle, an internal code of conduct that guides choices and actions, often more binding than any written regulation.

Before examining in detail the various forms of ethics in the military domain, it is necessary to pause on a crucial concept: military ethics. In addition to technical-operational and juridical-administrative aspects, ethics is an indispensable pillar of military governance and life. The importance of ethics grows given that this is an organization where the stakes are often life itself, sacrificed for a greater good.

Military ethics has several dimensions, among which:

• Political ethics: concerning the safeguarding of the Republic’s fundamental institutions, the defense of the homeland, loyalty to the Republic, and democratic spirit—central to the military Oath as well.
• Organizational ethics: here, the identity and values of the Corps or Branch are foundational to the Institution. Command is not mere hierarchical imposition but an opportunity for growth for all personnel, emphasizing mature subordination and obedience.
• Service ethics: this involves total dedication, the spirit of sacrifice, loyalty, and sense of duty, all qualities necessary in the bonus miles, the model soldier.
• Individual ethics: referring to values relevant to the individual as a person, both during service and private life. The soldier does not only represent themselves but also the Institution they belong to.

A more detailed analysis of the forms that military ethics has assumed in the history and life of the Armed Forces reveals the continued centrality of the Mos Maiorum values. Many of these have remained largely unchanged for over two millennia, continuing to provide a reference point and backbone to one of the most important institutions of the State.

3.1 Military Ethics in History

As in every society, military ethics has formed through layers of culture, tradition, and society, consolidated over the centuries. Military ethics is reflected not only in written regulations and institutional goals, but also in command relations, service dynamics, and interpersonal relationships.

Throughout history, military ethics has often represented a moral brake on the violence of war, distinguishing the value of human conduct even under extreme conditions. In Europe, four major models of military ethics can be identified, each corresponding to different eras and societies:

• Greco-Roman culture: within this extensive period, three ethical models can be distinguished. Heroic ethics revolved around the figure of the hero, who distinguished himself by his qualities and deeds, celebrated in epic poems and serving as an eternal model of behavior. Then, in political ethics, the focus was on the hoplite: the armed citizen, an active participant in the life of the polis. Individualism was set aside for cohesion, the collective good prevailing over the personal. Finally, the ethics of discipline fully manifested in the figure of the Roman legionary, where discipline became the soul and strategic strength of the entire army, regulating daily life, combat, and organization.
• Medieval culture: the medieval world also saw the alternation of different military ethics. The ethics of individual virtues, accentuated by Christian influence, centered on the knight, who fused heroism and nobility of spirit with the defense of the weak and acts of charity. Alongside this model, utilitarian ethics developed, embodied by the mercenary, whose loyalty was more tied to payment than to any oath to a lord or state. With the emergence of national armies, the ethics of loyalty was established, where soldiers swore allegiance to their king—a bond considered sacred, the violation of which often resulted in severe punishment.
• Ethics in the modern era: with the birth of nation-states and the progressive secularization of roles, the ethics of love for the homeland emerged. The king was progressively replaced by the homeland: the loyalty and sacrifice of the soldier now directed at a superior national and collective ideal, fueling the drive for national unity and defense of the common good, even to the extreme sacrifice.
• Contemporary ethics: today, military ethics is characterized by strong technological specialization, adaptability, and significant socio-political importance. The ethics of responsibility becomes central, embodied in the professional soldier. The security and freedom of the homeland now extend to the international sphere, constantly interacting with principles such as continuous training, the social impact of missions, and awareness of the moral and civilian consequences of one’s actions.

In summary, the concept of military ethics has traversed the centuries, evolving alongside society, adapting and reinterpreting the founding values of the Mos Maiorum, which remain the basis for the sense of duty, discipline, and sacrifice required of those serving in the Armed Forces.

3.2 The Italian Formula of the Oath

The Oath is a personal and solemn bond that commits anyone who enters State service; in the case of military personnel, it assumes a crucial role in the acquisition of military status. This obligation is also enshrined in the Military Code, recognized as a fundamental condition for formal acquisition of military status.

The oath is not just a formality: it is an ethical act, binding the future soldier to the Italian Republic, committing them, publicly and with discipline, to obeying the law and defending the State. The formula is as follows:

“I swear to be faithful to the Italian Republic, to observe its Constitution and laws, and to fulfill with discipline and honor all the duties of my position for the defense of the Homeland and the safeguarding of the free Institutions.”

A close analysis of the oath formula reveals many of the founding values of the Mos Maiorum:

• The word “swear” contains fides (loyalty and keeping one's word).
• “To be faithful” refers to pietas towards the homeland and the community.
• Commitment to “observe the Constitution and the laws” embodies virtus, respect for laws and civic duties.
• “To fulfill with discipline and honor” encompasses gravitas (seriousness, dignity, civil and military discipline), honor (public and personal honor), nobilitas (aspiration to dignity), and abstinentia (honesty and moral integrity).
• Finally, “defense of the Homeland and safeguarding of the free Institutions” contains maiestas (sense of national belonging and pride), not limited to geographical boundaries but also as the domain of moral, social, and emotional experience.

All these values, already central in the Mos Maiorum, still endure within military and state systems, surviving through ritual and the strong bond between the one who promises and the community to whom the promise is directed. In the Oath alone, almost all the primary and secondary values of Roman culture can be found, demonstrating their relevance and ethical strength even after centuries.

3.3 The Mores in the Concept of Ethical Leadership

Ethical leadership can be defined as “the ability to demonstrate, through behaviors and interpersonal relationships, conduct in keeping with high moral principles, promoting these standards within the organization through communication, continuous reinforcement, and coherent decisions[17]”.

This materializes in the attention to enacted behaviors, honesty, trust between leader and collaborators, and correctness in relationships. Unlike traditional leadership models based on command and control, the ethical leader takes responsibility for upholding high moral standards, acting for the benefit of the Institution and its members.

Ethical leaders are people-oriented and conscious of the impact their decisions have on others. They use their authority to serve the common good, avoiding self-interest. In this way, they help create a positive organizational culture—a true “win-win[18]” model between individual and institution.

Ethical leadership is, in essence, the set of principles that guide a person’s behavior at work and in decision-making: it simply means “doing the right thing.” Honesty, justice, respect, a sense of community, and integrity are the pillars that guide the ethical leader in both daily decision-making and actions. A good ethical leader does not simply lead their unit or command toward set objectives, but strives to create a virtuous environment through example, consistency, and steady commitment—inside and outside the workplace.

Among the benefits of ethical leadership are:

• Creating a positive culture: ethical leaders inspire staff by example, strengthening the sense of belonging.
• Preventing scandals: transparency and respect for legality avoid the risk of misconduct damaging the institution's reputation.
• Increasing reputation and trust: an environment grounded in ethical principles attracts public approval and boosts collaborator motivation.
• Reinforcing internal loyalty: those who feel guided with integrity and respect tend to offer maximum contribution for the common good.
• General well-being: ethical leadership reduces stress and conflict, fostering clear communication and a healthier workplace.

Authoritative studies[19] have shown that trust between leader and collaborators is explained over 60% by the perceived level of ethical leadership. This reflects how the values promoted by the Mos Maiorum—honesty, trust, loyalty, humanity, the importance of example and of the common good—are still essential for the smooth functioning of any organization, particularly the military.

In conclusion, leadership inspired by the mores provides benefits beyond the institution itself, creating an environment of personal and professional growth for all involved.

3.4 The Mores in the Concept of Command

We have seen how ethics, in the military environment, takes on unique and significant characteristics. Alongside regulations and formal rules, these systems of conduct have long characterized the Armed Forces and Police Forces, becoming a true heritage of identity. 

Command ethics is based on values such as example, humility, personal motivation, and silent work, as opposed to all forms of showmanship or individualism. The Commander must “lead by example,” showing coherence and a spirit of service.

Military leadership today requires, more than ever, Commanders capable of involving their collaborators and obtaining the best results from each, focusing on professional training and—above all—attention to personal and emotional aspects. Managing resources is not enough: the key to success lies in empathy, listening, and understanding the specific needs of each individual.

Being able to listen is essential in two ways:

• on the one hand, to improve decision quality by accepting diverse perspectives and useful information.
• on the other, to really know one's collaborators: without dialogue, trust cannot be built, nor a truly cohesive and motivated group.

Such attentiveness helps make units more harmonious, inclusive, and efficient. The ultimate goal of command is precisely this: to create the conditions for serene and productive collaboration, fostering ethically correct and aware behaviors, knowing that, to obtain respect and dedication, one must first “give” through example and care for the other’s needs.

Today, we do not need “notary” Commanders, concerned only with registering and judging, but leaders who know how to inspire, involve, and foster the growth of every soldier, both professionally and personally.

Again, the values of the Mos Maiorum are central:

• Humanitas, as the will to understand and support others;
• Fides militum, or loyalty among peers and towards superiors;
• Gravitas, seriousness and dignity in leadership;
• Abstinentia, moral integrity and honesty;
• Auctoritas, charisma and credibility gained by acting consistently;
• Constantia, consistency and tenacity in decisions;
• Exemplum, the importance of providing a behavioral model.

In conclusion, the mission of the Commander is not mere bureaucratic management nor the pursuit of personal advantage, but the pursuit of the human and professional growth of collaborators and the collective well-being of the Institution and the Homeland. Only thus can command, ethics, and mores still meet, today as in the past.

Conclusions

In a society ever more divided between “being” and “appearing,” where the illusion of appearance and the pursuit of ephemeral well-being dominate, a profound “hunger for ethics” emerges. It is a genuine human need, prompting a rediscovery and reevaluation of those values often underestimated or forgotten.

And yet, on closer inspection, it is precisely those once-despised ancient values that continue to form the backbone of our contemporary society. The modern person may have neglected them for more fleeting ideals, but such values still persist, often in ordinary and subtle ways, in all facets of everyday life.

This prompts a fundamental question: can values so ancient and apparently distant in time still inspire, guide, and shape today’s society and that of the future? The purpose of this article has been to show, even if only as a point of reflection, that the answer may indeed be “yes.”

"Ne quid vir bonus sit disputando consumis. Fit unus ex illis"

“Do not waste time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

– Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus –

[1] One might think of Homer’s Odyssey or Virgil’s Aeneid

[2] In English: Morality. A set of principles or values that distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, guiding how individuals or societies ought to act

[3] Familiae (singular: familia) in ancient Rome referred to the extended family unit, including not only the nuclear family (parents and children), but also slaves, freedmen, and other dependents under the authority of the paterfamilias

[4] Gens (plural: gentes) indicated a wider kinship group or clan, encompassing several familiae who claimed descent from a common ancestor and shared the same nomen (family name). The gens represented a social and legal unit that played an important role in Roman political, religious, and social life

[5] The Law of the Twelve Tables: the earliest codification of Roman law, compiled in the mid-5th century BCE. These twelve bronze tablets set out the basic rights, duties, and legal procedures for Roman citizens, forming the foundation of Roman legal tradition.

[6] A significant legal treatise from ancient Rome, preserved as part of Justinian’s Digest. In this work, Pomponius outlines the origins and historical development of Roman law, describing how legal norms (leges, mores, consuetudines) were established and evolved over time—from the earliest customs and royal laws (leges regiae), through the Republic and into the Empire. Pomponius’ text is a foundational source for understanding the structure, sources, and historical stratification of Roman legal tradition

[7]Refers to the period in Roman history between the end of the monarchy and the beginning of the Empire, traditionally dated from 509 BC to 27 BC

[8] Refers to the period in Roman history that began with the establishment of the Principate under Augustus in 27 BC and ended with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD

[9] In the context of Roman history, Hellenization describes the gradual integration and adaptation of Greek elements—such as art, education, philosophy, religion, and literature—into Roman society, especially from the 3rd to the 1st Century BC. This process profoundly influenced Roman cultural, intellectual, and social life, shaping the development of Roman values and institutions

[10] In Latin, Publius Terentius; ca. 195/185–159 BC, a Roman playwright. He is known for his refined comedies, which adapted Greek theatrical models for Roman audiences and became classics of Latin literature. Terence’s works are noteworthy for their sophisticated character development, exploration of human nature, and promotion of the value of humanitas: a concept that had a lasting impact on Roman ethical thought

[11] A distinguished Italian classicist and scholar of Latin language and literature. He is especially known for his research on Roman thought, culture, and the concept of humanitas. His works—such as “L’idea latina di humanitas”—are widely referenced in the field of classical philology and provide authoritative insight for modern academic discussion on ancient Roman values

[12] A Latin term referring to the collective body of citizens in a state, as well as the legal status and rights associated with Roman citizenship

[13] The price of empire: refers to the moral and ethical decline experienced in Roman society following the expansion of the empire, marked by growing materialism, loss of traditional virtues, increased corruption, and the erosion of civic responsibility

[14] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was a Swiss-born philosopher, writer, and influential figure of the Enlightenment. Rousseau argued for the inherent goodness of humanity, the social origins of inequality, and the importance of direct participation and civic virtue in public life. He frequently emphasized the foundational role of customs, traditions, and "the most sacred laws of a people" (les plus sacrées des lois d’un peuple) for social cohesion and moral development. Rousseau’s ideas have had a lasting impact on political philosophy, the notion of citizenship, and debates about tradition and modernity

[15] Zygmunt Bauman (1925–2017) was a Polish sociologist, philosopher, and one of the preeminent social theorists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. He is best known for developing the concept of "liquid modernity," which describes the contemporary condition of rapid change, uncertainty, and the weakening of traditional social ties and structures

[16] Vacatio is a Latin term meaning "a period of exemption," "absence," or "vacancy." In modern academic and sociological usage, vacatio can denote a state of absence, emptiness, or lack—such as a lack of clear values, rules, or leadership—within a society or institution

[17] Brown et al. - “Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing” (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2005). Brown et al.’s research provided key theoretical and empirical foundations for understanding how ethical leaders influence organizational culture, follower behavior, and the development of trust and integrity within institutions.

[18] Win-win is a term used to describe agreements, situations, or strategies in which all parties involved benefit or achieve positive outcomes. In organizational and leadership contexts, a “win-win” approach emphasizes collaboration, mutual respect, and solutions that satisfy the interests and needs of everyone, rather than creating winners and losers. This philosophy promotes sustainable relationships, trust, and long-term value within teams, organizations, and negotiations

[19] S. B. Craig & S. B. Gustafson, “Perceived Leader Integrity Scale: An Instrument for Assessing Employee Perceptions of Integrity in Leaders,” The Leadership Quarterly 9, n. 2 (1998): 127–145