Download HIS 28 – Part 20

POMPEY AFTER THE PIRATES AND THE
COMING OF CICERO’S YEAR OF GLORY
1. By “the Gabinian Law” (the lex Gabinia) of 67 BC
Gnaeus Pompeius (POMPEY) had received
unprecedented authority and almost limitless resources to
deal with the PIRATE MENACE throughout the
Mediterranean for three years.
2. By dividing the Mediterranean into zones and assigning
each of the ‘deputies’ he had been granted to a zone,
POMPEY had completed the task in three months.
GNAEUS POMPEIUS
(POMPEY) 106 – 45 BC
The way Pompey may have divided up the Mediterranean
3. Pompey’s huge success came just as the war against King
MITHRIDATES in Asia Minor was reaching a critical
stage.
4. Lucius Licinius LUCULLUS had been fighting
MITHRIDATES for eight years.
5. POMPEY’s achievement in so short a time seeded the
idea that a new overall commander in Asia Minor might
bring an end to this seemingly endless conflict with
MITHRIDATES who had, in pursuing his expansionist
ambitions, had so threatened Rome’s interests not only in
the established province of ASIA but also in the newly
acquired kingdom of Bithynia.
MITHRIDATES VI
OF PONTUS
(king about 120 – 63 BC)
PONTUS
BITHYNIA
ASIA
GAIUS MANILIUS and the MANILIAN LAW of 66 BC
Consequently, one of the ‘tribunes of the Plebs’ of 66 BC,
Gaius MANILIUS, took a proposal to the Plebeian
Assembly which became the “Manilian Law” (LEX
MANILIA) without any major problems.
2. It simply transferred the command in Asia Minor from
LUCULLUS to POMPEY.
3. a) There was no need to bestow special imperium on him
since he still held authority from the earlier “Gabinian
Law” of 67.
b) It would not expire until 63 BC.
1.
4. Building on all the work that LUCULLUS in particular
had already done, POMPEY was able to defeat
Mithridates finally and decisively – but not until even he
had been in the field for three years.
5. i) Mithridates arranged his own death - to avoid being
taken prisoner and paraded through the streets of Rome
as part of Pompey’s “triumph”;
ii) he was 71 and had been a thorn in Rome’s side for
decades.
6. During those three years POMPEY’s military activities
were conducted over a wide area and involved, in
addition to conflict with MITHRIDATES and his
immediate allies, war with the Seleucid Kingdom in
SYRIA.
7. At the end POMPEY was able to return to Italy
triumphant at the end of 62 BC having added two very
large and very wealthy new “provinces” to Rome’s
empire:
a) BITHYNIA-et-PONTVS and
b) SYRIA
BITHYNIA-ET-PONTUS
The new
“province”
of SYRIA
added to
the empire
by 63 BC
by POMPEY
8. He expected the SENATE ( perhaps not unreasonably)
i) to recognize formally the work he had done, including
the addition of the new provinces, the redrawing of
many boundaries in the territories of kings in Asia
Minor who had or had not supported Roman interests,
and the foundation of new citizen “colonies” (new
settlements) for fighting men willing to settle in Asia
Minor rather than return to Italy; and
ii) to support the passage of a land bill to provide the
veteran troops who returned with him to Italy with
land which had been promised – their reward for
fighting under his command.
9. a) Pompey had disbanded his troops upon his return.
b) The SENATE, as a body, simply shunned him: it
refused to take any action over either issue!
“Populist” – “Optimate” sparring in the late 60s BC
1.
While Pompey had been away, “populist” – “optimate”
sparring had not been uncommon.
2.
a) Marcus Licinius CRASSUS too had put huge
efforts into trying to win legal power – not least so
that he would not fall behind his rival POMPEY in
prestige.
b) One of his goals was to gain a “special military
command” also.
c) Everything he tried led to failure and frustration!
3. a) All of this jockeying for power is well illustrated by the
events of 63 BC – the year Marcus Tullius CICERO
exercised the consulship – something which made him
very proud since he was a “new man” (novus homo),
the first in his family to reach such heights.
b) It was something he never ceased to talk about.
4. i) As stated, his year as one of the two consuls was a year
when opposing political forces were struggling for
supremacy.
ii) And we know so much about what happened because
Cicero wrote so much – especially about the issues he
had to confront.
MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO
(106 - 43 BC)
THE YEAR OF CICERO’S CONSULSHIP
1.
a) MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO rose to the
consulship in 63 BC and proudly, as a “new man”
(novus homo) [the first in his family to reach the
highest office in the Roman state], founded a new
“noble” line.
b) He had only one son (who led a chequered life but
who went on to some distinction under Augustus) to
carry on the noble tradition.
2. He little knew, as he took office, that the year would in
many senses be a “year of testing” during which several
particular challenges would present themselves.
3. Of particular note were:
a) The failure of the “Rullan Bill”.
b) The trial of Gaius Rabirius.
c) The uncovering of the “Conspiracy of Catiline” and
its aftermath.
4. Each of these shows how intense the struggle had become
in the late 60s between the “optimates” and “populist”
leaders (or those posing as “populists” to achieve their own ends).
THE FAILURE OF THE RULLAN BILL
1.
Cicero began his year as consul by attacking, in the
Senate, a bill proposed by PUBLIUS SERVILIUS
RULLUS, one of “the tribunes of the Plebs” that year.
2. a) Rullus’ bill was also the subject of Cicero’s first address
to the People as consul.
b) In his address he posed as the protector of the citizen
body and said that he would not stand by and see
citizens deceived by unscrupulous men like Rullus.
3. What was it in Rullus’ bill that was so unacceptable to
Cicero?
4.
Rullus proposed:
i) to redistribute what state-owned land (ager publicus)
was left in Italy (apparently not a huge amount now);
ii) to sell off large areas of state-owned land outside Italy;
iii) to use the funds from such sales to buy up privatelyowned land in Italy for redistribution to the poor; and
iv) to establish a “Commission of Ten” (decemviri) to
undertake all the work.
The Commission of Ten
1. The ten men who were to serve on the ‘Commission’
were to be elected by only 17 of the 35 voting “tribes”
– which would, therefore, require a majority of only 9
(of 35).
The ten were to hold their extensive powers for five
years.
2. They were to have massive funding
a) from the sale of the land outside Italy (already mentioned);
b) by imposing a special tax on certain provincial
lands;
c) by reclaiming the balance of any booty which any
military commanders who had been active recently
might still be holding on to;
d) by taking whatever booty they might need from any
current or future military commander during the next
five years;
e) by having the sole right to all income from any new
source during the next five years.
3. a) Even more liberal “optimates” (who were not opposed
to some form of modest land redistribution) appear to
have felt very uncomfortable about what was being
proposed.
b) Cicero said that he himself was not opposed to land
redistribution in principle – only that he could not
support this particular set of proposals.
4. a) He in all made three speeches about the bill – the
address in the Senate and two speeches to the People.
b) We have in full the two delivered before the People,
although the one in the Senate survives only in part.
5. Cicero speaks at length about ‘tribal’ votes being
manipulated for personal ends; about the property of the
Roman People being sold off by ten “kings” for their own
purposes; about corrupt sales of worthless land at fancy
prices; about the state-treasury being drained dry; etc.
6. a) He demonstrates all his skills in rhetoric and, of
course, he is exaggerating, BUT ……………
b) we cannot assume that those behind the bill were
selfless men with only the interests of the poor at heart.
8. a) Do we know who Rullus’ main backers were?
b) No.
c) But we can speculate intelligently.
9. We know that Cicero’s co-consul, Gaius Antonius
HYBRIDA, supported Rullus’ bill.
10. We know that HYBRIDA, when a candidate for the
consulship, had the strong support of Marcus Licinius
CRASSUS and Gaius Julius CAESAR.
11. We know that CRASSUS was falling behind his rival
Gnaeus POMPEIUS (POMPEY) in support and would
stand to gain greatly from Rullus’ bill if he were to be
elected as one of the “Ten Commissioners” (which was
very likely).
12. It is likely that the reference to the “Commissioners”
having access to any future revenues included revenues
from EGYPT - which, it was claimed, an earlier
king had bequeathed to Rome, although Rome’s
acquisition had never been brought to fruition.
13.
a) Plans (in which CRASSUS was involved) had been
developed two years earlier in 65 BC to take control of
Egypt on this argument that one of its kings had,
indeed, bequeathed the kngdom to the ‘Roman Senate
and People’.
b) Nothing came of those plans but they were not
abandoned.
c) The success of Rullus’ bill and the election of
CRASSUS to the “Commission of Ten” would allow
those plans to be revived - and only a majority of the
voters in 9 of the 35 voting “tribes” would have to be
bribed for success if CRASSUS wanted to be elected!
14. Amid much confusion over the bill and under CICERO’s
strong leadership and rhetorical attacks, Rullus’ Bill was
withdrawn and came to nothing.
15. Defeat of the bill can be seen as a significant set-back for
those posing as “populist” leaders.
1.
THE TRIAL OF GAIUS RABIRIUS
Back in 100 BC, 37 years earlier,
a) fighting had broken out in Rome;
b) the Senate had passed the “Final Decree” (the
senatus consultum ultimum) advising the consuls to
use their authority to take whatever means were
necessary to protect the state;
c) two “populist” leaders, Lucius Appuleius
SATURNINUS and Gnaeus Servilius GLAUCIA,
and some of their supporters had been arrested and
locked in the Senate House for safe-keeping by
Gaius MARIUS, their erstwhile ‘partner’, in his
capacity as consul; but
d) a ‘mob’ had pelted them with tiles from the roof of the
building and killed them;
e) one of the ‘mob’ had been Gaius RABIRIUS who was
now put on trial 37 years later for his part in those
events.
2. Everything suggests that the trial was a ‘show-piece’ trial
so that certain issues could be aired.
3. a) A tribune, Titus Labienus (a client of Julius Caesar),
brought the charge – an ancient one (perduellio)
mentioned in the “Twelve Tables” in the 400s BC;
b) The charge was heard before a panel of two: Julius
Caesar and his cousin Lucius.
4.
c) A rigorous defence was mounted by Cicero.
d) Gaius Rabirius was found guilty but appealed to ‘the
People’.
e) Then, before the appeal process was finished, the
proceedings were suddenly abandoned when
someone in authority lowered of a flag on the
Janiculum Hill to indicate that all public business
must come to an end.
What was it all about?
THE MEANING OF THE TRIAL
A measure introduced by GAIUS GRACCHUS had
declared that “no one may pass sentence of death on a
Roman citizen without the explicit authority of the
Roman People”.
2. The killing of Saturninus and Glaucia in 100 BC was
seen as a violation of this law.
3. Their arrest had resulted from the Senate’s passage of
“the Final Decree”.
4. In 63 BC, those in the “populist” ‘camp’, while not
challenging the legality of the “Final Decree of the
Senate”, were, it appears, challenging how far actions
resulting from it could be taken.
1.
5.
The message was that the state, once it had arrested
citizens, had a duty of care to protect them until they
could be brought to trial.
6. The passage of the “Final Decree” was not to be seen as
authorizing the elimination of citizens who had been
arrested.
7. Probably anticipating that 63 BC would not be a good year
for them, “populists” wanted to make it clear that, if any
of them were arrested, they had the right to a proper trial
and could not be eliminated by ‘the authorities’ in an
arbitrary manner.
1.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN 63 BC
a) The “populists”, advocating reform (although
sometimes only to win as much support as possible
for themselves from the general electorate), knew that
they would have an uphill battle during the rest of 63 BC
with Cicero as one of the consuls.
b) They could only hope that 62 BC would be a better
year and that the elections in the middle of 63 might
give the state two reformist consuls for 62 BC;
c) They will, at least, have been buoyed by the electoral
success, against the odds, of GAIUS IULIUS
CAESAR in becoming the “Chief Priest of the State
Religion” (Pontifex Maximus) at the age of 37 – before
he had even held a praetorship.
2. But later in the year, their position was put in great
jeopardy by the uncovering of “the Conspiracy of
CATILINE” (Lucius Sergius CATILINA) by Cicero.
3. The whole affair is fraught with problems and is a matter
of great debate amongst modern analysts.