Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
THE WAR BETWEEN ROME AND ITS ITALIAN ALLIES (THE “SOCIAL WAR”) Between 91 and 88 BC the Roman state was at war with about half of its allies in Italy (the socii) in what is known as “the Social War”. THE BACKGROUND 1. Many of Rome’s independent allies in Italy had long been dissatisfied about their relationship with Rome – not least because they had contributed more fighting men to armies winning an empire for the Roman state than Rome itself but had acquired few lasting rewards for their efforts. 2. a) Proposals to offer Roman citizenship to the Italian allies (which seems to have been what many of them wanted) appear intermittently in our sketchy resources. b) We noted before, for example, how GAIUS GRACCHUS seems to have made such a proposal (but, apparently, had withdrawn it) during one of the two years he held a ‘tribuneship of the Plebs’ (123 and 122 BC). 3. In the decade of conservatism that followed Gaius Gracchus’ death and, again, in the similar decade of the 90s that followed the deaths of SATURNINUS and GLAUCIA (after their confinement in the Senate House) in 100 BC, allies in Italy hoping for an extension of Roman citizenship must have become more and more frustrated. 4. Matters became very tense again in the late 90s: a) The consuls of 95 BC set up a commission to investigate those (including, perhaps, ‘Italians’) who had managed (illegally) to have their names registered as Roman citizens in the census of 96 BC. b) In 91 BC controversial legislation and proposals were introduced by the ‘tribune of the Plebs’ MARCUS LIVIUS DRUSUS, son of the tribune who had opposed Gaius Gracchus. 5. LIVIUS DRUSUS aimed: a) to double the size of the SENATE by promoting 300 ‘equestrians’ to senatorial rank; b) to transfer control of the ‘jury courts’ to senators and draw jurors from the enlarged Senate; c) to provide subsidized grain to citizens in the city of Rome; d) to give land in the form of allotments and in newly established ‘colonies’ to citizens; and e) to extend Roman citizenship to the allies in Italy. 6. i) Some proposals did pass into legislation but were soon overturned and Drusus himself was assassinated before he could introduce his other measures, including the one to extend Roman citizenship. ii) His measures (combined) had pleased none of the groups he was trying to win over. 7. With their hopes shattered of achieving an extension of rights by constitutional means, some of Rome’s allies in Italy determined that they must force the issue. THE ‘SOCIAL WAR’ 1. a) At the very end of 91 BC about half of Rome’s allies in Italy rebelled collectively against their treaties with Rome. b) The remainder remained loyal to Rome either because they saw the advantages of continuing as Roman allies or because they wanted to wait to see how things unfolded. 2. How the ‘rebels’ were able to get together to develop their strategy (given that many of them were restricted by their treaties from having close relations with one another) is not clear, but they did rise up en masse and, apparently, took the Roman state by surprise. 3. While some of the allies, especially SAMNITES, may have been seeking total separation from Rome, a large majority of those who rebelled appear to have been seeking total INCORPORATION into the Roman state and nothing would satisfy them short of FULL ROMAN CITIZENSHIP including the right to vote. 4. The rebel states decided that, if they could not be incorporated into the Roman state, they would create a federated state of their own. 5. The new state would be named “ITALIA”. 6. a) The freeborn residents of each state participating in ITALIA would enjoy a common citizenship. b) The new state’s capital would be CORFINIUM (perhaps, itself, renamed ‘Italia’). c) Constitutionally the new state would resemble Rome: i) there would be a Senate of about 300; ii) two “consuls” (or their equivalent) would head the state annually. CORFINIUM ROME 7. For purposes of defeating Rome through warfare the forces in rebellion against Rome (and most of them would have had wide experience fighting alongside Roman forces in the past) would be divided into two contingents: i) the “MARSIC Group”; and ii) the “SAMNITE Group”. A. The “Marsic Group” (the more northerly) comprised: the MARSI the PAELIGNI the VESTINI the MARRUCINI the PICENTES the FRENTANI The forces of the norther, ‘Marsic’ group were led by the ‘consul’ (of Italia) Quintus Poddaedius SILO. B. The “Samnite Group” (the more southerly) comprised: the HIRPINI the city-state of POMPEII the LUCANIANS the SAMNITES the IAPYGII VENUSIA – the only “Latin Colony” to rebel. The forces of this southern, “Samnite” group were led by the ‘consul’ Gaius Papius MUTILUS. 8. The new state existed long enough to issue its own coins. YELLOW = THE ROMAN STATE RED underlined tribal names = “The Marsic Group”: Marsi, Paeligni, Vestini, Marrucini, Picentes The CAPITAL of the new “Federation” (with a common Citizenship) was CORFINIUM (renamed “ITALIA”) GREEN underlined tribal names = “The Samnite Group”: Hirpini, Samnites, POMPEII, Lucanians, Iapygii, ‘Latin Colony’ of VENUSIA COINS OF THE ITALIAN FEDERAL STATE OF “ITALIA” The “Italian” BULL goring the Roman wolf (with lettering in OSCAN) ITALIA A warrior (possibly ‘Marsic’) Representatives of the ‘rebel’ states ITALIA and THE SIGNING OF “THE PACT” (by representatives of the rebel states and tribes) 9. The Roman state, in addition to taking military action of a defensive nature, quickly put serious effort into trying to persuade those states which had not yet rebelled to refrain from doing so. 10. a) In the north the war, in practical terms, was put in the hands of the Roman consul Publius Rutilius Lupus – who would be advised by two men with military experience: Pompeius STRABO (the father of Pompey) and Gaius MARIUS (back from exile). b) In the south, the war was put in the hands of the Roman consul, Lucius Iulius CAESAR (a cousin of Julius Caesar) – who would be advised by Titus Didius and Lucius Cornelius SULLA (who had played the vital role in capturing Jugurtha in North Africa in 105 BC). 11. Lucius Iulius CAESAR was instrumental too in introducing very important legislation which quickly undermined the hopes of the rebels that more states might join them. 12. Realizing at last that the allies had contributed much to the successes of the Roman state in its acquisition of an empire, a majority of Roman leaders in the autumn of 90 BC threw their support behind a bill introduced by Lucius Iulius Caesar, which would become the LEX IULIA (“the Julian Law”). 13. It offered full Roman citizenship to any allied community in Italy which had not joined the rebellion and to those who had rebelled as long as they laid down their arms before a given date. 14. a) Since it was offered to ‘communities’, each allied state had to pass, locally, the necessary measures for this offer to take effect. b) While this took time, it appears that all those allies which had not rebelled accepted the offer and became ‘Romans’. c) It is not clear how many of those communities that had rebelled accepted too. 15. a) At least some of the rebels fought on vigorously during 89 BC, CORFINIUM [the rebels’ capital] being taken by Rome that year. b) In fact Samnite forces fought on until 87 BC. c) But, while a major fright for the Roman state, the war was brief in comparative terms. 14. The details are a little murky, but further legislation appears to have followed “the Julian Law” of late 90 BC: a) In 89 BC two ‘tribunes of the Plebs’, M. Plautius Silvanus and C. Papirius Carbo, passed another law (the LEX PLAUTIA PAPIRIA) extending Roman citizenship to any freeborn member of an allied state who presented himself to a Roman praetor within 60 days to be registered. b) And one of the consuls of the year 89 BC, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo (who had been a military adviser to the commander in the north in 90 BC) introduced a measure giving citizenship in Cisalpine Gaul [the area north of the Apennines] to those living south of the River Po and “Latin Rights” to those living north of the river. north of the Po: “LATIN RIGHTS” RIVER PO CISALPINE GAUL south of the Po: ROMAN CITIZENS THE PO THE CONSEQUENCES OF “THE SOCIAL WAR” 1. While the states of Italy lost their “independence” and became constituent communities within the Roman state, there may not have been significant changes at the local level. 2. a) i) Rome did not have the personnel, the resources or the desire to interfere in the domestic affairs of what were now mostly Roman “municipalities” (municipia). ii) Formally Roman law now replaced local law, but there may not have been huge changes in practice. b) The “Italians” had not paid direct taxes to Rome; they had provided fighting men. The only change would be that new citizens could now volunteer to serve in Roman fighting units. 3. To exercise the vote which had just been granted to them the new citizens would have to be registered on the Roman electoral rolls and assigned to an existing voting “tribe” (constituency). [Rome did not increase the number of “tribes”. It remained at 35] 4. a) The vast majority of the new citizens would never get to Rome to exercise their vote, but, as citizens, they now had greater protection against any arbitrary decisions by Roman officials. b) BUT former Italian leaders could now stand for office, if they chose, in Roman elections. i) As time passed, they did so more and more. ii) Very slowly the Roman SENATE changed: more and more “Italians” (having been successfully elected at least as quaestors) were to be found amongst its members – to begin with as “backbenchers” but eventually amongst its leaders. c) A huge number of former “Italians” also qualified, by virtue of their wealth, to consider themselves “equestrians” i) They might not all join “the Equestrian Order” [an official body] formally, but they could call themselves “equestrians”, form consortia and, as Roman citizens, bid for state contracts – especially in the provinces. ii) With time we notice an almost uncanny intensification of the exploitation of the empire’s provinces by those who had won contracts (in fields like mining) and by ‘equestrian’ money-lenders: as Roman citizens they could call on the governor of the province to support their interests and to use, where necessary, his resources to put pressure on, for example, those who had borrowed money but were slow to pay up. 5. At ROME the most pressing issue politically immediately after 90 BC became HOW to get all the new citizens registered as citizens and WHERE to register them: i) If they were all registered in just ONE of the 35 voting “tribes”, their voice would be severely limited. ii) If they were distributed amongst ALL the 35 voting “tribes”, their voice would be greater. [Note: Rome did not increase the number of voting tribes: areas newly integrated into the Roman state, ever since 242 BC, had been added to the existing 35 electoral districts (the “tribes”)] POLITICAL EVENTS THAT FOLLOWED THE WAR 1. After 90 BC, that is after the “Julian Law” (the Lex Iulia) had extended Roman citizenship throughout the Italian peninsula and created so many new Roman citizens, one of the most pressing issues (as noted) was WHERE to register all the former ‘Italians’ as Romans with the franchise. 2. a) The “populist” (popularis) PUBLIUS SULPICIUS RUFUS, a tribune in 88 BC, wanting to gain the support of as many of the new citizens as possible, planned to enrol them in ALL of the 35 voting “tribes”. b) To gain the support of GAIUS MARIUS, he offered him one more military command – even though he was almost 70. 3. Despite the traumatic developments of 100 BC, MARIUS had sided with the popularis cause in the past, albeit to get his needs for land met. 4. His support now would bring that of his veteran soldiers and of many ‘equestrians’ to SULPICIUS RUFUS’ cause. 5. Because of the role he had played in Rome’s war against its allies (its socii) in Italy, LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA had won a consulship for 88 BC and, as consul, been given the overall command in Asia Minor against the aggressive, expansionist activities of King MITHRIDATES of Pontus. 6. Despite this, SULPICIUS RUFUS did not hesitate to take to the Popular Assembly (the “Plebeian Assembly”) a measure to transfer the command in Asia Minor from Sulla to Marius. 7. a) SULLA had not yet left Italy. b) He was still levying troops at Nola in Campania. 8. He made the momentous decision to march on Rome - an act of civil war – to preserve his command. 9. a) SULPICIUS RUFUS and MARIUS fled as Sulla and his troops advanced. b) SULLA had them declared ‘outlaws’ and SULPICIUS RUFUS’ legislation declared null and void. Lucius Cornelius SULLA Head of SULLA on a denarius issued by his grandson in 56 BC Contemporary head of SULLA MITHRIDATES VI OF PONTUS (king ca 113 – 66 BC) PONTUS ASIA MINOR in 89 BC 10. SULLA then pushed through some hurried laws (with military backing) in an attempt to strengthen the Senate against the Popular Assemblies before going off to war in Asia Minor. 11. Although SULPICIUS RUFUS had been caught and killed, the “populist”- “optimate” conflict resurfaced, as soon as SULLA and his forces left Italy. 12. In 87 BC, for example, the “populist” consul for that year, LUCIUS CORNELIUS CINNA, revived the plan to enrol all the new citizens in all of the 35 “tribes” (as opposed to enrolling them in one “tribe” only). 13. He was opposed by his “optimate” colleague in the consulship, GNAEUS OCTAVIUS. 14. Instead of a stale-mate leading to no action, as would have been the case in the past, supporters of both sides engaged in a running battle in the streets of Rome and CINNA was driven out, after his consulship was annulled – an unprecedented move. 15. a) Appealing to former ‘Italians’, now unregistered citizens, CINNA gathered troops. b) Then he and MARIUS marched on Rome from different directions and seized control 16. CINNA and MARIUS were, not unsurprisingly, elected as the consuls for 86 BC – Marius’ seventh, (although he died soon after entering office). 17. The period that followed is often referred to as that of “Cinna’s DOMINATIO”, since he held the consulship again in 85 and 84 BC (along with GNAEUS PAPIRIUS CARBO) – that is for three consecutive terms. 18. a) During this time of “populist” control, the measure to ensure that the new citizens were enrolled in all 35 of the voting “tribes” was revived, although the registration seems not to have been completed in time to find reflection in the census figures for 84. b) The total recorded then was about 463,000 BC (presumably just males) – only about 69,000 more than in 114 BC. 19. With the murder of CINNA in 84 BC the leading “populist” became CARBO [a nephew of the Carbo who had served on Tiberius Gracchus’ land commission after Tiberius was killed]. 20. BUT it was very likely that SULLA would eventually force King MITHRIDATES at least to accept terms and would then return to Italy with his troops. 21. Preparations had to be made against that eventuality, including the elimination of many prominent senators who were believed likely to support Sulla once he was back in Rome. 22. Sulla did return (in 82 BC), after landing in Italy in the previous year with an army which had been fighting under him for nearly six years and which had become particularly attached to him. 23. a) A fierce civil war raged for a time. b) Pitted against each other were: i) the two “populist” consuls, with their armies; and ii) Sulla (with his loyal troops) and those who had rallied (with supporters) around Sulla upon his return (including a young POMPEY). 24. a) Emerging victorious, LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA FELIX launched a “reign of terror” with notorious ‘proscription lists’ (which seem to have got out of hand). b) The appearance of the proscription lists gave carte blanche to those with grudges to eliminate, without fear of reprisal, their personal enemies and to seize their property - even though the official purpose of the ‘proscriptions’ was to remove all who might oppose Sulla’s proposed agenda. c) It is said that well over 5,000 people, both senators and “equestrians”, were proscribed and either fled or were killed. 25. Then, to carry out his reform ideas with some pretence of legitimacy, SULLA revived the office of DICTATOR, not used since 202 BC, becoming “DICTATOR REI PUBLICAE CONSTITUENDAE” (‘dictator for the reorganization of the state’). 26. Sulla’s aim seems to have been to strengthen the authority of the SENATE as an institution by weakening all other organs of state, especially the Popular Assemblies (and the ‘tribunes of the plebs’ along with them). [Some have compared Sulla’s seizure of power with that of Franco in Spain]