Download HIS 28 – Part 17

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(but, apparently, had withdrawn it) during one of the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]