* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download HIS 28 – Part 15
Roman tribe wikipedia , lookup
Alpine regiments of the Roman army wikipedia , lookup
Food and dining in the Roman Empire wikipedia , lookup
Berber kings of Roman-era Tunisia wikipedia , lookup
Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX wikipedia , lookup
Roman legion wikipedia , lookup
Leges regiae wikipedia , lookup
Roman Senate wikipedia , lookup
Structural history of the Roman military wikipedia , lookup
Military of ancient Rome wikipedia , lookup
Roman economy wikipedia , lookup
Education in ancient Rome wikipedia , lookup
Centuriate Assembly wikipedia , lookup
Promagistrate wikipedia , lookup
Slovakia in the Roman era wikipedia , lookup
Elections in the Roman Republic wikipedia , lookup
Roman Republican governors of Gaul wikipedia , lookup
Executive magistrates of the Roman Republic wikipedia , lookup
Constitutional reforms of Augustus wikipedia , lookup
Culture of ancient Rome wikipedia , lookup
Battle of the Teutoburg Forest wikipedia , lookup
Legislative assemblies of the Roman Republic wikipedia , lookup
Roman Republic wikipedia , lookup
Roman agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Roman historiography wikipedia , lookup
Early Roman army wikipedia , lookup
Gaius Marius wikipedia , lookup
First secessio plebis wikipedia , lookup
History of the Roman Constitution wikipedia , lookup
Roman army of the late Republic wikipedia , lookup
Constitutional reforms of Sulla wikipedia , lookup
Cursus honorum wikipedia , lookup
EVENTS BETWEEN THE LATE 130s BC AND 124 BC 1. We saw how Tiberius Gracchus had brought to the fore (unintentionally, one might argue) a number of ‘constitutional’ issues, such as: a) whether ‘the People’ were sovereign; b) whether they could remove “tribunes of the Plebs” who prevented the electorate voting on bills put to them; c) whether they could re-elect “tribunes of the Plebs”; d) whether, being sovereign, they needed the approval of the Senate before bills could go to “the Plebeian Assembly”. 2. Information for the decade that followed his murder is, as we saw, limited. 3. Among the ‘events’ we glanced at were: a) Papirius Carbo’s unsuccessful attempt in 131 BC to & establish that a ‘tribune of the Plebs’ could be re-elected; b) how the judicial authority of the “Commission of Three” was passed to the consuls in 129 BC, resulting in very little state-owned land not already reclaimed by the state from private hands becoming available for redistribution. There were other developments too: 1. In 126 BC a tribune, Marcus Iunius PENNUS, passed a law a) prohibiting freeborn citizens of other states in Italy from moving to Rome; and b) expelling from Rome citizens of other states already living in Rome. 2. In 125 BC one of the consuls, Marcus Fulvius FLACCUS, introduced a proposal, which failed, to extend Roman citizenship to some of Rome’s allies in Italy - which was becoming a demand. And so in 126 and 125 BC we appear to have two diametrically conflicting ideas in Rome: i) Expel non-Romans from the state and prevent nonRomans settling there. ii) Extend Roman citizenship to at least some of the other states in Italy. a) In 125 BC, also, the “Latin Colony” of FREGELLAE (the second foundation established after the end, in 338 BC, of the ‘War with the Latins’) rebelled against its relationship with Rome. b) Why Fregellae (whose population enjoyed ‘Latin Rights’) rebelled is not at all clear but it may have been connected with the law to expel non-citizens from Rome in 126 and the failure of the proposal of M. Fulvius Flaccus in 125 to extend Roman citizenship to others, including themselves. c) The rebellion was ruthlessly put down by 124 BC by the praetor of that year Lucius Opimius. All of this forms the background to the election in 124 BC of GAIUS SEMPRONIUS GRACCHUS (the younger brother of Tiberius) who took office, along with the other nine ‘tribunes of the plebs’, on 10th December 124 BC. Later depiction of the two GRACCHI Brothers 1. 2. 3. 4. GAIUS SEMPRONIUS GRACCHUS Our information is a little muddled for the period when Gaius Gracchus was a tribune. He held office in two consecutive years and it is not always clear which proposals belong to 123 BC and which belong to 122 BC. Furthermore, PLUTARCH and APPIAN provide accounts that differ somewhat from each other. But an approximate reconstruction of what he attempted seems possible (all much more comprehensive than the programme of his brother). HIS PROGRAMME OF REFORMS GAIUS SEMPRONIUS GRACCHUS proposed: A. A modified version of his brother’s agrarian law – mainly removing the restrictions which had been placed on it. B. A “grain law” which had the state buy grain (with granaries to store it) and then sell it to citizens at the same price they would have had to pay in the grainproducing area. C. A “military law” which prohibited the conscription of those under 17 and had the state guarantee the provision to the common soldier of his basic equipment. D. A measure which outlawed any court or body with the power of capital punishment if it had not been established by “the People”. E. A proposal which would give Roman citizenship to Rome’s Italian allies (subsequently withdrawn). F. A reform which would see jurors in the ‘jury-courts’ when senators were charged with corruption drawn from the ‘equestrian order’ rather than from the ‘senatorial order’. G. A measure in two parts i) to organize (at last) the kingdom of Pergamum in Asia Minor as a ‘province’ to be known as “ASIA”; and H. I. J. K. ii) to ‘farm out’ the collection of taxes there to consortia (‘companies’) of contractors from the ‘equestrian order’. A complicated requirement by which the two provinces to which the two consuls would go as ‘governors’ when their year was finished would have to be named by the Senate before it was known who those consuls would be. A badly understood proposal to make the bribing of jurors illegal. A measure to build roads in Italy. A measure to found three new “colonies” (new settlements) – two in Italy and one in North Africa on the site where Carthage had stood until 22 or 23 years earlier. GAIUS GRACCHUS, overall, proposed something for everyone – except senators: a) cheap grain and the prospect of land for urban citizens; b) land and better conditions of military service for rural citizens; c) membership on juries and a tax-collecting contract for ‘equestrians’ [the new social stratum which had emerged]; d) Roman citizenship (perhaps) for non-citizens. It has been suggested that GAIUS GRACCHUS a) expecting opposition from a large section of the senatorial order, and b) realizing the need to build as wide a coalition of supporters as possible, ………… …….. aimed from the very beginning to move in a manner openly populist and, perhaps, “anti-senatorial”. THE OPPOSITION TO GAIUS GRACCHUS It was during GAIUS GRACCHUS’ second year as a tribune (122 BC) that he ran into really serious trouble: a) One of the other nine ‘tribunes of the plebs’ of that year, MARCUS LIVIUS DRUSUS, in a competition for popularity and, suspiciously, with the overall backing of the Senate, proposed a programme far more “radical”: i) He announced a measure which would see the foundation of twelve new “colonies” in Italy (and, perhaps, Sicily too). ii) He also proposed to remove totally the small rent that those who received allotments of state-owned land had been expected to pay. b) The attraction of Marcus Livius Drusus’ legislation was such that much of Gaius Gracchus’ support moved away from him and, in the elections held in 122 BC for 121 BC, Gaius Gracchus failed to be elected to a third consecutive term as a tribune. c) His campaign for re-election was not aided by his long absence in “AFRICA” personally overseeing the foundation of his “colony” at Carthage. 121 BC 1. a) Once GAIUS GRACCHUS was a private citizen again, the Senate’s enthusiasm for the programme passed by Marcus Livius Drusus faded away! b) There is no evidence that Drusus’ reforms were ever implemented. 2. Fearful that Gaius Gracchus would regain much of his popular support once it was clear that Drusus’ twelve “colonies” were not likely to materialize, the Senate looked for ways to undermine the legislation he had been able to introduce. 3. a) It proposed to repeal the legal approval granted for the foundation of the “colony” at Carthage. b) The legislation, while very much Gaius Gracchus’ measure, had been guided into law by one of his fellowtribunes, a RUBRIUS, and was known as the LEX RUBRIA (the ‘Rubrian Law’). 4. And there were reasons to repeal the ‘Rubrian Law’. 5. In 121 BC reports began to arrive from North Africa that marker-stones set up by the surveyors to indicate the boundaries of the new “colony” kept being overturned by wolves. 6. Since the site of Carthage had, at the time of its destruction in 146 BC, been cursed, it was obvious that the gods were now showing that they did not wish the colonial foundation to come to fruition. When GAIUS GRACCHUS learnt that his legislation was in danger of being undone, he went along to the meeting of the Assembly which, as a privatus (a private citizen), he had every right to do. 8. He took with him a large crowd of supporters, some of whom were armed. 9. Violence erupted and the meeting of the Assembly had to be adjourned. 10. The Senate met and received a report about the situation in the Plebeian Assembly from one of the consuls, LUCIUS OPIMIUS, an enemy of Gaius Gracchus [who, when praetor in 125 BC, had ruthlessly put down the 7. rebellion of ‘the Latin colony’ of FREGELLAE]. 11. a) The Senate then passed a motion (which was to have a long history) soon to be known as the SENATUS CONSULTUM ULTIMUM (“the FINAL DECREE of the SENATE”). b) It recommended (and it was no more than a recommendation) that the consuls (the formal holders of the necessary authority) take whatever action was needed to deal with the matter. 12. LUCIUS OPIMIUS, in the knowledge that he had the Senate’s moral backing, opted to use force. 13. a) In the ensuing confusion, Gaius Gracchus’ supporters seized the Aventine Hill where they were surrounded and many of them killed. b) We are told that, in an effort to prevent even further bloodshed, GAIUS GRACCHUS committed suicide. 14. With his death, the Roman state witnessed a decade of senatorial reaction. a) Social and economic problems were not helped by this period of conservatism. b) Any hopes, too, that Rome’s allies in Italy may have had for an extension of Roman citizenship or even of “Latin Rights” to them were shattered. “The Death of Gaius Gracchus” Jean Baptiste Topino-Lebrun (1764 – 1801) THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE DEATHS OF THE GRACCHI BROTHERS 1. a) The period of conservatism that followed Gaius Gracchus’ death did not ease the economic and social problems of the poor. b) All hope, too, that Roman citizenship might be extended to Rome’s allies in Italy had faded. c) Gaius’ agrarian legislation was gradually undone, although his measure providing subsidized grain to the urban poor was not repealed. 2. In 118 BC the LEX THORIA (Thorian Law) brought the work of the ‘Agrarian Commission’ to an end: no more state-owned land was re-distributed after that date. 3. a) The historian APPIAN tells us that “not long after” the token rent which those who had been allotted state-owned land had to pay was abolished. b) He seems to be referring to 111 BC when by a law (which we have in the form of a long, almost complete document but which doesn’t have a name) abolished that token rent. c) With the removal of the token rent, the land which had been distributed became private property – which could be bought and sold. 4. a) The situation with respect to land had almost gone back to what it had been before TIBERIUS GRACCHUS had set up his “Land Commission” in 133 BC. b) As Appian puts it: “The ordinary citizens lost everything and there resulted a still further decline in the number of both citizens and soldiers, and in the revenue from the land, and the distribution of land and in the allotments themselves.” New Terms More and more we now find two new political terms applied to elements within the nobility and the wider senatorial order: a) OPTIMATES (“optimates”) – those who, collectively, believed that the role of the SENATE in the state should be the dominant one and that more conservative policies should command support; and b) POPULARES (“populists”) – usually applied to individual leaders from within ‘the nobility’ who advocated reform, who tried to win the support of citizens not already linked to nobles and other senators as ‘clients’, and who either held the office of ‘tribune’ themselves or (more often) found one or more tribunes of the plebs to take their proposals to ‘the People’. [CICERO, at a later date, defined the “optimates” as those who developed policies which were attractive to all “the best people”, attractive to all those who were “honest” and “respectable”, who wanted to “preserve the state”, uphold “tradition”, and who respected “the law”. “Populists” were, by implication, those who did not stand for these things and whose motives were always suspect.] We also find, in the post-Gracchan period, the members of The EQUESTRIAN ORDER (and their clients) often holding the ‘balance of power’ in the Popular Assemblies, sometimes supporting ‘the optimates’, sometimes supporting ‘populist’ leaders – depending on which offered them the better “deal”. THE WAR AGAINST JUGURTHA: 112 – 105 BC 1. In the post-Gracchan period, the Roman state became embroiled in a long, tedious war in north Africa against JUGURTHA, king of NUMIDIA. 2. a) Even in antiquity itself it was agreed that the details of the war were of little real importance. b) What was of significance was the way the war heightened the tensions within the nobility even further, caused division, and brought an important “new man” (novus homo) to the fore and to the consulship (although of non-noble and nonsenatorial family): GAIUS MARIUS. GAIUS MARIUS (157 – 86 BC) JUGURTHA (head on a coin) 3. At the end of the war JUGURTHA was betrayed, captured, transported to Rome, thrown into a pit under the Tullianum (Rome’s prison) and left to die. JUGURTHA IN CHAINS IN FRONT OF SULLA, GAIUS MARIUS’ SUBORDINATE OFFICER 4. The seven-year war had brought the Roman state little advantage. 5. Only BOCCHUS of Mauretania and GAUDA, a member of the Numidian royal house, gained: they each took a slice of the kingdom of NUMIDIA. 6. But the war had won great acclaim for GAIUS MARIUS, who, having few links with “the nobility”, was seen as above the corrupt practices which had been only too evident during the war. 7. MARIUS was of “equestrian” background but had held senatorial positions (without any particular distinction): a quaestorship in 122 BC, a ‘tribuneship of the plebs’ in 120 BC, a praetorship in 116 BC (coming sixth [last] amongst the successful candidates) and the governorship of Lusitania in 114 BC. NUMIDIA was divided, part going to BOCCHUS of MAURETANIA and part going to GAUDA, a member of the Numidian royal house. 7. It had been MARIUS’ military ability, his popularity with the common soldier and the support he enjoyed from an influential section of the Equestrian Order that had pushed him to the fore and given him the overall command in the war. 8. a) MARIUS had not only gained the consulship as a novus homo (“a new man”), the first in his family to break into the ranks of “the nobility”, but also, with huge popular support, gone on to hold an unprecedented string of CONSULSHIPS [after that of 107 BC] (contrary to the law). b) He had been elected time and time again to one of the two consulships - in 104, in 103, in 102, in 101, and again in 100 BC. It had been largely the threat to Italy from Germanic tribes which had made a man of his military ability desirable in one of the top positions in the years after the war against Jugurtha ended (in 107 BC). 10. But MARIUS ALSO introduced a series of military reforms, one of which in particular had a lasting impact on the political life of the Roman state for the next 60 years. 9. GAIUS MARIUS’ REFORM OF THE ARMY, HIS STRUGGLE AGAINST GERMANIC TRIBES AND HIS ROLE IN POLITICS 1. Various organizational reforms were gradually introduced to Rome’s armed forces by Marius when he was fighting in north Africa but even more so in the years leading to 100 BC when he was fighting the Germanic tribes who threatened Italy. 2. Foremost were: a) The regularization of the three fighting lines of the legion: i) Previously they had comprised men of mixed ages and mixed equipment. ii) Now men of about the same age and with the same equipment were grouped together. b) The cohort of 600 men (10 to a legion) became the principal fighting unit. c) The 60 centurions in each legion became the ones who provided leadership in practice (rather than the six military tribunes and the senatorial commanding officer). d) A sense of pride and belonging was instilled in each legion through the granting of a silver eagle as the legion’s standard. e) Troops on the march achieved greater mobility by carrying their own baggage rather than depending on mule-trains for their supplies. f) The commander himself rewarded those who had fought under him not only with a share in any booty taken but with an allotment of land after service. 3. a) It was this last innovation (combined with another vital element of Marius’ reforms) which would bring the armed forces into politics. b) The military commander now had i) EITHER to enter the political arena himself and pass a law making land available for distribution to his veteran troops; ii) OR to form an alliance with one (or more) “populist” leader (usually a ‘tribune of the plebs’) who was willing to introduce legislation to make land available. 4. i) The other MOMENTOUS change Marius made when recruiting troops (to guarantee sufficient numbers) was to ignore totally the traditional requirement that those who fought in Rome’s armed forces must be land owners, however modest their holdings. ii) Marius began to draw his fighting men from citizens who did not meet the basic census requirements and they tended not to be demobilized any longer at the end of the campaigning season either but remained enrolled and in many cases made a career of fighting. Before we turn to how Marius’ main change began to influence Roman politics we need to note Marius’ military activities (after the war against Jugurtha) in defending Italy from the Germanic threat. THE GERMANIC THREAT FROM THE NORTH 1. The Roman state had become aware of the movement of Germanic tribes, particularly the CIMBRI and the TEUTONES, in the Danube area as early as 113 BC. 2. By 109 BC their arrival in Gaul was beginning to threaten Roman interests in the newly established “province” of GALLIA NARBONENSIS (modern Provence). 3. a) Roman forces suffered serious defeats at the hands of these tribes in both 109 and 107 BC. b) In 105 BC one of the consuls of 106 who had had his imperium extended and one of the consuls of 105 suffered even worse defeats, the like of which had not been seen for a century. c) The huge loss of troops in 105 BC opened ITALY to invasion. 4. This was exactly the moment when GAIUS MARIUS was achieving his success against Jugurtha in North Africa. 5. The Popular Assembly intervened, elected MARIUS to the consulship in absentia, deprived the proconsul, Quintus Servilius Caepio, of his command in the north and transferred it to MARIUS. 6. It was the opportunity MARIUS needed to put his military reforms to the test and hone them as necessary. Migration of the Cimbri and Teutones GREEN crosses = Germanic victories against Roman forces. RED crosses = Roman victories 7. Overall Marius, working with other commanders over four years, was able to remove totally the “Germanic” threat to the Italian Peninsula. 8. His final reward for his prolonged efforts was the consulship for 100 BC – a entirely unprecedented sixth term. BUT 100 BC was to prove a very difficult year for him politically. “The Defeat of the Cimbri” Alexandre-Gabriel Décamps (1803-1860)