Roman Republic
Roman Republic | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 509 BC–27 BC | |||||||||
 Roman provinces on the eve of the assassination of Julius Caesar, 44 BC | |||||||||
| Capital | Rome | ||||||||
| Common languages | Latin (official) Etruscan, Greek, Osco-Umbrian, Venetic, Ligurian, Rhaetian, Nuragic, Sicel, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Punic, Berber, Illyrian, Iberian, Lusitanian, Celtiberian, Gaulish, Gallaecian, Aquitanian (unofficial, but commonly spoken) | ||||||||
| Religion | Roman polytheism | ||||||||
| Government | Republic (509–49 BC) | ||||||||
| Consuls | |||||||||
• 509–508 BC | Lucius Junius Brutus, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus (first) | ||||||||
• 27 BC | Gaius Octavianus, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (last) | ||||||||
| Legislature | Legislative Assemblies | ||||||||
| Historical era | Classical antiquity | ||||||||
• Overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus | 509 BC | ||||||||
• Caesar proclaimed dictator | 47 BC | ||||||||
| 2 September 31 BC | |||||||||
| 16 January 27 BC | |||||||||
| Area | |||||||||
| 326 BC[2] | 10,000 km2 (3,900 sq mi) | ||||||||
| 50 BC[2] | 1,950,000 km2 (750,000 sq mi) | ||||||||
| |||||||||
![Denarius of Brutus, 54 BC, showing the first Roman consul, Lucius Junius Brutus, surrounded by two lictors and preceded by an accensus.[1] of Rome](/wiki/File:Q._Servilius_Caepio_(M._Junius)_Brutus,_denarius,_54_BC,_RRC_433-1_reverse.jpg)
 |
| Part of a series on |
| Ancient Rome and the fall of the Republic |
|---|
|
People
Events
Places |
The Roman Republic (Latin: Res publica Romana; Latin pronunciation: [ˈreːs ˈpuːb.lɪ.ka roːˈmaː.na]) was the era of classical Roman civilization beginning with the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom, traditionally dated to 509 BC, and ending in 27 BC with the establishment of the Roman Empire. It was during this period that Rome's control expanded from the city's immediate surroundings to hegemony over the entire Mediterranean world.
Roman government in the early Republic was dominated by patricians, a wealthy, landowning minority who traced their ancestry to Rome's foundation, and had overthrown its monarchy. They shared the former powers of the kings among themselves, in the form of annually elected magistracies, senior military posts, and influential priesthoods. Republican government was headed by two consuls, advised by a senate of magistrates and ex-magistrates. Social class and status determined a citizen's voting rights, the value of his vote, and his lawful capacity for high civil, military and religious office; a patrician's vote far outweighed that of a citizen-commoner (pleb); this led to conflicts between the patrician minority and the far more numerous plebs. A series of constitutional reforms recognised wealthy, leading plebeian families as a legitimate aristocracy, and their most distinguished, reputable men as eligible for the highest elected offices.
Republican tradition and morality fostered competition for office and personal honours in service of the Republic. Among the elite, military service was a prerequisite to a career in politics. Patronage was an essential feature of Rome's economy and social structure. Republican conservatives and traditionalists were wary of demagogues; appeals to the plebs for direct political support could be interpreted as tyranny, and subversion of established order. The aristocratic Gracchi brothers introduced land reforms on behalf of landless plebs, and were murdered by their opponents.
During the first two centuries of its existence, the Roman Republic expanded through a combination of conquest and alliance, from central Italy to the entire Italian peninsula. By the following century, it included North Africa, most of the Iberian Peninsula, and what is now southern France. Two centuries after that, towards the end of the 1st century BC, it included the rest of modern France, Greece, and much of the eastern Mediterranean. Factional tensions led to a series of civil wars, leading to Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River, his appointment as dictator for life and assassination in 44, the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and the Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian as Augustus in 27 BC, effectively making him the first Roman emperor and ending the Republic.
History
Foundation of the Republic
Since the foundation of Rome, its rulers had been monarchs, elected for life by the patrician noblemen who made up the Roman Senate. The last Roman king was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus ("Tarquin the Proud"). In the traditional histories, Tarquin was expelled in 509 BC because his son, Sextus Tarquinius, had raped the noblewoman Lucretia, who afterwards took her own life. Lucretia's father, her husband Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Tarquin's own nephew, Lucius Junius Brutus, mustered support from the Senate and army, and forced Tarquin into exile in Etruria.[3][4][5]
The Senate agreed to abolish kingship. Most of the king's former functions were transferred to two consuls, who were elected to office for a term of one year. Each consul had the capacity to act as a check on his colleague, if necessary through the same power of veto that the kings had held. If a consul abused his powers in office, he could be prosecuted when his term expired. Brutus and Collatinus became Republican Rome's first consuls. Despite Collatinus' role in the creation of the Republic, he belonged to the same family as the former king, and was forced to abdicate his office and leave Rome. He was replaced as co-consul by Publius Valerius Publicola.[6]
Most modern scholarship describes these events as the quasi-mythological detailing of an aristocratic coup within Tarquin's own family, not a popular revolution. They fit a narrative of a personal vengeance against a tyrant leading to his overthrow, which was common among Greek cities and even theorised by Aristotle.[7][8][9]
Patrician era (509–367 BC)
Beginning with their revolt against Tarquin, and continuing through the early years of the Republic, Rome's patrician aristocrats were the dominant force in politics and society. They initially formed a closed group of about 50 large families, called gentes, who monopolised Rome's magistracies, priesthoods and senior military posts. The most prominent of these families were the Cornelii[i], followed by the Aemilii, Claudii, Fabii, and Valerii. The power, privilege and influence of leading families derived from their wealth, in particular from their landholdings, and their position as patrons.[10]
The vast majority of Roman citizens were commoners of various social degrees. They formed the backbone of Rome's economy, as smallholding farmers, managers, artisans, traders, and tenants. In times of war, they could be summoned for military service. Most had little direct political influence over the Senate's decisions or the laws it passed, including the abolition of the monarchy and the creation of the consular system. During the early Republic, the plebs (or plebeians) emerged as a self-organised, culturally distinct group, with their own laws, customs, and interests.[11]
Tarquin made several attempts to retake the throne, including the Tarquinian conspiracy, which involved Brutus' own sons, the war with Veii and Tarquinii and finally the war between Rome and Clusium; but none succeeded.[citation needed]
Conflict of the Orders (494–287 BC)
For Rome's poorest citizens, one of the few effective political tools was their withholding of labour and services, in a "secessio plebis"; they would leave the city en masse, and allow their social superiors to fend for themselves. The first such secession occurred in 494 BC, in protest at the abusive treatment of plebeian debtors by the wealthy.[12] Their efforts were rewarded when the Senate was compelled to give them greater access to the electoral and political process. The plebs would now elect tribunes to represent their interests in government. Tribunes were personally sacrosanct, immune to arbitrary arrest by any magistrate, and had veto power over the passage of legislation.[13]
In 367 BC a law was passed which required the election of at least one plebeian aedile each year. Also in 366 BC, the praetorship and curule aedileship were created.[14] Shortly after the founding of the Republic, the Comitia Centuriata ("Assembly of the Centuries") became the principal legislative assembly. In this assembly, magistrates were elected and laws were passed.[citation needed]
After the consulship had been opened to the plebeians, they were able to hold both the dictatorship and the censorship. Plebiscites of 342 BC placed limits on political offices; an individual could hold only one office at a time, and ten years must elapse between the end of his official term and his re-election. Further laws attempted to relieve the burden of plebeian debt by banning interest on loans.[15][16] In 337 BC, the first plebeian praetor was elected.[17] During these years, the tribunes and the senators grew increasingly close. The senate realised the need to use plebeian officials to accomplish desired goals.[18] To win over the tribunes, the senators gave the tribunes a great deal of power and the tribunes began to feel obligated to the senate. As the tribunes and the senators grew closer, plebeian senators were often able to secure the tribunate for members of their own families. In time, the tribunate became a stepping stone to higher office.[19]
During the early republic, only consuls could appoint new senators. Shortly before 312 BC, a Plebiscitum Ovinium transferred this power to the censors. It also required the censor to appoint any newly elected magistrate to the senate.[20] By this point, plebeians were already holding a significant number of magisterial offices. Thus, the number of plebeian senators probably increased quickly. However, it remained difficult for a plebeian to enter the senate if he was not from a well-known political family, as a new patrician-like plebeian aristocracy emerged.[21] The old nobility existed through the force of law, because only patricians were allowed to stand for high office. The new nobility existed due to the organization of society. As such, only a revolution could overthrow this new structure.[citation needed]
By 287 BC, plebeian indebtedness remained endemic; this resulted in the last plebeian secession, this time to the Janiculum hill. To resolve the situation, a dictator was appointed. The dictator passed a law (the Lex Hortensia), which ended the requirement that the patrician senators must agree before any bill could be considered by the Plebeian Council.[22] The result was that control over the state fell, not onto the shoulders of voters, but to the new plebeian nobility.[citation needed]
Plebeian nobles and commoners (287–133 BC)
 
| |
| O: Bearded head of Mars with Corinthian helmet left. | R: Horse head right, grain ear behind. |
| The first Roman silver coin, 281 BC. Crawford 13/1 | |
The Lex Hortensia (passed some time between 289 and 286) extended plebeian laws throughout Rome. It made all citizens equal under the same law; but this reflected the rise of the plebeian nobility. Ordinary plebs remained subject to indebtedness and its material consequences. Those who had served in the military returned to find their farms in disrepair. The landed aristocracy began buying bankrupted farms at discounted prices. As commodity prices fell, many farmers could no longer operate their farms at a profit. The result was the ultimate bankruptcy of countless farmers. Masses of unemployed plebeians soon began to flood into Rome, and thus into the ranks of the legislative assemblies. Their poverty usually led them to vote for the candidate who offered them the most. A new culture of dependency was emerging, in which citizens would look to any populist leader for relief.[citation needed] The popular assemblies, brought into being to improve the lot of commoners, were passive institutions. They only met when summoned by a magistrate, and could not propose laws or amendments, only vote on what was presented to them.[23]
From the Gracchi to Caesar (133–49 BC)
Gracchi
Tiberius Gracchus was elected tribune in 133 BC. He attempted to enact a law which would have limited the amount of land that any individual could own. The aristocrats, who stood to lose an enormous amount of money, were bitterly opposed to this proposal. Tiberius submitted this law to the Plebeian Council, but the law was vetoed by a tribune named Marcus Octavius. Tiberius then used the Plebeian Council to impeach Octavius. The theory, that a representative of the people ceases to be one when he acts against the wishes of the people, was counter to Roman constitutional theory. If carried to its logical end, this theory would remove all constitutional restraints on the popular will, and put the state under the absolute control of a temporary popular majority.[24] His law was enacted, but Tiberius was murdered with 300 of his associates[25] when he stood for reelection to the tribunate.
Tiberius' brother Gaius was elected tribune in 123 BC. Gaius Gracchus' ultimate goal was to weaken the senate and to strengthen the democratic forces.[26] In the past, for example, the senate would eliminate political rivals either by establishing special judicial commissions or by passing a senatus consultum ultimum ("ultimate decree of the senate"). Both devices would allow the Senate to bypass the ordinary due process rights that all citizens had. Gaius outlawed the judicial commissions, and declared the senatus consultum ultimum to be unconstitutional. Gaius then proposed a law which would grant citizenship rights to Rome's Italian allies. This last proposal was not popular with the plebeians and he lost much of his support.[27] He stood for election to a third term in 121 BC, but was defeated and then murdered by representatives of the senate with 3,000 of his supporters on Capitoline Hill in Rome.[25]
Populares and optimates
In 118 BC, King Micipsa of Numidia (current-day Algeria and Tunisia) died. He was succeeded by two legitimate sons, Adherbal and Hiempsal, and an illegitimate son, Jugurtha. Micipsa divided his kingdom between these three sons. Jugurtha, however, turned on his brothers, killing Hiempsal and driving Adherbal out of Numidia. Adherbal fled to Rome for assistance, and initially Rome mediated a division of the country between the two brothers. Eventually, Jugurtha renewed his offensive, leading to a long and inconclusive war with Rome. He also bribed several Roman commanders, and at least two tribunes, before and during the war. His nemesis, Gaius Marius, a legate from a virtually unknown provincial family, returned from the war in Numidia and was elected consul in 107 BC over the objections of the aristocratic senators. Marius invaded Numidia and brought the war to a quick end, capturing Jugurtha in the process. The apparent incompetence of the Senate, and the brilliance of Marius, had been put on full display.[29] The populares party took full advantage of this opportunity by allying itself with Marius.
Several years later, in 88 BC, a Roman army was sent to put down an emerging Asian power, king Mithridates of Pontus. The army, however, was not defeated and won. One of Marius' old quaestors, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, had been elected consul for the year, and was ordered by the senate to assume command of the war against Mithridates. Marius, a member of the "populares" party, had a tribune revoke Sulla's command of the war against Mithridates. Sulla, a member of the aristocratic ("optimates") party, brought his army back to Italy and marched on Rome. Sulla was so angry at Marius' tribune that he passed a law intended to permanently weaken the tribunate.[30] He then returned to his war against Mithridates. With Sulla gone, the populares under Marius and Lucius Cornelius Cinna soon took control of the city.
During the period in which the populares party controlled the city, they flouted convention by re-electing Marius consul several times without observing the customary ten-year interval between offices.[31] They also transgressed the established oligarchy by advancing unelected individuals to magisterial office, and by substituting magisterial edicts for popular legislation. Sulla soon made peace with Mithridates. In 83 BC, he returned to Rome, overcame all resistance, and recaptured the city. Sulla and his supporters then slaughtered most of Marius' supporters. Sulla, having observed the violent results of radical popular reforms, was naturally conservative. As such, he sought to strengthen the aristocracy, and by extension the senate.[32] Sulla made himself dictator, passed a series of constitutional reforms, resigned the dictatorship, and served one last term as consul. He died in 78 BC.
Pompey, Crassus and the Catilinarian conspiracy
In 77 BC, the senate sent one of Sulla's former lieutenants, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus ("Pompey the Great"), to put down an uprising in Hispania. By 71 BC, Pompey returned to Rome after having completed his mission. Around the same time, another of Sulla's former lieutenants, Marcus Licinius Crassus, had just put down the Spartacus-led gladiator/slave revolt in Italy. Upon their return, Pompey and Crassus found the populares party fiercely attacking Sulla's constitution.[33] They attempted to forge an agreement with the populares party. If both Pompey and Crassus were elected consul in 70 BC, they would dismantle the more obnoxious components of Sulla's constitution. The two were soon elected, and quickly dismantled most of Sulla's constitution.[34]
Around 66 BC, a movement to use constitutional, or at least peaceful, means to address the plight of various classes began.[35] After several failures, the movement's leaders decided to use any means that were necessary to accomplish their goals. The movement coalesced under an aristocrat named Lucius Sergius Catilina. The movement was based in the town of Faesulae, which was not a natural hotbed of agrarian agitation.[36] The rural malcontents were to advance on Rome,[37] and be aided by an uprising within the city. After assassinating the consuls and most of the senators, Catiline would be free to enact his reforms. The conspiracy was set in motion in 63 BC. The consul for the year, Marcus Tullius Cicero, intercepted messages that Catiline had sent in an attempt to recruit more members. As a result, the top conspirators in Rome (including at least one former consul) were executed by authorisation (of dubious constitutionality) of the senate, and the planned uprising was disrupted. Cicero then sent an army, which cut Catiline's forces to pieces.
The most important result of the Catilinarian conspiracy was that the populares party became discredited. The prior 70 years had witnessed a gradual erosion in senatorial powers. The violent nature of the conspiracy, in conjunction with the senate's skill in disrupting it, did a great deal to repair the senate's image.[37]
First Triumvirate
In 62 BC, Pompey returned victorious from Asia. The Senate, elated by its successes against Catiline, refused to ratify the arrangements that Pompey had made. Pompey, in effect, became powerless. Thus, when Julius Caesar returned from a governorship in Spain in 61 BC, he found it easy to make an arrangement with Pompey. Caesar and Pompey, along with Crassus, established a private agreement, now known as the First Triumvirate. Under the agreement, Pompey's arrangements would be ratified. Caesar would be elected consul in 59 BC, and would then serve as governor of Gaul for five years. Crassus was promised a future consulship.[38]
Caesar became consul in 59 BC. His colleague, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, was an extreme aristocrat. Caesar submitted the laws that he had promised Pompey to the assemblies. Bibulus attempted to obstruct the enactment of these laws, and so Caesar used violent means to ensure their passage.[38] Caesar was then made governor of three provinces. He facilitated the election of the former patrician Publius Clodius Pulcher to the tribunate for 58 BC. Clodius set about depriving Caesar's senatorial enemies of two of their more obstinate leaders in Cato and Cicero. Clodius was a bitter opponent of Cicero because Cicero had testified against him in a sacrilege case. Clodius attempted to try Cicero for executing citizens without a trial during the Catiline conspiracy, resulting in Cicero going into self-imposed exile and his house in Rome being burnt down. Clodius also passed a bill that forced Cato to lead the invasion of Cyprus which would keep him away from Rome for some years. Clodius also passed a law to expand the previous partial grain subsidy to a fully free grain dole for citizens.[39]
End of the First Triumvirate
Clodius formed armed gangs that terrorised the city and eventually began to attack Pompey's followers, who in response funded counter-gangs formed by Titus Annius Milo. The political alliance of the triumvirate was crumbling. Domitius Ahenobarbus ran for the consulship in 55 BC promising to take Caesar's command from him. Eventually, the triumvirate was renewed at Lucca. Pompey and Crassus were promised the consulship in 55 BC, and Caesar's term as governor was extended for five years. Crassus led an ill-fated expedition with legions led by his son, Caesar's lieutenant, against the Kingdom of Parthia. This resulted in his defeat and death at the Battle of Carrhae. Finally, Pompey's wife, Julia, who was Caesar's daughter, died in childbirth. This event severed the last remaining bond between Pompey and Caesar.
Beginning in the summer of 54 BC, a wave of political corruption and violence swept Rome.[40] This chaos reached a climax in January of 52 BC, when Clodius was murdered in a gang war by Milo. On 1 January 49 BC, an agent of Caesar presented an ultimatum to the senate. The ultimatum was rejected, and the senate then passed a resolution which declared that if Caesar did not lay down his arms by July of that year, he would be considered an enemy of the Republic.[41] Meanwhile, the senators adopted Pompey as their new champion against Caesar. On 7 January of 49 BC, the senate passed a senatus consultum ultimum, which vested Pompey with dictatorial powers. Pompey's army, however, was composed largely of untested conscripts. On 10 January, Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his veteran army (in violation of Roman laws) and marched towards Rome. Caesar's rapid advance forced Pompey, the consuls and the senate to abandon Rome for Greece. Caesar entered the city unopposed.
Period of transition (49–29 BC)
A period of reform occurred between 49 BC, when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and 29 BC, when Octavian returned to Rome after Actium. During this period the previous century's gradual unravelling of republican institutions accelerated rapidly. By 29 BC, Rome had completed its transition from a city-state with a network of dependencies to the capital of a world empire.[42]
With Pompey defeated and order restored, Caesar wanted to achieve undisputed control over the government. The powers which he gave himself were later assumed by his imperial successors.[43] His assumption of these powers decreased the authority of Rome's other political institutions.
Caesar held both the dictatorship and the tribunate, and alternated between the consulship and the proconsulship.[43] In 48 BC, Caesar was given permanent tribunician powers. This made his person sacrosanct, gave him the power to veto the senate, and allowed him to dominate the Plebeian Council. In 46 BC, Caesar was given censorial powers,[44] which he used to fill the senate with his own partisans. Caesar then raised the membership of the Senate to 900.[45] This robbed the senatorial aristocracy of its prestige, and made it increasingly subservient to him. While the assemblies continued to meet, he submitted all candidates to the assemblies for election, and all bills to the assemblies for enactment. Thus, the assemblies became powerless and were unable to oppose him.[46]
Near the end of his life, Caesar began to prepare for a war against the Parthian Empire. Since his absence from Rome would limit his ability to install his own consuls, he passed a law before his death which allowed him to appoint all magistrates, and later all consuls and tribunes. This transformed the magistrates from representatives of the people to representatives of the dictator.[45]
Caesar's assassination and the Second Triumvirate
Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 BC. The assassination was led by Gaius Cassius and Marcus Brutus. Most of the conspirators were senators, who had a variety of economic, political, or personal motivations for carrying out the assassination. Many were afraid that Caesar would soon resurrect the monarchy and declare himself king. Others feared loss of property or prestige as Caesar carried out his land reforms in favor of the landless classes. Virtually all the conspirators fled the city after Caesar's death in fear of retaliation. The civil war that followed destroyed what was left of the Republic.[47]
After the assassination, Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) formed an alliance with Caesar's adopted son and great-nephew, Gaius Octavianus (Octavian). Along with Marcus Lepidus, they formed an alliance known as the Second Triumvirate.[48] They held powers that were nearly identical to the powers that Caesar had held under his constitution. As such, the Senate and assemblies remained powerless, even after Caesar had been assassinated. The conspirators were then defeated at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. Eventually, however, Antony and Octavian fought against each other in one last battle. Antony was defeated in the naval Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and he committed suicide with his lover, Cleopatra. In 29 BC, Octavian returned to Rome as the unchallenged master of the Empire and later accepted the title of Augustus ("Exalted One"). He was convinced that only a single strong ruler could restore order in Rome.
Constitutional system
The constitutional history of the Roman Republic began with the revolution which overthrew the monarchy in 509 BC, and ended with constitutional reforms that transformed the Republic into what would effectively be the Roman Empire, in 27 BC. The Constitution of the Roman Republic was a constantly-evolving, unwritten set of guidelines and principles passed down mainly through precedent, by which the government and its politics operated.[49] Throughout the history of the Republic, changes in the constitution were driven by conflicts of interest between the aristocracy and ordinary citizens.
Senate of the Roman Republic
The senate's ultimate authority derived from the esteem and prestige of the senators.[50] This esteem and prestige was based on both precedent and custom, as well as the caliber and reputation of the senators.[51] The senate passed decrees, which were called senatus consulta. These were officially "advice" from the senate to a magistrate. In practice, however, they were usually followed by the magistrates.[52] The focus of the Roman senate was usually directed towards foreign policy.[53] Though it technically had no official role in the management of military conflict, the senate ultimately was the force that oversaw such affairs. The power of the senate expanded over time as the power of the legislative assemblies declined, and the senate took a greater role in ordinary law-making. Its members were usually appointed by Roman Censors, who ordinarily selected newly elected magistrates for membership in the senate, making the senate a partially elected body. During times of military emergency, such as the civil wars of the 1st century BC, this practice became less prevalent, as the Roman Dictator, Triumvir or the senate itself would select its members.
Legislative Assemblies
The legal status of Roman citizenship was limited and was a vital prerequisite to possessing many important legal rights such as the right to trial and appeal, to marry, to vote, to hold office, to enter binding contracts, and to special tax exemptions. An adult male citizen with the full complement of legal and political rights was called "optimo jure." The optimo jure elected their assemblies, whereupon the assemblies elected magistrates,[54] enacted legislation,[55] presided over trials in capital cases, declared war and peace, and forged or dissolved treaties.[54] There were two types of legislative assemblies. The first was the comitia ("committees"),[56] which were assemblies of all optimo jure. The second was the concilia ("councils"), which were assemblies of specific groups of optimo jure.[57]
Citizens were organized on the basis of centuries and tribes, which would each gather into their own assemblies. The Comitia Centuriata ("Centuriate Assembly") was the assembly of the centuries (i.e., soldiers). The president of the Comitia Centuriata was usually a consul.[58] The centuries would vote, one at a time, until a measure received support from a majority of the centuries. The Comitia Centuriata would elect magistrates who had the imperium powers (consuls and praetors). It also elected censors. Only the Comitia Centuriata could declare war, and ratify the results of a census.[59] It also served as the highest court of appeal in certain judicial cases.[60]
 |
|---|
| Periods |
|
| Constitution |
| Political institutions |
| Assemblies |
| Ordinary magistrates |
| Extraordinary magistrates |
| Public law |
| Senatus consultum ultimum |
| Titles and honours |
The assembly of the tribes (i.e., the citizens of Rome), the Comitia Tributa, was presided over by a consul,[58] and was composed of 35 tribes. The tribes were not ethnic or kinship groups, but rather geographical subdivisions.[61] The order that the thirty-five tribes would vote in was selected randomly by lot.[62] Once a measure received support from a majority of the tribes, the voting would end. While it did not pass many laws, the Comitia Tributa did elect quaestors, curule aediles, and military tribunes.[63] The Plebeian Council[64] was identical to the assembly of the tribes, but excluded the patricians (the elite who could trace their ancestry to the founding of Rome). They elected their own officers, plebeian tribunes and plebeian aediles. Usually a plebeian tribune would preside over the assembly. This assembly passed most laws, and could also act as a court of appeal.
Executive Magistrates
Each republican magistrate held certain constitutional powers. In addition, each was assigned a provincia by the Senate. This was the scope of that particular office holder's authority. It could apply to a geographic area or to a particular responsibility or task.[65] The powers of a magistrate came from the people of Rome (both plebeians and patricians).[66] The imperium was held by both consuls and praetors. Strictly speaking, it was the authority to command a military force. In reality, however, it carried broad authority in the other public spheres such as diplomacy, and the justice system. In extreme cases, those with the imperium power were able to sentence Roman Citizens to death. All magistrates also had the power of coercitio (coercion). This was used by magistrates to maintain public order by imposing punishment for crimes.[67] Magistrates also had both the power and the duty to look for omens. This power would often be used to obstruct political opponents.
One check on a magistrate's power was called Collega (collegiality). Each magisterial office would be held concurrently by at least two people. Another such check was provocatio. While in Rome, all citizens were protected from coercion, by provocatio, which was an early form of due process. It was a precursor to habeas corpus. If any magistrate tried to use the powers of the state against a citizen, that citizen could appeal the decision of the magistrate to a tribune.[68] In addition, once a magistrate's one-year term of office expired, he would have to wait ten years before serving in that office again. This created problems for some consuls and praetors, and these magistrates would occasionally have their imperium extended. In effect, they would retain the powers of the office (as a promagistrate), without officially holding that office.[69]
The consuls of the Roman Republic were the highest ranking ordinary magistrates. Each served for one year.[58][70] They retained several elements of the former kingly regalia, such as the toga praetexta, and the fasces, which represented the power to inflict physical punishment. Consular powers included the kings' former "power to command" (imperium) and appointment of new senators. Consuls had supreme power in both civil and military matters. While in the city of Rome, the consuls were the head of the Roman government.[58] They would preside over the senate and the assemblies. While abroad, each consul would command an army.[58][71] His authority abroad would be nearly absolute.[58] Praetors administered civil law[72] and commanded provincial armies. Every five years, two censors were elected for an 18-month term, during which they would conduct a census. During the census, they could enroll citizens in the senate, or purge them from the senate.[73] Aediles were officers elected to conduct domestic affairs in Rome, such as managing public games and shows. The quaestors would usually assist the consuls in Rome, and the governors in the provinces. Their duties were often financial.
Since the tribunes were considered to be the embodiment of the plebeians, they were sacrosanct. Their sacrosanctity was enforced by a pledge, taken by the plebeians, to kill any person who harmed or interfered with a tribune during his term of office. It was a capital offense to harm a tribune, to disregard his veto, or to otherwise interfere with him.[74] In times of military emergency, a dictator would be appointed for a term of six months.[75] Constitutional government would be dissolved, and the dictator would be the absolute master of the state.[76] When the dictator's term ended, constitutional government would be restored.
Military
 |
| Part of a series on the |
| Military of ancient Rome |
|---|
 Ancient Rome portal |
Rome's military secured Rome's territory and borders, and helped to impose tribute on conquered peoples. Rome's armies had a formidable reputation; but Rome also "produced [its] share of incompetents"[77] and catastrophic defeats. Nevertheless, it was generally the fate of Rome's greatest enemies, such as Pyrrhus and Hannibal,[78] to win early battles but lose the war.
Hoplite armies (509 – c. 315 BC)
During this period, Roman soldiers seem to have been modelled after those of the Etruscans to the north,[79] who themselves are believed to have copied their style of warfare from the Greeks. Traditionally, the introduction of the phalanx formation into the Roman army is ascribed to the city's penultimate king, Servius Tullius (ruled 578 to 534 BC).[80] According to Livy[81] and Dionysius of Halicarnassus,[82] the front rank was composed of the wealthiest citizens, who were able to purchase the best equipment. Each subsequent rank consisted of those with less wealth and poorer equipment than the one before it. The phalanx was effective in large, open spaces, but not on the hilly terrain of the central Italian peninsula. In the 4th century BC, the Romans replaced it with the more flexible manipular formation. This change is sometimes attributed to Marcus Furius Camillus and placed shortly after the Gallic invasion of 390 BC; more likely, it was copied from Rome's Samnite enemies to the south,[83] following the Second Samnite War (326 to 304 BC).[84]
Manipular legion (c. 315 – 107 BC)
During this period, an army formation of around 5,000 men (of both heavy and light infantry) was known as a legion. The manipular army was based upon social class, age and military experience.[85] Maniples were units of 120 men each drawn from a single infantry class.
The maniples were typically deployed into three discrete lines based on the three heavy infantry types:
- 1. Each first line maniple were leather-armoured infantry soldiers who wore a bronze breastplate and a bronze helmet adorned with 3 feathers approximately 30 cm (12 in) in height and carried an iron-clad wooden shield. They were armed with a sword and two throwing spears.
- 2. The second infantry line was armed and armoured in the same manner as was the first infantry line. The second infantry line, however, wore a lighter coat of mail rather than a solid brass breastplate.
- 3. The third infantry line was the last remnant of the hoplite-style (the Greek-style formation used occasionally during the early Republic) troops in the Roman army. They were armed and armoured in the same manner as were the soldiers in the second line, with the exception that they carried a lighter spear.[86]
The three infantry classes[87] may have retained some slight parallel to social divisions within Roman society, but at least officially the three lines were based upon age and experience rather than social class. Young, unproven men would serve in the first line, older men with some military experience would serve in the second line, and veteran troops of advanced age and experience would serve in the third line.
The heavy infantry of the maniples were supported by a number of light infantry and cavalry troops, typically 300 horsemen per manipular legion.[87] The cavalry was drawn primarily from the richest class of equestrians. There was an additional class of troops who followed the army without specific martial roles and were deployed to the rear of the third line. Their role in accompanying the army was primarily to supply any vacancies that might occur in the maniples. The light infantry consisted of 1,200 unarmoured skirmishing troops drawn from the youngest and lower social classes. They were armed with a sword and a small shield, as well as several light javelins.
Rome's military confederation with the other peoples of the Italian peninsula meant that half of Rome's army was provided by the Socii, such as the Etruscans, Umbrians, Apulians, Campanians, Samnites, Lucani, Bruttii, and the various southern Greek cities. Polybius states that Rome could draw on 770,000 men at the beginning of the Second Punic War, of which 700,000 were infantry and 70,000 met the requirements for cavalry. Rome's Italian allies would be organized in alae, or wings, roughly equal in manpower to the Roman legions, though with 900 cavalry instead of 300.
A small navy had operated at a fairly low level after about 300 BC, but it was massively upgraded about forty years later, during the First Punic War. After a period of frenetic construction, the navy mushroomed to a size of more than 400 ships on the Carthaginian ("Punic") pattern. Once completed, it could accommodate up to 100,000 sailors and embarked troops for battle. The navy thereafter declined in size.[88]
The extraordinary demands of the Punic Wars, in addition to a shortage of manpower, exposed the tactical weaknesses of the manipular legion, at least in the short term.[89] In 217 BC, near the beginning of the Second Punic War, Rome was forced to effectively ignore its long-standing principle that its soldiers must be both citizens and property owners. During the 2nd century BC, Roman territory saw an overall decline in population,[90] partially due to the huge losses incurred during various wars. This was accompanied by severe social stresses and the greater collapse of the middle classes. As a result, the Roman state was forced to arm its soldiers at the expense of the state, which it did not have to do in the past.
The distinction between the heavy infantry types began to blur, perhaps because the state was now assuming the responsibility of providing standard-issue equipment. In addition, the shortage of available manpower led to a greater burden being placed upon Rome's allies for the provision of allied troops.[91] Eventually, the Romans were forced to begin hiring mercenaries to fight alongside the legions.[92]
Legion after the reforms of Gaius Marius (107–27 BC)
In a process known as the Marian reforms, Roman consul Gaius Marius carried out a programme of reform of the Roman military.[93] In 107 BC, all citizens, regardless of their wealth or social class, were made eligible for entry into the Roman army. This move formalised and concluded a gradual process that had been growing for centuries, of removing property requirements for military service.[94] The distinction among the three heavy infantry classes, which had already become blurred, had collapsed into a single class of heavy legionary infantry. The heavy infantry legionaries were drawn from citizen stock, while non-citizens came to dominate the ranks of the light infantry. The army's higher-level officers and commanders were still drawn exclusively from the Roman aristocracy.[95]
Unlike earlier in the Republic, legionaries were no longer fighting on a seasonal basis to protect their land. Instead, they received standard pay, and were employed by the state on a fixed-term basis. As a consequence, military duty began to appeal most to the poorest sections of society, to whom a salaried pay was attractive. A destabilising consequence of this development was that the proletariat "acquired a stronger and more elevated position"[96] within the state.
The legions of the late Republic were, structurally, almost entirely heavy infantry. The legion's main sub-unit was called a cohort and consisted of approximately 480 infantrymen. The cohort was therefore a much larger unit than the earlier maniple sub-unit, and was divided into six centuries of 80 men each.[97] Each century was separated further into 10 "tent groups" of 8 men each. The cavalry troops were used as scouts and dispatch riders rather than battlefield cavalry.[98] Legions also contained a dedicated group of artillery crew of perhaps 60 men. Each legion was normally partnered with an approximately equal number of allied (non-Roman) troops.[99]
However, the most obvious deficiency of the Roman army remained its shortage of cavalry, especially heavy cavalry.[100] As Rome's borders expanded and its adversaries changed from largely infantry-based to largely cavalry-based troops, the infantry-based Roman army began to find itself at a tactical disadvantage, particularly in the East.
After having declined in size following the subjugation of the Mediterranean, the Roman navy underwent short-term upgrading and revitalisation in the late Republic to meet several new demands. Under Caesar, an invasion fleet was assembled in the English Channel to allow the invasion of Britannia; under Pompey, a large fleet was raised in the Mediterranean Sea to clear the sea of Cilician pirates. During the civil war that followed, as many as a thousand ships were either constructed or pressed into service from Greek cities.[88]
Military history
The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate.[102] While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view.[103] They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created.[104] In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome.[105] With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.[106]
This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers.[107] The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War),[108] it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations.[109] This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.
In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation.[110] In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome.[111] According to Polybius,[112] who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt.[113] In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill.[114] This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.
Some historians[115] see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies.[116] However, the question of what motivated Rome's continued imperial expansion up until the establishment of Augustus' Principate remains controversial.
Early Republic (458–274 BC)
Early Italian campaigns (458–396 BC)
The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region.[117] Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages,[118] or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers.[119] Rome defeated the Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC,[118][120] the Battle of Mount Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbio in 446 BC,[121][122] the Battle of Aricia,[123] and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.[124][125]
By the end of this period, Rome had effectively completed the conquest of their immediate Etruscan and Latin neighbours,[126] and also secured their position against the immediate threat posed by the nearby Apennine hill tribes.
Celtic invasion of Italy (390–387 BC)
By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe, the Senones,[127] invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by the chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city[128] before being either driven off or bought off. The Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant?]
Roman expansion into Italy (343–282 BC)
After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome,[129] the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans defeated the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War (340–338 BC).[130][131] Rome defeated the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum,[131] after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.[132]
The Second Samnite War, from 327 BC to 304 BC, was much longer and more serious for both the Romans and Samnites.[133] The fortunes of the two sides fluctuated throughout its course. But the Romans won the Battle of Bovianum, and the tide turned strongly against the Samnites from 314 BC onwards, leading them to sue for peace with progressively less generous terms. By 304 BC, the Romans had effectively annexed the greater degree of the Samnite territory, founding several colonies.
Seven years after their defeat, with Roman dominance of the area looking assured, the Samnites rose again and defeated a Roman army in 298 BC, to open the Third Samnite War. Following this success they built a coalition of several previous enemies of Rome.[134] At the Battle of Populonia in 282 BC Rome finished off the last vestiges of Etruscan power in the region.
Pyrrhic War (280–275 BC)
By the beginning of the 3rd century BC, Rome had established itself as a major power on the Italian Peninsula, but had not yet come into conflict with the dominant military powers in the Mediterranean Basin at the time: Carthage and the Greek kingdoms.[135][136]
When a diplomatic dispute between Rome and a Greek colony in Italy[137] erupted into open warfare in a naval confrontation, the Greek colony appealed for military aid to Pyrrhus, ruler of the northwestern Greek kingdom of Epirus. Motivated by a personal desire for military accomplishment, Pyrrhus landed a Greek army of some 25,000 men on Italian soil in 280 BC.
Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy.[138] Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula. In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.
The conflicts with Pyrrhus would have a great effect on Rome. Rome had shown it was capable of pitting its armies successfully against the dominant military powers of the Mediterranean, and that the Greek kingdoms were incapable of defending their colonies in Italy and abroad. Rome quickly moved into southern Italia, subjugating and dividing the Greek colonies.[139] Now, Rome effectively dominated the Italian peninsula,[140] and won an international military reputation.[141]
Mid-Republic (264–133 BC)
Punic Wars (264–146 BC)
The First Punic War began in 264 BC when inhabitants of Sicily began to appeal to the two powers between which they lay—Rome and Carthage—to resolve internal conflicts. The war saw land battles in Sicily early on, but the theatre shifted to naval battles around Sicily and Africa. Before the First Punic War there was no Roman navy to speak of. The new war in Sicily against Carthage, a great naval power,[142] forced Rome to quickly build a fleet and train sailors.[143]
The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine,[144] a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed.[145] The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army.[146] He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient financial means to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.
Continuing distrust led to the renewal of hostilities in the Second Punic War when Hannibal Barca attacked an Iberian town[147] which had diplomatic ties to Rome.[148] Hannibal then crossed the Italian Alps to invade Italy.[149] Hannibal's successes in Italy began immediately, and reached an early climax at the Battle of Cannae, where 70,000 Romans were killed.
The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River.[149] Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.
Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War,[150] but quickly did so economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defence against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage.[151] Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged.[152] However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and removal of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed.
Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of Punic colonies (port cities in the western Mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("Attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthage was gone, but the other Punic cities in the western Mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.
Kingdom of Macedonia, the Greek poleis, and Illyria (215–148 BC)
| Poleis and wars |
|---|
Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome.[153][154] However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet.[153] The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.
The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt.[102] Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance.[155] The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War.[156] Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests.[157] The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.[158]
With Egypt and Macedonia weakened, the Seleucid Empire made increasingly aggressive and successful attempts to conquer the entire Greek world.[159] Now not only Rome's allies against Philip, but even Philip himself, sought a Roman alliance against the Seleucids.[160] The situation was made worse by the fact that Hannibal was now a chief military advisor to the Seleucid emperor, and the two were believed to be planning an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome itself.[161] The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, because they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by now had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire.[161]
dated mid 1st century BC[162]
Excavated from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum by Karl Jakob Weber, 1750–65.[163]
Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul.[161] They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy.[161] This fear was shared by Rome's Greek allies, who had largely ignored Rome in the years after the Second Macedonian War, but now followed Rome again for the first time since that war.[161] A major Roman-Greek force was mobilized under the command of the great hero of the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus, and set out for Greece, beginning the Roman-Syrian War. After initial fighting that revealed serious Seleucid weaknesses, the Seleucids tried to turn the Roman strength against them at the Battle of Thermopylae (as they believed the 300 Spartans had done centuries earlier).[160] Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece.[160] The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia.[160] The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory.[160][164] The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Although they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the decline of their empire, as they were to begin facing increasingly aggressive subjects in the east (the Parthians) and the west (the Greeks). Their empire disintegrated into a rump over the course of the next century, when it was eclipsed by Pontus. Following Magnesia, Rome again withdrew from Greece, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace. In fact, it did the opposite.[165]
In 179 BC Philip died.[166] His talented and ambitious son, Perseus, took the throne and showed a renewed interest in conquering Greece.[167] With her Greek allies facing a major new threat, Rome declared war on Macedonia again, starting the Third Macedonian War. Perseus initially had some success against the Romans. However, Rome responded by sending a stronger army. This second consular army decisively defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC[166][168] and the Macedonians duly capitulated, ending the war.[169]
Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the region) would not have peace if left alone, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world, and divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into four client republics. Yet, Macedonian agitation continued. The Fourth Macedonian War, 150 to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by trying to re-establish the old kingdom. The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna.
The Achaean League chose this moment to fight Rome but was swiftly defeated. In 146 BC (the same year as the destruction of Carthage), Corinth was besieged and destroyed, which led to the league's surrender.[170] After nearly a century of constant crisis management in Greece, which always led back to internal instability and war when she withdrew, Rome decided to divide Macedonia into two new Roman provinces, Achaea and Macedonia.
Late Republic (147–30 BC)
Jugurthine War (111–104 BC)
The Jugurthine War of 111–104 BC was fought between Rome and Jugurtha of the North African kingdom of Numidia. It constituted the final Roman pacification of Northern Africa,[171] after which Rome largely ceased expansion on the continent after reaching natural barriers of desert and mountain. Following Jugurtha's usurpation of the throne of Numidia,[172] a loyal ally of Rome since the Punic Wars,[173] Rome felt compelled to intervene. Jugurtha impudently bribed the Romans into accepting his usurpation. Jugurtha was finally captured not in battle but by treachery.
Celtic threat (121 BC) and Germanic threat (113–101 BC)
In 121 BC, Rome came into contact with two Celtic tribes (from a region in modern France), both of which they defeated with apparent ease. The Cimbrian War (113–101 BC) was a far more serious affair than the earlier clashes of 121 BC. The Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and the Teutons[174] migrated from northern Europe into Rome's northern territories,[175] and clashed with Rome and her allies.[176] At the Battle of Aquae Sextiae and the Battle of Vercellae both tribes were virtually annihilated, which ended the threat.
Internal unrest (135–71 BC)
The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state.[179] Rome was also plagued by several slave uprisings during this period, in part because vast tracts of land had been given over to slave farming in which the slaves greatly outnumbered their Roman masters. In the 1st century BC at least twelve civil wars and rebellions occurred. This pattern continued until 27 BC, when Octavian (later Augustus) successfully challenged the Senate's authority, and was made princeps (first citizen).
Between 135 BC and 71 BC there were three "Servile Wars" involving slave uprisings against the Roman state. The third and final uprising was the most serious,[180] involving ultimately between 120,000[181] and 150,000[182] slaves under the command of the gladiator Spartacus. In 91 BC the Social War broke out between Rome and its former allies in Italy when the allies complained that they shared the risk of Rome's military campaigns, but not its rewards. Although they lost militarily, the allies achieved their objectives with legal proclamations which granted citizenship to more than 500,000 Italians.
The internal unrest reached its most serious state, however, in the two civil wars that were caused by the clash between generals Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla starting from 88 BC. In the Battle of the Colline Gate[183] at the very door of the city of Rome, a Roman army under Sulla bested an army of the Marius supporters and entered the city. Sulla's actions marked a watershed in the willingness of Roman troops to wage war against one another that was to pave the way for the wars which ultimately overthrew the Republic, and caused the founding of the Roman Empire.
Conflicts with Mithridates (89–63 BC) and the Cilician pirates (67 BC)
Mithridates the Great was the ruler of Pontus,[184] a large kingdom in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), from 120 to 63 BC. Mithridates antagonised Rome by seeking to expand his kingdom,[184] and Rome for its part seemed equally eager for war and the spoils and prestige that it might bring.[184][185] In 88 BC, Mithridates ordered the killing of a majority of the 80,000 Romans living in his kingdom.[186] The massacre was the official reason given for the commencement of hostilities in the First Mithridatic War. The Roman general Lucius Cornelius Sulla forced Mithridates out of Greece proper, but then had to return to Italy to answer the internal threat posed by his rival, Gaius Marius. A peace was made between Rome and Pontus, but this proved only a temporary lull.
The Second Mithridatic War began when Rome tried to annex a province that Mithridates claimed as his own. In the Third Mithridatic War, first Lucius Licinius Lucullus and then Pompey the Great were sent against Mithridates and his Armenian ally Tigranes the Great.[187] Mithridates was finally defeated by Pompey in the night-time Battle of the Lycus.[188]
The Mediterranean had at this time fallen into the hands of pirates,[188] largely from Cilicia.[189] The pirates not only strangled shipping lanes but also plundered many cities on the coasts of Greece and Asia. Pompey was nominated as commander of a special naval task force to campaign against the pirates.[187][188] It took Pompey just forty days to clear the western portion of the sea of pirates and restore communication between Iberia (Spain), Africa, and Italy.
Caesar's early campaigns (59–50 BC)
During his term as praetor in the Iberian Peninsula (modern Portugal and Spain), Pompey's contemporary Julius Caesar defeated two local tribes in battle.[190] After his term as consul in 59 BC, he was appointed to a five-year term as the proconsular Governor of Cisalpine Gaul (part of current northern Italy), Transalpine Gaul (current southern France) and Illyria (part of the modern Balkans).[190][191] Not content with an idle governorship, Caesar strove to find reason to invade Gaul (modern France and Belgium), which would give him the dramatic military success he sought. When two local tribes began to migrate on a route that would take them near (not into) the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul, Caesar had the barely sufficient excuse he needed for his Gallic Wars, fought between 58 BC and 49 BC.
Caesar defeated large armies at major battles 58 and 57 BC. In 55 and 54 BC he made two expeditions into Britain, the first Roman to do so. Caesar then defeated a union of Gauls at the Battle of Alesia,[192] completing the Roman conquest of Transalpine Gaul. By 50 BC, all of Gaul lay in Roman hands. Gaul never regained its Celtic identity, never attempted another rebellion, and, except for the Crisis of the Third Century, remained loyal to Rome until the fall of the empire in 476.
Triumvirates and Caesarian ascension (53–30 BC)
By 59 BC an unofficial political alliance known as the First Triumvirate was formed between Gaius Julius Caesar, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus ("Pompey the Great") to share power and influence.[193] In 53 BC, Crassus launched a Roman invasion of the Parthian Empire (modern Iraq and Iran). After initial successes,[194] he marched his army deep into the desert;[195] but here his army was cut off deep in enemy territory, surrounded and slaughtered at the Battle of Carrhae in which Crassus himself perished. The death of Crassus removed some of the balance in the Triumvirate and, consequently, Caesar and Pompey began to move apart. While Caesar was fighting in Gaul, Pompey proceeded with a legislative agenda for Rome that revealed that he was at best ambivalent towards Caesar[196] and perhaps now covertly allied with Caesar's political enemies. In 51 BC, some Roman senators demanded that Caesar not be permitted to stand for consul unless he turned over control of his armies to the state, which would have left Caesar defenceless before his enemies. Caesar chose civil war over laying down his command and facing trial.
By the spring of 49 BC, the hardened legions of Caesar crossed the river Rubicon, the legal boundary of Roman Italy beyond which no commander might bring his army, and swept down the Italian peninsula towards Rome, while Pompey ordered the abandonment of Rome. Afterwards Caesar turned his attention to the Pompeian stronghold of Hispania (modern Spain)[197] but decided to tackle Pompey himself in Greece.[198] Pompey initially defeated Caesar, but failed to follow up on the victory, and was decisively defeated at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC,[199] despite outnumbering Caesar's forces two to one, albeit with inferior quality troops.[200] Pompey fled again, this time to Egypt, where he was murdered.
Pompey's death did not end the civil war, as Caesar's many enemies fought on. In 46 BC Caesar lost perhaps as much as a third of his army, but ultimately came back to defeat the Pompeian army of Metellus Scipio in the Battle of Thapsus, after which the Pompeians retreated yet again to Hispania. Caesar then defeated the combined Pompeian forces at the Battle of Munda.
Caesar was now the primary figure of the Roman state, enforcing and entrenching his powers. His enemies feared that he had ambitions to become an autocratic ruler. Arguing that the Roman Republic was in danger, a group of senators hatched a conspiracy and assassinated Caesar at a meeting of the Senate in March 44 BC. [203] Mark Antony, Caesar's lieutenant, condemned Caesar's assassination, and war broke out between the two factions. Antony was denounced as a public enemy, and Caesar's adopted son and chosen heir, Gaius Octavianus, was entrusted with the command of the war against him. At the Battle of Mutina Mark Antony was defeated by the consuls Hirtius and Pansa, who were both killed.
Octavian came to terms with Caesarians Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus in 43 BC when the Second Triumvirate was formed.[48] In 42 BC Mark Antony and Octavian fought the Battle of Philippi against Caesar's assassins Brutus and Cassius. Although Brutus defeated Octavian, Antony defeated Cassius, who committed suicide. Brutus did likewise soon afterwards.
However, civil war flared again when the Second Triumvirate of Octavian, Lepidus and Mark Antony failed. The ambitious Octavian built a power base of patronage and then launched a campaign against Mark Antony.[203] At the naval Battle of Actium in 31 BC off the coast of Greece, Octavian decisively defeated Antony and Cleopatra of Ptolemaic Egypt. Octavian was granted a series of special powers including sole "imperium" within the city of Rome, permanent consular powers and credit for every Roman military victory, since all future generals were assumed to be acting under his command. In 27 BC Octavian was granted the use of the names "Augustus", indicating his primary status above all other Romans, "Princeps", which he used to refer to himself as in public, and he adopted the title "Imperator Caesar" making him the first Roman Emperor.[204]
Culture
Social structure
The basic Roman social structure was the family. Citizen families were headed by the family's oldest male, the pater familias, who was lawfully entitled to exercise complete authority (patria potestas), including capital punishment, over all family members. Slaves were simultaneously family members and family property. Marriage offered opportunities for political and social alliances; citizen men and citizen women were expected to marry, produce as many children as possible, and improve - or at worst, conserve - their family's wealth, fortune, and public profile. Patricians usually married in a form known as confarreatio, which transferred the bride from her father's absolute control or "hand" (manus) to that of her husband.[205] Patrician status could only be inherited through birth; an early law, introduced the reactionary Decemviri, sought to prevent marriages between patricians and plebeians; any resulting offspring may not have been legally recognised.[206] Among ordinary plebeians, different marriage forms, coemptio ("by purchase"), and usus ("habitual cohabitation") offered married women considerable more freedom in marriage than their patrician counterparts.[207] Towards the end of the Republic, the birthrate began to fall among the elite; manus marriage was replaced by free marriage, in which the husband had no legal power over his wife.
Compared to contemporary societies in the ancient world, Rome offered its inhabitants considerable opportunities for upward social mobility. Slaves could be freed by their masters for services rendered, or buy their freedom, either with money or the offer of future services as a freedman or woman. Freed slaves and the master who freed them retained certain mutual obligations, both moral and legal. This was the bottom rung of one of Rome's fundamental social and economic institutions, the client-patron relationship.[citation needed] Citizens who offended Rome's traditional moral code could be declared infamous, and lose certain privileges of their citizenship.[citation needed]
Cities, towns and villas
Life in the Roman Republic revolved around the city of Rome, and its famed seven hills. The city also had several theatres,[208] gymnasiums, and many taverns, baths and brothels. residential architecture ranged from very modest houses to country villas, and in the capital city of Rome, to the residences on the elegant Palatine Hill.
Most Roman towns and cities had a forum and temples, as did the city of Rome itself. Aqueducts brought water to urban centers[209] Landlords generally resided in cities and left their estates in the care of farm managers.
Clothing
The basic Roman garment was the greek-style tunic, worn knee-length and short-sleeved (or sleeveless) for men and boys, and ankle-length and long-sleeved for women and girls. The toga was purely Roman. It was thought to have begun during the early Roman kingdom, as a plain woolen "shepherd's wrap", worn by both sexes, all classes, and all occupations, including the military.[211] By the middle to late Republic, citizen women had abandoned it for the less bulky, Greek-style stola, and the military used it only for off-duty ceremonies.[212] The toga became a mark of male citizenship, a statement of social degree.[213] Convention also dictated the type and colour and style of calcei (ankle-boots) appropriate to each level of male citizenship; for example, red for senators, brown with crescent-shaped buckles for equites, and plain tanned for plebs.
Togas were inconvenient for any physical activity other than sitting, public oratory, and attending the salutiones ("greeting sessions") held by rich patrons, who were usually members of the ruling, landed minority. The whitest, most voluminous togas were worn by the senatorial class. High ranking magistrates, priests and citizen's children were entitled to a purple-bordered toga praetexta. Triumphal generals wore an all-purple, gold-embroidered toga picta, associated with the image of Jupiter and Rome's former kings - but only for a single day; Republican mores simultaneously fostered competitive display and attempted its containment; Rome's sumptuary laws aimed to preserve at least a notional equality between peers, and reduce the potential threats of class envy.[214] Luxurious and highly coloured clothing had always been available to those who could afford it, particularly women; cloth-of-gold (lamé) possibly as early as the 7th century BC,[215] and by the 3rd century BC, significant quantities of raw silk from China[216] The Lex Oppia (215 BC), which restricted personal expenditure on such luxuries as purple clothing, was repealed in 195, following a mass public protest by wealthy Roman matrons.[217] Tyrian purple, as a quasi-sacred colour, was officially reserved for the border of the toga praetexta and for the solid purple toga picta;[218][219][220] but towards the end of the Republic, the notorious Verres was wearing a purple pallium at all-night parties, not long before his trial, disgrace and exile for corruption.[221]
For most Romans, even the simplest clothing represented a major expense; worn clothing was passed down the social scale until it fell to rags, and these in turn were used for patchwork.[222] Wool and linen were the mainstays of Roman clothing. Landowners were advised that whenever possible, female slaves should be producing homespun woolen cloth; this would likely be good enough for clothing the better class of slave or supervisor. Cato the Elder recommended that slaves be given a new cloak and tunic every two years; coarse rustic homespun would likely be "too good" for the lowest class of slave, but not good enough for their masters.[223] The carding, combing, spinning and weaving of wool were part of daily housekeeping for most women. Those of middling or low income could earn money by spinning wool into yarn, or by weaving fabric for sale. In traditionalist, wealthy households, the family's wool-baskets, spindles and looms were positioned in the semi-public reception area (atrium), where the mater familias and her familia could thus demonstrate their industry and frugality; a largely symbolic and moral activity for those of their class, rather than practical necessity.[224]
As the Republic wore on, its trade, territories and wealth increased; Roman conservatives deplored what seemed an increasing Roman appetite for luxurious fabrics and exotic "foreign" styles among all classes, particularly their own. Towards the end of the Republic, the ultra-traditionalist Cato the younger publicly protested the self-indulgent greed and ambition of his peers, and the loss of Republican "manly virtues", by wearing an archaic, "skimpy" dark woolen toga, without tunic or footwear. While Roman moralists "placed an ideological premium on the simple and the frugal", most ordinary Romans did not.[225][226]
Food and dining
Modern study of the dietary habits during the Republic are hampered by various factors. Few writings have survived, and because different components of their diet are more or less likely to be preserved, the archaeological record cannot be relied on.[227] Cato the elder's De Agri Cultura includes several recipes and his suggested "Rations for the hands". The list of ingredients includes cheese, honey, poppy seeds, coriander, fennel, cumin, egg, olives, bay leaves, laurel twig, and anise. He gives instructions for kneading bread, making porridge, Placenta cake, brine, various wines, preserving lentils, planting asparagus, curing ham, and fattening geese and squab.[228] The Roman poet Horace mentions another Roman favorite, the olive, in reference to his own diet, which he describes as very simple: "As for me, olives, endives, and smooth mallows provide sustenance."[229] Meat, fish and produce were a part of the Roman diet at all levels of society.[230]
Romans valued fresh fruit, and had a diverse variety available to them.[231] Wine was considered the basic drink,[232] consumed at all meals and occasions by all classes and was quite inexpensive. Cato once advised cutting his rations in half to conserve wine for the workforce.[233] Many types of drinks involving grapes and honey were consumed as well. Drinking on an empty stomach was regarded as boorish and a sure sign for alcoholism, the debilitating physical and psychological effects of which were known to the Romans. Accusations of alcoholism were used to discredit political rivals. Prominent Roman alcoholics included Marcus Antonius,[234] and Cicero's own son Marcus (Cicero Minor). Even Cato the Younger was known to be a heavy drinker.[235]
Education and language
Rome's original native language was early Latin, the language of the Italic Latins. Most surviving Latin literature is written in Classical Latin, a highly stylised and polished literary language which developed from early and vernacular spoken Latin, from the 1st century BC. Most Latin speakers used Vulgar Latin, which significantly differed from Classical Latin in grammar, vocabulary, and eventually pronunciation.[citation needed]
Following various military conquests in the Greek East, Romans adapted a number of Greek educational precepts to their own fledgling system.[236] Strenuous, disciplined physical training helped prepare boys of citizen class for their eventual citizenship and a military career. Girls generally received instruction[237] from their mothers in the art of spinning, weaving, and sewing. Schooling in a more formal sense was begun around 200 BC. Education began at the age of around six, and in the next six to seven years, boys and girls were expected to learn the basics of reading, writing and counting. By the age of twelve, they would be learning Latin, Greek, grammar and literature, followed by training for public speaking. Effective oratory and good Latin were highly valued among the elite, and were essential to a career in law or politics[238]
Arts
Literature
Early Roman literature was influenced heavily by Greek authors. From the mid-Republic, Roman authors followed Greek models, to produce free-verse and verse-form plays and other in Latin; for example, Livius Andronicus wrote tragedies and comedies. The earliest Latin works to have survived intact are the comedies of Plautus, written during the mid-Republic. Works of well-known, popular playwrights were sometimes commissioned for performance at religious festivals; many of these were Satyr plays, based of Greek models and Greek myths. Lucretius, in his On the Nature of Things explicated the tenets of Epicurean philosophy. Towards the end of the Republic, Virgil's epic poem, the Aeneid, built on Homer's ancient Greek epic, the Iliad, to make the Trojan prince Aeneas an ancestor of the Roman people.[citation needed]
In the 3rd century BC, Greek art taken as the spoils of war became popular, and many Roman homes were decorated with landscapes by Greek artists. Portrait sculpture[239]
Over time, Roman architecture was modified as their urban requirements changed, and the civil engineering and building construction technology became developed and refined. The architectural style of the capital city was emulated by other urban centers under Roman control and influence. [citation needed]
Sports and entertainment
The city of Rome had a place called the Campus Martius ("Field of Mars"), which was a sort of drill ground for Roman soldiers. Later, the Campus became Rome's track and field playground. In the campus, the youth assembled to play and exercise, which included jumping, wrestling, boxing and racing. [citation needed] Equestrian sports, throwing, and swimming were also preferred physical activities. [citation needed] In the countryside, pastimes included fishing and hunting. [citation needed] Board games played in Rome included dice (Tesserae or Tali), Roman Chess (Latrunculi), Roman Checkers (Calculi), Tic-tac-toe (Terni Lapilli), and Ludus duodecim scriptorum and Tabula, predecessors of backgammon.[240] Other activities included chariot races, and musical and theatrical performances. [citation needed]
Religion
Roman religious beliefs date back to the founding of Rome, around 800 BC. However, the Roman religion commonly associated with the republic and early empire did not begin until around 500 BC, when Romans came in contact with Greek culture, and adopted many of the Greek religious beliefs. Private and personal worship was an important aspect of religious practices. In a sense, each household was a temple to the gods. Each household had an altar (lararium), at which the family members would offer prayers, perform rites, and interact with the household gods. Many of the gods that Romans worshiped came from the Proto-Indo-European pantheon, others were based on Greek gods. The two most famous deities were Jupiter (the king God) and Mars (the god of war). With its cultural influence spreading over most of the Mediterranean, Romans began accepting foreign gods into their own culture, as well as other philosophical traditions such as Cynicism and Stoicism.[241]
See also
References
- ^ Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, pp. 455, 456.
- ^ a b Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth–Decline Curves, 600 BC to 600 AD". Social Science History. 3 (3/4). Social Science History, Vol. 3, No. 3/4: 115–138 [125]. doi:10.2307/1170959. JSTOR 1170959.
- ^ Cornell, T., The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC), Routledge, 1995. pp. 215-218: Cornell offers a summary of "Livy's prose narrative" and derived literary works relating to the expulsion of the kings. ISBN 978-0-415-01596-7
- ^ Dionysius, iv. 64–85.[1]
- ^ Livy, i. 57-60
- ^ Cornell, Beginnings of Rome, pp. 226 - 228.
- ^ Aristotle, Politics, 5.1311a.
- ^ Cornell, Beginnings of Rome, pp. 215-218, 377, 378.
- ^ A. Drummond, Cambridge Ancient History, VII, part 2, p. 178.
- ^ Cornell, Beginnings of Rome, pp. 289-291.
- ^ Plebs ("the mass") was originally a disparaging term, but was adopted as a badge of pride by those whom it was meant to insult. It might not have referred to wealthier commoners: see Cornell, T., The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC), Routledge, 1995. pp. 256 - 259. ISBN 978-0-415-01596-7
- ^ The traditional date for the first secession is given by Livy as 494; many other dates have been suggested, and several such events probably took place: see Cornell, T., The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC), Routledge, 1995. pp. 215 - 218, 256 - 261, 266. ISBN 978-0-415-01596-7
- ^ For a discussion of the duties and legal status of plebeian tribunes and aediles, see Andrew Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome, Oxford University Press, 1999,pp. 92–101
- ^ Abbott, 37
- ^ Abbott, 43
- ^ Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, Book 7, 42: link to perseus.com
- ^ Abbott, 42
- ^ Abbott, 44
- ^ Abbott, 45
- ^ Abbott, 46
- ^ Abbott, 47
- ^ Abbott, 52
- ^ Cornell, T., The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC), Routledge, 1995. pp. 377, 378. ISBN 978-0-415-01596-7
- ^ Abbott, 96
- ^ a b Bishop, Paul. "Rome: Transition from Republic to Empire" (PDF). Hillsborough Community College. Retrieved 19 February 2014.
- ^ Abbott, 97
- ^ Stobart, J.C. (1978). "III". In Maguinness, W.S; Scullard, H.H. The Grandeur That was Rome (4th ed.). Book Club Associates. pp. 75–82.
- ^ Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, pp. 449-451.
- ^ Abbott, 100
- ^ Abbott, 103
- ^ Abbott, 106
- ^ Abbott, 104
- ^ Abbott, 108
- ^ Abbott, 109
- ^ Abbott, 109–110
- ^ Abbott, 110
- ^ a b Abbott, 111
- ^ a b Abbott, 112
- ^ Abbott, 113
- ^ Abbott, 114
- ^ Abbott, 115
- ^ Abbott, 129
- ^ a b Abbott, 134
- ^ Abbott, 135
- ^ a b Abbott, 137
- ^ Abbott, 138
- ^ Abbott, 133
- ^ a b Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 237
- ^ Byrd, 161
- ^ Byrd, 96
- ^ Cicero, 239
- ^ Byrd, 44
- ^ Polybius, 133
- ^ a b Polybius, 134
- ^ Polybius, 135
- ^ Lintott, 42
- ^ Abbott, 251
- ^ a b c d e f Polybius, 132
- ^ Abbott, 257
- ^ Cicero, 241
- ^ Lintott, 51
- ^ Taylor, 77
- ^ Taylor, 7
- ^ Abbott, 196
- ^ Lintott, 101
- ^ Lintott, 95
- ^ Lintott, 97
- ^ Cicero, 235
- ^ Lintott, 113
- ^ Byrd, 20
- ^ Byrd, 179
- ^ Byrd, 32
- ^ Byrd, 26
- ^ Byrd, 23
- ^ Byrd, 24
- ^ Cicero, 237
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 15
- ^ Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 312
- ^ Nicholas V Sekunda, Early Roman Armies, p. 17.
- ^ Nicholas V Sekunda, Early Roman Armies, p. 18.
- ^ History of Rome, 1.43
- ^ Roman Antiquities, 4.16–18
- ^ Early Roman Armies, pp. 37–38.
- ^ "Rome, The Samnite Wars". History-world.org. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
- ^ Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D., p. 87
- ^ PolybiusB6
- ^ a b Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 18
- ^ a b Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, p. 156
- ^ Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army, p. 2
- ^ Gabba, Republican Rome, The Army and The Allies, p. 9
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 11
- ^ Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, p. 143
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 10
- ^ Gabba, Republican Rome, The Army And the Allies, p. 1
- ^ SantosuossoP29
- ^ Gabba, Republican Rome, The Army and The Allies, p. 25
- ^ Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, p. 14
- ^ Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, p. 116
- ^ Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, p. 15
- ^ Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, p. 43
- ^ Tacitus. Annales. II.49.
- ^ a b Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p42
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p44
- ^ Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, p. 38
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p22
- ^ Madden, Thomas. "Empires of Trust". p.25
- ^ Madden, Thomas. "Empires of Trust". p.53
- ^ Madden, Thomas. "Empires of Trust". p.43
- ^ Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 287
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p23
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p.24
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p12
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p.40
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p.45
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 36
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p.38
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 33
- ^ a b Florus, The Epitome of Roman History, Book 1, ch. 11
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 38
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 37 See also: Livy, The Rise of Rome, p. 89
- ^ Cassius Dio, The Roman History, Vol. 1, VII, 17
- ^ The Enemies of Rome, p. 13
- ^ Livy, The Rise of Rome, p. 96
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 41
- ^ Florus, The Epitome of Roman History, Book 1, ch. 12
- ^ Pennell, Ancient Rome, Ch. II
- ^ Florus, The Epitome of Roman History, Book 1, ch. 13
- ^ Livy, The Rise of Rome, p. 329 See also: Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 283
- ^ Pennell, Ancient Rme, Ch. IX, para. 4
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 48
- ^ a b Pennell, Ancient Rome, Ch. IX, para. 13
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 49 See also: Pennell, Ancient Rome, Ch. IX, para. 14
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 52
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 53
- ^ MatyszakThe Enemies of Rome, p. 14
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 78
- ^ Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 294
- ^ Cassius Dio, The Roman history, Vol. 1, VIII, 3
- ^ Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 307
- ^ Pennell, Ancient Rome, Ch. XI, para. 1
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 80
- ^ Pennell, Ancient Rome, Ch. XII, para. 14
- ^ Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 309
- ^ Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, p. 113
- ^ Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, p. 84
- ^ Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, p. 88
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 29 See also: Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 25
- ^ Pennell, Ancient Rome, Ch. XIII, para. 15
- ^ a b Cantor, Antiquity, p. 153 See also: Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 27
- ^ Pennell, Ancient Rome, Ch. XV, para. 24
- ^ Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, p. 338
- ^ Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, p. 339
- ^ a b Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 47
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 115
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p43
- ^ Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 49
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 117
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p48
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p51
- ^ a b c d e Grant, The History of Rome, p. 119
- ^ a b c d e Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p52
- ^ AncientRome.ru. "THE DATABASE OF ANCIENT ART." Retrieved 25 August 2016.
- ^ AncientRome.ru. "Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus." Retrieved 25 August 2016.
- ^ Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 326
- ^ Eckstein, Arthur. "Rome Enters the Greek East". p55
- ^ a b Grant, The History of Rome, p. 120
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 75
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 92
- ^ Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 53
- ^ History of Rome – The republic, Isaac Asimov.
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 29
- ^ Sallust, The Jugurthine War, XII
- ^ Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 64
- ^ Appian, History of Rome, §6
- ^ Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 75
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 6
- ^ D.B. Saddington (2011) [2007]. "the Evolution of the Roman Imperial Fleets," in Paul Erdkamp (ed), A Companion to the Roman Army, 201–217. Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-2153-8. Plate 12.2 on p. 204.
- ^ Coarelli, Filippo (1987), I Santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana. NIS, Rome, pp 35–84.
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 39
- ^ Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 77
- ^ Appian, Civil Wars, 1, 117
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 43
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 161
- ^ a b c Florus, The Epitome of Roman history, Book 3, ch. 5
- ^ Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 76
- ^ Grant, The History of Rome, p. 158
- ^ a b Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 363
- ^ a b c Plutarch, Lives, Pompey
- ^ Florus, The Epitome of Roman history, Book 3, ch. 6
- ^ a b Plutarch, Lives, Caesar
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 58
- ^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 62 See also: Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 212
- ^ Cantor, Antiquity, p. 168
- ^ Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome, p. 133
- ^ Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, p. 266
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 214
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 217
- ^ Julius Caesar, The Civil War, 81–92 See also: Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 218
- ^ Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 227 See also: Lane Fox, The Classical World, p. 403
- ^ Holland, Rubicon, p. 312
- ^ Roller, Duane W. (2010). Cleopatra: a biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195365535, p. 175.
- ^ Walker, Susan. "Cleopatra in Pompeii?" in Papers of the British School at Rome, 76 (2008): 35–46 and 345-8 (pp. 35, 42–44).
- ^ a b Cantor, Antiquity, p. 170
- ^ Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, p. 7
- ^ David Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 33-34.
- ^ The plebeian involved in a such a marriage would likely have been wealthy: see Cornell, T., The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC), Routledge, 1995, p. 255
- ^ Bruce W. Frier and Thomas A.J. McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law (Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 20, 53, 54.
- ^ Jones, Mark Wilson Principles of Roman Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.
- ^ Kevin Greene, "Technological Innovation and Economic Progress in the Ancient World: M.I. Finley Re-Considered", The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 53, No. 1. (February, 2000), pp. 29–59 (39)
- ^ Ceccarelli, L., in Bell, S., and Carpino, A., A, (Editors) A Companion to the Etruscans (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), Blackwell Publishing, 2016, p. 33
- ^ According to Roman tradition, soldiers had once worn togas to war, hitching them up with what was known as a "Gabine cinch". See Stone, S., in Sebesta, Judith Lynn, and Bonfante, Larissa, editors, The World of Roman Costume: Wisconsin Studies in Classics, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994, p. 13
- ^ An equestrian statue, described during the Imperial era by Pliny the Elder as "ancient", showed the early, legendary Republican heroine Cloelia on horseback, wearing a toga: see Olson, K., in Edmondson, J. C., and Keith, A., (Editors), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, University of Toronto Press, 2008, p. 151, note 18.
- ^ Vout, Caroline, "The Myth of the Toga: Understanding the History of Roman Dress", Greece & Rome, 43, No. 2 (Oct., 1996), p. 215. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/gr/43.2.204. (Vout cites Servius, In Aenidem, 1.281 and Nonius, 14.867L for the former wearing of togas by women other than prostitutes and adulteresses)
- ^ Flower, Harriet F., Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 118: "The best model for understanding Roman sumptuary legislation is that of aristocratic self-preservation within a highly competitive society which valued overt display of prestige above all else."
- ^ Sebesta, J. L., in Sebesta, Judith Lynn, and Bonfante, Larissa, editors, The World of Roman Costume: Wisconsin Studies in Classics, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994, pp. 62-68
- ^ Gabucci, Ada (2005). Dictionaries of Civilization: Rome. University of California Press. p. 168.
- ^ Astin, A., F. Walbank, M. Frederiksen, and R. Ogilvie, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed. Vol. 8. New York: Cambridge UP, 1989, pp. 181-185, 439, 453, 495.
- ^ Bradley, Mark, Colour and Meaning in Ancient Rome, Cambridge Classical Studies, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 189, 194-195
- ^ Edmonson, J. C., in Edmondson, J. C., and Keith, A., (Editors), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, University of Toronto Press, 2008, pp. 28-30.
- ^ Keith, A., in Edmonson, J. C., and Keith, A., (Editors), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, University of Toronto Press, 2008, p. 200
- ^ Sebesta, J., L., in Sebesta, Judith Lynn, and Bonfante, Larissa, editors, The World of Roman Costume: Wisconsin Studies in Classics, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994, pp. 54-56
- ^ Vout, Caroline, "The Myth of the Toga: Understanding the History of Roman Dress", Greece & Rome, 43, No. 2 (Oct., 1996), pp. 211, 212.
- ^ Sebesta, J. L., in Sebesta, J. L., and Bonfante, L., (Editors), The World of Roman Costume: Wisconsin Studies in Classics, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994, p. 70, citing Columella, 12, praef. 9-10, 12.3.6
- ^ In reality, she was the female equivalent of the romanticised citizen-farmer: see Flower, Harriet I., 'Women in the Roman Republic', in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 153, 195-197
- ^ See Edmondson, J., in Edmondson, J. C., and Keith, A., (Editors), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, University of Toronto Press, 2008, p. 33
- ^ Appian's history of Rome finds its strife-torn Late Republic tottering at the edge of chaos; most seem to dress as they like, not as they ought: "For now the Roman people are much mixed with foreigners, there is equal citizenship for freedmen, and slaves dress like their masters. With the exception of the Senators, free citizens and slaves wear the same costume." See Rothfus, MA, "The Gens Togata: Changing Styles and Changing Identities", American Journal of Philology, 2010, p. 1, citing Appian, 2.17.120
- ^ Witcher, R.E. (2016) Agricultural production in Roman Italy (see page 8) from A companion to Roman Italy. (Wiley-Blackwell). Blackwell companions to the ancient world. p. 459-482.
- ^ Cato, De Agri Cultura ch. 74-90, 104-125, 156-157, 158-162.
- ^ "Me pascunt olivae, me cichorea levesque malvae." Horace, Odes 1.31.15, ca 30 BC
- ^ Kron, Geoffrey (2012), Scheidel, W. (ed.), Food Production (see page 8, fn 72) from The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 156–174
- ^ Kron, Food Production (see page 16)
- ^ Phillips pg 46–56
- ^ Phillips pg 35–45
- ^ Phillipa pg 57–63
- ^ "Af first, he would drink once after supper and then leave the table; but as time went on he would allow himself to drink very generously, so that he often tarried at his wine till early morning." Plutarch. "Cato the Younger." In Plutarch's Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, vol. 8. Loeb Classical Library, p. 249.
- ^ The Legacy of Roman Education (in the Forum), Nanette R. Pacal, The Classical Journal, Vol. 79, No. 4. (April – May 1984)
- ^ Oxford Classical Dictionary, Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, Third Edition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
- ^ Joseph Farrell, Latin Language and Latin Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 74–75; Richard A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (Routledge, 1992, 1994), pp. 51–52.
- ^ Toynbee, J. M. C. (December 1971). "Roman Art". The Classical Review. 21 (3): 439–442. doi:10.1017/S0009840X00221331. JSTOR 708631.
- ^ Austin, Roland G. "Roman Board Games. I", Greece & Rome 4:10, October 1934. pp. 24–34.
- ^ Agathias, Histories, 2.31.
Footnotes
- ^ Throughout the Republic, the Cornelii held 75 consulships and 27 consular tribuneships, almost 10% of all the consulships of the period.
Ancient sources
- Appianus Alexandrinus (Appian), Bella Mithridatica (The Mithridatic Wars), Bellum Civile (The Civil War).
- Aristotle, Politiká (Politics).
- Gaius Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Civili (Commentaries on the Civil War).
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Brutus, De Divinatione, De Oratore, In Verrem, Philippicae.
- Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus (Cassius Dio), Roman History.
- Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romaike Archaiologia (Roman Antiquities).
- Titus Livius (Livy), History of Rome.
- Plutarchus, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans.
- Polybius, Historiae (The Histories).
- Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, Historiae.
Bibliography
- Abbott, Frank Frost (1901). A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Elibron Classics. ISBN 0-543-92749-0.
- Byrd, Robert (1995). The Senate of the Roman Republic. U.S. Government Printing Office Senate Document 103-23.
- Eck, Werner (2003). The Age of Augustus. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22957-4.
- Flower, Harriet I. (2004). The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge.
- Flower, Harriet I. (2009). Roman Republics. Princeton.
- Goldsworthy, Adrian (2003). The Complete Roman Army. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05124-0.
- Hart, B. H. Liddell (2004) [1926]. Scipio Africanus — Greater than Napoleon. DA CAPO Press. ISBN 0-306-81363-7.
- Holland, Tom (2005). Rubicon : the last years of the Roman Republic. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-50313-X.
- Lintott, Andrew (1999). The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926108-3.
- MacDonald, W. L. (1982). The Architecture of the Roman Empire. Yale University Press, New Haven.
- Matyszak, Philip (2004). The Enemies of Rome. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-25124-X.
- Owen, Francis (1993). The Germanic people; their Origin Expansion & Culture. Barnes & Noble Books. ISBN 0-19-926108-3.
- Palmer, L. R. (1954). The Latin Language. Univ. Oklahoma. ISBN 0-8061-2136-X.
- Taylor, Lily Ross (1966). Roman Voting Assemblies: From the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08125-X.
- Badian, E. 1968. Roman imperialism in the late Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
- Brunt, Peter A. 1988. The fall of the Roman Republic and related essays. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
- Crawford, Michael 1974, Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
- Develin, Robert. 1985. The practice of politics at Rome, 366–167 BC. Brussels: Latomus.
- Flower, Harriet I. 2004. The Cambridge companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
- Gruen, Erich S. 1992. Culture and national identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
- --. 1995. The last generation of the Roman Republic. 2d ed. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
- Harris, William V. 1979. War and imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 B.C. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
- Raaflaub, Kurt A., ed. 2004. Social struggles in Archaic Rome: New perspectives on the conflict of the orders. 2d ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Rawson, Elizabeth. 1985. Intellectual life in the late Roman Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
- Rich, John. 1993. "Fear, greed, and glory: The causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic." In War and society in the Roman world. Edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley, 38–68. London: Routledge.
- Rosenstein, Nathan S., and Robert Morstein-Marx, eds. 2006. A companion to the Roman Republic. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Salmon, Edward Togo. 1969. Roman colonization under the Republic. London: Thames and Hudson.
- Walbank, F. W. 1972. Polybius. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
- Walbank, F. W., et al., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VII, part 2, The Rise of Rome to 220 BC, Cambridge University Press (1989).
- Walsh, P. G. 1963. Livy: His historical aims and methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
- Vishnia, Rachel Feig. 1996. State, society, and popular leaders in mid-Republican Rome, 241–167 BC. London: Routledge.
External links
- The Early Roman Republic and the Conquest of Italy
- The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire
- The Late Roman Republic: The decline and fall of trust, An essay on the loss of trust in societies both ancient and modern
- The Roman Republic from In Our Time (BBC Radio 4)
- Nova Roma – Educational Organization a working historical reconstruction of the Roman Republic
- Roman Empire History
Template:Ancient Greek and Roman Wars
- Use dmy dates from August 2010
- Roman Republic
- Ancient Italian history
- Former countries on the Italian Peninsula
- Countries in ancient Africa
- States and territories established in the 6th century BC
- 509 BC
- 6th-century BC establishments in Italy
- States and territories disestablished in the 1st century BC
- 1st-century BC disestablishments
- 27 BC
- 1st millennium BC in Italy
- Former republics