In the west, Rome’s ally Massilia (Marseilles), which in the past had secured Roman help in repelling Ligurian raiders (e.g. in 154), appealed again in 125. The Senate, which would be glad to get the consul Fulvius Flaccus out of the way (see p. 27), sent him to help Massilia. He campaigned against the Saluvii, the Ligurians and the Vocontii (who lived between the Durance and Isère) in 125–4; when C. Sextius Calvinus (cos. 124) had captured the chief settlement of the Saluvii near Aquae Sextiae (Aix en Provence), a fort (castellum) of Roman veterans was established there to control the area.
Rome’s advance into southern Gaul provoked the hostility of the Allobroges (between the Rhone and Isère) and the Arverni (west of the Rhone), though it is symptomatic of the lack of unity and of any national feeling among the Gallic tribes that the Aedui further north in Burgundy supported Rome. In 121 Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 122), with an army that included some elephants, defeated the Allobroges at Vindalium (between Orange and Avignon) and gained control of the area east of the Rhone. The Arverni under their king Bituitus then crossed over to the eastern bank, only to meet defeat, probably near Valence, at the hands of Q. Fabius Maximus (cos. 121) who had arrived with fresh troops. While Fabius returned to Rome where he received a triumph, took the cognomen Allobrogicus and built an Arch (Fornix Fabianus) in the Forum, Domitius captured Bituitus by treachery, gained control of the area between the Alps and Pyrenees, and proceeded to settle southern Gaul, which the Senate decided to annex as a province (Gallia Transalpina or, later, Narbonensis). Massilia remained an independent allied State within the province, the defeated Arverni were left outside it, and the Aedui were formally recognized as Rome’s allies. Further, a secure road was needed to the Pyrenees and Spain, which Domitius now supplied; recently a milestone on this Via Domitia has been found, naming ‘Cn. Domitius Cn. f. imperator’ and providing the earliest known Latin inscription from Gaul.39
In 118 a proposal was made to establish a colony of Roman citizens at Narbo in the new province. This met with opposition in the Senate but was carried with the help of a young orator L. Crassus. He and Cn. Domitius, the son of the conqueror of the Allobroges, were appointed as commissioners (duoviri) for founding the colony and in this connexion they had struck a special issue of coins (serrated denarii), depicting Bituitus in a chariot with Gallic arms and trumpet. Though Narbo would provide good agricultural land for allotments, it also offered commercial possibilities, as a focus for the trade of southern Gaul and of Spain as well, and in particular as the terminus of a new route which was designed to bring tin from Britain via the Bay of Biscay and Burdigala (Bordeaux). The fact that it was named Narbo Martius calls to mind the Gracchan colonies that were placed under divine protection (Junonia, Neptunia). Thus while the establishment of Roman control was in line with normal senatorial policy (it was by chance that Gracchus’ friend Flaccus happened to be consul in the year when Massilia appealed to Rome), the planning of Narbo may represent pressure from the Equites. In this they may have had the support of some senators who believed in the value of another outpost against Gallic aggression and the need to provide land for veterans; but other senators will have doubted the wisdom of a move which might complicate defence problems and will also have wished to avoid giving the Equites fresh opportunities for enrichment. The co-operation, however, of some senators with the Equites may have helped to develop the trend of policy started by Gaius Gracchus.40
In line with this, action was taken to secure the sea-routes to Spain. Trouble in Sardinia was suppressed in 126 (for Gracchus’ service there see p. 27), and the piratical activities of the Balearic islanders were checked by Q. Metellus in 123. But with these military considerations were linked commercial interests. Two colonies of Roman citizens were established at Palma and Pollentia in Majorca, where many Roman or Italian emigrants from Spain joined the settlement. The islands were place under a prefect appointed by the governor of Hispania Citerior, and Metellus returned to Rome to receive a triumph and the cognomen Balearicus (121).41
III
THE RISE AND FALL OF MARIUS1
1. THE SENATORIAL SETTLEMENT
The supporters of Gaius Gracchus who had survived the slaughter and the subsequent assizes held by Opimius, were eager to avenge their leader and friends. By 120 B.C., they had gathered sufficient strength to challenge both the chief persecutor and the implications of the senatus consultum ultimum: Opimius was brought to trial ‘apud populum’ by a tribune named Decius Subulo.2 A fundamental question of law was at stake: what latitude might be allowed to a magistrate in the exercise of his imperium at a time of internal disturbance, especially when he was backed by the moral authority of the Senate? Granted that the ‘salus populi’ must be the ‘suprema lex’, was he justified in disregarding the ius provocationis which Roman citizens had enjoyed for nearly 400 years, and in putting them to death without trial or appeal? It would seem that if men had actually raised arms against their country, they automatically became hostes and ceased to enjoy the rights of citizens: thus a strong case could be made for Opimius in his suppression of the Gracchans who fought on the Aventine. But it was very different when men had been disarmed or arrested later: many of these had not been granted any form of trial and those who secured the doubtful privilege of being hauled before Opimius’ assize had been summarily executed without opportunity to exercise their right of appeal and in defiance of Gracchus’ law ‘ne quis iniussu populi Romani capite damnetur’. Here Opimius’ action must have been illegal, but nevertheless he was acquitted.3 One of his stoutest supporters at the trial was C. Carbo, who had deserted the Gracchan cause and had been rewarded with the consulship of 120. This renegade even went so far as to claim that Gaius had been justly killed, but in the following year he was himself prosecuted on some charge by the young orator L. Crassus and committed suicide. Thus by the acquittal of Opimius the authority of the Senate and its agent was vindicated; it received further backing when the People was persuaded by a tribune, L. Calpurnius Bestia (120, or possibly 121), to recall Popillius Laenas, who had been forced into exile by Gaius Gracchus for the part that he had played in the suppression of the followers of Tiberius (p. 27).4
The Senate did not, however, exercise its regained power in an entirely irresponsible manner: so far from attempting to secure the abrogation of Gaius’ legislation, it allowed the colonists of Junonia to retain their land despite the repeal of the lex Rubria, and it did not oppose, so far as is known, the series of agrarian bills that was passed during the next few years. A law (probably of 121) allowed any Gracchan settler to dispose of his allotment if he wished: this was a sensible idea, since if after a number of years men had failed to make good farmers it was better to let them transfer their land to others; further, since the maximum amount of ager publicus allowed to any individual still remained fixed at 500 iugera, the transferred properties will normally have gone to other small farmers and not to swell the latifundia, though of course some men may have made money by speculative buying and selling. In 119 a second land-bill ended the further distribution of public land, by abolishing the commission,5 granted perpetual tenancy to all occupiers of public land (i.e. those holding up to the maximum of 500 iugera) and re-imposed rent on such land; this revenue was to be used to benefit the people in some way (for the corn supply?). Eight years later in 111 another tribune, probably Sp. Thorius, carried a third agrarian bill, of which part still survives inscribed on a bronze tablet. By it all ager publicus dealt with by the commissioners, whether used for individual allotments or for colonies or left to the possessores, was converted into private property; the system of squatting (possessio) was abolished and rent was cancelled. The general effect was to consolidate and maintain the work of the Gracchi, but one result was that there was little ager publicus now left in Italy for further distribution.6
2. THE METELLI AND MARIUS
During the decade or so when these agrarian bills were carried, foreign affairs claimed some attention and on occasion led to a clash of pol
icies. The proposal to found the colony at Narbo had caused political dissensions (p. 35), which were intensified when Jugurtha’s conduct in N. Africa called for Roman intervention by diplomacy or war (see below, p. 39). There was also need to guard the northern frontiers of Macedonia against attacks by the Scordisci, a Thracian tribe on the lower Save. Here a Roman defeat was retrieved in 119 by L. Metellus who gained the cognomen Delmaticus.6a Four years later M. Aemilius Scaurus led Roman forces against the Taurisci, south of the Drave, but the Scordisci defeated one of the consuls of 114 and even penetrated into Greece as far south as Delphi. In 113 another danger threatened: Germanic tribes, the Cimbri and Teutones, were on the move. The consul Cn. Carbo, who was sent to ward them off, met with a resounding defeat at Noreia, but most fortunately for Rome, they moved off westwards through Switzerland instead of threatening the northern frontier of Italy (see p. 44). In the Balkans the Scordisci were gradually reduced by C. Metellus Caprarius (113–112), Livius Drusus, the tribune of 122 and consul in 112 (112–111), and M. Minucius Rufus (110–107). M. Caecilius Metellus (consul 115) was busy establishing law and order in Sardinia and Corsica from 115 to 112.
Thus the Caecilii Metelli were very prominent at this time: Metellus Balearicus gained the censorship in 119 and his cousin Delmaticus in 115, and they or their relations held one of the consulships in each of the alternate years from 119 to 109. They were in fact the dominant family and often showed more sympathy to the Equites than to the Die-Hard senators.7 Their group was joined by M. Aemilius Scaurus who married the daughter of Delmaticus (later this Caecilia Metella became Sulla’s wife). Scaurus belonged to a Patrician family which he lifted from the obscurity into which it had sunk in recent years: after hesitating between commerce and politics, he finally turned to the latter with such success that he became consul and princeps senatus in 115 and censor in 109.8 This group of progressive men largely dominated the political scene, but they were later overshadowed by one whose early career they had helped to promote, Gaius Marius.
Marius came of a good municipal family from near the hill-town of Arpinum, some sixty miles south-east of Rome. After serving with distinction under Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia (133), he was helped to a political career by the Metelli and reached the tribunate in 119. As tribune, he showed some independence which may have cost him the support of the Metelli: he forced through a bill to limit undue influence at the Comitia (e.g. to check the intimidation of voters, by making narrower the ‘bridges’ over which they passed to record their votes). When the Senate, which Marius had perhaps failed to consult first, summoned him to explain, he swept aside the opposition of the consuls, Cotta and Metellus Delmaticus, and even threatened, it is said, to arrest them. On the other hand he took an unpopular line about corn-distribution: Gaius Gracchus’ measure had been modified by a certain M. Octavius (not the tribune of 133) and Marius now opposed some scheme to extend the distributions.8a Thus the fact that he sponsored one measure that the Senate liked and the People disliked and another that appealed to the People and not to the Senate suggests that he had sought political support where he could find it. After failing to win the aedileship, he secured a praetorship for 115 although he was at the bottom of the list of successful candidates, and that perhaps only with the help of bribery: at any rate he was accused of this and was only just acquitted, the voting being equal. As praetor, or more probably as a promagistrate in 114, he served in Spain. Thereafter, since he had contacts with the Equites, he may have devoted his attention to business interests. Also at some time (perhaps c. 111) he married a Julia (an aunt of Julius Caesar): as a novus homo outside the governing class, he would find this link with a noble family most useful. Though he will hardly have reached a full reconciliation with the nobility, the Metelli may possibly have forgiven his conduct in 119, since he served later as legate to Metellus Numidicus in Africa. His purpose at this point was perhaps not so much to challenge the power of the Senate as to win an influential place within it. His methods are uncertain: one tradition represents him as energetic, courageous and dogged, another as a ‘slick’ betrayer of his friend Metellus.9
During these years of the pre-eminence of the Metelli, life became somewhat strained, especially as the shadow of Jugurtha lengthened, and at times superstitious fears seemed to sweep over the masses. The censors of 115 removed no less than 32 members from the Senate and ‘censored’ the stage. Scaurus (consul in 115) carried a law to limit the voting power of freedmen.10 In 114, when two of three Vestal Virgins who were tried for unchastity were acquitted by the Pontiffs, the People were not satisfied and a tribune demanded the establishment of a secular court to try them. This was presided over by a former censor, L. Cassius Longinus, notorious for his severity and his use of the question ‘Cui bono?’; he secured their condemnation.11 Nevertheless popular unrest demanded that the Sibylline oracles be consulted, and they ordered that two Greeks and two Gauls should be buried alive, as in the grim days of the Hannibalic War a hundred years before. But even this enormity, which was not typical of Roman ritual (sixteen years later a decree of the Senate specifically forbade human-sacrifice), did not avail to avert all signs of divine displeasure: in 111 much of the city was devastated by fire.
3. THE OUTBREAK OF WAR AGAINST JUGURTHA
After the destruction of Carthage and the creation of the Roman province of Africa in 146, trade soon followed the flag, and businessmen from Italy began to develop interests in the province and the neighbouring client-kingdom of Numidia. Under King Micipsa (148–118 B.C.) Numidia flourished until his death when he bequeathed his realm jointly to his two sons and his nephew Jugurtha whom he had adopted as a son. The difficulties of a triple or tripartite rule were reduced when Jugurtha murdered one of his ‘brothers’ and defeated the other, Adherbal, who fled to the Roman province and then to Rome itself, seeking help to regain his rightful share of the kingdom. But Jugurtha also sent to Rome where he had ‘friends at court’: he had previously served with some Numidian troops under the command of Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia (134–133), where he had gained the friendship of many Romans. In the Senate Aemilius Scaurus advocated supporting Adherbal by force of arms, but the majority decided to send a commission under Opimius to divide Numidia between the two claimants (c. 116). Adherbal was given the more civilized eastern half including the capital named Cirta (modern Constantine in Algeria),12 and Jugurtha received the less fertile western part.
Unwilling to accept this as a permanent settlement, Jugurtha later (112) drove Adherbal into Cirta and besieged him there. In response to Adherbal’s appeals the Senate first reprimanded Jugurtha and then sent another commission, this time with Scaurus in charge, which achieved little. Finally the unfortunate Adherbal was persuaded by the Italian merchants resident in Cirta to surrender on condition that his life should be spared. But in vain: when Cirta was occupied by Jugurtha’s troops, Adherbal was put to death by torture. Many Italian merchants were also killed: this was an irretrievable error by Jugurtha, whose troops may well have exceeded his orders. It provoked a political flare-up in Rome, where the Equites and People demanded action. At long last war was declared on Jugurtha and a Roman army was sent to Africa under the command of L. Calpurnius Bestia, consul in 111, who soon persuaded Jugurtha to make a formal surrender in return for the retention of the Numidian throne.
What did all this mean? The historian Sallust at any rate had no doubt: the whole series of Roman officials who had been sent to Africa had been successively bribed by Jugurtha.13 And worse was to follow. Led by the tribune Memmius, the Roman People demanded an enquiry: under promise of safe-conduct Jugurtha should be summoned to Rome to disclose the names of the nobles whom he was alleged to have corrupted. When he arrived, however, at the end of 111, he is said to have bribed a tribune to exercise his veto and forbid him to make a public statement. He then murdered a cousin of his in Italy, named Massiva, a potential rival for the Numidian throne whom some senators were beginning to consider a possible substitute; Jugurtha then smuggl
ed out of Italy the man that he had employed to commit the crime. Such conduct destroyed all hopes of reaching any agreement with the Senate, which, however, honoured its pledge and sent Jugurtha back to Africa. He, if any one, should know what truth lay behind his famous parting remark that Rome was ‘urbem venalem et mature perituram, si emptorem invenerit’.
The war continued. The consul Spurius Albinus achieved little (110), but when he had returned to Rome to hold the elections his brother Aulus, whom he had left in command, was defeated by Jugurtha near Suthul and the Roman army was humiliated by having to march under a yoke of spears and to evacuate Numidia. Soon (probably early in 109) a tribune C. Mamilius carried a bill by which the People established a commission, a quaestio of Equites, to get to the bottom of these scandals. Scaurus somehow managed to become one of the chairmen, and the commission acted with vigour, though not necessarily with justice: Opimius, Bestia, Sp. Albinus and others were condemned and went into exile. At length the conduct of the war was to be raised above personal and political considerations, and an upright and efficient commander, Q. Caecilius Metellus, was sent out to Africa.14
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 9