40 NARBO. The date of the foundation is uncertain. Velleius i. 15.5 dates it to 118, and this seemed to be supported by the coinage when the latter was also assigned to the same date (cf. H. Mattingly, JRS, 1922, 230 ff.). Evidence from the hoards led E. A. Sydenham (CRR, 64 f.) to date the coins c. 112–109, and H. B. Mattingly (Hommages Grenier (1962), 1159 ff.) to date the foundation to 110, but this interpretation has been doubted by C. A. Hersch, Num. Chron., 1966, 71 ff., and M. Crawford believes the coins are nearer to 118 than Mattingly thought (cf. Badian, Roman Imperialism2 (1968), 98, who himself would date the colony as late as 115, op. cit., 24). H. B. Mattingly now accepts (Num. Chron., 1969, 95 ff.) 114 for Narbo. B. Levick, Cl. Qu., 1971, 170 ff., supports 118 for the foundation, but concedes that the coins might be a later commemorative issue of 114–13. M. Crawford, RRC, 71 ff., after discussion dates both foundation and issue to 118. – The founding of Narbo has been seen depicted on an altar dedicated to Neptune supposedly by a descendant of Domitius (the consul of 32 B.C.?): see CAH, Plates iv, p. 86; but other interpretations are more probable (e.g. enrolment of soldiers rather than of colonists; census, as R. M. Ogilvie, JRS, 1961, 37). – Neither Brunt in Seager (Crisis, 97) nor Badian (Rom. Imp.2, 24) admit equestrian interests behind Narbo’s foundation. Cf. also E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization (1969), 121 f. [p. 35]
41 THE BALEARIC ISLANDS. M. G. Morgan, who discusses Roman motives for intervention in the Balearic Islands (California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 1969, 217 ff.) notes a recent influx of pirates from Sardinia and Gaul into them. [p. 35]
CHAPTER III
1 SOURCES FOR 121–100 B.C. These are in the main the same authors as those mentioned in ch. II, n. 1. See Greenidge and Clay, op. cit. Appian’s narrative (BC, I, 27–32) is very brief. Plutarch’s Life of Marius and in part that of Sulla are valuable; for his account of Marius’ northern campaigns Plutarch drew on Posidonius (on these see also the fragments of Appian’s Celtica and the geographer Strabo, VII, 293). For the African campaign Sall’ist’s Bellum lugurthinum is the chief source: see below, n. 13. Some scraps of Granius Licinianus, who lived in the second century A.D., deal with the year 105 B.C.; his work is in the Livian tradition. A number of important inscriptions are mentioned in the following notes. Coinage becomes a more useful source since the types on the denarii begin to show considerable variety from about 120 B.C.: see E. A. Sydenham, CRR and M. H. Crawford, RRC.
For a general survey of the period of Marius and Sulla in the light of work done in the decade or two before 1970 see E. Gabba, Aufstieg, I, i (1972), 764 f. [p. 36]
2 P. DECIUS SUBULO. He was subsequently prosecuted in 119 in the interests of the Optimates, on a charge of repetundarum, but he was acquitted by the equestrian jury. His importance has been emphasized by E. Badian (JRS, 1956, 91 ff.). Decius rallied equestrian strength against the Optimates, and his acquittal was in the same year that Carbo was prosecuted and Marius became tribune, helped by the Metelli. The year 119 thus saw mounting pressure by the class that now controlled the law courts, conscious of its powers and supported by useful allies (cf. Historia, 1962, 215. = Seager, Crisis, 21). On Decius’ trial see also Gruen (Rom. Pol., 109 ff.) who doubts that the charge was de repetundis, and consequently the jury may not have been equestrian; in any case Gruen believes it to be unwise to refer to the Equites as if they were a compact unit with a consistent policy and to suppose that any factio, as the Metelli, could win the support of the equester ordo for any length of time. [p. 36]
3 OPIMIUS AND THE SCU. For the arguments used see Cicero, de orat. 2. 132; part. orat. 104. For a fundamental discussion of the questions at issue see H. Last, CAH, IX, 85 ff. For further discussion of the SCU see A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (1968), 149 ff. [p. 36]
4 PINPRICKS TO THE SENATE. Valerius Maximus records (5. 3. 2) that the elderly Princeps Senatus, P. Lentulus, who had helped to storm the Aventine with Opimius’ men, was forced by public opinion to withdraw to Sicily; if this is true, the Optimates did not have it all their own way. Further, Q. Mucius Scaevola the Augur, who may have shared his family’s sympathy towards the Gracchi (p. 22), was acquitted when accused by T. Albucius of extortion in Asia (119). The satirist Lucilius parodied this trial in his second book. For Scaevola and his trial see Gruen (Rom. Pol., 112 ff.), who doubts his earlier Gracchan sympathies. For other trials in this decade see Gruen, ch. iv. [p. 37]
5 THE LAND COMMISSIONERS. An inscription from Carthage refers to three commissioners, Galba, Papirius Carbo and Calpurnius Bestia (ILS, 28; Greenidge, Sources2, 51). These men may have formed a special African commission If, however, Carbo is C. Carbo the Gracchan renegade (and not one of his brothers), the inscription must be earlier than his death in 119 and the men may have been the Gracchan land-commissioners with Galba and Bestia replacing C. Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus: if so, the commission will have had an anti-Gracchan bias, since only Galba was pro-Gracchan. See also H. Chantraine, Untersuch, z. röm. Geschichte (1959), 15 ff. [p. 37]
6 THE AGRARIAN LAWS. These are recorded by Appian (BC, 1. 27), who (probably incorrectly) ascribes the second law to Thorius (cf. Cicero, Brut. 36. 136. For another view see Broughton, MRR, I, 542). For the law of 111 see E. G. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 35 ff.; Warmington, ROL, iv, 370; it also granted all colonies and municipia security of ager publicus, and dealt with the sale of land in Africa and at Corinth (to provide funds for the war against Jugurtha?). An agrarian law, lex Mamilia Roscia, probably belongs to 55 B.C. rather than to 109 (cf. p. 38). Recent views on the ager publicus and on Appian’s three agrarian laws are assessed by E. Badian (Historia, 1962, 209 ff. = Seager, Crisis, 15 ff.; cf. Badian, Studies, 235 ff. on lex Thoria). His own conclusion is that Appian’s second law (the lex Thoria) is the lex agraria of 111 and that there was another law c. 109. See further K. Johannsen, Die lex agraria des Jahres 111 v. Chr. (Munich Dissertation, 1971) with text, and commentary and discussion of agrarian bills. K. Meister, Historia, 1974, 86 ff., argues that the Lex Thoria was the second of Appian’s laws and belonged to 119/8 B.C. [p. 37]
6a METELLUS AND ILLYRIA. On the campaigns in Illyria in the late second century see M. G. Morgan, Athenaeum, 1971, 271 ff. [p. 38]
7 THE METELLI. The political fortunes of this dominant family during the decade are traced by Gruen (Rom. Pol., ch. iv), who believes that they won the support of the Mucii Scaevolae, Licinii Crassi, Lutatii Catuli, Rutilii Rufi, Calpurnii Pisones, and perhaps the Livii Drusi, Scribonii Curiones, and Porcii Catones, as well as taking under the wing of the factio promising men of no prior political influence, like Aemilius Scaurus and M. Antonius. The senatorial opposition will have been led by men raised under the tutelage of the Scipionic circle and extremists who eliminated the Gracchan movement in 121. These families soon faded from view, e.g. the Popillii Laenates, Rupillii, Opimii, Manlii, and Fabii Maximi, while others, as the Papirii Carbones, Junii Bruti and Octavii emerged again only in the hectic days of civil war in the 80s. [p. 38]
8 SCAURUS. See G. Bloch, Mélanges d’histoire anc. 1909; P. Fraccaro, Opuscula, II (1957), 125 ff. His marriage to Metella may have been much later in his life (after 102 according to F. Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien, 280 f.). On his lack of political principle see A. R. Hands, JRS, 1959, 56 ff. [p. 38]
8a M. OCTAVIUS. On his date see J. G. Schovanek, Historia, 1972, 235 ff., 1977, 378 ff., who argues for a date in the 90s, as does G. Rickman, The Corn Supply in Ancient Rome (1980), 161 ff. [p. 39]
9 MARIUS’ POLITICAL CAREER. On this see especially A. Passerini, Athenaeum, 1934, who amongst other things tries to distinguish the pro-Marian and anti-Marian threads in Plutarch’s Life of Marius. Marius will have used whatever means lay to his hand to gain political power: winning the patronage of the Metelli (until he offended them), gaining wealth as a publicanus, forming links with the Equites. A novus homo had to create a factio; only after success could be hope to lead. On Marius, beside the work of Passerini already mentioned, see T. F. Carney, A Biography of C. Marius (Suppl. n. 1 of Proc. Afr.
Cl. Ass., 1962); J. Van Ooteghem, Gaius Marius (Brussels, 1964); E. Badian, ‘Marius and the Nobles’, Durham Univ. Journal, 1964, 141 ff.; Gruen, Rom. Pol., passim, Badian (JRS, 1965, 93) and Carney (op. cit., 20) find greater consistency in Marius’ tribunician activities than Plutarch does. On Marius’ trial for ambitus in 116 see Carney, Acta Juridica, 1959, 232 ff., and for coins bearing on Marius’ career, Carney, Num. Chron., 1959, 79 ff. Passerini’s work on Marius has now been reprinted under the title Studi su Caio Mario (1971). On Marius’ career from 99 to 88 B.C. see T. J. Luce, Historia, 1970, 161 ff. The significance of Marius’ importance in general is assessed by E. Gabba, Aufstieg, I, i, 769 ff. [p. 39]
10 FREEDMEN. Scaurus probably confined freedmen to the four urban tribes in order to keep them out of the thirty-one rustic tribes. If, however, the law of Gracchus the censor of 169, which had restricted freedmen to one urban tribe, was still in force, Scaurus’ measure to place them in the four urban tribes will have been more generous in purpose. S. Treggiari, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (1969), 47 ff., argues that Scaurus’ measure was repressive. [p. 39]
11 THE VESTAL VIRGINS. On the political implications of their trial see Gruen, Rom. Pol., 127 ff. [p. 39]
12 THE SITE OF CIRTA. The proposal of R. Charlier (L’Antiquité classique, 1950, 298 ff.) that Cirta should be identified with El Kef rather than with Constantine, though it might make the geography of the campaigns more intelligible, does not seem to be firmly based. [p. 39]
13 SALLUST’S BELLUM IUGURTHINUM. This is our chief authority for the war. But Sallust, who as governor of Africa after Caesar’s reorganization of the province in 47 knew the country, did not set out to write a detailed military history. Rather, he wrote a political pamphlet, related to the politics of his own day: as a staunch supporter of Caesar and the Populares, he wanted to expose the corruption of the Optimates. Hence his main theme is to show how Marius, a novus homo and a Popularis, successfully challenged the nobility and saved the situation which the corruption of the nobles had created. He is less concerned with strategy or chronological or topographical accuracy than with the moral and political issues. Thus his charges of corruption against the senatorial leaders may well be exaggerated and highly coloured, even if they are not groundless as suggested by G. DeSanctis (Problemi di storia antica, 187 ff.); see also K. von Fritz, TAPA, 1943, 134 ff. and W. Allen, Cl. Ph., 1938, 90 ff. The curious prominence that Sallust gives to Sulla, the rival of his hero Marius, is probably due to the fact that he made use of Sulla’s Memoirs in writing the last part of his monograph. See also W. Steidle, Sallusts Historische Monographien (Historia, Einzelschr. Heft 3, 1958); A. La Penna, ‘L’interpretazione sallustiana della guerra contro Giugurta’ (Ann. della Scuola Normale Sup. di Pisa, 1959, 45–86); D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust (1961), esp. ch. V. R. Syme, Sallust (1964), chs. X and XI; Gruen, Rom Pol., ch. V. On the actual declaration of war see J. W. Rich, Declaring War in the Roman Republic in the Period of Transmarine Expansion (1976), 48ff. [p. 40]
14 THE MAMILIAN COMMISSION. On this, its chairman and victims, see Gruen, Rom. Pol., 142 ff. On Scaurus and the prosecution see G. V. Sumner, Phoenix, 1976, 73 ff. [p. 40]
15 ROMAN POLICY. On equestrian influence see De Sanctis, op. cit. [p. 41]
16 METELLUS AND JUGURTHA. On Metellus see De Sanctis, op. cit., 215 ff. On the chronology and strategy see M. Holroyd, JRS, 1928, pp. 1 ff. [p. 41]
17 THE TURPILIUS AFFAIR. T. Turpilius Silanus, left by Metellus in command of the Roman garrison at Vaga, had shown kindness to the inhabitants, who then treacherously massacred the Roman troops. The unfortunate Turpilius was the sole survivor. Metellus was embarrassed but had to courtmartial and execute his officer and client. If the anecdote is true that Marius, as a member of the consilium that tried the case, argued powerfully for condemnation, the incident will have increased ill-feeling between Marius and Metellus. Sallust’s remark (Iug., 69, 4) that Turpilius was scourged and executed ‘nam is civis ex Latio erat’ has given rise to much discussion. It is thought by some to have retrospective bearing on Drusus’ legislation (see above ch. II, n. 33), but this will not be so if E. Badian’s contention is right (For. Cl., 196) that Turpilius was a praefectus fabrum and as such a Roman citizen. Does ‘civis ex Latio’ mean ‘a man with Latin rights’ or ‘a Latin who has become a Roman’ or ‘a Roman citizen who came from Latium’?
Sallust fails to record when Cirta fell to the Romans, a clear example of his lack of interest in military details. The other sources (the Livian tradition, Plutarch, Appian and Dio) add only a little. [p. 41]
18 CAEPIO’S JUDICIARY LAW. Although Tacitus (Ann. 12. 60. 4) records that this measure restored the quaestio to the Senate, the Livian tradition that it shared the court between the Senate and Equites is probably to be preferred. For a full discussion of this bill and that of Glaucia see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Papers of Brit. Sch. Rome, 1938 = Seager, Crisis, 132 ff. A fragment of a lex repetundarum has recently been found at Tarentum: for the suggestion that it is part of Caepio’s law see G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, 1953, 38 ff. E. Badian has argued (Cl. Rev., 1954, 101) that Cicero Pro Balbo, 54 applies to Caepio, not to Glaucia, but contrast B. M. Levick, Cl. Rev., 1967, 256 ff. E. Badian (Historia, 1962, 207 ff. = Seager, Crisis, 13 ff.) had advocated the view that if, as is possible, other iudicia publica besides the extortion court had been established by this time, then Caepio’s measure probably applied to them all, both permanent and special. Caepio’s purpose in diluting these equestrian special tribunals with senatorial jurors would be to try to prevent further excess such as the recent Mamilian commission had provoked, cf. Gruen, Rom. Pol., 159. Glaucia’s subsequent law (see next note), restoring equestrian juries, will then have applied only to the quaestio de repetundis. Cf. also B. P. Selecky, Klio, 1980, 389 ff. [p. 44]
19 GLAUCIA’S JUDICIARY LAW. This law (a) established a legal system known as comperendinatio by which a trial was divided into two separate parts, (b) extended prosecution to accessories to a crime, and, in view of Cicero’s strong statement that Glaucia ‘equestrem ordinem beneficio legis devinxerat’ (Brut. 62. 224), it (c) re-established equestrian juries. The date of the law is not now usually thought to be 111 (Mommsen’s date), but rather some time after Caepio’s bill either in 104 or 101, with a slight balance in favour of 104. On the whole question see Balsdon, op. cit., n. 18. See also below, n. 23. [p. 44]
20 TOLOSA INQUIRY. Details are obscure: see J. Lengle, Hermes, 1931, 302 ff.; Gruen, Rom. Pol., 162 ff. For other trials of 104, see Gruen, 171 ff. and TAPA, 1964, 99 ff. [p. 46]
21 QUAESTORS AND COMMANDERS. On the legal and conventional ties that bound quaestors and their commanding officers see L. A. Thompson, Historia, 1962, 339 ff. [p. 46]
22 CAEPIO’S TRIAL. This is sometimes dated as late as 95, but Licinianus (p. 21 Bonn) implies that it preceded that of Mallius which was in 103 (or 101). For arguments which place Norbanus’ tribunate in 103 see Broughton, MRR, i, 565–6. Norbanus himself was prosecuted in 95 for his share in these disturbances on a charge of minuta maiestas under Saturninus’ law, but was acquitted (see ch. IV, n. 2). In 103 or soon afterwards Scaurus tried to secure the conviction for extortion of C. Memmius, the popular leader of 111, and of Flavius Fimbria, consul with Marius in 104, but both were acquitted by (presumably) equestrian juries. [p. 46]
23 LEX APULLEIA DE MAIESTATE. A fragment of a Roman law has been found at Bantia in S. Italy (see Riccobono, FIRA, p. 82; Warmington, ROL, iv, 294). This has been identified with Saturninus’ lex de maiestate by Stuart Jones (JRS, 1926, 171) and others. G. Tibiletti (Athenaeum, 1953) argues that there is nothing to connect it especially with Saturninus and that it is a lex repetundarum and probably is part of the lex Servilia Glauciae. E. J. Yarnold (AJP, 1957, 163 ff.) argues that it was part of Gaius Gracchus’ law which forbade the passing of a capital sentence on a citizen iniussu populi (see p. 32). Maiestas is the subject of a book by R. A. Bauman. The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (1967, but o
n this see P. Garnsey, JRS, 1969, 283 ff.). [p. 46]
24 LEX FRUMENTARIA. In Ad Herennium I. 12, 21, our only source for this bill, ‘semis’ should perhaps be read for ‘semissibus’ (i.e. the price would be 63-Jan asses, not of an as, per modius, as suggested by H. Last (CAH, IX, 165), who also gives reasons for placing the measure in 103 rather than 100. If, however, the measure is put in 100 (cf. Broughton, MRR, i, 578), the cheaper price will be the more probable, since Saturninus was then in greater need of popular support. Two quaestors, Piso (L. Calpurnius Piso, praetor 90?) and Q. Caepio (praetor 91?), struck coins bearing the head of Saturn and two figures on a bench, together with a corn-ear and the inscription AD FRV EMV (‘for the purchase of corn’). See Crawford, RRC., 33 ff., who dates them to 100 (rather than 99 as H. Mattingly, Cl. Rev., 1969, 267 ff.; contra A. R. Hands, Cl. Rev., 1972, 12 f.) and believes (p. 73) that Saturninus’ bill was passed and that the Senate thought better of opposition and ordered the quaestors to strike money to finance it. [p. 46]
25 THE PSEUDO-GRACCHUS. A certain Equitius claimed to be a son of Ti. Gracchus until unmasked by Sempronia; thereafter he was used as a tool by Saturninus until he was killed on the first day of his tribunate of 99. [p. 47]
26 RECRUITMENT OF CAPITECENSI. This is suggested by two passages of Polybius (VI, 23, 15; 39, 15) which imply that many of the assidui (the men in the five classes) could no longer equip themselves properly when entering the army, and also by a speech of Ti. Gracchus (Plut. Ti. Gr. 9). This view may be held even by those who are not persuaded by the theory advanced by E. Gabba (Athenaeum, 1949, 173 ff.; 1952, 161 ff.: = Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (1976), 1 ff.) that many proletarii had been introduced into the legions by means of reducing the minimum monetary qualification for service; he believes that the census figures included only assidui and not proletarii, and he explains the rise in the figures between 131 and 125 B.C. by some 75,000 men as the result of a recent reduction of this minimum figure. He also examines Marius’ dilectus of 107 and suggests that many of his volunteers came from the country plebs, the agrestes who supported his consular candidature (Sallust, Ing. 73, 6). See R. E. Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Army (1958). Since many of Marius’ African veterans were settled on allotments in Africa (cf. n. 31), his northern army will have comprised Rutilius’ forces together with further volunteers. In this way he will have increased the number of men dependent on him: his clientela was growing. See P. A. Brunt, ‘The Army and land in the Roman Revolution’, JRS, 1962, 69 ff. On the army in general see R. E. Smith, op. cit. supra, J. Harmand, L’armée et le soldat à Rome de 107 à 50 avant notre ère (1967), E. H. Erdmann, Die Rolle des Heeres in der Zeit von Marius bis Caesar (1971) and E. Gabba, RR Army. On this theme compare also Problèmes de la guerre à Rome, edited by J. P. Brisson (1969). [p. 47]
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 53