27 THE PILUM. See T. F. Carney, Cl. Qu., 1955, 203 ff. [p. 48]
28 MILITARY TRIBUNES. J. Suolahti (The Junior Officers of the Roman Army in the Republican Period (1955)) has shown how the social status of the military tribunes declined in the second century: the office tended to be ignored by older distinguished senatorial families and to be filled more by equestrian country families. At the same time Marius’ tactical reforms enhanced the importance of the centurions. This, together with the increasing proletarianization of the army, gradually led to the development of a new military caste, bound more closely to the army commanders. The full significance of these developments became clear only after the Social War. Cf. also R. E. Smith, op. cit., n. 26, especially ch. v, T. F. Carney, Bibliography of C. Marius. 32 f. [p. 28]
29 FOSSA MARIANA. Traces of this have been found by underwater exploration. See P. Diôle, 4000 Years under the Sea (Eng. Trans., 1954), ch. 5. [p. 49]
30 AQUAE SEXTIAE AND VERCELLAE. Despite Plutarch’s long account of Aquae Sextiae (Marius, 18–21) details are obscure. No reliance can be placed in the casualty figures (which Orosius put at nearly half a million); they may have numbered some 70,000– 100,000 captured and killed. On the strategy of the Germans see F. Miltner, Klio, 1940, 289 ff., but E. Badian believes (Historia, 1962, 217 = Seager, Crisis, 23) that Miltner has exaggerated the ability and cohesion of the barbarians in postulating an organized three-pronged attack. On the invasions see E. Demougeot, Latomus, 1978, 910 ff. On the campaign of Catulus in 102 see R. G. Lewis, Hermes, 1974, 90 ff. On Aquae Sextiae see A. Donnadieu, Rev. Étud. Anc., 1954, 281 ff. On the strategy in 101 see E. Sadée, Klio, 1940, 225 ff.; on Sulla’s part, Sadée, Rhein Mus., 1939, 43 ff. On the battle of Vercellae see T. F. Carney, Athenaeum, 1958, 229 ff. For the view of J. Zennari (I Vercelli dei Celti, 1956) that vercellae was a Celtic word and meant a metal-mining area, and that the battle of Vercellae was fought near Ferrara, see E. T. Salmon, Phoenix, 1958, p. 85. [p. 49]
31 ALLOTMENTS AND COLONIES. The sources for these measures are inadequate and obscure in detail. For the Gallic allotments see Appian, BC, I, 29; for the colonies in Sicily and Greece see de vir. illustr. 73 (these may have been intended for the veterans of Aquillius and Didius, whose campaigns against the Sicilian slaves and against the Scordisci were just ending; see E. Badian, For. Cl., 204 f.); for Corsica, which cannot be dated with certainty to 100, Pliny, N.H. 3, 6, 80; for Cercina, see the elogium quoted below. For Africa there is epigraphic evidence: the cognomen Mariana appears in the third century A.D. in the titles of two settlements, Thibaris and Uchi Maius (ILS, 6790; 1334), while a more recently discovered inscription proclaims Marius as the conditor coloniae of Thuburnica (Comptes rend., 1950, 332; though Thuburnica may not technically have been a colonia, the reference is clearly to Marius as the originator of the settlement there). The commissioners included C. Iulius Caesar Strabo (attested in an inscription: Inscr. Ital. 13. 3. 6) and the elder Iulius Caesar who established colonists on Cercina (ibid. 13. 3. 7). The proposal for allotments in Africa is dated by de vir. ill. 73 to 103 B.C., but the African colonies are usually assigned to 100; E. Gabba (Athenaeum, 1951, 12 ff.) would assign them also to 103 because he believes that only Saturninus’ legislation of 100 was repealed. On Roman colonization in N. Africa from the time of Gracchus, to that of Augustus, see L. Teutsch, Das Städtewesen in Nordafrika (1962). – Cicero (pro Balbo, 48) records that Marius was given the right to grant Roman citizenship to three men in each colony (if the reading ‘ternos’ is correct): this implies that the colonists were allies, not Romans, and that they had the Latin right. – Eporedia (Ivrea) south of Aosta in the foothills of the Alps received a colony (probably Roman) in 100 (Velleius, 1. 15. 5). There is nothing to prove that this was part of Saturninus’ legislation; it may rather have been a senatorial move, either political in purpose, to compensate for the later cancellation of Saturninus’ legislation, or strategic, designed to secure a second overland route to Gallia Narbonensis, or in connexion with the goldmines of Victimulae: on this see U. Ewins, Papers Brit. Sch. Rome, 1952, 70 ff., and for surviving traces of the land distribution (centuriation) see P. Fraccaro, Opuscula, III (1957), 93 ff. See also E. Badian, For. Cl., 204 ff. P. A. Brunt has minimized the importance of the Italian settlements in Africa (Italian Manpower 225 BC–A.D. 14 (1971), 577 ff.) and of Marius’ support for allied enfranchisement (JRS, 1965, 106 f.). For a rejection of these interpretations see E. Badian ‘Roman politics and the Italians, 133–91 B.C.’, Dialoghi di Archeologia, IV–V (1970–71), 402 ff. [p. 50]
32 THE PIRATE LAW. For the text see Riccobono, FIRA, i, 121 ff.; for a translation of part of this interesting document see Lewis and Rheinhold, Rn. Civ. i, 325 f. For the more sinister interpretation see J. Carcopino, Mélanges, Glotz, i, 119 ff. A second copy of what is almost certainly this same law has been found at Cnidus in south-west Asia Minor: for text and discussion see M. Hassall et al., JRS, 1974, 195 ff.; cf. J. L. Ferrary, Mélanges d’arch., 1977, 619 ff. [p. 50]
33 METELLUS. Cf. E. S. Gruen, ‘The Exile of Metellus Numidicus’, Latomus, 1965, 576 ff. [p. 51]
34 SATURNINUS’ LEGISLATION. The legislation of 100 was later ignored, but was it repealed, as argued by E. Gabba (Athenaeum, 1951, 13 f.)? E. Badian (Historia, 1962, 219 = Seager, Crisis, 25) has revived the objections of A. Passerini (Athenaeum, 1934, 348 f.) and argues that Cicero de leg. 2. 14 and pro Balbo 48 show that it was not annulled by the Senate. A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (1968), 152 ff., also argues that Saturninus’ legislation, passed per vim, was not openly declared invalid: its execution was either abandoned or limited. – For the view that Marius was out-manoeuvred by Scaurus who was the master hand behind the suppression of Saturninus, see T. F. Carney, Marius, 43 f. For Marius’ wealth, see Carney, p. 40. For the view that the decline in political support for Marius, after the suppression of Saturninus, was gradual, see E. Badian, For. Cl., 210 ff. [p. 51]
CHAPTER IV
1 SOURCES FOR 99–79 B.C. See Greenidge and Clay op. cit. The surviving or partly surviving sources are roughly the same as those mentioned in notes 1 to chs. II and III, especially Appian (BC, 1, 33–106), Plutarch (Lives of Marius and Sulla), Livy, ‘Periochae’, 70–89, fragments of Diodorus, books 36–8, of Licinianus (dealing with 87–79 B.C.), references in Cicero (and his speech Pro Sex. Roscio) and in Strabo, etc. The lost works included the Memoirs of Sulla (of which Plutarch made use) and the Histories by Sempronius Asellio, which went down to 91 B.C., and by L. Cornelius Sisenna, who was praetor in 78, defended Verres in 70 and was a legate of Pompey in 67; his work, which continued Asellio’s, began in 90 B.C. and went down to 82 or more probably to Sulla’s death. On Sisenna see E. Badian, JRS, 1962, 50 ff. = Studies, 212 ff., and also Athenaeum, 1964, 422 ff., where he argues that Sisenna was in Rome during the dominatio Cinnae and later wrote his history in the spirit of an apologia for those who shared his experience. But see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, JRS, 1965, 231. An account of the Social War was written by Lucullus in Greek. On the Mithridatic War there is Appian’s Mithridatica; a fragment from Posidonius which provides a portrait of Aristion, the leader in Athens in 88 (frg. in Athenaeus, V, 211); and the relevant part of a local history of Heraclea in Pontus written by a citizen named Memnon (Jacoby, Frag. Griech. Hist. IIIB, 434, 22–6). Some inscriptions and coins are mentioned below. On Sisenna see now also E. Rawson, Cl. Qu., 1979, 327 ff. [p. 52]
2 FAMOUS TRIALS. These involved (a) Sex. Titius who was alleged to have kept a bust of Saturninus in his house (98): condemned; (b) P. Furius (tribune 100), who with Marius had deserted Saturninus, was accused twice: first acquitted and then lynched by the mob (98); (c) the younger Caepio, who had opposed Saturninus’ corn-law: acquitted; (d) C. Norbanus, Saturninus’ friend (probably in 95): though Scaurus, the Princeps Senatus, testified against him, he was acquitted; (e) Scaurus, accused of extortion in the East by young Caepio (92): he postponed the trial indefinitely by counter-attacking Caepio, who was acquitted. For the trials of Caepio and Norbanu
s, and also for Marius’ supporters in these years, see E. Badian, Historia, 1957, 318 ff. = Studies, 34 ff. For all these political prosecutions in the 90s, see Gruen, Historia, 1966, 32 ff., and Rom. Pol., 187 ff. He believes that Furius was tried once and that Scaurus was tried and acquitted. [p. 52]
2a THE LEX LICINIA-MUCIA. Despite Schol. Bob. 296, this was not an expulsion act: see E. Badian, For Cl., 297, and cf. JRS, 1973, 127. The men condemned under this law may previously have been enrolled gradually (thus P. A. Brunt, JRS, 1965, 106 f.) or by the censors of 97–6 (so E. Badian, Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (1968), 104f. and Dialoghi, 405 f. (cited in n. 31 above). [p. 53]
3 MUCIUS SCAEVOLA. E. Badian (Athenaeum, 1956, 104 ff.) dates the proconsulship of Scaevola in Asia to 94 B.C. He argues that Aemilius Scaurus, who led an embassy to the East, went there in 96 and realized the need for reform in Asia: hence he will have proposed that a consular governor should be sent out to Asia and have sponsored the appointment of Scaevola. That Scaurus was the prosecutor of Rutilius may have been the erroneous belief of his descendant Mam. Aemilius Scaurus, consul in A.D. 21 (Tacitus, Annals, 3, 66: see E. Badian Cl. Rev., 1958, 216 ff.). B. Marshall, Athenaeum, 1976, 117 ff., believes that Scaevola governed Asia as praetor or soon after (c. 98). On Scaevola’s contribution to Roman law see O. Behrends, Die Wissenschaftslehre im Zivilrecht des Q. Mucius Scaevola Pontifex (1976). [p. 53]
4 DRUSUS’ LEGISLATION. For Drusus as champion of the Senate see Cicero, de orat. 1. 7. 24, pro Milone 7. 16; Diodorus, 37, 10. The chronology of his measures is uncertain: cf. R. Thomsen, Classica et Mediaevalia, 1942, 13 ff. Velleius (2. 14) suggests that the franchise proposal was among the later measures, and indeed something of an afterthought. For the lex Saufeia see the elogium of Drusus (Greenidge, Sources2, 128); for the decemviral commission and an inscription from Vibo, ibid, 131. Drusus, or perhaps less probably his father (whose claim is supported by H. Mattingly, Proc. Brit. Acad., xxxix, 242), carried a currency law: octavam partem aeris argento miscuit (Pliny, NH, 33. 46). That this means that Drusus arranged that one silver-plated denarius should be officially issued in every issue of eight ordinary silver ones has been rejected by M. Crawford (Num. Chron., 1968, 57 f.; RRC, 616) who argues that plated coins were never officially minted and since there is no trace of debasement in denarii of the years immediately after 91 B.C., the story about Livius Drusus may refer to an annulled or abortive proposal. Regarding the courts, Velleius (2. 13. 2) records that Drusus wanted to restore them to the Senate, Appian (Bell. Civ. 1. 35) that he wanted to add 300 Equites to the Senate and to entrust the courts to this enlarged Senate, and the Epitome of Livy (71) says that he carried a law establishing mixed juries. For an attempt to reconcile the versions of Appian and Livy, see E. Gabba, La Parola del Passato, 1956, 363 ff. and Annali d. Sc. Norm. di Pisa, 1964, 1 ff., who accepts Appian’s account and thinks that Livy is merely a muddled version of the same tradition. For the clause making the Equites liable to prosecution on charges of corruption to secure an unjust conviction, see Cicero, Cluent. 15.3; Rabir. Post. 16. Cf. U. Ewins, JRS, 1960, 94 ff. On Drusus’ friends (the enemies of Marius), e.g. the Metelli, see E. Badian, Historia, 1957, 318 ff.; Gruen, Rom. Pol., 206 ff. Some Etruscans and Umbrians went to Rome to agitate against Drusus’ land law (not his citizenship law: on this see E. Badian, Historia, 1962, 225 f. = Studies, 36 ff.). J. Heurgon has found traces of Etruscan propaganda against Drusus in an Etruscan prophecy by a prophetess called Vegoia: see JRS, 1959, 41 ff. For further discussion of Drusus’ judiciary law see E. J. Weinrib, Historia, 1970, 414 ff. and A. R. Hands, Phoenix, 1972, 268 ff. The second of Gabba’s articles mentioned above is now translated in his RR, Army, 130 ff. [p. 54]
5 DRUSUS AND THE ITALIANS. Diodorus records (37. 13) that an army of 10,000 Italians started to march on Rome during Drusus’ lifetime until persuaded that their claims would be considered. He also quotes (37. 11) an oath alleged to have been sworn by his Italian friends to Drusus. This might be a document, not necessarily genuine, produced at the subsequent trials. [p. 54]
6 LEX VARIA DE MAIESTATE. The lex Varia is usually interpreted as a law which set up a quaestio extraordinaria to try those ‘by whose help or counsel allies had taken up arms against the Roman people’. E. S. Gruen, however, has argued (JRS, 1965, 59 ff.) that it did not establish a special court but redefined the charge of maiestas and thus superseded the existing standing court de maiestate which Saturninus had established; it will have continued in this form until Sulla’s legislation. R. Seager (Historia, 1967, 37 ff.) has countered Gruen’s arguments but has not convinced Gruen (see Rom. Pol., 216, n. 2). However, E. Badian (Historia, 1969, 447 ff.) has reinforced the attack and may well be thought to have re-established the traditional position. The victims included L. Calpurnia Bestia (cos. 111) who, anticipating trouble, went into exile; C. Aurelius Cotta, Drusus’ friend and future consul of 75, denounced the court and went into exile; and another friend, L. Memmius. (On Memmius see T. P. Wiseman, Cl. Qu. 1967, 163 ff.) Three men got off; M. Antonius (cos. 99) thanks to his powers of oratory, Scaurus, and Q. Pompeius Rufus (cos. 88). It is usually believed that the court was suspended when the military situation got worse during the Social War, but H. Hill, Roman Middle Class, 136, argues that the evidence (Cicero, Brut. 304; Asconius, p. 73 Cl.) suggests that it alone continued, the other courts being temporarily suspended. Badian (Historia, 1969, 452 ff.) argues that the regular courts had already been suspended before Varius carried his law establishing the special court. He also shows that Varius’ ultimate fate was exile, not execution. [p. 54]
7 THE LATIN CITIES. Their loyalty to Rome may be partly explained by the fact that their local magistrates had been granted Roman citizenship, perhaps from 124 B.C. As these changed annually, by 90 B.C. the nucleus of the governing class in each city would be Roman citizens, whose sympathies and loyalties would be directed to Rome. Cf. G. Tibiletti, Rendiconti Ist. Lombardo, lxxxvi, 1953, 45 ff. Venusia had become partly Oscanized. [p. 55]
8 AIMS OF THE ALLIES. In general see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship2, 134 ff., and P. A. Brunt, JRS, 1965, 90 ff. There is not much evidence for a division of loyalty within the cities on social and economic lines, though sufficient to permit Mommsen to hold that the local aristocracies were more loyal to Rome and that the rural middle classes were the real rebels. A recent view suggests that the commercial classes in the Italian cities were particularly discontented and when trading abroad felt keenly their inferior status to that of the Roman citizens (see E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 1954, 41–114, 293–345, a valuable discussion, although its main thesis is not acceptable). It is true that the Italians were helping to exploit the provinces, but these traders came mostly from Campania and the south rather than from the Oscan heart of the rebellion. Cf. E. Badian, For. Cl. 220 ff. and Historia, 1962, 223 ff. = Seager, Crisis, 29 ff. E. T. Salmon (Phoenix, 1962, 107 ff.) attributes the cause of the war to the ‘principes Italicorum populorum’, the Italian bourgeoisie, whose economic and commercial interests (especially in the provinces) were badly affected when the Equites gained control of the law courts at Rome: Roman citizenship would give them equality of privilege, and many would in fact become knights. Their resentment grew in the nineties, with the lex Licinia Mucia and the failure of Drusus’ judiciary and citizenship laws. So they turned to war and to the old hatred of the Sabellian tribes for Rome; the masses could easily be stirred once their leaders wanted and agreed upon action. Salmon also (Samnium and the Samnites (1967), ch. 9) discusses the grievances of the allies which included the fact that their notable contribution to the victories over Jugurtha and the Germans ‘had been rewarded by having it made clear that they were to remain second-class inhabitants of Italy’ (p. 335), while the irritation caused by the Lex Licinia Mucia ‘happened at a moment when a lull in the external wars left a lot of trained Italian soldiers temporarily, and dangerously, unemployed’. P. A. Brunt (op. cit.) upholds the traditional view that the allied ‘demand for citizenship is essentially a demand for
the ius suffragii’ (p. 103) and argues that their desire to become Roman citizens ‘reflects the success of Rome in unifying them in sentiment and was stimulated by the Cimbric war and by the career of Marius and other novi homines of his time’ (90). They ‘could reckon that enfranchisement would not substantially reduce such autonomy as they still possessed’ (103). D. B. Nagle, AJ Arch., 1973, 366 ff., examines Italy, region by region, and suggests that the allies found Rome’s increasing pervasiveness difficult to accept. ‘It was not so much the threat of renewed land commission activity that led to the revolt as the reaffirmation implicit in Drusus’ law (even though abrogated) of Rome’s basic policy of allowing – and on occasion actively encouraging – her citizen landowners, large and small, to exploit the gigantic holdings of ager publicus added to her territory in the third and second centuries’ (p. 367). An English translation of Gabba’s article has now appeared in his RR, Army, 70 f. [p. 55]
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 54