A History of the Roman World

by Scullard, H. H.

  35 THE TRIUMPH. See above, n. 18. The king in his triumphal insignia in some sense represented Jupiter, but (despite much debate) the idea of divinization was probably not involved. In the early days of the Republic a minor form of triumph was developed, the ovatio; this may approximate more closely to the early pre-Etruscan form of celebration before the Etruscans had elaborated the ritual (e.g. the general went on foot or horseback, not a chariot). In the late third century generals who were refused full triumphs by the Senate might hold unofficial ones on the Alban Mount during the Feriae Latinae. For later developments (241–133 BC) see J. S. Richardson, JRS, 1975, 50 ff.

  36 THE CALENDAR. Since ‘Numa’s’ reform does not refer to the dedication of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in 509 BC it must have been earlier than that, while if Aprilis is an Etruscan word the reform probably was made in the sixth century. A. K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic (1967), however, attributes this pre-Julian calendar to the decemviral period, but this view is contested by R. M. Ogilvie, Cl. Rev., 1969, 330 ff. (cf. A. Drummond, JRS (1971), 282 f.). Ogilvie (Early Rome, 42) also suggests that although the lunisolar calendar was established during the Etruscan period, it was not openly published, for all to see and read, until the time of the Decemvirate. The introduction of the new month of January is not generally thought to have resulted in changing the beginning of the Roman year from March to January until 153 BC. Mrs Michels, however, believes the change to be older and that in 153 what happened was only the bringing into line of the official consular year with the older calendar year. On the calendar see, besides Mrs Michels’s book, E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (1968), 43 ff. and A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (1972), ch. v. On the calends and the king’s proclamation: Macrobius, i, 15, 9–13; cf. Lydus, de mens, iii, 10.

  37 LEGES REGIAE. A collection of laws ascribed to the kings existed in the second century AD (Pomponius, Digest, i, 2, 2, 2). It was called ius Papirianum because it was allegedly composed under Tarquinius Superbus by a Sextus Papirius, while a C. Papirius, the first Pontifex Maximus, was said to have restored a collection, made by Ancus Marcius, of some laws of Numa which had been recorded on tablets in the Forum and become illegible (Dion. Hal., iii, 36). All such leges regiae preserved in the ancient writers have been collected: see, e.g, Riccobono, Fontes, i, 1–8. They deal chiefly with religious matters and may reflect early rules of the regal community, even if they were not published in the Forum as were the later Twelve Tables, though the survival of the inscription under the Lapis Niger shows that publication cannot be quite excluded. For a defence of their basic historicity see A. Watson, JRS, 1972, 100 ff.

  38 DUOVIRI PERDUELLIONIS. A. Magdelain, Historia, 1973, 405 ff., has attempted to show that these officiais were invented by later annalists.

  39 THE EARLY CAVALRY. A. Alföldi, Der frührömische Reiteradel und seine Ehrenbezeichnen (1952), identified the patriciate with the 300 cavalry. This view has been challenged by A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 377 ff. and the discussion has been continued in Historia, 1968, 385 ff., 444 ff. De Martino, St. d. cos. rom, edn 2, I, 197 ff., believes that the equestrian centuries were reserved for patricians, but that to argue that the patricians had acquired their political privilege from their monopoly of the cavalry is to view the problem wrongly: the patricians derived their power rather from the gentes. For the dissociation of the mysterious proci patricii from the sex suffragia see Momigliano, op. cit, 377 ff. Ogilvie (Early Rome, 44 ff.) believes that in the earliest army cavalry was more important than infantry, but he rejects (56 ff.) Alföldi’s identification of the patricians with an aristocracy of knights who formed the royal cavalry.

  40 HOPLITE WARFARE. The archaeological evidence suggests the introduction of hoplite tactics in the mid-sixth century: see A. N. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (1967), 74 ff. This provides a conclusive argument against those (e.g. M. P. Nilsson, JRS, 1929, 4 ff.) who dated the ‘Servian’ reform to the mid-fifth century as the organizational means of introducing a Greek hoplite system. Further, our sources (Diodorus, xxiii, 2 and the Ineditum Vaticanum, 3) say that it was the Etruscans who taught the Romans to fight ‘with bronze shields and in a phalanx’.

  41 REFORM OF THE ARMY. It is widely agreed that the manner in which (though not necessarily the date at which) the army reforms were made has been solved by P. Fraccaro, Atti del sec. Congr. Naz. di Stud. Rom., iii (1931), 91 ff. (= Opuscula, II (1957), 287 ff). Cf., e.g., J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 150 ff.; for a general sketch of the evolution of the legion see A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy, I (1965), 505 ff.

  There are, however, still champions of a much later and slower development. Thus G. V. Sumner (JRS, 1970, 76 ff.) argues that Servius created a centuriate organization of the army of 3,000, based on the 30 curiae and the 3 original tribes. When the new territorial tribes were created in the mid-fifth century (so Sumner believes), a phalanx of 3,000 hoplites in 30 centuriae was established; at the same time the new model army was adapted for political purposes as a new Comitia Centuriata, no longer based on the curiae. This legio was increased to 4,000 c. 431 BC, and to 6,000 c. 405 when the Comitia Centuriata took on its classical form of five classes. After 367 it was divided into two legions, and by 311 the four-legion manipular army had been created.

  42 CLASSIS AND INFRA CLASSEM. The supposition of a division between classici and those infra classem is based on Cato (apud Gellium, vi, 13, 1) and Festus, p. 100, L). It has been supported by Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 291, A. Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1952, 3 ff. and A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 596; Quarto, 430 ff., but it has been questioned by E. S. Staveley (in a valuable paper on work done on the early Roman constitution 1940–54 in Historia, 1956, 79) who argues that Gellius does not prove or even imply that there were ever less than five classes in the centuriate organization and that Cato’s remark derives not from fifth-century records but from an unclear distinction of his own day when classicus may have indicated social standing.

  43 THE TRIBES. After 241 BC the total number of tribes was, and remained at, 35. Fabius Pictor (frg. 9P) attributes to Servius the creation of 4 urban and 26 rustic tribes; Livy (i, 43, 13) ascribes the four urban tribes to Servius at the time of the institution of the census but does not mention the rustic ones; but elsewhere (ii, 21, 7) he says that 21 tribes were formed in 495 BC. Probably 20 of these (the 4 urban and 17 rustic, i.e. excluding the tribe Clustumina) should be attributed to Servius. A fragment by an unknown writer on the Servian constitution (Papyrus Oxyr., 17 (1927), n. 2088) refers to Servius’ division into tribes. In general see L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960).

  44 DATING THE COMITIA CENTURIATA. Early views are discussed by G. W. Botsford, The Roman Assemblies (1909), more recent ones by E. S. Staveley, Historia, 1956, 74 ff. For later discussions see P. Fraccaro, JRS, 1957, 64; P. de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis (1959), 672 ff; L. R. Taylor, Voting-Districts of the Roman Republic (1960), 3 ff.; A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 594 ff.; R. M. Ogilvie, Livy, 166 ff.; G. V. Sumner, JRS, 1970, 76 ff.; F. De Martino, St. d. cos. rom., edn 2, I, ch. vii.

  As an example of those who accept Fraccaro’s explanation of the growth of the army (see n. 41 above) but reject his dating we may quote briefly the position of De Sanctis (Riv. Fil., 1933, 289 ff.) who maintains that the Servian order cannot be earlier than the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the fourth: if it existed in the regal period it would imply a population of 200 inhabitants to a square kilometre, which De Sanctis rejects as impossible. He also emphasizes the improbability that Rome could put 6,000 men into the field at so early a period. He distinguishes three periods of development: (a) The earliest of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry with three praetors (this accords with his theory that three praetors and not two consuls, or praetors, took the helm as the monarchy declined). (b) This army, based on Thousands and the old tribes and Curiae, was gradually increased. In 444 when three military tribunes took supreme control in the state, the army still contained only 3,0
00 men. The increase in the number of these military tribunes (three or four from 426 to 406, six from 405 to 367) implies an increase in the Thousands of the army. It was at this period, sometime between 405 and 367, that the new ‘Servian’ order was introduced, probably immediately after the Gallic sack, (c) In 366, when consuls were substituted for military tribunes, the legion of 6,000 men was divided into two separate legions, each under six tribunes; six were nominated by the consuls, six elected by the people. When the number of legions and tribunes was later increased the additional tribunes were elected by the people. Fraccaro’s explanation of the method of transition from one to two legions is to be followed.

  The chief merit of De Sanctis’ argument seems to be that it explains the fluctuating number of military tribunes: they varied with the number of Thousands of men levied annually. But since one of them sometimes remained in the city, their numbers may not depend strictly on the military organization. De Sanctis also implies that the ‘Servian’ order was introduced after the Gallic sack; it is difficult to see how this arrangement based on sixty centuries would square with the occasional appointment of seven, eight, or nine military tribunes (and De Sanctis himself rejects Beloch’s elimination of the odd numbers from the Fasti as arbitrary). Again, not all De Sanctis’ arguments are irrefutable. For instance, if Frank’s calculations are accepted Econ. Survey of Anc. Rome., I (1933), 19 ff., there is no objection on the score of population to placing the ‘Servian’ reform early. But even if these are rejected, the existence of a given number of centuries need not imply that at any given time they all contained 100 men. As De Sanctis says, a century of the census must have contained two or three times more people than a century of the legionary army. Is it not then possible that, accepting Fraccaro’s position, the primitive Romulean centuries were doubled by ‘Servius’ for census purposes; that each military century formed a part only of the census century of a full 100 rather than that the census century exceeded the military century of a full 100; and that the military centuries only gradually reached a full total which would produce an infantry of the line of 6,000 men? Other objections to De Sanctis’ views have been advanced by Fraccaro (Athenaeum, 1934, 57 ff. = Opuscula, II (1957), 293 ff.) that he and Beloch have been forced to imagine a Comitia Centuriata earlier than the ‘Servian’ one, of which tradition records no trace; and that if the ‘Servian’ reforms had been later than the regal period, their chronological position would have been mentioned (e.g. the decemviral legislation is not referred to Romulus or Servius !).

  45 SEXTUS TARQUINIUS. For the suggestion that the praenomen of Gnaeus Tarquinius Romanus depicted on the tomb at Vulci (p. 452) is wrong and that the man being killed is Sextus rather than his father or brothers see Ogilvie, Livy, 230. If the Tarquin family did come from Caere (p. 452), this city would be a natural place for them to seek refuge.

  46 HORATIUS, SCAEVOLA AND CLOFLIA. According to Livy, Horatius after his heroic defence of the bridge swam to safety, but Polybius (vi, 55) says that he was drowned. Scaevola, after failing to kill Porsenna, showed his indifference to pain by holding his right hand in a fire: Porsenna was duly impressed. Cloelia was a Roman girl, given as a hostage to Porsenna; she escaped across the Tiber, either by swimming or on horseback, but was returned to Porsenna who admired her bravery and handed her back. For a discussion of the origin of these stories, which may well be linked with statues of Horatius and Cloelia in Rome, whose meaning was misunderstood, see Ogilvie, Livy, 258 ff.

  47 PORSENNA. For the view that he came from Veii, not Clusium, see E. Pais, Storia di Roma, II, 97 ff. Pliny, NH, ii, 140 derives him from Volsini. For his capture of Rome see Tacitus, Hist., iii, 72. He is said to have tried to keep the Romans in subjection by forbidding the use of iron weapons (as the Philistines had dealt with the conquered Israelites). E. Gjerstad (Opuce. Rom. (1969), 149 ff.) believes that his main target was Cumae rather than Rome. Ogilvie, (Early Rome, 88 f.) suggests that Porsenna’s move south was activated by pressure upon Clusium by the hill tribes of central Italy (Gallic pressure from the north had scarcely started so early as this).

  48 THE CUMAEAN CHRONICLE. Whether Dionysius derived his information on Cumaean and Latin affairs from a local chronicle or from a writer, Hyperochus of Cumae, is uncertain. Only recently has the significance of this independent Greek tradition been emphasized. See A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 664 f.; E. Gabba, Les Origines de la Rep. Rom., (Entretiens Hardt, xiii (1966), 144 ff.); A. Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (1964), 56 ff.

  49 MONARCHY AND REPUBLIC. The conventional view (as expressed, e.g., by Mommsen) is that when Tarquin was suddenly expelled two annually elected magistrates (consuls, though probably first called praetors) succeeded to his position: this dual office was designed to prevent a recurrence of monarchical rule. But many historians reject a sudden change and believe in evolution rather than revolution. Some argue that the power of the kings declined gradually, as at Athens. The title rex, like basileus survived in the person of a priest-king (rex sacrorum), but his power was limited by the creation of three praetors who originally commanded the three military contingents of the Ramnes, Tities and Luceres. Their duties were gradually differentiated and the one left in Rome to administer justice sank to an inferior position; on this view, the traditional account of the creation of the praetorship in 366 arose from the fact that the names of the third ‘praetors’ were first recorded from then onwards. Such a theory, which cuts clean across all that the Romans themselves firmly believed about the fall of the monarchy, does not win a ready acceptance.

  Other historians turn to Etruria and Italy rather than to Greece to illuminate Rome’s constitutional development, but their contribution is not conclusive. On the analogy of the Etruscan magistrate called zilath (translated into Latin as dictator) and of the dictator who was the chief magistrate in such Latin cities as Aricia and Lanuvium, it has been suggested that the earliest magistrate at Rome was the dictator, whose original title was magister populi, together with his subordinate, the magister equitum. This view, although solving some difficulties, totally contradicts the tradition that the Roman dictatorship was an extraordinary non-annual magistracy. In Etruria a regular sequence of office (cursus honorum) may have been established when the monarchy gave place to the local aristocracy, while among the Italian peoples a magistracy was shared by more than one person. The Umbrians had two Marones, the Sabines eight Octovirs, and the Oscans two Meddices. But it is not certain whether any of these groups represent the principle of collegiality: possibly the first pair of Octovirs had equal authority, nothing is known of the Marones, while the Oscans definitely had a Meddix Tuticus and a Lesser Meddix. Thus it cannot be ascertained whether the Romans borrowed or invented the principle of two collegiate magistrates, and the comparative study of other institutions has hardly produced results sufficiently conclusive to justify the rejection of what the Romans believed concerning the nature of their earliest magistracy.

  K. Hanell (Das altrömische eponyme Amt (1946)) has advanced the view that the Romans were wrong in linking the establishment of the Republic with that of the eponymous magistracy; the latter might have existed under the monarchy, and in Hanell’s view it came into being at the same time as the adoption of the pre-Julian calendar which is to be associated with the foundation of the Capitoline temple. These eponymous magistrates will have been praetores maximi, since praetors and dictators are postulated in the regal period as helpers and deputies respectively of the king; such conditions prevailed until the Decemvirate, when the monarchy ended. This ingenious attempt to support the evolutionary theory (cf. De Sanctis, above) has not been widely accepted, even by other scholars who are dissatisfied with the traditional account. These, although ready to accept that the end of the monarchy was sudden and revolutionary, are not willing to believe that the dual consulship was devised suddenly in 509 as an anti-monarchical safeguard: it will have resulted from an evolutionary process, and prototypes of the consuls will have been, e.g. two auxiliaries of the k
ing, legionary commanders called praetors (so A. Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1952, 24 ff.). Other scholars have assumed a period between the monarchy and the appearance of magistrates with par potestas, when one magistrate, or a college of magistrates in which one predominated, exercised control, e.g. a praetor maximus (on whom see A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 403 ff.). According to the antiquarian Cincius (Livy, vii, 3, 5) the praetor maximus every year drove a nail into the wall of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, presumably to mark the passing of one year; this will have started in the first year of the Republic when the temple was dedicated. The nature and history of the office remain very obscure. It could be an alternative title to maior consul, the consul who held the fasces. Another view is that of De Martino (St. d. cos. rom, edn 2, I, 234 ff.) who believes that until 451 the chief magistrate was a dictator annuus; he was replaced in the struggle of the orders by an annually elected board of ten, which two years later was followed by two unequal praetors, who thereafter were sometimes replaced by military tribunes, until the dual consulship was established in 367. This view is criticized by E. S. Staveley, JRS, 1960, 251 f. The main thesis of a massive work by R. Werner, Der Beginn der römischen Republik (1963), has not been readily accepted (for criticism see A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 669 ff. and R. M. Ogilvie, Cl. Rev., 1965, 84 ff.). Werner’s conclusion is that Tarquin was expelled and the dual consulship established c. 472: this is based on his view that time was first reckoned by the nail-ceremony in the temple of Jupiter and not by eponymous consuls, the latter system being adopted only in the third century when the pontiffs equated the Capitoline era with the era based on the expulsion of the kings; this involved a large-scale interpolation of names in the consular Fasti (which Werner regarded as unreliable) to fill the gap between 507 (dedication of Capitoline temple and start of the nail-ceremony) and c. 472 (beginning of the Republic and consuls); Ogilvie (op. cit., 87) accepts that the Romans originally reckoned their years by nails rather than by magistrates, but does not accept Werner’s main thesis.