Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:38:30.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Character of the Classical Roman Republic, 200–151 B.C.*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Fergus Millar
Fergus Millar
Affiliation:
University College London/Brasenose College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In any attempt to understand Roman history the first half of the second century B.C. must have a special place. Victory in the Hannibalic war had laid the foundations of a general dominance of the Mediterranean world, but had hardly yet produced an Empire. Outside Italy, only Sicily, Sardinia and two commands in Spain were normally allotted as provinciae for annual magistrates; and this list was not increased by the famous victories in the Greek East, Cynoscephalae, Thermopylae, Magnesia and Pydna. Roman imperialism is too crude a term for what we can observe between 200 and 151 B.C. Roman dominance was felt everywhere, from Spain to Carthage, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Ankara; Roman militarism was demonstrated consistently in N. Italy and Spain, at various periods in Greece and Macedonia (200–194, 191–187, 171–168), and for one period of three years in Asia Minor (190–188). Roman colonialism was still confined, with one very marginal exception, to the Italian peninsula.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 74 , November 1984 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Fergus Millar 1984. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For this point (and much else) see now Sherwin-White, A. N., Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 B.C.-A.D. I (1984), esp. 8 and 11–12Google Scholar.

2 Walbank, F. W., Polybius (1972), 155Google Scholar.

3 Gelzer, M., Die Nobilität der römischen Republik (1912), 106Google Scholar = The Roman Nobility, trans. Seager, R. (1969), 127Google Scholar.

4 Rawson, E., ‘Caesar's Heritage: Hellenistic Kings and their Roman Equals“, JRS LXV (1975), 148Google Scholar.

5 For a contemporary reflection of this, see Ennius, Ann. 329 Vahlen/325 Warmington: ‘Graecia Sulpicio sorti data, Gallia Cottae’ (200 B.C.).

6 e.g. Pol. xxi, 17, 9; 24, 2–3; 30, 16; 32, 1; cf. Livy xxxii, 23, 2.

7 ILS 15; Degrassi, ILLRP 514.

8 Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents from the Greek East (1969), no. 1Google Scholar.

9 Aulus Gellius, NA vi, 3 = Malcovati, ORF 3, Cato XLII; cf. Livy XLV, 25, 2. See Calboli, G., Marci Porci Catonis Oratio pro Rhodiensibus (1978)Google Scholar.

10 See e.g. Livy XLV, 20, 10 (cf. p. 15 below) and, far more important, Syll.3 656, on ambassadors from Teos acting on behalf of Abdera, on which see L. Robert, BCH LIX (1935), 507–13, and REA LXII (1960), 327, n. 2, and P. Herrmann, ZPE VII (1971), 72.

11 e.g. Livy xxxvi, 21, 7–8; xxxvii, 52, 2; XLV, 2, 2–6.

12 Val. Max. v, io, 2 = Malcovati, ORF 3, I (p. 101).

13 See Richardson, J. S., ‘The Triumph, the Praetors and the Senate in the Early Second Century B.C.’, JRS LXV (1975), 50Google Scholar.

14 Livy XLV, 35, 4–39, 20. Cato's speech: Aulus Gellius, NA I, 23 = ORF 3, Cato XLIII.

15 ORF 3, Cato iv, F. 21–55*.

16 Cicero, Brut. 23/89 = Peter, HRR, Origines, F. 106 = ORF 3, Cato LI; cf. Appian, Iber. 60/255, stating that he used his wealth to escape condemnation.

17 Pol. xii, 5, 1–3. For the assumption mentioned see Walbank ad loc.

18 ILS 18; FIRA 2 I, 30.

19 See e.g. McDonald, A. H., ‘Rome and the Italian Confederation (200–186 B.C.)’, JRS XXXIV (1944), 11Google Scholar.

20 Sherk, op. cit. (n. 8), nos. 2, 5 and 7.

21 ILS 19; FIRA 2 I, 33.

22 Livy xxxiv, 42, 5–6; for this interpretation see Briscoe ad loc.

23 Livy xxxvii, 46, 9–47, 2; xxxix, 55, 4–9; XLIII, 17, 1.

24 Pol. II, 21, 7–8; see MRR 1, 225. For a discussion of the view that this remark was inserted after 133 B.C. see Walbank ad loc.

25 For the best exposition of various related themes, Brunt, P. A., ‘The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution’, JRS LII (1962), 69Google Scholar.

26 For the notion of a lex as the expression of the collective power of the people see e.g. Serrao, F., Classi, partiti e legge nella repubblica romana (1974), 63 ffGoogle Scholar.

27 Censorinus, de die natali 24, 3; FIRA 2 I, 3; Girard-Senn-Giuffrè, , Les Lois des romains7 (1977), no. 3 (p. 83)Google Scholar.

28 Festus 288L; FIRA 2 I, I; Girard-Senn-Giuffrè, Lois, no. 1.

29 Festus 468L; FIRA 2 1, 2; Girard-Senn-Giuffrè, Lois, no. 2.

30 It has long been disputed what groups are really referred to here. For a recent discussion see Humbert, M., Municipium et civitas sine suffragio (1978), 351 fGoogle Scholar., suggesting cives sine suffragio rather than sons of freedmen. In that case this issue would be closely related to that of 188 (above).

31 Livy XL, 44, 1. See Astin, A. E., The Lex Annalis before Sulla (1958)Google Scholar; Rögler, G., ‘Die Lex Villia Annalis’, Klio XL (1962), 76Google Scholar; R. Develin, Patterns in Office-Holding, 366–49 B.C. (1979).

32 ORF 3, Cato XL, F. 156–60. Cato's advocacy of the law ‘magna voce et bonis lateribus’ was clearly in public, addressed to the people.

33 ORF 3, Cato xxxv; cf. Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics 220–150 B.C.2 (1973), 263–6Google Scholar.

34 Crawford, M., The Roman Republic (1978), 79Google Scholar.

35 Plut., Flam. 18–19; Livy xxxix, 42, 5–12 does not make it explicit that the speech was to the people.

36 For the conventional view see e.g. Suolahti, J., The Junior Officers of the Roman Army in the Republican Period (1955), 15Google Scholar: ‘For in the elections no real freedom of choice existed among the electorate, since their decisions were guided by numerous bondages and ties, from family relations and friendships to factors such as clientela and bribery.’ Earlier critiques of this view are Brunt, P. A., Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (1971)Google Scholar; M. H. Crawford (n. 34), 35–7; Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (1983), 36 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Cic., Tusc. Disp. iv, 2, 3; Peter, HRR, Origines F. 118.

38 See Ville, G., La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien (1981), 42–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 See Bourriot, F., Recherches sur la nature du Genos (1976)Google Scholar; Roussel, D., Tribu et cité (1976)Google Scholar. See Humphreys, S. C., ‘Fustel de Coulanges and the Greek “Genos”’, Sociologia del Diritto III (1982), 35Google Scholar.

40 Brunt, P. A., ‘Nobilitas and Novitas’, JRS LXXII (1982)Google Scholar, I; K. Hopkins, op. cit. (n. 36), ch. 2: ‘Political Succession in the late Republic, 249–50 B.C.’ (with G. P. Burton).

41 Brunt, op. cit. (n. 40). The word nobilitas is attested, Plautus, Captivi 299, but in a related, non-specific sense.

42 See D. E. Hahn, ‘The Roman Nobility and the Three Major Priesthoods, 218–167 B.C.’, TAPhA XCIV (1963), 73; Szemler, G. B., The Priests of the Roman Republic (1972)Google Scholar.

43 Gelzer, op. cit. (n. 3), 7; Nicolet, C., ‘Le cens sénatorial sous la République et sous Auguste’, JRS LXVI (1976), 20Google Scholar.

44 Possibly the reference is to cases before the Praefecti iure dicundo (as Professor Brunt suggests to me). See Italian Manpower, 528–35, and M. Humbert, op. cit. (n. 30), 356 f.

45 For contested consular elections see e.g. Livy XXXV, 24, 4–5 (for 191); XXXVII, 47, 6–7 (189); XXXIX, 32, 5–13 (184); XLI, 28, 4 (173, no names given).

46 Hopkins, op. cit. (n. 36), 46.

47 Contested elections for the censorship: XXXII, 7, 2 (199, no names given); XXXVII, 57, 9–58, 2 (189); XXXIX, 40, 1–41, 4 (184); XLIII, 14, 1 (169).

48 W. V. Harris, ‘The Development of the Quaesorship 267–81 B.C.’, CQ XXVI (1976), 92.

49 W. Rilinger, Der Einfluss des Wahlleiters bei den römischen Konsulwahlen von 336 bis 50 v. Chr. (1976).

50 For a useful discussion see Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (1967), 28 fGoogle Scholar., and 337, note B.

51 See Connor, W. R., The New Politicians of Fifth Century Athens (1971)Google Scholar.

52 So, perhaps surprisingly, even Finley, M. I., Politics in the Ancient World (1983), 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 C. Nicolet, Rome et la conquête du monde méditerranéen 264–27 avant J.-C. I: les structures de l'Italie romaine (1977), 373 ff.

54 Hopkins, op. cit. (n. 36), 47.

55 Thus seven of non-curule rank in 204, Livy XXIX, 37, 1; three in 194, XXXIV, 44, 4; four in 189, XXXVIII, 28, 2; three in 179 (no rank given), XL, 51, 1; nine in 174, XLI, 27, 2 (see below, otherwise no rank given); seven in 169, no rank given, XLIII, 15, 6.

56 The inapplicability and unhelpfulness of this term was demonstrated very well by Seager, R., ‘Factio: Some Observations’, JRS LXII (1972), 53Google Scholar.

57 Gnomon XXXVII (1965), 189Google Scholar.

58 See e.g. A. E. Astin, op. cit. (n. 50), 80 ff., and esp. Meier, Chr., Res Publica Amissa2 (1980)Google Scholar.

59 On the meeting-places of the Republican Senate see now M. Bonnefond, ‘Espace, temps et idéologie: le Sénat dans la cité romaine républicaine’, Dial. di Arch., 3 ser., I (1983), 37.

60 See Sherk, op. cit. (n. 8), nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, and other examples from after the mid-second century.

61 For documentary examples see e.g. FIRA 2 I, nos. 32–3; Sherk, op. cit. (n. 8), nos. 2, 4, 5; cf. 9 (c. 140 B.C.).

62 Cicero, Brutus 58; Ennius, Ann. IX, 303–8 Vahlen/300–5 Warmington.

63 For the fullest study of the forms of popular participation see of course Nicolet, C., Le métier du citoyen (1976)Google Scholar = The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (1980), esp. ch. 7, which however deals with the entire Republican period and does not offer conclusions as to the nature of power within the system.

64 See Kunkel, W., Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischen Zeit (1962)Google Scholar; Jolowicz, H. F., Nicholas, B., Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law3 (1972), 305–17Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M., The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate (1972), ch. IGoogle Scholar; A. W. Lintott, ‘Provocatio’, ANRW 1. 2 (1972), 226; Giovannini, A., ‘Volkstribunat und Volksgericht’, Chiron XIII (1983), 545Google Scholar.

65 Plautus, Captivi 475–6; Pseudolus 1232–3; Aulularia 700; Truculentus 819.

66 The source of these presumptions is of course Gelzer, op. cit. (n. 3), see esp. pp. 49–56 (trans. Seager, pp. 62–9) and the conclusion, pp. 115–16 (p. 139). It is needless to cite a long series of examples of later adhesion to them. It may suffice to point to the presumptions still present in the work of Bleicken, J., Staatliche Ordnung und Freiheit in der römischen Republik (1972), 64 fGoogle Scholar.; Lex Publica (1975) 244 f.; Die Verfassung der römischen Republik 2 (1978), and, in the most sophisticated and interesting modern treatment of Roman politics, Meier, Chr., Res Publica Amissa2 (1980), esp. 34 ffGoogle Scholar.

67 So Finley, op. cit. (n. 52), 40–1.

68 Rouland, N., Pouvoir politique et dépendance personelle (1979), 258 fGoogle Scholar.

69 For this point see P. A. Brunt, op. cit. (n. 36), passim, and, with specific reference to this period, Finley, op. cit. (n. 52), 98 f.

70 Cicero, Laelius 96; Varro, de re rust. 1, 2, 9. See Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies (1966), 22–3Google Scholar.

71 [Sail.], Ep. ad Caes. II, 8, 1. See C. Nicolet, ‘“Confusio Suffragiorum”. A propos d'une réforme électorate de Caius Gracchus’, MEFR LXXI (1959), 145.

72 See e.g. F. Serrao, op. cit. (n. 26), 176 ff.; and Perelli, L., Il movimento popolare nell'ultimo secolo delta Repubblica (1982)Google Scholar.

73 cf. Badian, E., Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic2 (1968), chs. 2–4Google Scholar.

74 Note on this aspect the pertinent remark by Finley, op. cit. (n. 52), 70, n. 3: ‘It surely does not require argumentation to reject the view … that popular participation is reduced to a charade by the fact that leadership was monopolised by the élite …’.

75 See MacMullen, R., ‘How many Romans voted?’, Athenaeum LVIII (1980), 454Google Scholar.

76 For some interesting observations on this aspect see Runciman, W. G., ‘Capitalism without Classes: the Case of Classical Rome’, Brit. Journ. Social. XXXIV (1983), 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 See e.g. Guarino, A., La democrazia a Roma (1979)Google Scholar.

78 Sherwin-White, A. N., ‘The Lex Repetundarum and the Political Ideas of Gaius Gracchus’, JRS LXXII (1982), 18Google Scholar, on pp. 21–3.

79 FIRA 2 I, no. 6; Girard-Senn-Giuffrè, Lois, no. 6.

80 For this point and a good analysis of Polybius' conception of the political character of the Roman system, as expressed both in Book VI and elsewhere, see now Nicolet, C., ‘Polybe et la “constitution” de Rome: aristocratie et démocratic’, in Nicolet, C. (ed.), Demokratia et Aristokratia. Á propos de Caius Gracchus: mots grecs et réalites romaines (1983), 15Google Scholar.

81 Note the public demonstration over the consular elections of 149 B.C.: (Appian, Pun. 112).