From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (58 page)

11 ALBA FUCENS. New excavations here are showing us more clearly what an early Latin colony looked like, and the strength of Alba’s walls, although they may not have saved the city from capture (cf.
Archaeology
, 1959, 124). For illustrations of the site and walls see E. T. Salmon,
Roman Colonization
(1969), Plates 15 and 25. [p. 56]

12 ASCULUM AND STRABO. An interesting record of the siege is provided by sling-bullets, inscribed with such instructions as ‘feri Pompeium’ or even a more precise target as ‘ventri’ (Greenidge,
Sources
²
, 149). Many stirring tales of heroism were told about the war, e.g. how Vidacilius of Asculum broke through the Roman lines into his native city. An important document (
ibid.
156;
ILS
, 8888) records how Strabo rewarded some Spanish horsemen who were serving under him with a grant of Roman citizenship ‘in castreis apud Asculum a.d. xiv Dec. ex lege Iulia’. Members of Strabo’s
consilium
included Lepidus (
cos.
78), Catiline, and his young son, later Pompeius Magnus. See also N. Criniti,
L’Epigrafe di Asculum di Cn. Pompeio Strabone
(1970) and (on the
consilium
) H. B. Mattingly,
Athenaeum
, 1975, 262 ff. [p. 57]

13 LEX IULIA. Appian (
BC
, 1. 49) suggests that it applied to loyal communities, but Velleius (2. 16) may imply its application also to those ‘qui arma … deposuerant maturius’. For an individual grant of citizenship under the law, see n. 12 above. On the lex Iulia see further P. A. Brunt,
JRS
, 1965, 107 f., who argues that it was under this law that the new citizens were restricted to eight or ten tribes (see n. 18 below) and he rejects L. R. Taylor’s view (
Voting Districts of the Roman Republic
, 107 ff.) that this restriction did not apply to the Latin colonies. [p. 57]

14 NEW MUNICIPIA. Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White,
Rom. Cit.
, 159 ff., who with others rejects the view of H. Rudolph that thereby the jurisdiction of local magistrates was abolished
and the Italians became subject to the city courts of Rome. The settlement of 90–89 did not crush all local independence. [p. 57]

15 LEX PLAUTIA PAPIRIA. For this second view see Sherwin-White,
op. cit.
, 151 ff., who argues that the clause of which we have any knowledge (Cic,
pro Arch
. 4. 7; Schol. Bob., p. 353) dealt merely with any
ascriptus
(a kind of ‘honorary freeman’, not an ordinary citizen) who happened not to be in residence in his adoptive city when it received citizenship under the
lex Iulia
(e.g. Cicero’s friend the poet Archias, an
ascriptus
of Heraclea who was living in Rome). What else the law contained we do not know. See now E. Badian,
JRS
, 1973, 128 ff.

Plautius was also responsible for a
lex iudiciaria
by which jurors were chosen in a new way: each tribe elected 15 of its own members from any class (i.e. not only Equites) and from these 525 men the jurors for the year were to be drawn. It is not clear whether this remained in force until Sulla’s law of 81 B.C. [p. 57]

16 LEX POMPEIA AND CISALPINE GAUL. The usual view, based on Asconsius
in Pisonian
. p. 3, is that Strabo conferred Roman citizenship on the Cispadanes and Latin rights on the Transpadanes. It has, however, been suggested (cf. G. E. F. Chilver,
Cisalpine Gaul
(1941), 8) that the
lex Pompeia
dealt with the
whole
of Cisalpine Gaul together, granting citizenship to all Latin colonies and Latin rights to the native
oppida
. This view has been developed by U. Ewins,
Papers Brit. Sch. Rome
, 1955, 73 ff., who also revives and defends the view of E. G. Hardy (
JRS
, 1916, 66 f.) that Cisalpine Gaul was made a province in 89 under this law, and not by Sulla in 81. Cf. n. 34. This view has been rejected by E. Badian (
Proc. Afr. Cl. Ass.
, 1958, 18 =
Studies
, 103, n. 145) who doubts whether Cisalpine Gaul was a regular administrative unit even after 81 (
Historia
, 1962, 232). On the status of the Transpadani see L. R. Taylor,
The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic
(1960), ch. 9. See also A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Citizenship
²
(1973), 157 ff. [p. 58]

17 CITIZENSHIP FOR THE REBELS. See Appian (
BC
, 1, 66. 5) and cf. Licinianus (27) ‘dediticiis omnibus a senatu civitas data’ and Livy,
Perioch
. 80 ‘Italicis populis a senatu civitas data’. The Lucanians and Samnites, who are excepted in the above passage of Appian, probably received their grant of citizenship from Cinna: cf. Appian 68. 2 and Licinianus (27) ‘Cinna … in leges quas postulabant eos recepit.’ [p. 58]

18 ENROLMENT OF NEW CITIZENS. They were confined to 8 (existing?) tribes according to Velleius or 10 new ones according to Appian. Whether or not these figures can be reconciled with the help of a fragment of Sisenna referring to ‘duas novas tribus’ (see Rice Holmes,
Roman Republic
, i., 356), the new citizens clearly did not receive fair play in the exercise of their public, as opposed to their private, rights. See also F. B. Marsh,
Hist. Roman World 146 to 30 BC
(2nd ed. 1953), appendix 4, E. T. Salmon,
TAPA
, 1958, 179 ff., L. R. Taylor,
Voting Districts of the Roman Republic
, ch. 8, and R. G. Lewis,
Athenaeum
, 1968, 273 ff. [p. 58]

19 DEBT. Many men were ruined by the war, money was short, and lenders began to call in their loans. A praetor of 89, Sempronius Asellio, who tried to apply an obsolete law against usury, was lynched by creditors. E. Badian, who examines the incident (
Historia
, 1969, 475 ff.), links it with the judicial lex Plotia (see above n. 15) as an attempt by the nobles to gain the support of the People against the Equites. The bronze coinage was reduced in weight: an
as
now weighed only half an ounce. One issue has the inscription LPDAP (
Lege Papiria de assis pondere
), i.e. it was issued under a
lex Papiria
(Crawford,
RRC
, n. 338). Crawford, however, would date the
lex Papiria
to 91 and regards the measure as a precaution in face of the threat from the Social War (pp. 77, 59 f., 611). [p. 58]

20 PUBLIUS SULPICIUS. The Optimate tradition, reflected in Appian, Plutarch and
Diodorus, is hostile to Sulpicius, though Cicero and the
Ad Herennium
are more favourable. His precise position is not clear: he started as an Optimate, but his measure for the new citizens was more than a vote-catching device, since they could hardly have been redistributed in time to allow them to vote for any of his other proposals. For an explanation of his conversion from Optimate to
Popularis
methods see E. Badian,
For. Cl.
, 230 ff., and
Historia
, 1969, 481 ff. When his stand on the issue of the fair distribution of the newly enfranchised Italians in the citizen body was opposed even by many of his former friends and supporters of Drusus, he found a political counterweight in Marius and in the Equites who, now that enfranchisement was an accomplished fact, would welcome the full voting power of the allied upper classes, whose interests they shared, as a counterbalance to the senatorial vote in the Comitia Centuriata (cf. Badian,
Historia
, 486 f.). This change in Sulpicius’ policy will have been made only after his citizen bill had been threatened (Badian,
For. Cl.
, 230 ff.). For a rejection of the ‘anti-senators’ see
Historia
, 485, n. 110. Sulpicius is said to have changed his mind about the recall of exiles, which he at first opposed. These are generally thought to be primarily those banished under the Varian commission, but Badian (
Historia
, 487 ff.) argues that they were those who had suffered from the application of the Lex Licinia Mucia (see p. 52 above). A. W. Lintott,
Cl. Qu.
, 1971, 442 ff., gives a slightly different interpretation of Sulpicius’ tribunate, which involves the view that Caesar Strabo sought the consulship in 88 for 87, hoping for the Mithridatic command in 87; his rival Marius will have had the same hope, thus at first not aiming to supplant Sulla in 88; but rioting and other events forced Marius into a direct challenge to Sulla. However that may be, the alliance between Sulpicius and Marius probably came late in Sulpicius’ tribunate after his proposal about the new citizens had run into trouble: cf. Badian,
For. Cl.
, 232, and T. J. Luce,
Historia
, 1970, 192 ff. T. N. Mitchell writes on the volte-face of Sulpicius in 88 (
Cl. Ph.
, 1975, 197 ff.), B. R. Katz on some questions of 88–87 (
Ant. class.
, 1976, 497 ff.) and on Caesar Strabo (
Rhein. Mus.
, 1977, 45 ff.). For the view that P. Sulpicius did not have the
cognomen
Rufus see H. Mattingly,
Athenaeum
, 1975, 264 f. [p. 59]

21 MARIUS’ FLIGHT. On this see T. F. Carney,
Gr. and R.
, 1961, 98 ff. An inscription of a slave of
a
C. Marius at Minturnae is, at best, doubtful evidence that the great Marius had a villa there. He had one at Misenum (but probably not another at Baiae): see E. Badian,
JRS
, 1973, 121 ff. On the declaration of Marius’ followers as
hostes
see R. A. Bauman,
Athenaeum
, 1973, 270 ff., and on the immediate impact of Sulla’s march on Rome see B. R. Katz,
Ant. class.
, 1975, 100 ff. [p. 60]

22 STRABO. M. Gelzer (
Vom römischen Staat
, II, 56 ff.) has attempted to some extent to rehabilitate Strabo’s reputation, which the Optimate tradition has blackened, but he goes too far perhaps in suggesting that Strabo tried to adopt the role of mediator in order to obtain a personal supremacy. Cf. E. Badian,
For. Cl.
, 239 ff. Strabo’s ability, aims and career must have had considerable influence on the thought of his son Pompey who had served on his
consilium
at Asculum. Cicero (
pro Cornelio
ap. Ascon., p. 79 Cl.) refers to a trial of Cn. Pompeius under the lex Varia in 89. There are great difficulties in applying this to Strabo: see E. Badian (
Historia
, 1969, 465 ff.) who accepts a correction of the text to ‘Pomponium’ and refers the trial to Cn. Pomponius, tribune in 90, who will then qualify for the role of ‘hominem dis ac nobilitate perinvisum’.

On the siege of Rome in 87 B.C. see B. R. Katz,
Cl. Ph.
, 1976, 328 ff. [p. 61]

23 THE MARIAN MASSACRE. H. Bennett,
Cinna and his Times
(1923), 20 ff., argues that this has been exaggerated by the anti-Marian tradition and that after the initial atrocities the official execution of prominent citizens was limited. Fourteen such victims are known; seven of these deaths are attributable to Marius. Six of the victims
were consulars. See T. F. Carney,
Marius
, 65 ff., and Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, 231 ff. C. M. Bulst (
Historia
, 1964, 313 ff.) rejects Badian’s view (
Historia
, 1957, 339, n. 177) that some of the victims were former friends of Marius who had betrayed him. [p. 61]

24 ECONOMIC REFORMS. In general see C. M. Bulst,
Historia
, 1964, 330 ff. M. H. Crawford,
Proc. Cambr. Philological Soc.
, 1968, 1 ff., shows that the edict of Marius Gratidianus did not control plated coins, but ended unofficial exchange rates of silver and bronze coins (cf. notes 4 and 19 above). On the government’s efforts to struggle with finance and the economy in the period 92–80 B.C. see C. T. Barlow,
AJP
, 1980, 202 ff. [p. 61]

25 REGISTRATION OF NEW CITIZENS. This possibly took place in 87–6: the repeal of Sulla’s laws might imply the restoration of Sulpicius’ law about the new citizens. But Livy,
Perioch
. lxxxiv, implies that it was not until 84. If so, it is not certain whether or not Sulla’s imminent return will have affected the issue. [p. 61]

26 DOMINATIO CINNAE. Cinna’s policy, which has been traduced by the ancient sources which rely on Sulla’s
Memoirs
, has been variously interpreted. To H. Bennett (
Cinna and his Times
, 1923) Cinna was a would-be tyrant who planned to cloak ‘absolute power behind the forms of constitutional government’ (p. 59). Conventionally Cinna is lined up with the Equites and the new citizens against Sulla and the oligarchy. E. Badian (
JRS
, 1962, 47 ff. =
Studies
, 206 ff.) has depicted Cinna as the leader of legitimate government and Sulla at this stage as no friend of the oligarchy. T. F. Carney (
Marius
, 66) can describe Cinna as ‘a moderate, a respecter of the constitution and a compromiser’. Gruen (
Rom. Pol.
, 239 ff.), who analyses the men who co-operated in the Cinnan government, summarizes Cinna’s policy as ‘control of the springs of power and suppression of internal strife, and the cultivation of unity among all factions and classes’ (p. 246), while ‘Cinna’s endeavour was a noble experiment … offering peace, stability and a coalescence of political groups. The combination would be wide enough to embrace Sulla also, or perhaps powerful enough to overawe him. But it was not to be. Sulla had his own following … hardened by war’ (p. 247). C. M. Bulst (
Historia
, 1964, 307) also rates Cinna highly: ‘Cinna was far more of a statesman than Sulla’ (p. 277).

Badian’s views (
op. cit. supra
) may be briefly summarized. He emphasizes Sulla’s ruthless ambition: in 88 all but one of his officers (L. Lucullus?) refused to march with him on Rome and he showed contumacy when summoned to stand trial in Rome (but J. P. Balsdon,
JRS
, 1965, 230, finds this contumacy less extreme and questions other aspects of Badian’s picture). The authority of the government in Rome was recognized by responsible opinion and in 86 no one thought of Sulla as a champion of the nobility: the Sullani were not representative senators but merely his new officers, chosen by himself: he and his army stood against the Republic. Until 85 Cinna followed a policy of
concordia
, with no sign of
dominatio
. Thus Flaccus was sent against Mithridates not against Sulla (cf. Bulst,
op. cit.
, 319 ff.). But by 85 Sulla, after his Greek victories and backed by the resources of the East, could turn to rebellion. Even Cinna’s troop movement from Ancona to Illyria was not a direct move against Sulla (but to train new levies in war). But Cinnet was the turning point: the government began to disintegrate and the nobility began to go over to Sulla. [p. 61]