READINGS / SOURCES FOR THIS LECTURE:

• DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
• SALLUST

This link will take you to a good place to begin browsing on Roman art, architecture and history.

The Roman Republic. The problem...The Roman state was the most successful political system in the pre modern period. Although it began as a city-state, and originally had a constitution much like that of a polis, it evolved into a world state, one that could claim the allegiance of people from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds. What was the form of government and what were the values of that state? How can we account for the expansion of Rome from a city-state to a world-state?

1. What factors contributed to Roman success in Italy during the Republic (and eventually overseas)?
   1. The social structure allowed for assimilation
      1. Familia
         1. patria potestas. Full power over descendants, but still obligation to consult with elders. Imagines
         2. extended household --> patriarchal, actual blood ties less significant; dependency relationships as important
         3. state as an extended 'familia'
            patriarch=king=magistrates
            council of elders=senate
            dependentts=plebs, populus, citizens
            
      2. Status: No Roman ever met his equal. Defined the place of individuals and of communities.
      3. Patronage / clientele: Do ut des (a Roman aphorism). Mutual and moral obligation between two parties of unequal status. "It was the duty of the patrons (patricians) to explain to their clients the laws...to take care of them...doing everything for them that fathers do for their children (familia)...defend them...to secure for them...tranquillity (status). It was the duty of the clients to assist their patrons in providing doweries...pay ransom...to make good and losses in private suits...making these contributions not as loans by as thank-offerings (status) ... accordingly connections between patrons and clients continued for many generations differing in no wise from the ties of blood relationships..."(Dionysius of Hallicarnasus, II 11). A more cynical example.: Don Vito Corleone: "What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If you'd come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruined your daughter would be suffering this very day. And if by chance an honest man like yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you."
      4. Religion: typical polytheistic, but more stress on formalism (showing respect) and contract (if you do this..., then we will give you that...).
   2. The stability of the Roman Constitution "SPQR" = "Senate and People of Rome". As with the Greek polis the Roman constitution was based on consensual government, on the principle "those who fight, vote" = citizenship; and on the rule of law. The Roman contribution was particularly in the areas of limiting government.
      1. Constitutional checks and balances (esp. the analysis of Polybius, Doc 5) Such then are the powers of each of the parts of government both to oppose one another and to work in conjunction. In unison they are a match for any and all emergencies, the result being that it is impossible to find a constitution that is better constructed. For whenever some common external danger should come upon them and should compel them to band together in counsel and in action, the power of their state becomes so great that nothing that is required is neglected, inasmuch as all compete to devise some means of meeting the disaster... The result is that their unique form of constitution comes to be unconquerable and successfully achieves every goal upon which it resolves.)
         1. annuality and interval
         2. par potestas (equal power) and veto(I forbid it)
         3. cursus honorurm (one must advance to the highest office through a prescribed sequence)
         4. membership in senate for all magistrates and former magistrates
      2. Divisions: Magistrates, Senate, Assemblies ("the nation at arms"; "those who fight, vote") in its original conception. Note the duplication of familia, status and implicitly patronage in the structure.
   3. Consensual government and the rule of law (Table XII: "Whatever the People (= the body of citizen-soldiers) has last ordained shall be held as binding by law." Also, see below III)
2. Expansion...Imperialism and Expansion --from city-state to world state ...
   1. On the process in Italy (for the dates, see the outline in next lecture):
      • 750 BC: foundation of city; regal period
      • 509: republic established
      • by 285 Rome directly controls central Italy
      • by 240 Rome administers Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica; most of central Italy has Roman citizenship.
      • by 200 directly controls Italy south of the Po, governs southern Spain
      • by 80 BC directly controls Balkans, present day Tunisia, most of Spain; indirect control of the rest of the Mediterranean
   2. Already in 200 BC, Rome possessed the best-trained and largest army in the Mediterranean; she administered directly SE Spain and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica; indirectly she dominated the remaining states through alliance throughout the western Med. Within 100 years (by 60 BC) she had conquered all the Hellenistic states in four decisive battles. How had this been achieved (factors)? The core concepts are mentioned above ( I.); here we look at some specific applications of those principles (based on I A 1 above).
      1. Generous policy toward defeated. Defeated always allowed to retain property (or most of it). Her Italian allies paid no tribute and allowed local autonomy; but must enter alliance and fight under Roman leadership against common enemies. (Cf. Sallust (below) on these points; idealized but still valid in general outline). Roman treaty with the Aequians of Central Italy concluded after the former had defeated the latter: ...the Aequians should be subject [status] to the Romans without being disposed either from their cities or from there territories, and that they should not be obliged to send anything to the Romans except troops [Rome as patron]...to be maintained at their own expense (Livy).
      2. Generous policy of citizenship (more in a later lecture) expanded her resources and made her an even more formidable power. By 78 BC all communities in Italy have Roman citizenship (familia). Documents 2 and 3. After defeating a revolt of their Latin neighbors and allies: The people of Lanuvium, Aricia, Nomentum received full citizenship...The rest of the Latin cities were deprived of intermarriage, trade, and common councils with each other...Capua (and other cities) was granted citizenship without the suffrage (right to vote or stand for office).
   3. As she became involved with non-Italian speaking peoples, the solutions adopted for the Italian people could not be easily implemented. Hence, hegemonial vs. annexational imperialism. A word of caution...next week we will see how non-Italian peoples "Romanized" and eventually acquired Roman citizenship in the period after Augustus
3. Problem of Imperialism: Expansion, given the power to do so, requires no explanation, but Rome was however reluctant [see the table below] to assume the responsibility for direct governance in the areas she had conquered and typically delayed doing so for generations. The reason? those conquered were considered "too different" to be assimilated, and not capable of becoming part of familia.
1. Roman strengths...factors in her dominance:
   1. Consensual government and use of hoplite system, but a more flexible variant of latter.
   2. significantly greater size of her armies -- a consequence of a generous policy of inclusion / assimilation towards allies and extension of citizenship in Italy( familia).
   3. Internal weaknesses and division of enemies; they hated each other more than they hated Rome. Rule of law (I A 3) was an incentive to cooperation and an alternative to tyranny.
2. Policy: Instead of direct rule, Rome relied on patronage. To re-establish a defeated king or to allow a defeated state to retain territory and constitution was a gift and one which carried expectations (gift of life and property created permanent obligation to show respect); right to intervene to keep defeated 'ally' from becoming too powerful, yet must be strong enough to help protect Roman interests. Contradictory policy led Rome to destabilize their client-allies, which forced military intervention and eventually led to direct rule.
4. To prepare for section this week, please note the following: Sallust on Roman expansion (more properly the Roman "national" myth of expansion--note the focus on form of government and values, cf. Thucydides, Funeral Oration): Of the city of Rome, as I understand, the founders and earliest inhabitants were the Trojans, who, under the conduct of Aeneas, were wandering about as exiles (Romans a "mixed race" ready to admit outsiders to citizenship; assimilation ) from their country, without any settled abode; and with these were joined the Aborigines, a savage race of men, without laws or government, free and owning no control... [They]formed a union (assimilation) when they met within the same walls (urbanization) ... then their state, from an accession of population and territory, and an improved condition of morals (virtue leads to success), showed itself tolerably flourishing and powerful...they protected with their arms, their liberty, their country, and their homes (those who fight, vote). And when they had at length repelled danger by valour, they lent assistance to their allies and supporters, and procured friendships rather by bestowing favours than by receiving them (patronage). They had a government regulated by laws (rule of law) . ... But our forefathers adorned ...their homes with their own glory, and took nothing from those whom they conquered but the power of doing harm.
5. Conclusions and Significance. Consensual government and a readiness to incorporate one-time enemies provided the vitality and manpower to support Roman expansion. But the cost was high --as will be clear in the next lectures.

Roman reluctance to assume responsibility