Transcript HIS 28 – Part 3

“TYRANTS”, WARLORDS, and the END OF MONARCHY
1. We saw how, on either side of 500 BC, ‘monarchy’ at
Rome was, in the Roman tradition, being brought to a
violent end.
2. In the same “archaic period” there were other
developments in central Italy generally which, although
quite obscure, may help us understand what happened
at Rome.
3. In general there appears to have been a period of
considerable volatility when ‘warlords’ and their
armed followers were active – although not everywhere.
4. Sometimes ‘traditional’ aristocratic governments and
‘traditional’ monarchies fell at the hands of ‘tyrants’
(powerful individuals with armed backing) and then, eventually,
the ‘one man rulers’ were themselves replaced by more
‘republican’ systems.
5. Examples of other communities
a) At Etruscan CAERE, THEFARIE VELIANAS,
referred to in the Pyrgi tablets is seen as a sole ruler
enjoying divine sanction.
b) i) At Latin SATRICUM, P VALESIOS (Publius
Valerius) and his “SVODALES” (sodales [companions])
seems to be a wandering ‘warlord’ with a band of
loyal followers.
ii) He may even be the Publius Valerius Poplicola of the
Roman tradition.
c) ATTUS CLAUSUS (Appius Claudius) with, apparently,
no specific state affiliation, arrived from Sabine territory
with 5000 armed ‘followers’ and settled at Rome.
d) LARS PORSENNA, sole ruler of Etruscan CLUSIUM
(although possibly just a ‘traditional’ king) tried to
restore Tarquin II, likely a ‘tyrannos’, after his expulsion
from Rome.
e) The VIBENNA BROTHERS, Aulus and Caele, appear
to have been independent ‘warlords’ with their bands
who are associated with Etruscan VULCI – Aulus
possibly ruling at Rome for a time.
f) And THEY are linked in various ways with
MASTARNA, who, according to the emperor Claudius,
is to be identified as the Roman king SERVIUS
TULLIUS.
5. With respect to ‘warlords’, their wandering bands of
followers, and the ‘VIBENNA brothers’, we have a
mural in “the François Tomb” (discovered in 1857) in
Etruscan VULCI and belonging to about 320 BC.
7. i) There we find depicted “AVLE VIPINAS” and
“CAELE VIPINAS” who are acting together with three
other companions.
ii) While “CAELE VIPINAS” is set free by
“MACSTRNA”, his brother “AVLE” and the other
three ‘companions’ prepare to kill four other men – all
named with their ‘state designations’.
iii) One of those about to be killed is “CNEVE
TARCHUNIES RUMACH” (Gnaeus Tarquinius of
Rome).
MURAL IN THE FRANÇOIS TOMB AT VULCI (between 325 and 300 BC)
CAELE VIPINAS
(Caelius Vibenna)
is freed by
MACSTRNA
(Mastarna)
[Servius Tullius ?]
VENTHICAL MARCE
PESNA
ARCMSNAS ..PLSACHS CAMITLNAS
stabs
SVEAMACH is killed by is about to kill
AVLE
CNEVE
is killed by
LARIS
VIPINAS TARCHUNIES
PAPATHNAS RASCE
(Aulus Vibenna) RUMACH
VELZNACH
(Gnaeus
Tarquinius
of Rome)
François Tomb at VULCI
LARTH
ULTHES
What did Claudius (emperor AD 41-54) state about the early
kings of Rome?
“Between Tarquin and his son or grandson [= Tarquin II] came
Servius Tullius. If we follow our Roman sources, he was
the son of Ocresia, a prisoner of war; if we follow
Etruscan sources, he was once the most faithful
companion of Caelius Vivenna [= Caele Vipinas] and took
part in all his adventures. Later, driven out by a change of
fortune, he left Etruria with the remnants of Caelius’ army
and occupied the Caelian Hill (at Rome), naming it after his
former leader. Servius changed his name, for in Etruscan
his name was Mastarna [= Macstrna], and was called by the
name I have used, and he obtained the throne….”
(‘Table of Lyons’ ILS 212.1.8-27)
i) Claudius could, of course, have been mistaken (despite his
extensive scholarship and knowledge of things Etruscan) but
ii) it is not impossible that SERVIUS TULLIUS was some
sort of adventurer (‘warlord’?) who seized control at
Rome in the 500s BC but was eventually ousted by a
member of a ‘clan’ which had already ruled at Rome,
namely Tarquinius Superbus, who, in his turn, was ousted
along with his entire ‘clan’ in a period of general volatility
in the region.
Everything about this period is speculative but “the
Roman Republic” may not have begun as smoothly
as the Roman tradition would have us believe! The
transition from “king” to annually elected “magistrates”
may not have been simple at all – but is ‘lost’ to us.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AT ROME
i) Before we turn to “the Roman Republic” and look at
some of the themes (and problems) of its early
existence [and, eventually, its later known history], we need to
touch on an important set of reforms which seem to
belong to the period before about 500 BC and which
are traditionally associated with SERVIUS TULLIUS,
the penultimate king.
ii) These “Servian Reforms” affected both the ARMY and
the political DECISION-MAKING process.
iii) They represent a significant stage in the development of
Rome’s institutions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In the early days Romans appear to have been divided
into three “tribes” (allegedly created by Romulus): the RAMNES,
TITIES, and LUCERES.
Each of these was subdivided into 10 curiae.
To each curia belonged “clans” (gentes) who were
actually or supposedly related by blood – in short, the
curiae represented a kinship structure.
The thirty curiae probably met (as the ‘Curiate
Assembly’) to decide community issues.
The curiae also provided (at least in theory) fighting men
whenever the community was threatened.
Not all curiae would be involved every time but, in
essence, those who fought would be fighting alongside
their kinsmen.
7.
As Rome grew in size and admitted newcomers - for
Rome appears, from the very beginning, to have been a
very open community – it no doubt became more and
more difficult to integrate newcomers into the kinship
structure.
8. A reorganization was called for as “the state” emerged as
an entity and it is not unreasonable to associate this with
the mid 500s BC and, if a ‘reformer’ is needed, with
‘Servius Tullius’ – which is what the Roman tradition did.
9. The changes led to a “state army” and a different
organization for making political decisions (or
sanctioning decisions already made).
THE ARMY
i)
A trend, observable elsewhere, could now be employed
at Rome.
ii)
Certainly by about 675 BC in mainland Greece and by
about 625 BC in lowland Italy hoplites were common
and by 600 BC the hoplite phalanx was being
employed.
Greek hoplite
Greek
Hoplite
phalanx
iii) Under the ‘Servian Reforms’, after a census of the
property holdings of the members of the community was
conducted, it was probably established how many men of
military age could equip themselves to fight in the “state
army”.
iv) For the purposes of the census, the urban core of the
Roman state was divided into 4 ‘districts’ and Rome’s
territory divided into 15 ‘districts’.
v) These 19 ‘districts’ were called “tribes” (tribus) and, as
Rome’s territory grew over the succeeding decades, the
total number would eventually reach 35.
vi) While, OF COURSE, each “tribe” (‘district’) would not
have exactly the same population in terms of their
wealth,……….
vii)……. let us assume that each ‘tribe’ had a population of
about 2,000 (for a total population in the 500s BC of
about 38,000); and
viii) let us assume that each ‘tribe’ could provide about 360
men who had the wealth to equip themselves as
“hoplites” (or equivalent).
Recruitment of an Army
1. When an army needed to be recruited, 60 fighting
units called “centuries” (centuriae) were created.
2. The 360 “hoplites” from each “tribe” (‘district’) would be
distributed among the 60 “centuries”.
3. As a result, there would be about 6 “hoplites” from each
“tribe” (‘district’).
4. With this sort of distribution in each fighting unit
(“century”), there would be fighters from every district
fighting side by side AND no “clan”, “kinship”, or
“regional” interests would be represented in the army of
“the state”.
5. This new organization would weaken greatly (if not
undermine completely) the former power of the “clans” in
the interests of the new entity taking shape – namely “the
state” – especially if under a “tyrant”.
6. a) It would also produce an army (when needed) of about
6,000 “hoplites”.
b) Of course, not all those who qualified to fight would be
needed or called upon each time an army was recruited.
POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING
This new military structure was quickly employed for making (or
ratifying) political decisions.
1.
2.
We do not know exactly how this worked in the earliest period
after the military reform was introduced; but
for the last part of the “period of the kings”, such a gathering or
“assembly” (which became known as the “Centuriate Assembly” [the
Comitia Centuriata]) would be a useful tool for a leader dependent
on military support and who had come to power contrary to the
previous dominant ‘clan-structure’ (which depended on the curiae
meeting as the “Curiate Assembly” [the Comitia Curiata]).
The detailed picture of the ‘Centuriate Assembly’ provided by the historian Livy (1. 43) (to which
we will return) appears to apply to a later reform of the structure about 406 BC
1.
2.
The Foundation of the Roman ‘Republic’
As already noted, the end of the “monarchy” at Rome may
not have come about as smoothly as the tradition believed.
For example, the background of the two men who were
‘elected’ as Rome’s first “consuls” under the new system
of the Republic poses problems: they were each related to
TARQUIN II!
a) Lucius Junius BRUTUS was his nephew (the son of
Tarquin’s sister)
b) Lucius Tarquinius COLLATINUS was the son
of Tarquin’s cousin – and he (but not Brutus)
was also expelled when the whole clan of the
Tarquins was driven out – even though one of the first
two “Republican” office-holders.
Bust said to be that of
BRUTUS in the
Capitoline Museum
3. Furthermore, the two sons of Brutus (the “Republican”
office-holder) tried to restore Tarquin, as did his
brothers-in-law and the nephews of Collatinus.
The whole affair sounds more like a dispute within the
Tarquin clan!
4. Be that as if may, Rome did end up eventually with a
different system of government called “the Republic”, a
structure headed by two elected officials (“magistrates”),
traditionally called “consuls” (although probably known initially
as “praetors”), who assumed most of the former king’s
powers.
5. The various lists of consuls [fasti] for the whole period
of the Republic are amazingly consistent – suggesting
two leading officials from the very beginning (from
about 500 BC).
A section of the Capitoline Fasti (the main fasti) listing the
consuls for each Roman year from the beginning of the Republic.
This section is for the 190s – 180s BC.
6. But there are some anomalies with respect to the
‘magistrates’ – such as references in some of the literature to
the praetor maximus, which suggests that one of the
‘praetors’ may have been senior and one junior, although the
“tradition” saw the “consuls” from the very first as equals.
7. i) One of the other interesting puzzles is the office of the
REX SACRORUM (the ‘King of Sacred Rites’), a
position that existed right through the Republic and was
open to only a small group – even though the consuls
exercised most of the religious duties of the former King
of the regal period.
ii) Two explanations:
I A. It may have been very ‘dangerous’ in a period of
volatility (when power was seized by a single leader
with military backing) to allow any disruption in the
community’s relations with the gods.
B. A “rex sacrorum” may have been created to
guarantee this continuity.
II A. We know that, with the end of monarchy, the
secular powers of the King passed to the elected
magistrates including any religious functions which had
a political dimension – such as dedicating temples,
making vows, taking the all-important auspices.
B. The position of “King of Sacred Rites” may have
been a continuation of the office of ‘king’ (with few
duties left) because of the Roman habit of not abolishing
institutions but simply allowing them to fade.
Summary of this period of ‘obscurity’
At Rome:
a) There was a long period when the aristocratic family
heads (clan-leaders) [‘senators’], along with their
‘clients’ (‘the People’) chose someone to be king.
When he died, an interrex protected “the auspices” (so
that there was no break in the community’s relationship
with the gods) until a new king was chosen.
b) At some point in the 500s BC the power of the “king”
was violently usurped by military leaders who could
offer something to those who had come to serve the
community as ‘hoplites’ and to those below them in
wealth, such as ‘immigrants’, who did not have strong
clan affiliations.
c) The reorganization of the army and the creation of the
‘Centuriate Assembly’ where the hoplite stratum in society
could express its will (reforms attributed to Servius Tullius)
reflected this change in the political power structure.
d) Sometime about 500 BC the aristocratic family heads and
their dependants staged a ‘come-back’ of sorts, although
they could not risk losing the support of the infantry and so
retained the ‘Centuriate Assembly and assigned to it the
function of electing ‘republican-style’ “magistrates” (officeholders) from their own aristocratic ranks.
e) To protect their interests (as we will see) these aristocratic leaders
gradually closed ranks, claimed a monopoly over officeholding, and created an exclusive group (or “caste”) calling
themselves “patricians”.
f) But it was not long before we hear of what is usually
referred to as “the Struggle of the Orders”, beginning
traditionally in 494 BC, when the non-patricians started to
claim rights and a fuller voice in the state.
g) This “Struggle of the Orders” would go on, intermittently,
for 200 years.
h) The rocky history of the early Republic had begun!