The Oxford History Of The Classical World

(Marvins-Underground-K-12) #1

nations, and cities', even if technically 'free', were an integral part of the Empire. Some kings already
claimed in the second century to be mere agents of Rome. Free states could be expected, or bound by
treaty, to send aid in war; an increasing proportion of Rome's forces, especially in ships and cavalry,
were 'auxiliary'. Where individuals are concerned, Verres carried off treasures from 'free' as well as from
'stipendiary' cities. Great Romans were patrons of dynasts and communities outside, as well as inside,
the provinces, thus gaining power, prestige, and even profit-the line between gift and bribe was fine, as
the friends of King Jugurtha of Numidia found. We can see how the Claudii, over two and a half
centuries, extended their clientela in Greek-speaking lands, or how the Domitii Ahenobarbi, with an
ancestor who had fought in southern Gaul and estates on the west coast of Italy, built up influence in the
western Mediterranean. (A patron might be able to protect his clients from mistreatment; if he mistreated
them himself it was hard for others to intervene.)


Trade and money-lending could be carried on almost better where there was no Roman governor for
oppressed natives to appeal to, and where any action against negotiatores could be represented as anti-
Roman. The wine trade stretched up into central Gaul well before Caesar's time, and when Cicero was in
the East the unfortunate young King Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia ('Pious' and 'Pro-Roman' by style) was
deep in debt to Roman moneylenders, including M. Brutus, that 'honourable man', and Pompey, a flock
of whose agents were dunning him for interest. There is no sign that negotiatores wanted annexation;
Marius, a friend of the equites, did not extend the province of Africa. But Rome's power was there to
protect or at least avenge them; Jugurtha's massacre of the hated Italici had been one of the causes of the
war, and it is significant that if they called themselves Italici, the Greeks called them all Rhomaioi,
Romans.


Roman conservatism is also relevant. Rome had stretched the idea of the city-state to its limit, but not
abandoned it; citizens had to vote in person, and not too many of the upper class at least should be on
business abroad. The Senate, until Sulla, consisted of about 300 men, in practice all ex-magistrates;
more provinces meant more offices. And the oligarchy, though continually replenished from wealthy
outsiders-Marius was one-would not wish the process to be too rapid. It also feared individuals acquiring
regnum, quasi-monarchic power, for which prolonged absence in a distant province could provide the
base-though so might a war not ending in annexation. Sulla attempted to control ambitious governors by
a law (flouted by Caesar in Gaul) forbidding among other things leaving one's province with an army
without senatorial permission. The Senate set its face against annexing Egypt in the earlier first century
partly because the untrustworthy and greedy Crassus wanted to be involved in it.


Furthermore, in the third and second centuries the army was not a standing one, but in theory raised
annually, chiefly from the peasantry. Long and hard campaigns were unpopular with the troops,
especially in Spain, not an area as rich in booty as the East. Cato said in 167 that Macedonia could not
be annexed, because it could not be defended (in part from barbarians on its frontiers). The Romans
indeed became anxious at this time about a decline in military quality, partly due to the decline, in some
areas, of the peasant class; this was followed by a period, already mentioned, of military disasters, and
that, as also noted, by one of financial stringency. No wonder many places were left to defend and police
themselves.

Free download pdf