Roman Citizenship Practices And The Collapse Of Rome

In periods of history in which a question about societal change is being debated, it is often instructional to study historical societies and see how similar practices affected them. One topic that has been on the minds of many recently is immigration and the expansion of citizenship. In studying the Roman Republic and Empire we can see how the expansion of citizenship was a great boon to their society and added to their strength and greatness. By the same token, however, we can see how when the Romans went too far too fast with inclusion of new peoples into their society, their society was diluted to the point where it was no longer recognizable. They thereby sowed the seeds of their own destruction.

During the early period of the Roman Republic, Roman destiny was shaped by its incorporation of defeated foes into its society, and by the clever alliances, which allowed the manpower and resources of the Roman allies to be used to establish Roman dominance. This was closely tied with the Roman military and how it operated, and was a source of strength for the Republic, and later for the Empire that followed. The incorporation of non-Romans into Roman society and the eventual granting of citizenship to many outsiders allowed a small city-state in central Italy to rise to dominance over the entire Mediterranean world. This inclusion, and the side effects that came from it would also be the downfall both of the Republic and later the Empire that followed it.

To begin with, the inclusion practices did not bring about the Roman hegemony in a vacuum. There were numerous other factors involved, chief among them the strength of the Roman military and its organization. Without the absorption of other cities and tribes, however, Rome would have lacked the growing sources of manpower needed to fuel their rising power in an exponential chain of expansion. The Roman traditions of citizenship and inclusion might be seen in the earliest legends. Titus Livius tells of how the Romans were inclusive of the people of Alba Longa within their society. Of course, this inclusion came about only after military defeat and was delivered at the edge of the sword. The soldiers were disarmed and told that they were being absorbed into Rome. Livy recounts the speech made by the Roman king. He said that he purposed to “bring all the Alban people over to Rome, to grant citizenship to their commons, to enroll the nobles in the senate, to make one city and one state. As formerly the Alban nation was divided into two, so let it now be reunited into one.” [1]

Meanwhile, Roman horsemen escorted the townspeople out of the town of Alba Longa even as they were demolishing the town. The people were then resettled in the environs of Rome, and Rome was doubled in size. The soldiers of Alba Longa were inducted into the Roman army and immediately used against the Sabines, who according to Livy were second only to the Etruscans at the time. [2]

Of course, much of this is pure legend, but it serves to show the methods used to bring more people into the Roman society and grow Roman power in the region. Titus Livius and others saw the war with Alba Longa as more of a reconstruction than a conquest, since their legends said that brothers from Alba Longa had founded Rome. [3]

Rome continued to expand during the early days of the Republic. There seems to be some evidence that the Etruscans occupied Rome for a time, but this has been omitted from most Roman history texts of the Republican and Imperial periods. After pushing the Etruscans out, they made alliances with other Latin tribes in the area and made war upon the hill tribes, which had been raiding into the plains. The strongest of these tribes was the Samnite tribe. The Samnites had allied themselves with Rome in the past, possibly due to a threat of invasion from Gaul, but after the Gauls retreated from Italy they came to blows with the Romans.

After a brief conflict, Rome allied with the Samnites again to fight a coalition of Latins who had decided that Rome did not have their best interests at heart. The Romans defeated the coalition in a series of battles, and forced its member states to accept a peace favorable to Rome in about 338 B.C. After this, Rome fought two more wars with the Samnites and eventually brought them under Roman control. [4]

As the influence of Rome spread throughout the Italian peninsula, the alliances they made furthered their resources and manpower. The allies took a less prominent position to that of Rome in exchange for protection from Roman armies. The drawback to this was that the allies were required to supply Rome with manpower and taxes for the upkeep of the armies and the system of roads that the Romans built.

These allies did not all submit willingly to these terms, and it took close to a century after the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 390 B.C. before they were able to gain complete mastery over central Italy. During this time, Rome temporarily ceased allowing the people of these conquered foes to gain Roman citizenship. Instead, they used the allies they could trust to help them hold the conquered territories and wrung goods and taxes out of the captured towns. Eventually, however, they began to grant some of these towns some of the privileges reserved for closer allies. [5]

Meanwhile, the plebian class gained a great deal more power than they had previously held. [6] During this period, according to Adam Ferguson, the lower classes became reconciled to the government of Rome because at this point a man could rise to positions of power and authority not because of privilege only, but through sheer ability. In a sense, what he was saying was that Rome had become a meritocracy of sorts. [7] This had not happened overnight, of course. The patrician class, in particular, was not inclined to share power. The plebes, on the other hand, were not inclined to accept the role relegated to them, especially as Rome grew in power and other cities and colonies were incorporated into the Republic. They forced the patricians to make concessions through a series of strikes, the first of which occurred in 494 B.C. This strike led to the establishment of the office of tribunis plebis, or “tribune of the people.” This led to a series of other reforms until in the year 367 B. C. a law was passed that anyone who was a Roman citizen could be elected to high office, not just the patricians. [8]

Meanwhile, with the new pool of manpower the Romans got from their unification of central Italy, they began to challenge the powerful Greek city-states to the south. The most important of these city-states was the Sicilian city of Syracuse. The city of Tarentum had appealed for help to Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, but the Sicilians of Syracuse had a falling out with Pyrrhus at about this time, and did not receive help from him or grant him any support. [9] Pyrrhus defeated the Romans in a series of battles, but these were so costly that they might as well have been defeats. [10]

Syracuse had been a major opponent of the Carthaginians, and was even on the verge of defeating them before they came to blows with Rome. Now they found themselves forced into an alliance with Rome, even as Rome fought its first major war with Carthage. Less than ten years later, Syracuse allied with her old enemies the Carthaginians against Rome. The armies of Carthage, under the command of Hannibal, defeated the Romans in numerous battles, but they eventually defeated him through superior numbers, combined with the fact that his army could not be everywhere at once. While he was kept busy in Italy, other Roman forces were seizing Carthaginian possessions elsewhere, and Hannibal eventually had to leave Italy to return to Carthage and defend her. He was defeated yet again at the battle of Zama in 202 B.C., and Carthage was humbled in the terms it was forced to accept. Syracuse also lost its freedom and came fully under Roman control. Rome was now the undisputed master of the Mediterranean.

It was also at this point that Rome became involved in Greece, for Macedonia had allied itself with Carthage in the Second Punic War. [11] The King of Macedonia had made secret negotiations with Hannibal, and this was discovered by Rome. Since Rome was busy elsewhere the war was somewhat subdued compared to the Second Punic War, but it secured much of western Greece for Rome by means of a series of alliances it set up called the Aetolian League. [12]

Two years after the Battle of Zama Rome went to war again with the Macedonians, and established pre-eminence over Greece with the Macedonians’ defeat. Rome then fought a brief war with Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire, driving him out of Asia Minor and dividing the territory up amongst its allies. They then turned their attention back to Macedonia and subjugated that kingdom. The Achaean league defied Rome shortly after this, and they were defeated. The Romans destroyed Corinth as punishment, making slaves of its inhabitants. The Romans meanwhile provoked a third war with Carthage, in which Carthage lost its freedom completely. The city was destroyed in the same manner as Corinth. [13] After this, Rome would not be seriously challenged in the east for another eighty years, when the war with Mithridates broke out in 89 B.C.

Any city or kingdom that submitted to Rome’s rule during this expansionary period was rewarded, while any who defied Rome paid a terrible price for their defiance. Slavery or death was the choice laid before those whom Rome destroyed. Since submitting to Rome usually meant keeping much of their power, though leashed to a master, many rulers opted for submission. If they did not submit, Rome could simply find someone else who would be willing to submit and make them king or governor in their place. M. De Secondat, Baron De Montesquieu, said of this:

Historians exhaust themselves in extolling the generosity of those conquerors who restored to the throne the princes they had vanquished. Extremely generous then were the Romans, who made kings in all parts, in order to have instruments of slavery…if the conqueror restores the legitimate prince to the throne, he will have a necessary ally, by the junction of whole forces, his own will be augmented. [14]

The century of warfare that began with the Samnite wars and ended with the destruction of Carthage and Corinth totally transformed Roman society. Instead of being merely the strongest city-state in central Italy, it was now master of the western Mediterranean, as well as the lower Balkans. The growth of the Roman army during this time was exponential. This brought about new problems.

According to Montesquieu, as long as Rome was limited to the Italian peninsula its system of coalitions with its allies worked, and the laws of each Republic within the Roman sphere were respected. In effect, he said that Rome was a confederacy, with local power being pre-eminent in most respects. When Roman power began to spread during the Samnite Wars, the Punic Wars, and the Macedonian wars, this began to change. Much of the local power was put in the hands of praetors and proconsuls who effectually governed these provinces as local despots. They had full executive, judicial and legislative powers bestowed upon them. The rift between the haves and have-nots in this Roman world was greatly widened at this point. Montesquieu says, “Thus in the Roman world, as at Sparta, those who were free were extremely so, while those who were slaves laboured under the extremity of slavery.” [15]

After the fall of Corinth and Carthage, the next century was one marked not by the great wars of expansion that had marked the previous one, but by societal upheaval and change that spilled over into the arena of civil war on numerous occasions.

To begin with, there was a re-distribution during the time of expansion of both land ownership and the makeup of the army. During previous centuries, when Rome was a smaller power limited to Italy, the army had been made up only of landowners. The farmers made up the backbone of the Roman army, but their payment for their service to Rome would be bitter. All the new land Rome acquired in the wars of the previous century was up for grabs, and the distribution was highly uneven. The new landowners became rich men, and many of the farmers from smaller farms lost their livelihood. While fighting in the army for long periods, many of these farmers had their land stolen by rich aristocrats who added these lands to their increasingly vast estates. As these farmers lost their land, they mostly flocked to Rome, where they settled in miserable tenements.

Meanwhile, the citizenship of the newly conquered was a matter of debate. A matter that complicated the debate was that many saw the Senate as having replaced the long fought for meritocracy with an aristocracy of those whom the Senate favored. The tribunes were the representatives of the Plebian class in the Roman government, but many took their direction from the Senate. Tiberius Gracchus felt that the poor deserved much of the spoils of war they had helped win, and proposed legislation that would divide much of this land up and distribute it to the Roman poor. Some Roman senators saw the need for such reform to rebuild the base of Roman landholders as a pool for military service, but many opposed the reform because it would encroach on the estates of the privileged classes.

After Tiberius tried to sidestep the Senate by taking the bill first to the popular assembly, they convinced the other tribune to oppose Tiberius and his bill. Tiberius said that since the other tribune did not have the public interest at heart he was not representative of them and therefore could not be a tribune. The other tribune, a man named Octavius, was impeached and pushed aside. He was replaced by one of Tiberius’ supporters and the bill was passed. The Senate feared that Tiberius was assuming dictatorial powers by demagoguery, and when he sought re-election as tribune he was killed by supporters of the Senate. The land reform held, though it was not as sweeping as Tiberius had intended. [16]

After the death of Tiberius, his brother Gaius, who also attempted sweeping reforms, was elected tribune. He arranged for colonies consisting of the poor of Rome to be set up, and continued on the land commission of his brother Tiberius. He also tried to build a base among the equestrian class of Rome in order to isolate the Senate politically. Gaius also attempted to sweepingly extend citizenship to all of the Italian allies, but was opposed in this by much of Rome. Even the lower classes he was trying to help saw no reason to grant rights to foreigners that they themselves had as a birthright. [17] This may have been the beginning of his fall in popularity. Gaius was eventually voted out of office, and eventually perished along with three thousand of his followers. [18]

This erosion of the manpower of Rome eventually led to the Marian reforms of 107 B.C., which opened military service to all Roman citizens, regardless of land ownership or status. This effectively ended the period in which Rome’s army had been one of citizen soldiers. They were now a professional army of the state. [19]

The reforms of Marius used an inducement for recruiting the masses of the dispossessed, and this was land and estates of their own. There was still a great deal of the newly conquered land to go around, and after a long term of service to Rome a soldier could expect as his reward his own farm to which to retire and live simply as Cincinnatus. If he served his general well, he might be more richly rewarded with an estate and slaves to serve him. Marius himself planned to give land to his soldiers in the north of Italy, an area that had recently been occupied by the Cimbri tribe. Some soldiers may have preferred not to settle there since there was no guarantee of safety in that frontier area. Even areas that were not on the frontier were not as preferable to many as a farm in central Italy. Still, land was land, and many of the poorer classes preferred not to look askance at a gift of land when they had none before. Still, it was a major flaw in the plan. [20]

Another major flaw in this arrangement is that the generals were able to use their soldiers as a tool for wielding political power. Marius and Sulla both used it to gain the loyalty of their soldiers, and the period that followed was marked by civil wars for the control of the Republic by various highly ambitious men. Ernst Breisach has said of this era:

The Republic lived on as a mere shell in which the ambitions of men like Sulla, Pompey, and eventually Caesar governed events, often to the detriment of the Republic. For the first time Romans became aware that their life differed greatly from that of their ancestors and that the continuity of Roman tradition had been broken. [21]

This is not to say that all Roman generals during this time were unscrupulous, unprincipled men who were only after power. Many of these leaders actually cared for their men, and would have agreed with Cicero, who said that a leader should conduct his affairs for the benefit of those under him in order to show he was just and to benefit the state. This did not keep many of these men from also exhibiting a sense of hubris, much as the heroes of Greek tragedy. [22]

When one speaks of hubris in an individual, the Roman that mostly comes to mind is Gaius Julius Caesar. While it is tempting to label him as the main reason for the collapse of the Republic and its replacement by the Empire, one would be remiss not to consider the extent to which he was shaped by the times in which he lived and was acted upon by the world in which he lived just as much as he acted to shape that world.

Caesar was born in 100 B.C., and as a young man he held various posts in the Roman government including tribunis militem, Pontifex Maximus and Governor of Further Spain. Marius was his uncle by marriage. [23] In 59 B.C. he was appointed the Governor of Gallia Cisalpina, Gallia Narbonensis and Illyricum. During the next ten years, Caesar conquered most of what we now know of as France, defeating the Gallic tribes that lived in the area, in a series of campaigns. He even made forays into Britain to punish the tribes there for providing aid to their cousins across the channel. [24]

In 49 B.C., Caesar crossed the Rubicon River in northern Italy with his legions. This action triggered the beginning of a civil war between himself and his rival Pompey. After being defeated by Caesar at Pharsalus, Pompey requested asylum in Alexandria with King Ptolemy. Upon arriving there, however, he was killed by agents of the king. Caesar said that perhaps this was out of fear that he had designs upon Egypt, though it could be simply that “…they despised his present state (friends very often turning into enemies in times of disaster).” [25]

Caesar was declared dictator for life in 45 B.C., but within less than a year he was dead, assassinated by a group of Roman senators and various other enemies he had made. This assassination occurred on the 15th of March in 44 B.C. After his death, Caesar’s killers fled the city. The Senate then declared him to be a divus (or demigod), forced to do so by Octavian. [26] Gaius Julius Caesar was the first of many emperors to be elevated in death to the status of a god.

Caesar’s legacy was one of opposition to the Roman Senate, coupled with massive support from the people, and a great deal of personal hubris. He carried on the legacy of Marius and the Gracchi brothers, but made a more permanent mark on Roman history and society than any of them. He also had an heir who continued his legacy so that it did not die with him. This was Octavian, who was later to be known by the title he assumed of Augustus Caesar.

Octavian first hunted down and defeated all those who had a part in Julius Caesar’s assassination. He then began consolidating his power and eliminating his enemies. One of these was Cicero, who had attempted to manipulate him. His name went on a list of those Mark Antony wanted dead, and Octavian acceded to this list when he agreed to set up a triumvirate with Antony and Lepidus. When the soldiers caught up with his litter after using bloodhounds to track him, it is said that Cicero bared his neck for the sword before being beheaded. [27] Octavian later had a falling out with the others and fought a series of campaigns against them, ending with his defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. He made a show of “restoring” the Republic, but was granted the powers of an emperor by the senate, which was now beholden to him, and by design. He then disbanded over half the legions, and granted them land throughout the Empire. This made the veterans beholden to him as well, and calmed the senators who were afraid of his power. [28]

Augustus and the later emperors in what came to be known as the Julio-Claudian line also opened citizenship up to non-Romans to a greater extent than had ever been done in the past. Colonists, who had lost most of their rights as Roman citizens when they left to form colonies, [29] were granted it again under Augustus. Nobles from anywhere in Italy were now free to become senators, and soldiers could be recruited from anywhere in the empire. Soldiers served for twenty years for a retirement of 12,000 sestertii. This was funded by a five percent inheritance tax and a one percent sales tax. [30]

While Rome undisputedly grew in power and stability due to these measures, there were certain changes it went through as a result. Though there was a “Romanization” of much of the western Mediterranean, the culture that really was the victor was that of Greece. Rome’s culture mimicked that of Greece when it didn’t copy it outright. Despite the fact that the Romans had different names for their gods and goddesses, many were of Greek origin, perhaps due to early Greek influence even in the pre-Republic era.

Though they considered themselves superior to the Greeks, and less given to luxury, many Romans began to throw lavish parties and festivals in the Greek style, thus imitating those they had conquered. [31] Other imitations arose in dress, architecture, and temperament. Many Romans were uneasy with Greek attitudes toward religion, politics, and everything in between. Some saw Greek ways as a corruption of Roman morality and customs. Romans were accustomed to lives of discipline and they considered themselves tough and hardy. As Greek culture began to pervade the Roman world, many became alarmed at what they saw as the destruction of their way of life.

When the Jugurthine War had broken out, and the military fared poorly at first, some saw that as proof that they had become too soft and accustomed to luxury. That was part of what had fueled Marius’ reforms. Charles Merivale said that the legions of Albinus were so demoralized from lack of discipline that they fought poorly, and that the auxiliaries betrayed their posts. As a result, the whole army of Albinus was routed, captured, and enslaved.

The homogenization of the Roman world was not limited to the Greeks, though they had the greatest effect. The Egyptian deities were adopted by the Romans, and added to their pantheon, and several emperors built temples or other works that were dedicated to Egyptian gods or goddesses, chief amongst them the goddess Isis. [32] The Romans became quick to adopt any new custom, religion, or fad that struck their fancy, and this changed the face of their society. By the end of the Imperial era, Rome would have been unrecognizable to a citizen of the early Republic. The Roman world was impressive to behold, but it had lost the spark and vitality of the Republican era. It had great monuments and buildings, but it no longer had much in the way of freedom.

In short, the things that made Rome great were also the seeds of its downfall. Its grand military tradition and unprecedented freedom compared to previous civilizations allowed it to reap the fruits of empire, but it was those very fruits that corrupted the things that made Rome great to begin with. Rome’s greatness was brought about because of its virtue. When it lost that virtue, it lost its greatness, and that is when Rome fell.

Bibliography

Baron De Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws. Edinburgh: Victor J. Duncan & Son, J. & M. Robertson, and J. & W. Shaw, Booksellers, 1793.

Boatwright, Mary T., Daniel J. Gargola and Richard J. A. Talbert, The Romans From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Breisach, Ernst, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, & Modern. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983.

Caesar, Gaius Julius, trans. H.J. Edwards, The Gallic War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 2006.

Caesar, Gaius Julius, trans. John Carter, The Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Cary, M. and H. H. Scullard, A History of Rome Down to the Age of Constantine. New York: Palgrave, 1975.

Ferguson, Adam, The History of the Progress and Termination of the Roman Republic. Philadelphia: Willis P. Hazard, 1857.

Freeman, Charles, Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Hammond, Mason and Anne Amory, Aeneas to Augustus: A Beginning Latin Reader for College Students. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Herbert, William Henry, The Captains Of The Roman Republic, As Compared With The Great Modern Strategists; Their Campaigns, Character, And Conduct From The Punic Wars To The Death Of Caesar. New York: Charles Scribner, 1854.

Hildinger, Eric, Swords Against the Senate: The Rise of the Roman Army and the Fall of the Republic. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2002.

Holland, Tom, Rubicon- The Last Years of the Roman Republic. New York: Doubleday, 2003.

Jackson, Robert B., At Empire’s Edge: Exploring Rome’s Egyptian Frontier. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Kolenda, Christopher, Leadership: The Warriors Art. Carlisle: The Army War College Foundation Press, 2001.

Livius, Titus, trans. B.O. Foster, History of Rome: Books 1-2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 2002.

Merivale, Charles, The Fall Of The Roman Republic: A Short History Of The Last Century Of The Commonwealth. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1853.

Michelet, Jules, trans. William Hazlitt, Esq., History of the Roman Republic. London: David Bogue, Fleet Street, 1847.

Roberts, J.M., The New History of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Endnotes

[1] Titus Livius, trans. B.O. Foster, History of Rome: Books 1-2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 2002), 102-103.

[2] Ibid., 104-109.

[3] Ibid., 24-27.

[4] M. Cary and H. H. Scullard, A History of Rome Down to the Age of Constantine (New York: Palgrave, 1975), 88-94.

[5] Adam Ferguson, The History of the Progress and Termination of the Roman Republic (Philadelphia: Willis P. Hazard, 1857), 23.

[6] Ibid., 18.

[7] Ibid., 21.

[8] Tom Holland, Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 22.

[9] J. M. Roberts, The New History of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 226.

[10] Ferguson, 24-25.

[11] Roberts, 233-235.

[12] Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola and Richard J. A. Talbert, The Romans From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 128.

[13] Ibid., 133-134.

[14] Baron De Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws (Edinburgh: Victor J. Duncan & Son, J. & M. Robertson, and J. & W. Shaw, Booksellers, 1793), 177.

[15] Ibid., 216-217.

[16] Erik Hildinger, Swords Against the Senate: The Rise of the Roman Army and the Fall of the Republic (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2002), 36-44.

[17] Boatwright, Gargola and Talbert, 163-164.

[18] Charles Freeman, Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 338-340.

[19] Holland, 161-162.

[20] Jules Michelet, trans. William Hazlitt, Esq., History of the Roman Republic (London: David Bogue, Fleet Street, 1847), 287.

[21] Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, & Modern (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), 52.

[22] Christopher Kolenda, Leadership: The Warriors Art (Carlisle: The Army War College Foundation Press, 2001), 19.

[23] Henry William Herbert, The Captains Of The Roman Republic, As Compared With The Great Modern Strategists; Their Campaigns, Character, And Conduct From The Punic Wars To The Death Of Caesar (New York: Charles Scribner, 1854), 266.

[24] Gaius Julius Caesar, trans. H.J. Edwards, The Gallic War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 2006), vii-viii.

[25] Gaius Julius Caesar, trans. John Carter, The Civil War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 122-134.

[26] Mason Hammond and Anne Amory, Aeneas to Augustus: A Beginning Latin Reader for College Students (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967) 321-322.

[27] Charles Merivale, The Fall Of The Roman Republic: A Short History Of The Last Century Of The Commonwealth (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1853), 491-492.

[28] Freeman, 381-383.

[29] Ibid., 315.

[30] Ibid., 387.

[31] Boatwright, Gargola and Talbert, 132.

[32] Robert B. Jackson, At Empire’s Edge: Exploring Rome’s Egyptian Frontier (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 122-123.