Review; Swords Against The Senate

[Viggen]

This book charts the rise of the Roman army and how it played a decisive role in the eventual demise of the Roman Republic. It tells the story of how it evolved from an army of wealthy landowners fighting for the glory of Rome, into a professional army fighting not only for Rome but for the glory of their general. Its main focus is spread over a period of about 70 years beginning in 133 B.C. with the tribuneship of Tiberius Gacchus and ending 78 B.C. on the death of Lucius Cornelius Sulla...

 

read the full article of Swords Against The Senate by Erik Hildinger

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

This book charts the rise of the Roman army and how it played a decisive role in the eventual demise of the Roman Republic. It tells the story of how it evolved from an army of wealthy landowners fighting for the glory of Rome, into a professional army fighting not only for Rome but for the glory of their general. Its main focus is spread over a period of about 70 years beginning in 133 B.C. with the tribuneship of Tiberius Gacchus and ending 78 B.C. on the death of Lucius Cornelius Sulla...

 

read the full article of Swords Against The Senate by Erik Hildinger

An interesting point about Hildinger's book is its treatment of the Patronus-cliens relationship, particularly (but hardly exclusively) on the Metelllus-Marius case.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Salve, Amici.

 

An interesting point about Hildinger's book is its treatment of the Patronus-cliens relationship, particularly (but hardly exclusively) on the Metelllus-Marius case.

 

I think Hildinger's treatment of the Metellus - Marius relationship goes a long way to showing just what kind of a man Marius really was, he was ambitious and ruthless and cared nothing for the Metelli who'd been the patrons of his family for some time. The Meteli played a big part in Marius being elected tribune, and once he'd assumed his role of tribune he proved he wasn't going to play the ever faithful client role expected of him, he proposed bills that were clearly directed to hinder the wealthy. When challenged about his proposals he then threatened to jail the consuls, one of which was non other than Lucius Caecilius Metellus.

 

His disregard for his patrons didn't end there, 10 years later during the Jugurthine war, Marius was 2nd in command to the general Quintus Caecilius Metellus. The disagreements of the past seemed to have been forgotten and for a while the two worked well together but when Metellus refused Marius the chance to go to Rome and stand for the consulship he immediately turned on his patron and set out to undermine the Metellus and ruin his generalship of the Jugurthine War. Eventually Metellus had enough of Marius's conniving and under hand tactics and gave in and let Marius leave for Rome, but he left it until the very last minute thinking that Marius couldn't possibly reach Rome in time to stand for the consulship but Marius being the head strong and determined character that he was made it just in time and achieved the consulship. He then proceeded to have Metellus stripped of command and himself placed in command of the Jugurthine War.

 

Basically Marius showed utter single mindedness and belief in himself and absolutely no respect or gratitude to his patrons. Although he was merely the client of one of the richest and most powerful families in Rome, his confidence in his own ability and in his destiny far out-weighed the unwritten rule of ultimate loyalty to his patron.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well-written review.

 

I'm still left wondering what we can learn more generally from the Marius/Metellus relationship. It seems to me that some of many followers of Marius were also ignoring the wishes of their patrons, suggesting that the patron/client relation wasn't as rigid as has been implied elsewhere.

[Nephele]

Ditto on the praise for this review. GPM, I'm taking your recommendation and adding this book to my library's collection!

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

An interesting point about Hildinger's book is its treatment of the Patronus-cliens relationship, particularly (but hardly exclusively) on the Metelllus-Marius case.

Actually, the most interesting fact is Hildinger ignoring that, according to Marius' own statement, his patronus family were not the Metellii, but the Herenii;

Here comes Mestrius Plutarchus, Vita Marius cp. V, sec. IV-V:

 

"But Caius Herennius also was brought in as a witness against Marius, and pleaded that it was contrary to established usage for patrons (the Roman term for our representatives at law) to bear witness against clients, and that the law relieved them of this necessity; and not only the parents of Marius but Marius himself had originally been clients of the house of the Herennii. The jurors accepted this plea in avoidance of testimony, but Marius himself contradicted Herennius, declaring that as soon as he had been elected to his magistracy he had ceased to be a client; which was not altogether true. For it is not every magistracy that frees its occupants (as well as their posterity) from their relations to a patron, but only that to which the law assigns the curule chair".

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

This book charts the rise of the Roman army and how it played a decisive role in the eventual demise of the Roman Republic. It tells the story of how it evolved from an army of wealthy landowners fighting for the glory of Rome, into a professional army fighting not only for Rome but for the glory of their general.

From the Back Cover:

"Personal intrigue, treachery, and the occasional moral virtue vie in ancient Rome-undisputed master of the world, but fatally unable to control its own citizens or army.

 

In the first century B.C., Rome was the undisputed ruler of a vast empire. Yet, at the heart of the Roman republic was a fatal flaw: a dangerous hostility between the aristocracy and the plebeians, and each regarded themselves as the foundation of Rome's military power. Turning from their foreign enemies, Romans would soon be fighting Romans".

 

Hidinger's book seems to be another nice assessment of the relative contributions of war and peace to the flourish and decadence of the Roman republic as a social and political entity.