Pompieus

Clearly this depends on what you mean by "independent". By 268 BC or so all of Italy south of Pisa-Ariminium (Rimini) was included in the Roman alliance or federation, but each of the various tribes and cities had a separate treaty with Rome. Roman territory proper included Latium, southern Etruria, the Sabine country and parts of the Liri valley, while the people on the coast down to Naples were "half citizens" (sine suffragio). There were also a number of citizen colonies (mostly on the coast) and 28 or so "Latin colonies" at strategic points as far afield as Venusia (Venosa) in Apulia and Ariminium in Cisalpine Gaul. All these people had most of the rights of a Roman citizen and the towns had their own local senates, magistrates and assemblies. The rest of Italy was a mix of Etruscan and Greek cities, and tribal peoples linked to Rome by treaties that required them to provide troops to the Roman army (or ships for the navy) and promised Roman aid if they were attacked. They handled their own internal affairs and paid no tribute. The allies had to subordinate their foriegn policy to Rome but were otherwise independent (mostly at least). There is a map in the old edition of volume VII of the Cambridge Ancient History (1954) that shows the extent of Roman citizenship and the Latin and citizen colonies in 241 BC. And one in the Shepherd Historical Atlas that shows the growth of Roman citizenship. There must certainly be others. Actually even in the Provinces things were not as clear-cut as they might have been. The Romans never believed in systematic government, they often made arrangements to fit the circumstance. Even in provinces like Sicily and Asia the individual cities often had variable relationships with Rome and the provincial governor, some paid tribute while some were formally "free" or "allied".

Thre's a lot of stuff on orgsanization, deployment and numbers of the republican army in P. A. Brunt's "Italian Manpower". Of course there's Livy, Polybius and Appian too.

You are quite right about adoption among the aristocratic families. But was it not unusual to adopt an infant? Due to the high child mortality rate if nothing else. And wouldn't special dispensations be required for a patrician Claudius to be adopted into the plebeian Livii(viz Clodius)?

BBC America ran "I CLAUDIUS" last nite and Sian Phillips is great as the wicked Livia (although her character is probably more indicative of Graves state of mind than of history). I tried to look up Livias family connections. Her father, M Livius Drusus Claudianus (pr 50) was apparently an Appius Claudius Pulcher adopted as an infant by the ill-fated tribune of 91 BC. Is it known if he was a son of App Claudius Pulcher (cos 79) and thus a brother of Clodius (tr 58) and the various Claudias, or the son of C Claudius Pulcher (cos 92)? Was it normal to adopt infants?

Probably not more than the Venetians and crusaders did in 1204. However, you can speculate on the nature (or survival) of a "Western" rather than an "Islamicized" Europe if Constantinople had fallen to the Arabs in the 8th century. As it was Islamic Turks, Mongols and Arabs/Berbers conquered a third of Europe in the 7th-17th centuries. Could the Franks have stopped Islam on TWO fronts in the 8th century? Would a distinctive "Western" culture have survived Islamic conquest in the early middle ages? Spain and Armenia did, but the distinctive cultures of Syria, North Africa and Egypt, Babylonia and Iran didn't, and they developed Islamic cultures. The Balkans got 500 years to develop and their slavic culture survived 400 years of Turkish domination. And the Greek portions of Anatolia remained Greek until the 1920's. Is that comment culturally chauvinistic? if so, sorry.

A stage in the transition from "serial monogamy" to monogamy may be represented by the strong opposition of the Orthodox church to THIRD marriages by Roman Emperors in the seventh century.

You are exactly right about the American two-party system usually tending marginalize radicals and move toward centerism - until recently anyway (though I would argue it started with Reagan). This allowed civil relationships and compromise and avoided violence. This is why democracy has worked. The US is probably too big and diverse for ideological parties and a parliamentary system. We were lucky to have Lincoln and Roosevelt around in the two real crises we have had to face (God apparently does look out for fools, drunkards and the United States). Why the current situation has developed in the absence of any real crisis or serious political division among the people eludes me. What we have now is pointless drift - which is probably what the majority of people want. Does the EU bureaucracy answer to the EU legislature via committee investigations etc like in the US? (at least as it theoretically should in the US)

It's not really possible to give an ideological tag ("right" or "left") to American political parties, any more than there were such "parties" in the Roman Senate. (At least not until recently) Even in the 1930's the supposedly "progressive" Democratic Party included the far from leftist Southerners. But there was plenty of outrageous behavior in the US congresses of the 1840's & 50's. Many of the members came to the house armed with pistols or Bowie Knives, and there is the famous incident of the "caning" of senator Sumner at his desk in the Senate.

How about Antony's donations to Cleapatra?

Caesar the Dictator triumphed Sep 20-Oct 1 of 46 BC over Gaul, Egypt, Pontus and Lybia. Pharsalus was not mentioned. The "official" version was that Cato, Scipio, Petreius and the others defeated in Africa were renegades in the service of king Juba of Numidia. But no one was fooled and it caused much ill-will. (Suet Caes 37, Plut Caes 55, Dio 43.19 App BC 2) In early October of 45 he triumphed for Spain rather than over the sons of Pompey, but this led to even more bad feeling-one of the tribunes refused to rise and greet him as his triumphal chariot went by. This adds up to 5 triumphs, while the fasti list a 6th in February of 44- apparently an "Ovation" celebrated on the Alban Mount.

That's right, since M' Curius Dentatus in 275 BC. Also he was the first to be allowed a triumph for victories achieved when holding no official magistracy or promagistracy. He was only 24 years old and a mere eques.

Per the fasti triumphales multiple triumphs include: Imp Caesar Divi filus (Augustus) II 36 (apparently ovations) C Iulius Caesar VI 44 M Aemilius Lepidus II from Spain 43 Cn Pompieus Magnus III from Asia Pontus Armenia etc 61 T Didius II over Celtiberi 93 M Claudius Marcellus II over Apuani and ? 155/4 L Aemilius Paullus II over King Perseus 167/6 M Aemilius Lepidus II over Ligurians 175/4 Ti Sempronius Gracchus II over Sardinia 175/4 M Fulvius Nobilior II over Aetolians 187/6 D Iunius Pera II over Sassinates over Sallentini & Messapii 266/5 N Fabius Pictor II over Sallentini & Messapii 266/5 L Papirius Cursor L f Sp n II over Tarentines Lucanii Samnites Bruttii 272/1 Sp Carvilius Maximus II over Samnites Lucanii Bruttii Tarentines 272/1 M' Curius Dentatus IV over Samnites & King Pyrrhus 275/4 Q Fabius Maximus Gurges II over Samnites Lucanii Bruttii 276/5 C Fabricius Luscinus II over Lucani Bruttii Tarentines Samnites 278/7 Q Fabius Maximus Rullianus III over Samnites Etruscans Gauls 295/4 M Valerius Corvus IV over Etruscans & Marsi 301/0 C Iunius Bubulcus Brutus II over Aequi302/1 L Papirius Cursor Sp f L n III over Samnites 309/8 Q Publilius Philo II over Samnites & Paleopolitani 326/5 M Fabius Ambustis II Over Tiburtines 354/3 C Sulpicius Peticus II over Gauls 358/7 M Furius Camillus IV over Gauls 367/6 Sp Cassius Vicellinus II over Volsci Hernici 486/5 P Valerius Poplicola II over Sabines & Veientes 504/3 Ser Tullius III (King) over Etruscans ? L Tarquinius Priscus III (King) over Sabines 585/4 The dates are all BC and are translated from Ab Urbe Conditia, the year after the foundation of Rome. Since the consular year began in March prior to 153 BC, earlier Roman years corresponded to parts of two modern (Julian) years; thus 279/8 BC is March 279-Feb 278. Roman Numeral indicates the iteration (eg, II second triumph) Website www.attalus.org provides the list from A DeGrasse "Fasti Capitolini", 1954 and has an explanatory note.

The legions of the Republic did not have the organizational continuity, permanent numbers and cognomen they had later under the Principate. The legions were formally reconstituted each winter with new tribunes, a new first centurion and probably a new numeral. We know from Livy that the Republican legions did have numerals (he mentions quite a few) and that numbers I-IV were reserved for the consuls and that proconsuls et al avoided using them. Nobody has worked out a system that explains the numerals of the other legions mentioned in the evidence (if there even was a system). This was in the process of changing in the mid first century BCE due to the extended commands of Lucullus, Pompey, Caesar et al. Caesars legions retained their numerals throughout the Gallic and Civil Wars, were re-constituted by Octavian and survived into the Principate and empire. The "Fimbrians" and the other legions under Lucullus and Pompey may have maintained their organization and numerals until disbanded in 63/62 BCE but there is no evidence. Crassus commanded 7 or possibly 8 legions. 2 had been left in Syria by Pompey in 63/62 BCE, and Gabinius brought replacements and possibly 2 new legions out as proconsul in 57 BCE. Crassus raised troops under the lex Trebonia that gave him the Syrian command, so he brought 3-6 newly recruited legions with him in 54 BCE. He crossed the Euphrates with 7 legions (possibly leaving one to garrison Syria). He left 14 cohorts (2 from each legion) to garrison cities in Mesopotamia and invaded Parthia with 56 cohorts including veterans recruited by Pompey and Gabinius as well as his own recruits. The survivors of Carrhae plus the troops left in Syria were organized into 2 legions by Cassius.

The fact that Augustus gave them a donative on his death equal to that given the legionaries (Tacitus Ann, i.8) makes Cheeseman and Holder believe the units mentioned (Ingenuorum, Voluntariorum et al) were citizens when recruited. Other units (and there were many) such as I Montanorum CR or III Aquitanorum Equitate CR etc probably had citizenship conferred on all their members after some heroic service. Subsequent enlistees probably were treated as other auxiliaries (receiving citizenship upon retirement) while the unit retained the title as an honorarium - like British regiments called "Kings Own" or "Royal".

The Sempronii Gracchi were indisputably plebeians, but they were a powerful and influential noble family nevertheless. The Licinian-Sextian law of 367BCE opened the higher offices (consulship, censorship) and the Ogulnian Law (300BCE) openened most priesthoods to plebeians. A Sempronius was elected consul for 304BCE and a Sempronius Gracchus was consul in 238BCE. Tiberius Gracchus father was consul twice (177 & 163), censor in 169 and celebrated two triumphs. Sempronii could boast 11 consulships and 4 censorships by 133BCE. The patricians were a group of families (only 22 were still active politically in the third century BCE) who, traditionally, were the descendants of the original councilors chosen by the kings. But political power and social distinction was not reserved to them after 367BCE. Many were still rich and influential, but many plebeian families equalled or exceded them in wealth, authority and power. Only the office of interrex and a few priesthoods were reserved for patricians by the second century BCE.

As Melvadius says many units of auxilia received citizenship and the title Civum Romanorum (CR) for meritorious service, but there were also a number of units whose title indicates that they were originally raised in Italy from Roman citizens. viz cohors: I Ingenuorum CR IV Voluntariorum CR - Pannonia VI Ingenuorum CR - Germnia VIII Voluntariorum CR - Dalmtia XIII Voluntariorum CR XV Voluntariorum CR - Germania XVIII Voluntariorum CR -Pannonia XIX Voluntariorum CR XXIII Voluntariorum CR - Pannonia XXIV Voluntariorum CR - Germania XXVI Voluntariorum CR - Germania XXX Voluntariorum CR - Germnia XXXII Voluntariorum CR - Germania As you supposed these units probably represent the levies made by Augustus in Italy during the Pannonian rising and after the defeat of Varus, and apparently included both citizens and freedmen. They were special units in some sense since in his will Augustus gave them a donative equal to the legionaries. These units probably have a similar origin but nothing is known of their creation. viz cohors: I Italica Voluntariorum CR II Italica CR Milliaria - Cappodocia, Syria I Campanorum Voluntariorum CR - Dalmatia, Pannonia III Campestris - Dacia VII Campestris - Syria The province where the instcription(s) identifying the unit was/were found is included where known. See G L Cheeseman Auxilia of the Imperial Roman Army and and P A Holder Auxilia of the Roman Army for discussion of these units.

Cohors IV Gallorum equitata was an auxilia unit attested in Moesia and later in Britain per Cheeseman, Spaul and Holder. It was apparently stationed for many decades at Vindolana. That's why I wondered...does the book say anything?

I suppose it was unavoidable that Syme's account of Octavian's rise to power would be influenced to some extent by what was going on in Europe at the time he wrote. But also, his stated intention was "to record the story...from the Republican and Antonian side" and via "the history of the governing class". This is probably why he does not discuss social or economic factors, or the influence of "The Crowd"; and seems to have an anti-Caesarian bias.

At the begining didn't the guy say his unit was the IVth cohort of Gauls? (which was in Britain in 140 AD) Why did they have shields marked Legio II? Was he detached? promoted?

Excellent find! It gives an excellent description of the way Roman expansion was usually driven by "security" concerns viz the 16BC raid on Istria and the threat of the kingdoms of Maruboduus and the Dacians. Also how the Romans at this peiod tried to control regions thru local elites and existing political institutions backed up by regional military forces and tried to avoid direct administrative control.

The primary sources for the Illyrian revolt are Dio Cassius LV.28.7 et al and Vellius Paterculus II.109.5. There is, apparently, an article by S.L Dyson on "Native revolts in the Roman Empire" in Historia 20 (1971). References are from the Cambridge Ancient History.

Syme's work was first published in 1939 and was, I believe, the first treatment of the subject in english. The German scholars like Gelzer, Munzer and the magisterial Mommsen had dominated the topic in the 19th century. I think current thinking sees weaker and more changeable connections between the individuals, families and groups contending for power in the republic. You should read Gruen and Millar et al to compare more recent attitudes. Do you think Syme was wrong about "oligarchies lurking behind the facade"?

The Caecilii Metelli were definitely plebians. L Caecilius Metellus Denter enobled the family by gaining the consulship in 284 BC. They were a very powerful clan; Q Caecilius Metellus (cos 206) had both sons and six grandsons reach the consulship. Metelli held 19 consulships between 284 and 52 BC.

The "legions" still existed (in their modified form of about 1000 men) in the time of Aetius as there are many of them listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, which gives a list of the units of Western Empire's army that dates to around 420. The general military organization described in the Notitia (at least the regional and praesental field armies) probably continued through the time of Heraclius until it evolved into the "Themes" and "Tagmata" in the 670's or 680's. However, I don't believe the two main sources on military affairs after 420, Procopiu's Wars (dated in the mid 500's) and the Strategicon sometimes attributed to the emperor Maurice (late 500's), mention the term "legion". The Strategicon uses Greek terms like "banda" and "chilias". So, as othes have mentioned, sometime after the end of the Western Empire, as Greek became the official language the term "legion" went out of use.

A Senior moment. They are more common every year. By the way, Gruen's sketch of Crassus, emphasising his auctoritas, potentia and clientelae on pages 66-74 of his "Last Generation of the Roman Republic" (with many references) is interesting.