Pompieus

Remember that Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, Cato and the rest were ALL senators. There was not REALLY a contest between a SENATORIAL PARTY and a POPULAR PARTY. There were just senators and loose groups of senators vying for prestige, office and influence. Or as Gruen says Dignitas and gloria. Pompey was the dominant figure in the 60's and 50's due to his military victories, and was trying to fortify his position by putting forward his adherents for office and snuggling up to influential families like the Metelli. But the group of senators led by Catullus and Hortensius were having none of it and were thwarting him whenever they could. Crassus had seen his military performances at the Colline Gate and against Spartacus overshadowed by Pompey, but he was expanding his influence thru loaning money to senators like Caesar and supporting the business classes, like when he lobbied to have the tax contract for Asia renegotiated. Caesar was doing whatever he could to improve his fortunes, and supported both Crassus and Pompey at various times, as well as forming connections with other senators for instance by marrying a Calpurnia. When Catullus and Hortensius died and Lucullus retired to his fishponds Cato, who had connections to the Junii Bruti and Servilii, took up the task of thwarting the too powerful senators. Pompey, Crassus, Caesar and Cato were the most prominent senators due to their prestige and strength of personality, but there were lots of others competing for power and clout. The Claudii Pulchri, Cornelii Lentuli, Aemilii Lepidi and many others were not "locked in" to supporting one or the other of the prominent leaders. They shifted their support as necessary to forward their own agendas.

Agathoclese, tyrant of Syracuse had died in 289 and this was the signal for the Siciliot Greeks to fall into political chaos (as usual). Tyrants had siezed many of the cities, there was civil war in others and the Mamertine mercenaries had siezed Messana and the Northeast corner of the island. The tyrant of Agrigentum (Acragas) was besieging Syracuse, and the Carthaginians were taking advantage of the situation to extend their control. When a Carthaginian fleet turned up at Syracuse while the siege was in progress the Greeks came to their senses and combined to ask Pyrrhus for help in 279-78. The Carthaginians held the Western part of the island including Lilybaeum, Panormus (Palermo) and Segesta plus Greek Selinus and probably Heraklea Minoa. In 280 they were probably moving in on Thermae on the North coast and extending their influence over the Sicels who at this time were usually under the suzerainty of the strongest power. Syracuse no longer dominated the Greek towns but with Agrigento and Gela and others united (for a time) under Pyrrhus' leadership for fear of Carthage.

In general terms, in 280 BC the Roman confederation extended from about the Arno River, across the Appenines to north of Ancona. In the South it crossed the peninsula probably from the Silarus River (north of ancient Paestum) to north of Monte Gargano (the "spur" on the Italian boot). Within this area was actual Roman/Latin territory in Latium and the Liri Valley, "half-citizens" (sine suffragio ) in the Sabine country and Campania (including Capua and Cumae - once Greek cities now ruled by Italic peoples the Greeks called "Oscans"), allied towns (about a dozen in Etruria, plus Greek Naples) and allied Sabellian peoples in the Appenine Mountains viz: Samnites, Marsi, Paeligni, Frentani, Vestini, Marrucini and the non-Italic Picentes. There were also Roman and Latin colonies at strategic spots in the allied areas including outliers such as Luceria and Venusia in Apulia, Sena Gallica north of Ancona and Hadria and Castra Nova on the Adriatic. The Samnites had only recently been defeated in a long exhausting war in 290 and added to the confederation; and a major raid by the Gallic Senones and Boii joined by several Etruscan towns was defeated in 284-280. Outside the Roman alliance the Po valley was peopled by several Gallic tribes (Insubres, Cenomani, Boii, Senones) and the non-Celtic Veneti in Venezia. Liguruans were on the coast around Genoa. In the South there was a league of Brutians in the toe of the boot and the Lucanian League on the instep. In Apulia were the Daunians and in the heel of the boot Messapians (apparently non-Italic speaking peoples). Tarentum headed the Greek Italiot League including Heraclea, Metapontum and sometimes Locri, Croton, Thurii & Rhegium. Many of these Greek cities had suffered lately at the hands of Agathoclese of Syracuse and were threatened by the Brutian & Lucanian highlanders. This is all VERY generalized, somewhat speculative and open to criticism, and does not pretend to be exhaustive. Just an attempt to give a general sense of the political groupings in Italy when Pyrrhus arrived in 280. There were also major goings-on in Sicily at the time.

The guys CiceroD is asking about are a THIRD species-in addition to the tribunes of the plebs and the six military tribunes attached to each legion of the army. "military tribunes with consular authority". The ones the Wiki article talks about in the "Republican Period" paragraph.

The Hurricane was fun too, my nephew in southern Maryland got flooded out and spent a week in hotel. Volcano next I guess. Makes us wish we were safe back in western PA! (go STEELERS!)

VERY unsettling... We've had plane crashes, snow blizzards and terrorist attacks, but you don't expect a temblor here. Thought it was a truck going by but it kept on and got stronger and stronger until the whole house shook and groaned. Went outsida and all the nieghbors were out there looking around asking what happened. Seemed stronger and longer than the ones I experienced in Southern California. No harm done though, except for the tops of the pinnacles on the National Cathedral. Now we can get on to the hurricane.

Have you looked at "The Logistics of the Roman Army at War 263BC-235AD" by J P Roth ?

The military alternative does exist, as you say. It requires amassing a large force (10 to 1 superiority used to be the rule of thumb), rounding up and relocating the population to concentration camps, destroying the villages and towns, burning, the crops, rounding up or wiping out the herds, flocks or game that the people lived on, building fortified camps and sending out flying columns to kill anybody they meet until the insurgents are killed, captured, starved or give up. This will work if you have the will. It used to be called "creating a desert and calling it peace" (solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt).

The BIGGEST myth is that nationalist insurgencies are purely MILITARY problems that can be resolved solely with military force. In such circumstances the POLITICAL aspect is decisive and Sun Tsu and Mao Tse Tung are better guides than Clausewitz. A foriegn army, no matter how adept tactically or superior technologically will not prevail against an insurgency unless it has the strong support of a LEGITIMATE and VIABLE local partner. The locals are there for the long haul; an outside power, with public opinion or other predominant strategic concerns to worry about must have a resolution in a reasonable time and at reasonable cost. Tactical success is necessary, but there must eventually be a political resolution; and only a local partner with some legitimacy can accomplish this.

The point about cooperative local elites, and polities or tribal groups that were big enough and cohesive enough to evolve into urban centers seems well taken. Nearly all Roman conquests met these criteria, or already had urban centers. The exceptions were always serious problems (viz Germany and Dacia) and required large permanent military forces. Even the interior of Spain, where the tribal groupings were small and loosely organized, required 200 years of fighting to pacify.

Melvadius is correct (as always), the sources (mainly Appian) do not give the numbers of Scipio's legions. But if you wish to speculate a bit: Scipio was consul in 134 and the consular legions were normally numbered I-IV, so Scipio, as senior consul, probably commanded legions numbered I and III. The other consul was in Sicily fighting the slave revolt. As Scipo was not authorized to hold a levy, the actual troops of these legions had been in Spain at least since 135 and some may have been out there since 141. Scipio did, however, use his considerable influence to recruit among his friends and adherents and among the allied kings. Appian says his army totalled 60000 at Numantia, including his legions, Italian and Latin allies, contingents from allied states (Numidians et al) and a large number of loyal Spaniards.

There are a couple of old articles in the Journal of Roman Studies on this subject. JRS 47 (1953) has an article by E S Stavely that tends to support the "political" solution (viz a sop to the plebians seeking office) and in JRS 47 (1957) F Adcock emphasises that the political and "military" (providing more commanders for an expanded army facing multiple threats) solutions are not mutually exclusive, and thatdifferent reasons may have been controlling at different times beween 445 and 367 BC.

Plautus on Turner Classic Movies today at 11:30 EDT.

I believe that, as you say, they were originally purely military commands which became "official" provinces around 85 AD. Tacitus (Ann 1.31) says the two armies were separated in 14 AD into exercitus superior and exercitus inferior.

Interestingly, although the Greeks of Alexandria apparently understood the basics of distillation in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, there is no evidence of distillation of alchohol in europe until the 12th century. And it wasn't until around 1400, when methods of distilling various grains were developed that consumption of liquor grew widespread in europe.

True, but often the entire college were still patricians. Only a few plebs were allowed to breach the walls. And some of the names preserved are questioned. Not until 367 did the plebs join the ruling class.

Bryaxis is right isn't he? The classic function of the phalanx under Phillip and Alexander was always to pin the enemy main force while the heavy cavalry, covered on it's flanks by light cavalry and light infantry, broke or flanked the enemy line and struck the decisive blow. Isn't that also what Hannibal did? Of course a lot depends on getting the enemy to fight you on suitable ground, and havinge had time to deploy. This is a function of having superior light troops isn't it?

In 445 BCE one of the tribunes (the regular tribunes of the people), C Canuleius proposed that the consulship be opened to plebians. This was at the height of the struggle of the orders and eligibility for election to all the "official" magistracies was limited to patricians. As a concession to the plebs, and to avoid "soiling" the consulship with plebians, the senators decided to replace the consulship with "military tribunes with consular powers" and to allow plebians to run for the post. It was also determined that patrician censors would be elected to perform the census and revise the list of senators(previously done by the consuls) and that each year the senate would advise the assembly whether consuls or military tribunes should be elected and, if military tribunes, how many. Thus regular consuls were elected many times between 444 and 368 instead of Tribuni militum consulare potestate (viz. 443-439, 437-435, 431-427, 423, 421, 413-409, 393) and the number of consular tribunes varied. It was political concession, a stopgap that let the plebs into the power structure without allowing them to actually hold the consulship. This was evidently pretty important to the patricians for reasons of pride and/or religion and they still had the possibility of freezing the plebians out by returning to election of regular, patrician consuls. And it mattered to the plebs too since as you note they still insisted on eligibility for the consulship, and finally got it when the Licinian-Sextian law passed in 367 BCE reserving one consulship for a plebian. The office was not exclusively military as the powers were the same as those held by the consuls (eg consulare potestas)such as the power to conve the senate and assemblies. Imperium (military command) was only one of the consuls powers

I know I'm dating myself, but it's a mistake to forget the seminal works that were published in the 1920's (but are still available in re-prints) viz. H.M.D. Parker's "The Roman Legions" and G.L. Cheeseman's "The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army". If you are interested in the Army of the Republic there is no substitute for "Italian Manpower" by P.A. Brunt. Cheeseman has been brought up to date by J. Spaul and D.B. Saddington but their works are very hard to find. The appropriate chapters of A.H.M. Parker's "Later Roman Empire" and W. Treadgold's "Byzantium and its Army" are good for the late Empire.

Y'all are right of course, the Hellenic culture of the Eastern Roman Empire was eventually submerged in the Slavic and Islamic civilizations...it just took a little longer. But was there any real break in the basic Sinic civilization in China between the Han and Tang periods comparable to the European "Classic" and "Middle Ages"? If I remember the real watershed in Chinese history is between Tang and Sung (?)

Latin only survived in the church, Greek was spoken in much of asia minor untill 1920, and is still spoken in Greece and Cyprus.

Along with the geographic configuration, might not the fact that 90% of the huge population were Han account for the resilience of Chinese civilization vs Graeco-Roman? In the West there were two dominant cultures (Greek & Latin) plus many subsidiary ones that survived in the countryside and lower classes, while in China 90% of ALL the people were Han. Would not this mass eventually absorb any conquer who who might replace the ruling class? Perhaps in the West the Latin culture did not go deep enough, did not penetrate the masses outside the cities enough to completely absorb the Germanic peoples who migrated into the Empire, replaced the ruling classes and destroyed (directly or indirectly) the urban culture of the Latin West. Maybe in the East the Hellenic culture went deeper, or the more defensible borders allowed Byzantium to survive 1000 years.

It is true that soldiers in arms were not permitted in the city during the republic. Even the comitia centuriata (which represented the people in arms) met in the Campus Martius which was outside the city walls and the ceremonial city border (the pomerium). Nor could a magistrate enter the city until he gave up his military power (imperium). Sometimes senate meetings were held outside the pomerium so a general could attend without laying down his command (I think Marcellus did this). The answer as to who kept order is that sometimes nobody did. This is why Clodius and others could get gangs to break up assembly meetings, how the curia got burned down after Caesar was killed and why Sulla, Pompey, Bibulus and others sometimes had to take shelter in their houses from street violence. The Romans believed in "self-help", the wealthy kept groups of slaves to protect their persons and property and, as was mentioned, the lictors formed a small bodyguard for sitting magistrates. The commoners had to rely on their local clubs (collegia), tribal associations (sodalitates) or a wealthy patron for protection...or just keep out of the way. There was apparently a "police court" of sorts under the tresviri capitales (minor magistrates) but no policemen; perhaps the tresviri provided a group of retainers to arrest mischief makers.

Theodore Mommsen the great German scholar of the 1860's said in Romische Forschungen that the sources attested to 22 patrician families still extant after 366 BCE. Though still in existence, six of these families could show no consul from 366 to the end of the Republic (31 BCE): Aebutii Cloelii Pinarii Quintilii Sergii Verginii One, the Foslii (or Folii) had one consul (318 BCE) The other 15 patrician gentes still were active in the highest office: Cornelii (68 consulships 366-31BCE) Aemilii (33) Fabii (31) Valerii (35) Claudii (21-not counting the plebian Claudii Marcelii) (these were known as the gentes maiores) Iulii (12) Servilii (18) Manlii (20) Postumii (19) Sulpicii (19) Quinctii (8) Papirii (15) Furii (6) Veturii (4) Nautii (2)

As dictator Sulla added more than 300 men to the senate, doubling it's original size as well as replacing losses in the civil war and proscriptions. Most of these new senators were members of the equestrian order and aristocrats and ex-magistrates from the Italian municipalities (new citizens after the Social War). Gruen suggests Sulla thus co-opted the leadership of groups who might otherwise have challenged his settlement. As these men and thier relations gained office in the 70's, 60's and 50's the lower magistracies would have naturally included many new names.