Roman Italy before the Social War (91-88 BC)

[gilius]

All maps I've seen of the Republican period show the whole of Italy subdued and annexed as Roman territory. Indeed, it seems that way, as the Romans had moved on to create the following Western provinces in north Italy and overseas via their wars with the Carthaginians:

240 BC

Edited September 1, 2012 by gilius

[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".

Edited October 21, 2012 by Pompieus

[gilius]

Sorry, "Independent" was the wrong word. What I really meant was it seems that a lot of these tribal regions were not properly conquered or held client king status until much later?

Edited August 18, 2013 by gilius

[gilius]

Apparently, parts of Campania were "controlled by alliance"; what exactly does that mean? Is it the same as ruling via client king/proxy? Apparently, Latin did not replace Oscan as the official language of that part of Italy until after the Social War.

[Metella]

This map is the type I have been looking for - for a long time !

 

How great to see it here ... as I am not fluent in spacial interpretation of these things from word to map ....  

 

Whose map is it ? and can I use the image in an upcoming historical fiction ?  It would ease the readers ... as I just give up and let them figure it out if they care enough.

[Onasander]

Slow dowm Metella, though I have lots of reason to disagree with the theory, given your emphasis on maps, I need to make you aware of it, the final essay in "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" tackles the issue of did the Romans even think in spatial terms of a map, or via periplus and trader scrolls that listed city names and distances needed to travel to arrive at a location.

 

He figured just the latter, making the assumption Roman Commanders grasp on strategy lack spatial dimensions that are map based to decide on their strategic arrangements.

 

I myself call bullshit on this, they used both, just the maps were top secret (for the legions command staff, emperor, admirals, and the senate) and they got specifics for logistics and timing the march from traders who would keep more exacting route info. Clearly Scipio Africanus and Hannibal were thinking spatially. I dont see how Belisarius' deployments in the west would make any sense without a map, or how Ceasar lured Pompey away from the coast and his supporting navy.

 

Now, do I think the Romans had surveyors of the quality of say, George Washington? No.... not from the ancient maps I've seen. I spent alot of time back in december 2007 in the basement of the US library of congress looking over the collection of maps they had, they at best listed river, town, mountain chain and sea on a untrustworthy spatial plane that at best gave you a cardinal sense of directions, but if you tried to navigate by it alone your going to get lost, but not too lost. Dont expect any map the senate would possess to list much in terms of topography, they merely debated policy with foreign entities, borders relative would suffice. The minutia would be a commanders local map, which might list crossing in a river, or good places for a future battle, but even then I doubt it would mark every curve of the river, elevation, wind currents and weather patterns, property lines.... you would be lucky if they included where mountain passes or oasis were. Ancients approached ancient maps with a lack of detail compared to modern ones, but did have them.... though apparently not common.

 

Just keep this debate in your head if your going off that map above or UNRVs maps.... many disagree with me and assumed the romans just crunched distances from one location to the next to figure out the world.

 

Town S is 5 miles from C, which is 7 miles from D, which is 6 miles from S but 3 miles from H.

 

You are in C, need to pick up troops in B (not even on the list, gotta look at another list to find , and then get to S to defend it because D is encroaching upon its territory. The area soverign to S is 12,,000 strides from the town center to the big rock shaped like a penis if you walk in a straight like towards Polaris...... make sure they respect our territorial claims!

 

Can you imagine the senate giving you such a list, and just that, expecting to juggle all that math to figure out troop movements? No.... they had a map. It wasnt the romans and samnites waiting till noon to measure the shadow of a stick to point out their claims relative distance and the.sun, they had a map, and a treaty that said this spot is ours, that is yours, keep out of our fields and forest, and keep to your side of this stream. This is all fact based, spatial oriented thinking.

[Metella]

YES !   I think you hit the balance exactly - and they would be gathering info from scouts during campains .... which would be tempory, but spacial and relative ....

 

 

Still - I like this map and now I want even more .... I want this EXACT map with the current names in small font under what the Republicans called those cities.      and I want it now, eh?