The Social War

[Tobias]

G'day All

 

Recently, whilst reading about the rise of Pontus and Mithridates' attack on the Roman Empire, i found a reference to the "Social War" that Italy was just emerging from when Mithridates attacked. All i know about it is that it was when Rome was compelled to extend Roman Citizenship to include all of Italy. I wonder if anyone can can tell more about the social war?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I think its referring to the Gracchi brothers who wanted to give citizenship to all Roman allies, but sadly the plebeians at Rome didn't like the idea of them being equal to foreigners. Not to mention that during that period, the plebeians had basically no civil rights and plebeians no longer could rely on farming to make a living because of the patricians who believed it was their duty to rule the plebeians and do whatever they want, also the large plantations runned by mainly slaves and owned by wealthy patricians were devastating any chances of making a profit or living out of agriculture for every plebeian. Thus the plebeians had it and marched out of Rome to create their own city and so on... too long to explain.

 

I hope that's the social war that it's talking about.

[Ursus]

http://www.unrv.com/empire/social-war.php

 

The Italian allies were called socii, associates or allies. The Social War is something of a misnomer. It would be better called in English the Allied War.

 

The Italian allies long had control over their own internal affairs. But when it came to war, foreign policy and dividing the spoils of Empire, the Patricians of Rome acted unilaterally. The Italians revolted.

 

They revolted not against Romanization, but to have a greater political and economic share in its spoils. They set up a separatist government that was the mirror image of Rome.

 

L. Julius Caesar decided the most practical thing to do was simply to grant full citizenship to most of the rebels (an expedient and progressive reform, setting the fine example that future Caesars would follow). Fighting did continue in some quarters. But the Italian Socii basically won on a political level if not a military one.

 

In the ancient world to vote actually meant being physically present. The Italian allied now had the right to vote in Roman affairs, but they had to physically travel to Rome to do it. An expensive proposition. Fortunately for them the politicians at Rome were willing to pay for the traveling expenses of Italian clients who would vote favorably on their proposals.

 

Sulla made a name for himself in the war, so that takes us into the war with Mithridates.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Social War was one of the most important events in the history of the old Republic. Calling it the 'Social War', or even 'War of the Allies,' isn't quite exact--it was a war in which only some of the Italian allies revolted against Roman rule (the Etruscans were loyal to Rome throughout). The wars are sometimes therefore known as the Marsic Wars, after the Italian allies who led the revolt.

 

As Ursus pointed out, the allies weren't revolting against Romanization. What they wanted were their civil rights--the right to appeal the decisions of corrupt Roman magistrates, the right to vote on who these magistrates might be, and the right to participate in all areas of the Roman government. These were the questions that started the war, and these were the issues that ended the war. (I think it's just cynical to say the allies only wanted a piece of the spoils--a lack of spoils didn't start the war and a truckload of spoils did not end the war.)

 

Why wouldn't the expansionist Romans take Yes for answer? To reconcile two previous posts', it was tried more than once.

 

The first time it was attempted by the land-commisioner Fulvius Flaccus in 125: he proposed that any allies of Rome who wanted citizenship could have it, or if they preferred, could remain independent states but Rome would recognize their right to appeal against magistrates. This bill was not popular with the urban plebs or with the senators, so Flaccus was sent on a mission to Gaul as a delaying tactic. The Latin colony of Fragellae revolted at the news, but they were crushed mercilessly.

 

The second time, in 123, Gaius Gracchus jumped on the Latin civil rights bandwagon, and his name helped him win the consulship in spite of his support for Italian rights. Unfortunately, when he re-introduced Flaccus' bill, the people and the populares (notably Drusus the Elder) deserted him, and he was left twisting in the wind without a third tribuneship. Without the protection of that office or that of the fickle urban mob, he formed a bodyguard that was accused of killing one of the servants of the consul Opimius, who then killed Gracchus; some 3000 of his supporters were also executed without trial. This, obviously, did not bode well for Italian civil rights.

 

The third time, in 91, the cause of Italian civil rights was picked up again by Drusus the Younger (a true hero of the Republic). A better man than that father of his who had betrayed Gaius Gracchus, Drusus was also no fool. As an aristocrat, he was wealthy, severe, and well-connected, counting even the Princeps Senatus as among his friends. Further, before pursuing the extension of Italian civil rights, he also built up support among the urban mob through the usual route of the corn dole (some things never change). With his Italian friends restless, Drusus was suspected of disloyalty to the state, which he utterly disproved by unveiling a Marsic plot to kill the anti-Italian consul Phillipus, despite Phillipus leading the charge against Drusus. Instead of rewarding Drusus for his patriotism, his knowledge of the plot was taken as evidence of his complicity, and he was deserted by everyone including both the Italians and Phillipus, who repaid him by repealing all his laws. Finally, Drusus was killed by an unknown assassin, and a kangaroo court was set up to execute all his remaining supporters. Now the Italians were hopeless.

 

The Marsic Wars made the unlikeliest allies. In the North, Marius and the consul of 89, L. Porcius Cato (father of my namesake); in the South, Sulla and L. Julius Caesar (father of you-know-who). In the North, the Italians were defeated, but L Porcius Cato died in the fighting. In the South, Sulla was victorious, and L Julius Caesar survived to win the consulship in 90, when he took the heroic step of conceding the very issue over which all the fighting started--Roman citizenship. (Ironically, by setting himself up as dictator for life, Caesar's son Caesar undid this.)

 

The lex Iulia was a progressive piece of legislation, and it should have taught the Romans two critical lessons: 1--in the competition for honors, neither the champions of the fickle urban mob nor the senate alone could advance the interests of Rome, and 2--the Republic must treat the provinces with justice and allow them an opportunity to compete with all the others who were a part of res publica. The facts were clear: those provinces treated justly (like the remains of the Etruscan civilization) would stand with Rome against anything, and so the security of Rome amidst her possessions required the extension of this policy from the Danube to the pillars of Heracles.

[Virgil61]

G'day All

 

Recently, whilst reading about the rise of Pontus and Mithridates' attack on the Roman Empire, i found a reference to the "Social War" that Italy was just emerging from when Mithridates attacked. All i know about it is that it was when Rome was compelled to extend Roman Citizenship to include all of Italy. I wonder if anyone can can tell more about the social war?

 

Ursus and Cato have given some decent background on the Social War and I can add a few interesting points.

 

For me it's a special event, as I've stated before my family is from the province that was the hotbed of revolt. I'd like to delve into a it bit more but major works on the subject are rare. I can add that by 91BC many of the Roman armies consisted heavily and sometimes predominately of legions from the Italian tribes (I believe they were all set up in manipular legions like the Romans). They are the same tribes that had remained loyal to Rome during Hannibal's invasion. It was in fact a Roman army filled with Praetutii, Frentati and Marrucci that destroyed Hasdrubal's reinforcement army to Hannibal, cutting off his head and throwing it over the ramparts to the Carthaginians. I've read, but forgotten the source, that the Marrucci legions were equal or better than the Roman ones.

 

The point of the war as other posters have stated was inclusion into the Republic. The tribes; the Marsi, Samnites, Vestini, Paeligni, Picente, Frentati, Praetutii and Marruccini, set up a capital for their confederation in the city of Corfinium whose ruins still exist. The federation elected a Senate and called itself "Italia", the first known instance of that term for a political entity.

 

The fighting is said to have been brutal with Sulla making a reputation for himself. Part of the problem for the Romans had to have been that there were thousands of Roman citzens in colony-cities living in the tribal areas. As I've posted before my own family is from the town of Guilianova founded as Castrum Novum, a Roman colony in 283BC among the territory of the Praetutii tribe. So these Romans had been living amongst the tribes with Roman citizenship and their enhanced rights for at least two hundred years. This could only have made the situation that much more acute--though there's no surviving evidence knowing the nature of warfare in those times it doesn't take much of a guess that many of these Romans were killed or run off of their lands or their cities laid to siege or that they did the same to the surrounding tribes.

 

In the end the Romans cleverly dissolved the hostilities by offering citizenship to tribes that did not revolt and tribes that were willing to lay down arms immediately. It's a critical moment in Roman history.

[Primus Pilus]

Just a notation that Lucius Julius Caesar was not the father of the dictator, but a great Uncle. He was the brother of Sextus Julius Caesar, the dictator's grandfather.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Just a notation that Lucius Julius Caesar was not the father of the dictator, but a great Uncle. He was the brother of Sextus Julius Caesar, the dictator's grandfather.

Ooops! Good call--ist there a good geneaological chart on the internet? I'm on vacation, so I don't have my library to do a fact check.

Edited December 19, 2005 by M. Porcius Cato

[Primus Pilus]

Just a notation that Lucius Julius Caesar was not the father of the dictator, but a great Uncle. He was the brother of Sextus Julius Caesar, the dictator's grandfather.

Ooops! Good call--ist there a good geneaological chart on the internet? I'm on vacation, so I don't have my library to do a fact check.

 

Hmm yes, I think Livius.org has one, though I'm not sure how in depth it is.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Looking a bit closer at the family connections, I learned that Drusus the Younger, whom I mentioned as the great optimate hero of Italian rights, was also the maternal uncle of my namesake, M Porcius Cato. I can't quite find a geneaology yet for the whole Cato family, but when I do, I'll be sure to post it here to correct my earlier error.

[M. Porcius Cato]

OK--I'm now done with the family tree of the Porcii Catonis. You can view it here. I think it may be the only stemmata of this family that is available on the internet. I also couldn't find one in any of my books or any cited anywhere I looked.

 

The main point to make is that the L. Porcius Cato who died fighting the Marsi was the paternal uncle of Cato Uticensis. This is actually ironic because Cato's maternal uncle, M Livius Drusus, was a pal of the Marsic leader Silo.

 

There is a cute anecdote in Plutarch about one encounter between Cato and Silo:

While Cato was still a boy, the Italian allies of the Romans were making efforts to obtain Roman citizenship. One of their number, Pompaedius Silo, a man of experience in war and of the highest position, was a friend of Drusus, and lodged at his house for several days. During this time he became familiar with the children, and said to them once: "Come, beg your uncle to help us in our struggle for citizenship." Caepio, accordingly, consented with a smile, but Cato made no reply and gazed fixedly and fiercely upon the strangers. Then Pompaedius said: "But thou, young man, what sayest thou to us? Canst thou not take the part of the strangers with thy uncle, like thy brother?" And when Cato said not a word, but by his silence and the look on his face seemed to refuse the request, Pompaedius lifted him up through a window, as if he would cast him out, and ordered him to consent, or he would throw him down, at the same time making the tone of his voice harsher, and frequently shaking the boy as he held his body out at the window. But when Cato had endured this treatment for a long time without showing fright or fear, Pompaedius put him down, saying quietly to his friends: "What a piece of good fortune it is for Italy that he is a boy; for if he were a man, I do not think we could get a single vote among the people."

 

The anecdote is somewhat doubtful, as Cato would have been only 4 years old at the time (91) and unlikely to have any views on Italian citizenship one wasy or another. Also, being that Cato's family was Sabine and his great-grandfather a New Man, it would have been even more absurd for Cato to have had any anti-Italian views.

[P.Clodius]

Also, being that Cato's family was Sabine and his great-grandfather a New Man, it would have been even more absurd for Cato to have had any anti-Italian views.

Cato would have done whatever he could to suck up to the senate elite, just like Cato Major.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also, being that Cato's family was Sabine and his great-grandfather a New Man, it would have been even more absurd for Cato to have had any anti-Italian views.

Cato would have done whatever he could to suck up to the senate elite, just like Cato Major.

Cato wasn't Cicero. Nor was Cato the Censor--like Pompey, he rose to prominence via military laurels.

[Gajus of Sweden]

Okay can some one please help me with this one. I cant seem to find any good sources for the Social War. Plutarch brisks it over quite hasty, Pliny got nothing and neither do Appian. I wold like to know more than just the broad strokes. Which ancient author is my man?

[Primus Pilus]

Okay can some one please help me with this one. I cant seem to find any good sources for the Social War. Plutarch brisks it over quite hasty, Pliny got nothing and neither do Appian. I wold like to know more than just the broad strokes. Which ancient author is my man?

 

Livy's work in that era is mostly lost, but at least there is the brief Periochae. Frankly, there aren't any good sources.

[Pompieus]

G'day All

 

Recently, whilst reading about the rise of Pontus and Mithridates' attack on the Roman Empire, i found a reference to the "Social War" that Italy was just emerging from when Mithridates attacked. All i know about it is that it was when Rome was compelled to extend Roman Citizenship to include all of Italy. I wonder if anyone can can tell more about the social war?

 

Ursus and Cato have given some decent background on the Social War and I can add a few interesting points.

 

For me it's a special event, as I've stated before my family is from the province that was the hotbed of revolt. I'd like to delve into a it bit more but major works on the subject are rare. I can add that by 91BC many of the Roman armies consisted heavily and sometimes predominately of legions from the Italian tribes (I believe they were all set up in manipular legions like the Romans). They are the same tribes that had remained loyal to Rome during Hannibal's invasion. It was in fact a Roman army filled with Praetutii, Frentati and Marrucci that destroyed Hasdrubal's reinforcement army to Hannibal, cutting off his head and throwing it over the ramparts to the Carthaginians. I've read, but forgotten the source, that the Marrucci legions were equal or better than the Roman ones.

 

The point of the war as other posters have stated was inclusion into the Republic. The tribes; the Marsi, Samnites, Vestini, Paeligni, Picente, Frentati, Praetutii and Marruccini, set up a capital for their confederation in the city of Corfinium whose ruins still exist. The federation elected a Senate and called itself "Italia", the first known instance of that term for a political entity.

 

The fighting is said to have been brutal with Sulla making a reputation for himself. Part of the problem for the Romans had to have been that there were thousands of Roman citzens in colony-cities living in the tribal areas. As I've posted before my own family is from the town of Guilianova founded as Castrum Novum, a Roman colony in 283BC among the territory of the Praetutii tribe. So these Romans had been living amongst the tribes with Roman citizenship and their enhanced rights for at least two hundred years. This could only have made the situation that much more acute--though there's no surviving evidence knowing the nature of warfare in those times it doesn't take much of a guess that many of these Romans were killed or run off of their lands or their cities laid to siege or that they did the same to the surrounding tribes.

 

In the end the Romans cleverly dissolved the hostilities by offering citizenship to tribes that did not revolt and tribes that were willing to lay down arms immediately. It's a critical moment in Roman history.