Jugurtha

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

My book says he was able to bribe Roman senators?!

Why would Roman senators accept money from him? Or was that demagoguery excuses? Did the Roman senators have no better place to get clean graft?biggrin.gif

"War broke out between Numidia and the Roman Republic and several legions were dispatched to North Africa under the command of the Consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus. The war dragged out into a long and seemingly endless campaign as the Romans tried to inflict a decisive defeat on Jugurtha." from wikipedia

My book says that there were rumors about Metellus dragging out the war just to be commander in chief for a prolonged period of time. My book says this is clearly false, though it did not give that many reasons.

In Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine did enlengthen the war for personal gain. I suppose there were historical precedents. So when do we know it is inability of the general and not shrewd calculation?

[Primus Pilus]

My book says he was able to bribe Roman senators?!

 

Of course, bribery was a common practice of the Roman political system... even if it was illegal. One shouldn't be surprised that politicians in any era are susceptible to such things.

 

Why would Roman senators accept money from him?

 

Because those who did lacked legal/moral political scruples, were in need of money, emphasized with Jugurtha's position, or wanted to hurt political adversaries who stood to gain from a reduction in Jugurtha's power.

 

Additionally, for those less concerned with politics and were motivated simply by greed, Jugurtha's money was as good as anyone else's.

 

"War broke out between Numidia and the Roman Republic and several legions were dispatched to North Africa under the command of the Consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus. The war dragged out into a long and seemingly endless campaign as the Romans tried to inflict a decisive defeat on Jugurtha." from wikipedia

My book says that there were rumors about Metellus dragging out the war just to be commander in chief for a prolonged period of time. My book says this is clearly false, though it did not give that many reasons.

 

What book?

 

In Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine did enlengthen the war for personal gain. I suppose there were historical precedents. So when do we know it is inability of the general and not shrewd calculation?

 

Fiction often has similarities to, or is a direct reflection of reality. History generally treats such conditions as shrewd calculation when it works out in the favor of the said general, and treats it as inability when it doesn't work out, but this would be a rather broad generality. Sometimes, protracting a war is not necessarily for personal gain, but rather for the gain of one's entire army and state. The Romans couldn't beat Hannibal in Italy, so Quintus Fabius Maximus fought a war of attrition against him rather than risk losing everything in a single battle. While he was politically vilified for it, history recognizes the wisdom of his strategy.

 

In any case, there was great political motivation behind the support for and/or opposition to Metellus' command in Africa. The accusation of protracting the war came from none other than Marius and his supporters. Not surprisingly, Marius wanted the command for himself. The accusation itself is too personally motivated to trust it.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

I could understand how Senators would take bribes, but from a potential enemy of the state? That's sort of... unscrupulous.

My book for reference is History of Rome by Theodore Mommsen.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I could understand how Senators would take bribes, but from a potential enemy of the state? That's sort of... unscrupulous.

 

Taking bribes was unscrupulous, but let's not overlook the fact that, with or without bribes, non-Roman heads of state (i.e., client kings) typically had patrons in Rome. This system was important because it was a proto-federalist mechanism for spreading information about problems of mutual interest to Rome and its allies. Absent actual legal representation in Rome or outright conquest, it's hard to imagine an alternative system that would be as effective in balancing local rule with the overall objectives of the Roman state. Yes, Jugurtha was a rogue, but the system that Sallust decries is overwrought with Marian utopianism and underinformed by any consideration of constitutional alternatives.

[Pompieus]

The competition for office and honors among the Roman aristocrats was brutal and required MONEY! LOTS of it!

 

And in any government that is not a despotism, people who want something from the government approach people who have power or influence with requests for help, favors or "justice", and are usually willing to do favors in return. "Favors" may be business "opportunities", jobs, "junkets" of various sorts or MONEY! Was there ever a free government in history where this was (is) not the case? The accepting of money or favors from a foriegn prince as opposed to a citizen was not unique in the Republic - see Badian's "Foriegn Clientelae". The problem with "bribery" in the Republic actually indicates that the government was "free" in a primitive sort of way, and was somewhat responsive to "interest groups" outside the governing class.

 

Anybody who protracts (or starts) a war for some personal or political reason is not very bright! Wars, ancient or modern, aquire a momentum of their own that nobody has ever been able to control, and invariably lead to unexpected consequenses. Protracting a war to extend ones command is a standard ancient literary convention and probably not often a real motive for historical figures.

[Minerva]

I could understand how Senators would take bribes, but from a potential enemy of the state? That's sort of... unscrupulous.

 

Taking bribes was unscrupulous, but let's not overlook the fact that, with or without bribes, non-Roman heads of state (i.e., client kings) typically had patrons in Rome.

 

 

Plus in Jugurtha's case he was connected to the Scipionic family having served under Scipio in the spanish Numantine war. With such high connections and natural cunning bribing wouldn't have been hard. Jugurtha is also to have said of Rome "Oh city you would sell ourelf if only you could find a buyer" Infact bribery seems to have been a peice of cake!

[ASCLEPIADES]

I could understand how Senators would take bribes, but from a potential enemy of the state? That's sort of... unscrupulous.

 

Taking bribes was unscrupulous, but let's not overlook the fact that, with or without bribes, non-Roman heads of state (i.e., client kings) typically had patrons in Rome. This system was important because it was a proto-federalist mechanism for spreading information about problems of mutual interest to Rome and its allies. Absent actual legal representation in Rome or outright conquest, it's hard to imagine an alternative system that would be as effective in balancing local rule with the overall objectives of the Roman state. Yes, Jugurtha was a rogue, but the system that Sallust decries is overwrought with Marian utopianism and underinformed by any consideration of constitutional alternatives.

In fact, the main administrative mechanism by which Octavius and his dynasty became Emperors was simply by making all Romans their clients; ie, the Numidian dynasty were Scipio's clients no more. It was Augustus who granted Roman citizenship to Juba II and who determined his family life, just the same as with any other Roman of the time.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In fact, the main administrative mechanism by which Octavius and his dynasty became Emperors was simply by making all Romans their clients

 

That fiction is useful Julio-Claudian propaganda, but it's a fiction just the same. Octavian became an emperor--not by making Romans his clients--but by storming Rome with an illegal army, proscribing his enemies and allies alike, and finally defeating all rivals in war.

 

Even in principle, this mechanism wouldn't work because the patron-client relationship wasn't legally binding. Marius, for example, was a client of the Metelli, yet this was no obstacle to his opposing them at every turn. If, after Mutina, Octavian had not killed his rivals and had simply declared them his clients, nothing would have prevented them from throwing the delusional 19-year-old from the Tarpeian rock.

[ASCLEPIADES]

That fiction is useful Julio-Claudian propaganda, but it's a fiction just the same. Octavian became an emperor--not by making Romans his clients--but by storming Rome with an illegal army, proscribing his enemies and allies alike, and finally defeating all rivals in war.

He made both things. That's why he didn't require to become a Dictator.

 

Even in principle, this mechanism wouldn't work because the patron-client relationship wasn't legally binding. Marius, for example, was a client of the Metelli, yet this was no obstacle to his opposing them at every turn.

Your primary source on that?

Mestrius Plutarchus told us it was herennius who claimed to be Marius' Patromus... and Marius declared (Vita Marius, cp. V):

"that as soon as he had been elected to his magistracy he had ceased to be a client;"

 

If, after Mutina, Octavian had not killed his rivals and had simply declared them his clients, nothing would have prevented them from throwing the delusional 19-year-old from the Tarpeian rock.

But of course: he became the only patronus by neutralizing the others.