Why would some countries beg for being annexed by the Roman Republic?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Why would the powerful and despotic Ptolemies like to release whole wealthy nations to the Roman republic?

 

Why was the Roman republic so reluctant to accept them?

 

And your best guesses are...

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

Why would the powerful and despotic Ptolemies like to release whole wealthy nations to the Roman republic?

 

The Ptolemies of the first century BC are not the same as their ancestors, like all the other Hellenistic kingdoms their power was severely diminish, at the same time Rome rose as the supreme power in the mediterian and was the one which called the shots even without a permenent military garrison. to me those "gifts" of the Ptolemies (as well as Attalus III of Pergamum) were actually a political move that was suppose to show that they are loyal friends and allies of the Roman people (it's also is according to the Roman custom that a person suppose to leave some of his property to his friends in his will).

 

It's likely that they die before that they could change their will and choose an heir from their family.

 

Why was the Roman republic so reluctant to accept them?

 

I think it's due to the internal political situation in Rome at the time, their were a struggle between the Equestrian order and the Senatorial order. the Equestrians were a great in number (especially after Social War when all Italy receive the Roman citizenship and the Italian aristocracy join the Equestrian order) in contrast to that the Senatorial order was very small (there were only 300 seats in the Senate, 600 after the reforms of Sulla).

 

Now the Equestrians like any rising oligarchy wanted a place by the helm of the state which meant in our case a membership in the Senate and the Senators like any old oligarchy saw the place in the Senate as their property which in due course would be "inherited" by their sons like their "inherited" their place from their fathers and their fathers from their grandfathers and so on. Now because the senate seats were so few the Senators had a little room for political maneuvering by giving some seats to the leading Equestrians and thus weakening the power of the order as an opposition force.

 

Now we must remember the every province had to pay taxes and those taxes were collected by Publicani, which were an associations of Equestrians who lease the right to collect taxes in the province from the Roman state, they were known for their extreme corruption and the fact that they extort so much wealth from the native to that point that the province economy were ruin. Now if the Senate were to create new provinces (especially in a very rich land like Egypt) he would actually give more power to his Equestrians rivals.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The Ptolemies of the first century BC are not the same as their ancestors, like all the other Hellenistic kingdoms their power was severely diminish, at the same time Rome rose as the supreme power in the mediterian and was the one which called the shots even without a permenent military garrison. to me those "gifts" of the Ptolemies (as well as Attalus III of Pergamum) were actually a political move that was suppose to show that they are loyal friends and allies of the Roman people (it's also is according to the Roman custom that a person suppose to leave some of his property to his friends in his will).

 

It's likely that they die before that they could change their will and choose an heir from their family.

If the wills were by definition posthumous, what benefit would Attalus, the Ptolemies and the other kings get by then from showing such loyalty?

Should we suppose rhe Romans knew the wills' contents in advance? If that was the case, it didn't seem to have helped Apion for getting the Egyptian throne,

Why wouldn't these kings be able to change their wills as required?

Even if the purported benefit was for their surviving families; what potential benefit could have been enough to compensate the Ptolemies for giving away the wealthiest Hellenistic kingdom?

 

If the royal wills were all the enigma, the most economic explanation would be that the Romans simply faked such documents.

 

But why would the Romans get into such trouble if they were going to reject the donation in the first place?

(Admittedly that was far from being always the case; the Senate seemed to have had no problem in making the rich Asia a Roman province at once).

 

It makes sense the idea that a group of Romans may have been the only ones able to opposse another group of Romans at the time.

 

Even so, I stll can't follow the rationale here.

[Ingsoc]

At least in the case of Attalus III the will were made public. I think that the Senate was very eager to annex Peragemon since Tiberius Gracchus tried to hurt their authority by proposing that the new province be added by a law of the Concilia Plebis.

 

The rational of my argument is very simply: the equestrians were one of the main benefactors of exploiting of the provinces and they were also the bitter rivals of the old Roman oligarchy in the fight for the very limited numbers of senate seats. so the senate prefer not to annex new province and thus prevent creating new territories in which the equestrians could exploit to increase their wealth.

[ASCLEPIADES]

At least in the case of Attalus III the will were made public. I think that the Senate was very eager to annex Peragemon since Tiberius Gracchus tried to hurt their authority by proposing that the new province be added by a law of the Concilia Plebis.

Sorry; what I was asking if if the royal wills were made public before the King's death; only so they would have been able to become an evidence of loyalty to Rome in any meaningful way for the wills' authors, as you suggested.

Was that tyhe case?

The rational of my argument is very simply: the equestrians were one of the main benefactors of exploiting of the provinces and they were also the bitter rivals of the old Roman oligarchy in the fight for the very limited numbers of senate seats. so the senate prefer not to annex new province and thus prevent creating new territories in which the equestrians could exploit to increase their wealth.

Actually we haven't dealt with this argument yet; simple it is indeed, and so is the obvious question:

What prevented the Roman Senate from taking the provincial revenues for itself?

(In fact, it seems that was exactly what they did)

After all, according to W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities article on Senatus (by HF Pelham):

 

, "...it was the senate which determined what a province should pay, and in what form; which granted exemptions, increased the amount, or altered the mode of collection...

... It was the senate which sanctioned the expenditure, which directed the payments to be made from the treasury--except where these were in a few cases fixed by law,--and which authorised the striking and issue of coins in Rome...

...The organisation, in the first instance, of a new province was usually carried out by a commission of senators in accordance with a decree of the senate, and it was by the senate, as a rule, that any subsequent modifications in its constitution were made, and regulations laid down as to the methods of its administration ".

[Ingsoc]

Yes, as far as I remember Attalus III will was made public before his death.

 

As for the Senate, he was indeed in charge on the provinces, however this doesn't mean he could simply ignore the powerful equestrians (also we need to remember that the Senate wasn't homogenic in this matter and some powerful senators, like Crassus, were adherent supported of the equestrians).

[Segestan]

The peaceful annexation of some states during the Late Republic (II-I century AD) was a curious phenomenon that has intrigued me for some time.

 

It seems that some (maybe many) countries might actually have asked Rome for their own annexation (Judea?... who knows?).

 

If that was not amazing enough... I is even more surprising that apparently sometimes the Senate just didn't care!

 

I would like to analyze first a couple of seemingly well documented cases; naturally, the first question should be if such cases were representative or not of this whole phenomenon.

 

Here comes Donald Earl, The Age of Augustus cp VI pg 134:

 

"Again,Cyrene, a wealrthy and well organized country, was left to Rome by its last king, Ptolemy Apion, when he died in 96 BC. The Senate made no attempt to annex, still less to govern and administer this unfortunate kingdom which was allowed for the next two decades to drift into anarchy. All that the Senate did was to arrange for some of Cyrene's income to be diverted to Rome and even this was not systematically done. No regular system of tax collection was institued. Cyrene was not organized until 75-74 BC, when a desperate shortage of grain and money at Rome resulted in popular unrest and compelled action".

 

But the amaze never ceased; regarding the wealthiest country of all (ibid):

 

"Egypt was also bequeathed to Rome in 88 BC, by Ptolemy Alexander I, a bequeth staggering in its wealth. Yet once more the Senate did nothing. Egypt became the playground of rival and dubious claimants to the throne".

 

Why would the powerful and despotic Ptolemies like to release whole wealthy nations to the Roman republic?

 

Why was the Roman republic so reluctant to accept them?

 

And your best guesses are...

 

Human nature being what it is most likely .... Security. In Militarily being annexed to the worlds greatest power, the center of civilization , economical wealth , security of the ruling class from would be rivals.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The rational of my argument is very simply: the equestrians were one of the main benefactors of exploiting of the provinces and they were also the bitter rivals of the old Roman oligarchy in the fight for the very limited numbers of senate seats.

 

Seems like the rationale of your argument is based on a false premise. The number of senate seats was not limited, but open-ended. With each equestrian elected to an aedileship, the number of senate seats would have grown by one. Yes, there *was* a conflict between equestrians and senators, but it wasn't a matter of equestrians vying for a limited number of seats in the all-powerful senate but a matter of what powers the senate would have.

 

This is a great thread, btw.

[Ingsoc]

The rational of my argument is very simply: the equestrians were one of the main benefactors of exploiting of the provinces and they were also the bitter rivals of the old Roman oligarchy in the fight for the very limited numbers of senate seats.

 

Seems like the rationale of your argument is based on a false premise. The number of senate seats was not limited, but open-ended. With each equestrian elected to an aedileship, the number of senate seats would have grown by one. Yes, there *was* a conflict between equestrians and senators, but it wasn't a matter of equestrians vying for a limited number of seats in the all-powerful senate but a matter of what powers the senate would have.

 

This is a great thread, btw.

 

Yes but the old Nobilites always try to block the election of new men to the various magistrates, so in affect they tried to block their way to the Senate.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

The number of senate seats was not limited, but open-ended. With each equestrian elected to an aedileship, the number of senate seats would have grown by one.

 

 

Yes, but still around 300 until Sula's day (we have the worde of Livy regarding Buteo's censorial dictatura in 216) . Many T.P., A.C. or A.P had to wait for some old senator to die in order to enter the senate . Unless the ratio of dead senators every year was exactly 2 (A.C.) or 4 (A.C. and A.P.) or 14 (A.C. + A.P. + T.P.) .

Edited November 30, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

The number of senate seats was not limited, but open-ended. With each equestrian elected to an aedileship, the number of senate seats would have grown by one.

Yes, but still around 300 until Sula's day (we have the worde of Livy regarding Buteo's censorial dictatura in 216) . Many T.P., A.C. or A.P had to wait for some old senator to die in order to enter the senate . Unless the ratio of dead senators every year was exactly 2 (A.C.) or 4 (A.C. and A.P.) or 14 (A.C. + A.P. + T.P.) .

 

We don't need to assume that the ratio of dead (or expelled) senators every year was exactly 14 if we additionally drop the assumption that the number in the senate was a neat 300.