Pompieus

Lily Ross Taylor's book is the basic work on the topic and has not, apparently, been superceded since the sixties. It has a fold out map with the geographic locations of the tribes and an appendix with the tribal affiliations of senators that are known. The"power" of the tribes was theoretically equal, but in reality the individual voters in the rural tribes carried more weight than those in the urban tribes. The tribal assembly used a bloc or unit voting system. A majority of voters present carried each tribe, and a majority of tribes carried the assembly. Since when voting took place there were usually more voters present in the urban tribes than in the rural tribes, the individual vote of a rural tribesman carried more weight. There were no absentee ballots in Rome so members of rural tribes who resided in the city (including senators and businessmen and displaced farmers from the countryside) and those who might travel to the city to vote on a particular measure (like Gracchus' land bill) were the most sought after voters.

Didn't Napoleon or somebody say that it was a great mistake to underrate Pompey as a general? Somebody definitely said that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics, and it was in logistics and strategy that Pompey's genius lay. He beat the Marians in Sicily and Africa in record time, crushed the Gallic rebels on the way to Spain, conducted the pirate war on an unprecedented scale, and when he beat Mithridates and Tigranes they stayed beat! Also he faced two of the three greatest Roman commanders (Sertorius and Caesar) and beat them too. He got a bad press because the aristocrats, who hated him, wrote the histories. He may have loved praise a bit too much, committed questionable acts in his youth and suffered a loss of nerve at the end, but he wasn't arrogant enough to cause a civil war in the name of his "dignity". He fought for the Republic and was destroyed for it.

Some amplification: Lintott ("Constitution of the Roman Republic" pg 70) does not allow senate membeship for ex quaestors until Sulla's dictatorship (App BC 1.100.468). tribunes may not have been automatically qualified for senate membership until the lex Atinia (122-102BC). Lintott says that several sources put the number of senators at 300 (Plut G Gracc 5.3, App BC 1.35.158) but it is not clear whether the censors regarded this number as a maximum or a general target. He calculates that if the six praetors elected annually in the early second century BC lived an average of 60 years, and if about 20 ex aediles had not yet become (or failed to become) praetor, that would account for about 170 senators - leaving 130 for the censors to select from men who had not yet held office. Lintott assumes that the selection would be made from patricians and distinguished plebians who were too young to have reached the aedileship. Other evidence indicates that certain priesthoods and winners of the corona civica were qualified for membership. After Sulla, the 20 ex quaestors added each year would have kept the senate up to strength.

Members of the Senate were appointed originally by the kings. After establishment of the republic new members were initially appointed by the consuls, and after 443BC by the censors. Tradition apparently required the censors to choose from the ex magistrates (who, it seems, were allowed to sit in the senate during and after thier term of office - until the next censorship), and this was made mandatory by the lex Ovinia (312BC ?). Censors could also expel a member for misconduct. Generally then, the "back benches" of the senate consisted of men from the political classes who had been elected to the quaestorship or higher office by the people. However, in the late 80'sBC there were mass additions to make up for the casualties in the civil wars. Sulla added 300 members of the equestrian class to the senate, and despite complaints by aristocrats that they were forced to sit with butchers and common soldiers, Sulla's new senators seem to have been perfectly respectable aristocrats from the Latin and Italian towns and wealthy Roman farmers and businessmen who had previously avoided politics. Sulla also increased the number of quaestors to 20 - all of whom entered the senate after their year in office.

In 21 there was a revolt in Gaul led by Iulius Florus and Iulius Sacrovir. The cause, apparently, was the exactions of Roman bankers, fanned by the activities of the Druids (Sacrovir may have belonged to the order). As usual, the Gauls were divided and most of the trouble was confined to the Aedui and Treveri. The legions of the Upper Rhine and the urban cohort of Lugdunum crushed the rebels. Other revolts took place during the chaotic period after Nero's death. In 68 occured the revolt of Vindex which mainly involved the Arverni; and in 69-70 was the serious revolt of the Batavian Civilis which included Germans on both sides of the Rhine as well as the Gallic Treveri, Lingones and Nervii.

Actually, isn't the modern military career open to talent (rather than birth) a result of the French revolution ? Only in the later Roman Empire did common soldiers rise to be commanders of units, armies and even to the imperial throne. The next time this happened was in the 1790's wasn't it?

The brothers Servilius, the consuls of 203 and 202 BCE (following Munzer Roman Aristocratic Families and Parties pg 131)). Marcus became augur in 211 replacing a plebian and when he died was succeded as decemvir sacrorum by a plebian. Gaius became pontifex in 211 also replacing a plebian. As discussed previously, Munzer's reconstruction is plausible but not proven.

A few patricians transferred to the plebians after 366 BCE, in order to qualify for priesthoods and offices reserved by law or tradition for plebians. This included the tribunate (the tribunate was desirable as they could initiate legislation in the tribal assembly) and one of the two consulships. A certain number of memberships in the priestly colleges (augurate, pontificate et al ) were also reserved for plebians. The transfer was normally accomplished by adoption into a plebian family, with (I believe) the approval of the ponitfex maximus.

Actually, it was in the Marian period (sometime after 106BCE and before 58BCE) that the citizen cavalry disappeared from the legions. The last time legionary equites are mentioned in the literature is during the war with Jugurtha (Sallust BJ.95), and they were certainly gone by 58BCE as Caesar had to mount infantrymen of the tenth legion to create a mounted escort for his meeting with Ariovistus (Caesar BG II.2).

Apparently members of the 18 centuries of equites actually received money from the state for purchase and care of the public horse. The censors required each of them to report and account for his animal in the forum; Pompey (Plut Pomp 22) and ex consuls and censors were required to do so (Livy xxix.37 xxxix.44). The article on equites in Smith's dictionary discusses the topic.

That's a magnificent book. I agree Marcus Portius. What do you think of his interpretation of the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus?

Thanks - what a card that Scipio was...Mental accuity (then as now) was, apparently, no requirement for attainment of high political office...all four sons reached the consulship didn't they?

If you're looking for books you might try: Theodore Ayrault Dodge's "Hannibal" & "Caesar", J F C Fuller's "Julius Caesar" and B H Liddell Hart's "Scipio Africanus". These are all written by professional military men (Dodge fought in the American Civil War the others in the British Army during World War I) who had been exposed to the classical sources and interpret the battle descriptions using their military knowledge and experience. They are a bit dated, however, - all written before WW2 I believe.

A E Astins biography of Scipio Aemilianus. Very good on the man, the politics of the era and the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus had a reputation for cutting wit. A. E. Astin even has an appendix of utterances attributed to Scipio in his biography. Included is his famous comment on the mental accuity of the Metelli, but having no latin I wondered if someone could give a literal translation of the quote from Cicero De Orat. 2.267: Ex quo genere etiam illud est, quod Scipio apud Numantiam, cum stomacharetur cum C. Metello, dixisse dicitur: 'si quintum pareret mater eius, asinum fuisse parturam' The comment referred to Q Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus' fourth and youngest son Gaius. Apparently the essence of the comment is that Quintus' sons fell off so rapidly in intelligence that if there were another brother he would be an ass (?) - also a nice pun on Gaius' cognomen (Caprarius).

This is a little confusing as these old-time Prussian professors seem to take a good deal for granted. Munzer (apparently following Mommsen) assumes C Servilius C f P n Nepos (cos 203) was plebian and held the tribunate and plebian aedileship. He also assumes that M Servilius C f P n Pulex Geminus (cos 202) was his brother, was also plebian, and that both were sons of C Servilius Geminus who was imprisoned by the Boii and released, as Livy says, by his son the consul of 203 - who he calls "Geminus". Apparently it was the father and uncle of the prisoner who were identical twins and got the cognomen. Munzer's argument concerns which of these Servilii (father or sons) made the switch to the plebs. He says that Mommsen believed that the elder Servilius was a patrician and that his approval was required when his sons transferred to the plebs; this was not obtained because everyone thought he was dead. When he turned up alive it made the renunciation of patrician status by the sons invalid. Thus the rogatio referred to by Livy maintained the transition by recognizing that the sons had acted in good faith of the fathers death. Munzer, however, says that if the father was a prisoner of war , he forfeited his citizenship (!? is this true?!) and possibly the right of the children to hold any office was in question. However, he hesitates to rely on this argument against Mommsen ("the master of scholarship"), and argues that it was the father who had renounced patrician status and the sons had inherited plebian status. His arguments are: 1. It is unlikely that both brothers would have transferred to the plebs- with the father gone one would have been left to continue the patrician line (the father had had an elder brother or cousin Gnaeus, who was killed at Cannae). 2. Both brothers were plebians early in life as they succeeded plebians in important priesthoods at early ages (an augurate in 211 for Marcus and pontificate 210 for Gaius who may have been decemvir sacrorum even earlier-possibly before his father's imprisonment in 218). A little thin - but interesting I guess. The prizes sought by the renunciation of patrician status evidently were the priesthoods reserved for plebians.

Fabian consuls post 202 BCE: Q Fabius Labeo (Tr 188/7) 183 Q Fabius Maximus Aemilianus L f 145 Q Fabius Maximus Servilianus 142 Q Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (Tr 120) 121 Q Fabius Maximus Eburnus Servilianus (Cens 108) 116 Q Fabius Maximus (suf)(Tr 45) 45 Paullus Fabius Maximus 11 Africanus Fabius Maximus 10

You may be right...there is some controversy over which Servilius transferred to the plebs. The argument for the praetor of 220 BC comes from Munzer's Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families Pg 128-135.

There was also the case of C Servilius Geminus (Pr 220BC) who was treacherously imprisoned by the Gauls while a triumvir for distribution of land in Cisalpine Gaul in 218 and held until rescued by his son, the consul of 203 who had been tribune in 212. The other son, Marcus, was also consul (202), and both replaced plebians in important priesthoods. Confusingly the other main branch of the Servilii, the Caepiones, remained patricians.

True enough...but why did the classical, urban civilization decline? repeated pillage by barbarians and/or the imperial army? overtaxation? too much government regulation? not enough? Even in the Eastern half of the empire where the political institution survived, the cities declined in number and size. I just wondered what economic causes have been postulated for this.

What papers? As usual Macus Portius, you are quick to nail down an ambiguity - and rightly so. Unfortunately I was reading them on-line and can't find them now-d*%#@#!*x!!!! I imagine anyones outlook on the change from urban-ancient civilization to rural-midieval civilization is going to depend to a large extent on their current position in the Marxian-Keynesian-Smithian-objectivist spectrum.

All true. The Roman navy and the campaign in Sicily prevented any help reaching Hannibal from Africa, and armies in the Po Valley and Spain cut him off from those bases while the Italians held out in their towns ans destroyed the crops before the Carthaginians could get them. But had the Samnites, Etruscans, Picentines Sabines, Paeligni, Marsi, Marrucini et al opened their gates to Hannibal and provided supplies to his army he wouldn't have had the problems you mention - the Romans would. They would have been have been restricted to Latium and would have been forced to deal.

Hannibal failed because he underestimated the cohesion of the Roman confederation. He expected the Italian allies to join him against the tyranny of Rome. But except for the Bruttians, Lucanians and a few Oscan towns in Campania like Capua (vile traitors that they were), the Italians stood by the city that stood by them against the Gauls, and that spoke a similar language and worshipped the same gods.

That's right. The Eastern economy continued until at least the 11th century. However, Steven Runciman says, the same sort of economic issues (viz government and social restrictions on profits from investments of various sorts) caused those with capital to invest it almost exclusively in land - displacing the smallholders and military settlers in asia minor thus "feudalizing" the empire (!?) I'm not sure I buy it...but there seems to be a comman thread between the 2nd century BC and the 3rd, 10th and 11th AD in the search for a safe way to invest capital which always ends up being land. However, I can't agree that slavery has no effect on reducing the standard of living for workers. It happens everywhere it is allawed to exist - look at the American South.

Economics - there's a topic that will arouse everyones interest(!) I have seen several papers that explain the collapse of ancient civilization by the restrictions on the free market imposed by guilds and the government - especially on agricultural goods (the main product of the ancient economy). Obviously the government was trying to make sure that the cities always had food available at reasonable prices to avoid civil disorder. The argument apparently is that these restrictions on prices made grain farming unremunerative and destroyed the exchange of manufactured goods from the town for foodstffs from the country; resulting in abandonment of the cities and self-sufficient manorialism in the country. This seems suspiciously "Objectivist" to me. Isn't the low buying power of the working classes, due to low wages, caused in part at least by widespread slavery, way more important than any government or guild action? After all, the economy of the Middle ages had the same "moralistic" restrictions on pricing and usury as the Romans did - didn't it? Besides Rostovstiev (very hard to find) does anyone know the important works on this? Any strong opinions?