Rome - its own worst enemy, or everyone else\'s nightmare?

[Tarbicus]

The earliest civil war I can find reference to is the First Servile War, 135–132 BC.

I put it to an esteemed member of the board that the only wounds received by Romans were from foreigners, and not Romans, prior to Augustus. Of course, I was generalising, and the one above shows that.

But I can't find reference to a civil war prior to the one I mention above. Just to get this into perspective, if we take the time it took for a civil war to actually happen from the founding of Rome in 753 BC, that's a full 618 years of the Roman army only fighting foreigners. If we count the years up to the First Servile War from the establishment of the Republic in 510 BC, it's still 375 years.

But then we get this diagram from 135 BC up to c. 30 BC, and it's a different picture altogether:
http://www.umich.edu/~classics/programs ... _Wars.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Repu ... civil_wars

I can't even find a handy reference list of post Augustan civil wars.

What happened? Why did they begin to turn on themselves so much after a certain point? Monkeysphere theory?

This page may hold a clue:
http://www.crystalinks.com/romemilitary.html

As enduring units, they (the legions) were able to become more effective fighting forces; more importantly, they could now form lasting loyalties to their commanders, as the typical 1-year consul system began to break down and generals served for greater durations. This is what made the civil wars possible, and it is why scholars often cite the Marian Reforms as the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic.

[mcbishop]

Monkeysphere theory?

Now imagine a hundred monkeys. Then a thousand.

Hmm, I bet at least a few of those thousand monkeys could tell the difference between a monkey and an ape, unlike you, Mr Wong.

If you want to understand the warlord culture of the later Republic and imperial period, you could do worse than look at Chicago in the 1920s/30s or the modern Russian mafia. Gladiator tried to draw a parallel between Rome and Nazism but although the Nazi hierarchy notoriously squabbled they always kowtowed to their main leader; the Romans preferred gang warfare on a grand scale, allowing the winner to believe he had ultimate power, until they decided it was time for a change (princeps inter pares has an 'edge' to it beyond the accepted pseudo-egalitarianism; along the lines of 'you're only boss as long as we let you be'). There's a fundamental Douglas Adams law in operation somewhere in there, trust me ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Mi Tarbice-

I heartily concur with the reference in the crystalinks entry that Marius's use of non-propertied citizens and Italians in the legions as one of the major contributing factors that led to an environment where large-scale, long-term, and frequent civil wars were possible. As stated, when the soldier's loyalty is nearly solely to his general and not to the state and he is dependent on his general for his future welfare marching on Rome and spilling your brother's blood can easily happen.

Although a major factor, it is not alone. The political environment also became more permissive of these types of conflicts. When the conflict of the orders between the patricians and the plebeians had been going on from near the founding to 267 BC, whenever an impasse was reached, the
plebs would just secede - They would take their ball and go home until the patricians gave in.

However, after the influx of wealth and power (and corruption) that followed the Punic wars as Carthage and Greece succumbed to the Romans combined with demagoguery, opposing factional politics, and the reforms of the army mentioned above, we have a recipe for disaster.

No longer were the days of good ole Cincinnatus donning his toga, defeating the enemy, and returning to his fields. Now you had abuse of office, multiple successive consulships, and illegal triumvirates.

Sorry, a little bit of rant there!

-Severus

[Praefectusclassis]

[amazon]Rosenstein, Rome at War[/amazon] has (apparently, haven't read it yet) very interesting things to say about the relation between war, politics and economy in the 3-2nd centuries BC. That's where the key to the end of the Republic lies.

[Tarbicus]

Excellent points made, and thanks very much.

The 'mafia' paradigm is one that, somehow, is easy to forget when thinking of the legions. That modern Western mindset sneakily creeps in when the guard's down. But how much did that apply after Augustus and during Empire, or were the Praetorians the top Dons for a few hundred years, give or take the odd decade?

Raising the point about the plebeian secessions (actual or threatened) is also a very good point. Not so much armed rebellion, but voting with the feet. I imagine it was the practical absence of anywhere to go that may have put an end to that possibility (at least Veii was walking distance :wink: ). In a way it makes sense that, with the option to walk out gone, it would force the aggrieved citizenry into conflict at home and heat up the drama on the political stage. I don't really think corruption was a new thing (accusations were rife regardless of period), but I find the option to walk out disappearing a compelling reason for more internal conflict. The steam has to go somewhere, and if it doesn't have an outlet it'll just burst into the machine? Throw into the mix a professional standing army under the command of, and loyalty to, one of the political factions in the form of its commander, and you have the means for true armed internal conflict.

Jasper, looks like a good book. I'll get a copy, I think.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The mafia parellel is one conclusion I drew a couple of years ago.... can't remember what led me to that conclusion! Possibly reading roman history! hock:

[TraderTrey9785]

I think the sheer number of civil wars that occurred after the Marian reforms are a result of those reforms. Think about it -- if you open the army up to anyone, not just landowners, then all of the poor who need a job and a life, well, they get one. And then, they are going to follow commanders, who may or may not have political ambitions, regardless of the nature of their orders. Obviously you want your commander to receive the best campaigns because it gives each individual soldier a greater chance at booty. I would compare some of the landless poor who became professional soldiers very similar to mercenaries because they didn't have ties to the land, and they were loyal to their commanders out of a promise for pay. Obviously this isn't true for every soldier, but I'm sure a majority of them stayed with commanders who were probably not "in the right" because if they could win a victory then they would be right. Almost the same idea as "might makes right."

This is especially true given the class conflict in much of Rome. I mean look at the Gracaii brothers and their reforms, and the horror that erupted in Rome before Marian's reforms. If you have that anger built up and then you allow many of the lower class citizens to learn how to fight, and give them the opportunity to rise in the ranks through battlefield merit -- it spells disaster. Other factors probably contributed to the strife that engulfed Rome in the 1st Century BC, but I think these reasons are at the heart of the conflict.

[Dan Diffendale]

There's also the question of what you would consider the Latin War.

[Tarbicus]

There's also the question of what you would consider the Latin War.

Rome vs. Others surely? Rome fighting with the Campanians and other Latins, then switching sides to the Samnites.

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Only today beginning to read Polybius' "Rise of the Roman Empire" which
will contain, I'm sure, many of the points addressed previously. Hopefully, I'll have something to contribute to this thread as the action progresses.
Of course, it'll be filtered through Polybius.

[Virgil]

The earliest civil war I can find reference to is the First Servile War, 135–132 BC.

The Servile Wars were slave revolts not civil wars or am I missing something?

What happened? Why did they begin to turn on themselves so much after a certain point?

This page may hold a clue:
http://www.crystalinks.com/romemilitary.html

As enduring units, they (the legions) were able to become more effective fighting forces; more importantly, they could now form lasting loyalties to their commanders, as the typical 1-year consul system began to break down and generals served for greater durations. This is what made the civil wars possible, and it is why scholars often cite the Marian Reforms as the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic.

I'm not sure what scholars he's speaking about, I think most modern ones point to the political bloodshed of the Gracchi as a turning point in Roman Republican politics where things begin to break down. I don't think any of the Republican Civil Wars can be addressed on strictly military organizational terms, i.e. Roman politics on the forum became more bloody and you have the main players--who are also military consuls, tribunes, etc.,utilizing the legions, beginning with Sulla, to implement their political agendas.

Let me put this forth and it only applies to the Republican Civil Wars; Even without Marian's reforms if the legions had reflected the old standard of organization, the leaders of these civil wars were the political elites of Rome and the wars fought to a large part reflected the dynamics of the political struggles in the forum, at least up to and including Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Legions made up of the old organizational type would've still fought for their political client, benefactor or leader. Equestrians by their position were heavily politicised and took sides based on those politics anyway, the sames sides they would have taken in a non-Marian organized legion. Although there's a good argument to be made that Caesar's legions, many raised, trained and beholden to him could be attributed to Marian reforms, would it have been much different if they'd been pre-Marian legions who'd fought for him in Gaul?

By the time of Sulla/Marian struggle I think the political environment in Rome was so charged and less averse to bloodshed that some similar military dynamics would have been involved.

[Tarbicus]

The Servile Wars were slave revolts not civil wars or am I missing something?

Of course, Frank, and thanks for pointing it out. So that makes the first militarised civil war between Sulla and Marius from 91-88 BC.

Although there's a good argument to be made that Caesar's legions, many raised, trained and beholden to him could be attributed to Marian reforms, would it have been much different if they'd been pre-Marian legions who'd fought for him in Gaul?

Would the legions have had to have been loyal to both Caesar and (for example but most probably) Pompey as Consuls of the same forces?

[drsrob]

The Servile Wars were slave revolts not civil wars or am I missing something?

Of course, Frank, and thanks for pointing it out. So that makes the first militarised civil war between Sulla and Marius from 91-88 BC.

What started in 91 BC was the Social War. ('Social' from Socii or 'Allies'). The Italian - fed up with being 2nd classs citizens - revolted and attempted to set up an indepented state, called "Italia". At first unsuccesful the Romans regained the upper hand in AD 90. In october the gave Roman citizenship to the loyal Italian allies and promised it to the rebels on provision that the would lay down their arms.

Enormous armies had been raised during this war. The Romans even raised two legions of (freed?) slaves. They surely would have included =0*-*-+
he /capite censeo as well. Near the end of the war in 89 BC the last campaign was fought in Samnium were Sulla was besieging the city of Nola. Already a new war was looming. That against Mithridates in Asia Minor. Sulla had been given command of the war. At this point he commanded six legions. One was intended to finish the siege of Nola. The remaining five were earmarked for the War against Asia Minor.

Sulla's rival Marius managed to get himself appointed in his place. However Sulla had the staff officer, send to take over the army, killed and marched on Rome with five legions.

Basically this was the start of the Civil Wars. It would seem likely that the five legions for the war in Asia Minor were largely composed of volunteers from the capite censeo. The assidui would have been happy to return to their fields. So the Armies of the Civil War came into being after and as a result of the Social War.

In other words: I don't think that their was anything like the Marian Reforms. The Polybian legion changed into the Caesarian legion through many intermediate steps. Any envolvement of Marius would have been told in detail, especially by Plutarch. Therefore I think that Marius did no more than we are told.

• Let the soldiers carry their own equipment, gining rise to the diction "Marius' mules". (But this may have happened under the direction of Scipio in Spain in ca. 133 BC).
  Give prominence to the Eagle standard in 104 BC and abolish the other four (which were no longer carried in battle anyway).
  Call upon volunteers from the capite censeo in 105 BC (a measure of expedience rather them policy).
  Modify the pilum (a temporary measure).

Other changes would have been implemented by other generals or by the Senate itself at various times.

Although there's a good argument to be made that Caesar's legions, many raised, trained and beholden to him could be
; attributed to Marian reforms, would it have been much different if they'd been pre-Marian legions who'd fought for him in Gaul?

Would the legions have had to have been loyal to both Caesar and (for example but most probably) Pompey as Consuls of the same forces?

No, the legions swore obedience each to their own general. Caesar was Proconsul of both Gauls (Cisalpine and Transalpine). Pompey was sole Consul and as suchs he commanded the legions in Italy. Additionally he was Proconsul of Spain and in that capacity commanded it's legions as well.

[Tarbicus]

No, the legions swore obedience each to their own general. Caesar was Proconsul of both Gauls (Cisalpine and Transalpine). Pompey was sole Consul and as suchs he commanded the legions in Italy. Additionally he was Proconsul of Spain and in that capacity commanded it's legions as well.

What I meant was if the two-consul system had still been in operation, whereby a large force made up of multiple legions would be under the command of two men, not one.

[drsrob]

No, the legions swore obedience each to their own general. Caesar was Proconsul of both Gauls (Cisalpine and Transalpine). Pompey was sole Consul and as suchs he commanded the legions in Italy. Additionally he was Proconsul of Spain and in that capacity commanded it's legions as well.

What I meant was if the two-consul system had still been in operation, whereby a large force made up of multiple legions would be under the command of two men, not one.

Normally each Consul commanded his own army of two legions with allies. When the occasion warranted it they could combine their armies and only on those occasions did they exercise a joint command.