Wars in Rome in the 2nd and 1st Centuries B.C.: Revolts, Massacres, Marius, Mithradate | Early European History And Religion

Home | Category: Roman Republic (509 B.C. to 27 B.C.)

VIOLENCE AND UPHEAVAL IN FIRST CENTURY B.C. ROME

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: For the most part, the early half of the 1st century B.C. “was a period of nearly non-stop violence: a time of civil wars, grueling overseas campaigns, political assassinations, massacres, revolts, conspiracies, mass executions, and social and economic chaos. Even a brief chronology of the times paints a grim picture of devastation, with each decade bearing witness to some new disturbance or uprising. [Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)]

In 100 B.C., riots erupted “in the streets of Rome; two public officials, the tribune L. Appuleius Saturninus and praetor C. Servilius Glaucia, are murdered. 91 B.C. : the so-called Social War (between Rome and her Italian allies) breaks out. No sooner is this bitter struggle ended (88 B.C.) than Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a ruthless politician and renegade army commander, marches on Rome, and an even more convulsive and bloody Civil War begins. 82 B.C. : Sulla becomes dictator. His infamous proscription results in the arrest and execution of more than 4000 leading citizens, including 40 senators. In 71 B.C., Spartacus' massive slave revolt (involving an army of 90,000 former slaves and outlaws) is finally put down by Cassius and Pompey. More than 6000 of the captured rebels are crucified and their bodies left for display along the Appian Way. In 62 B.C. is the defeat and death of Catiline. By this point in his career this former lieutenant of Sulla had become a living plague upon Roman politics and a virtual byword for scandal, intrigue, conspiracy, demagoguery, and vain ambition.

According to the Gale Encyclopedia of World History: Governments: The Roman civil wars comprised a series of battles that occurred between 133 and 31 B.C. and ultimately led to the fall of the Roman Republic. Broadly speaking, these wars pitted senatorial conservatives, who sought to preserve the traditional power of the aristocracy, against populists, who favored redistribution of wealth and land and wished to break the oligarchy of the patrician class. However, Roman politics lacked a mechanism for dealing with opposition peacefully, and thus differences of opinion were typically resolved through violence. [Source: Gale Encyclopedia of World History: Governments, Encyclopedia.com]

Hanna Seariac wrote in the Deseret News: Some have called the two sub-groups that developed the Populares (the people) versus the Optimates (the senate). Enslaved persons and people of lower economic class revolted against intense restrictions, especially agrarian laws. Generals like Marius and Sulla started gathering money and armies to fight during this time. They fought what’s called the Social War, which coincided with Julius Caesar becoming of age to join the army. Caesar was related to Marius and due to Sulla’s victory, experienced political difficulty. [Source: Hanna Seariac, Deseret News, April 22, 2023]

Websites on Ancient Rome: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Rome sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Late Antiquity sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; BBC Ancient Rome bbc.co.uk/history; Perseus Project - Tufts University; perseus.tufts.edu ; Lacus Curtius penelope.uchicago.edu; The Internet Classics Archive classics.mit.edu ; Bryn Mawr Classical Review bmcr.brynmawr.edu; Cambridge Classics External Gateway to Humanities Resources web.archive.org; Ancient Rome resources for students from the Courtenay Middle School Library web.archive.org ; History of ancient Rome OpenCourseWare from the University of Notre Dame web.archive.org ; United Nations of Roma Victrix (UNRV) History unrv.com

Factionalism After the Two Grachi

The troubles under the Gracchi had grown out of the attempts of two patriotic men to reform the inequalities of the state. The shedding of Roman blood had been limited to riots in the city, and to fights between the factions of the different parties. We now come to the time when the political parties seek the aid of the army; when the civil strife becomes in reality a civil war, and the lives of citizens seem of small account compared with the success of this or that political leader. To understand this second phase of the revolution, we must consider what was the condition of Rome after the fall of the Gracchi; how Marius came to the front as the leader of the popular party; and how he was overthrown by Sulla as the leader of the aristocratic party. [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) \~]

After the fall of the Gracchi the rule of the aristocracy was restored, and the government became more corrupt than ever before. The senators were often incompetent, and they had no clearly defined policy. They seemed desirous only to retain power and to enrich themselves, while the real interests of the people were forgotten. The little farms which Tiberius Gracchus had tried to create were again swallowed up in large estates. The provincials were ground down with heavy taxes. The slaves were goaded into insurrection. The sea swarmed with pirates, and the frontiers were threatened by foreign enemies. \~\

death of Gaius Gracchus

David Silverman of Reed College wrote: “The ancient sources see the political situation in the period between the death of Gaius Gracchus and the dictatorship of L. Cornelius Sulla, 120-81 BC. as ever more factionalized, with politicians belonging to one of two parties, optimates or populares. Quote Sallust, Jugurthine War 41-42. For the earlier, pre-Gracchan periods of Roman history we were quick to dismiss overly facile characterizations and labels as retrojection; for this period it becomes much more difficult. For a long time scholars were disposed to accept the characterization of the political scene in its broad outlines, not least because there was a tendency to read the modern concept of a political party back onto antiquity. This changed for ever in 1912 with the publication of M. Gelzer's Die Nobilität der Romischen Republik. Gelzer demonstrated the importance of prosopographical studies to Roman political history by proving that known relationships among members of the aristocracy, relationships (such as defending one another in court) which had been assumed to rest upon ideological kinship and which were taken as evidence for the membership of factions or parties, in fact often rested upon familial ties and intermarriage. [Source: David Silverman, Reed College, Classics 373 ~ History 393 Class ^*^]

“When one gets down into the trenches and begins to try to reconstruct the makeup of the supposed oligarchic/conservative factions and the supposed popular faction, things get very sticky indeed; men who ought to be optimates are found supporting men who ought to be populares and vice-versa, and light only comes with recourse to the prosopographical tables. The view of the Roman nobility which emerges is one of a basically unified class, hostile to the infusion of new blood into its ranks, and committed to the perpetuation of the existing political structures; while the existence of populares and optimates is not to be denied, the extent of the division between them, on the one hand, and the division between the senators and everyone else, on the other hand, must not be lost sight of. In other words, with the exception of a few hot-headed revolutionaries such as the tribune L. Saturninus (103 and 100 BC), every popularis after Tiberius Gracchus should be suspected of less than sincere motives. It is helpful to think of the difference as being one of method rather than ideology; populares work through the popular assembly and are willing to have it legislate, preferably with (but if necessary without) the pre-approval of the Senate. But they are not really democrats. ^*^

“After the death of Gaius Gracchus, the optimate faction held sway, or at least, no new popular leaders leapt forward right away. The Romans were occupied by a wily and rebellious prince named Jugurtha, whose lands fell under Roman oversight as part of their inheritance of the Carthaginian empire. After a series of embassies to negotiate with him came to nothing, a number of members of the nobility fell under suspicion of bribery. Here the cracks in the social structure opened again: the battleground, as repeatedly during the period we are discussing here, was the composition of the courts. In 110 BC the court de rebus repetundis went back to the control of the equites, and that class flexed its muscles by condemning for bribery L. Opimius, the consul of 121 who had been the chief instrument of the violent reaction against Gaius Gracchus.

Jugurtha captured

The trial rekindled some of the smoldering animosities left over from the Gracchan episode. It seems to have gone briefly back into senatorial control in 106, but in 103 the tribune L. Saturninus responded by setting up a "permanent" court with a jury of equites to try cases of treason (lex Appuleia de maiestate). This was directed especially at the generals (Cn. Mallius Maximus and Q. Servilius Caepio) whose inept conduct of the resistance to the hordes of Germans (the Cimbri and Teutones) moving north to south had led to the disastrous and costly defeat at Arausio (Orange) in 106. ^*^

Jugurthine War and the Rise of Marius (111-105 B.C.)

The Jugurthine War (111-105 B.C.) was a war in North Africa. It is of no great interest for us, except that it shows how corrupt Rome was, and that it brought to the front a great soldier, who became for a time the leader of the people. \~\

The war in Africa grew out of the attempt of Jugurtha to make himself king of Numidia, which kingdom we remember was an ally of Rome. The senate sent commissioners to Numidia in order to settle the trouble; but the commissioners sold themselves to Jugurtha as soon as they landed in Africa. The Roman people were incensed, and war was declared against Jugurtha. The conduct of the war was placed in the hands of the consul, L. Calpurnius Bestia, who on arriving in Africa accepted Jugurtha’s gold and made peace. The people were again indignant, and summoned Jugurtha to Rome to testify against the consul. When Jugurtha appeared before the assembly, and was about to make his statement, one of the tribunes, who had also been bought by African gold, put a veto upon the proceedings; so that by the bribery of a tribune it became impossible to punish the bribery of a consul. Jugurtha remained in Rome until he caused one of his rivals to be murdered, when he was banished from the city. He expressed his private opinion of Rome when he called it “a venal city, ready to perish whenever it could find a purchaser.”

“The war in Numidia was continued under the new consul, Q. Caecilius Metellus, who selected as his lieutenant Gaius Marius, a rough soldier who had risen from the ranks, but who had a real genius for war. So great was the success of Marius that he was elected consul, and superseded Metellus in the supreme command of the African army. Marius fulfilled all the expectations of the people; he defeated the enemy, and Jugurtha was made a prisoner. A triumph was given to the conqueror, in which the captive king was led in chains; and Marius became the people’s hero. \~\

Marius

Gaius Marius (157 - 86 B.C.) was a Roman general and statesman. He held the office of consul an unprecedented seven times during his career. He was also noted for his important reforms of Roman armies, authorizing recruitment of landless citizens, eliminating the manipular military formations, and reorganizing the structure of the legions into separate cohorts. Marius defeated the invading Germanic tribes, for which he was called "the third founder of Rome." His life and career were significant in Rome's transformation from Republic to Empire. [Source: Wikipedia]

Peter Stothard wrote in Time magazine: Caesar’s uncle, Gaius Marius, Rome’s first ‘man of the people’ who won election after election, a record seven consulships, by attacking the elitism of his enemies and vaunting his own trustworthiness to the poor and left behind. [Source: Peter Stothard, Time, December 21, 2022]

Marius

David Silverman of Reed College wrote: “The war against Jugurtha, declared in 112 B.C., was conducted in a desultory fashion until the command devolved upon Gaius Marius. He was a new man, a novus homo who however had taken a first step to ennobling himself by marrying into the old patrician clan of the Julians in 111 (his wife was the aunt of Julius Caesar). Marius used the force of his popularity and personality to overcome or undermine the objections of his commander, Q. Caecilius Metellus, and get elected consul. In two other important ways he began to act like a popularis. He got the command in Africa assigned to himself by vote of the popular assembly, usurping the prerogative of the Senate. And he forced the senators to allow him to enrol an army (probably mostly by conscription, as Brunt has argued) from among the proletarii or capite censi, the lowest class. [Source: David Silverman, Reed College, Classics 373 ~ History 393 Class ^*^]

“These soldiers were fanatically loyal to him personally, and that loyalty (together with the manpower shortage occasioned by the shocking losses at Arausio) combined to induce the Senate and the people, contrary to precedent and custom, to allow Gaius Marius, after he brilliantly concluded the campaign against Jugurtha, to be elected consul five years in a row (104-100) until such time as he was able to bring the Germans to battle and end their threat. Marius' main political objective, besides his own prestige, was the acquisition of land for his veterans, whom he proposed to settle on captured territory in Africa, and the extension of citizenship to the Italians of allied status, many of whose men were part of his army. His choice of a politician to further these aims for him, however, was unfortunate. Marius allied himself with the tribune L. Appuleius Saturninus. ^

“In 100 B.C. , when Marius' auctoritas (influence) was at its peak, Saturninus tried to implement a range of Gracchan-style reforms; together with the land for Marius' men (possibly first voted in 103 B.C., when Saturninus was tribune with Norbanus), these included other agrarian distributions as well as a grain law, which included a provision that the senators had to swear to abide by it. This offensive provision sparked a riot, but this time things went differently; some of Marius' veterans supported Saturninus in arms and the measure carried. But some months later a political ally of Saturninus named Cn Servilius Glaucia stood for the consulship of 99; when his opponent Memmius was found murdered, the senate passed the senatus consultum ultimum, and Marius accepted the command to keep the state safe. Having done this duty he retired for a while; the event and the outcome prove that, although his career set some dangerous precedents in terms of the consulship and the personal loyalty of the troops to an individual commander, he was nonetheless committed to law and order and did not aspire to sole power. Was he a popularis or an optimate? ^

Marius Reforms of the Roman Military

Marius reorganized the Roman army so that it was no longer a raw body of citizens arranged according to wealth; but a trained body of soldiers drawn from all classes of society, and devoted to their commander.

Dr Jon Coulston of the University of St. Andrews wrote for the BBC: “Gaius Marius (157 - 86 B.C.) is credited with a number of reforms responsible for formalising trends which had long been developing in the recruitment and organisation of the Roman army. Under Marius, property qualifications for recruitment were relaxed, accelerating the army's evolution from a militia to a professional force of soldiers dependent on the state for equipment and pay. [Source: Dr Jon Coulston, BBC, February 17, 2011 |::|]

“At the same time, Jupiter's eagle became the prime standard of each legion, contributing to the development of these formations as standing institutions. Internally, the legion came increasingly to rely upon the cohort of 480 men, rather than the maniple of paired 'centuries' - a 'maniple' being 120 men. (The cohort continued to be orgainsed as six centuries in three pairs and the titles of their centurions continued in use for hundreds of years.) This battalion-sized formation was much more tactically resilient in the field against western barbarian warbands and eastern cavalry armies the Romans faced during the later republic. |::|

Marius celebration after the Battle of Cimbri

Marius Reaches His Peak After the Cimbric War (113-101 B.C.)

While Marius was absent in Africa, Rome was threatened by a deluge of barbarians from the north. The Cimbri and Teutones, fierce peoples from Germany, had pushed down into the southern part of Gaul, and had overrun the new province of Narbonensis (established B.C. 120). It seemed impossible to stay these savage invaders. Army after army was defeated. It is said that sixty thousand Romans perished in one battle at Arausio (107 B.C.) on the banks of the Rhone. The way seemed open to Italy, and all eyes turned to Marius as the only man who could save Rome. On the same day on which he received his triumph, Marius was reelected to the consulship, and assigned to his new command. This was contrary to law, to reelect an officer immediately after his first term; but the Romans had come to believe that “in the midst of arms, the laws are silent.” [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) \~]

The Cimbri turned aside for a time into Spain. Marius remained patiently on the Rhone, drilling his men and guarding the approaches to the Alps. As the time passed by, the people continued to trust him, and elected him as consul a third, and then a fourth time. At length the barbarians reappeared, ready for the invasion of Italy. One part, the Teutones, prepared to invade Italy from the west; while the other part, the Cimbri, prepared to cross the Alps into the northwestern corner of Italy. Against the Teutones Marius posted his own army; and to meet the Cimbri he dispatched his colleague, Q. Lutatius Catulus. In the battle of Aquae Sextiae he annihilated the host of the Teutones (102 B.C.); and the people elected him a fifth time to the consulship. Soon the Cimbri crossed the Alps and drove Catulus across the Po. Marius joined him, drove back the barbarians, and utterly routed them near Vercellae (101 B.C.). Italy was thus saved. For this twofold victory Rome gave to Marius a magnificent triumph, celebrated with double splendor. He was hailed as the savior of his Country, the second Camillus, and the third Romulus. \~\

Marius was now at the height of his popularity. There had never before been a man in Rome who so far outshone his rivals. As he was a man of the common people, the leaders of the popular party saw that his great name would be a help to their cause. \~\

Marius’s Decline

Marius

The men who aspired to the leadership of the popular party since the death of the Gracchi were Saturninus and Glaucia. To these men Marius now allied himself, and was elected to the consulship for the sixth time. This alliance formed a sort of political “ring,” which professed to rule the state in the interest of the people; but which aroused a storm of opposition on the part of the senators. As in the days of the Gracchi, tumults arose, and the streets of Rome again became stained with blood. The senate called upon Marius, as consul, to put down the insurrection. Marius reluctantly complied; and in the conflict that followed, his colleagues, Saturninus and Glaucia, were killed. Marius now fell into disrepute. Having at first allied himself to the popular leaders and afterward yielded to the senate, he lost the confidence of both parties. In spite of his greatness as a soldier, he proved his utter incapacity as a party leader. He soon retired from Rome in the hope of recovering his popularity, and of coming back when the tide should turn in his favor. \~\

Attempt and Failure of Drusus

With the failure of Marius, and the death of his colleagues, the senate once more recovered the reins of government. But the troubles still continued. A new reformer, the tribune M. Livius Drusus, son of the Drusus who opposed Gaius Gracchus, appeared . He was a well-disposed man, who seemed to believe that all the troubles of the state could be settled by a series of compromises. Of a noble nature, of pure motives, and of generous disposition, he tried to please everybody, and succeeded in pleasing nobody. First, to please the populace, he proposed to increase the largesses of grain; and to make payment easy by introducing a cheap copper coin which should pass for the same value as the previous silver one. Next, to reconcile the senators and the equites, he proposed to select the jurors (iudices) from both classes, thus dividing the power between them. Finally, to meet the demands of the Italians, he proposed to grant them what they asked for, the Roman franchise. \~\

It was one thing to propose these laws; it was quite another thing to pass them. As the last law was the most offensive, he began by uniting the equites and the people for the purpose of passing the first two laws. These were passed against the will of the senate, and amid scenes of great violence. The senate declared the laws of Drusus null and void. Disregarding this act of the senate as having no legal force, he then proposed to submit to the assembly the law granting the franchise to the Italians. But this law was as offensive to the people as the others had been to the senate. Denounced by the senate as a traitor and abandoned by the people, this large-hearted and unpractical reformer was at last murdered by an unknown assassin; and all his efforts came to nothing. \~\

Drusus

David Silverman of Reed College wrote: “Drusus is typical of the politicians of this period in as much as he is hard to label. He won the confidence of the people with popular measures such as land allotments and corn laws; but he also revamped the Quaestio perpetua de rebus repetundis, which while composed entirely of equestrians had angered the Senate by condemning and exiling the noble and innocent P. Rutilius Rufus. Drusus reformed the court such that both senators and equestrians were represented among the jurors (Livy Per. 71 over Appian BC 1.5.35, which says Drusus wanted to completely restore the courts to senatorial control). [Source: David Silverman, Reed College, Classics 373 ~ History 393 Class ^*^]

“His main claim to fame was his proposal, in the tradition of Gaius Gracchus, to extend the franchise to all of the Italians. Again, while this looks like a populist measure, it is worth remembering that Drusus' motive may have been less ideological than personal and political. The system of clientela, while arguably somewhat weakened by the rise of the political "parties", nonetheless continued to function. If Drusus succeeded in winning citizenship for all of the Italians and enrolling them in the tribes in such a way that the full weight of their numbers would be felt in the voting, then he could hope to count on them as his clients to support whatever position he chose. In other words, Drusus may have seen that citizenship for the Italians was coming and moved to ensure that the vast base of potential new clients would be loyal to him personally. Whatever his motives, the prospect was too frightening to too many; the measures of Drusus were annulled on a technicality, and he soon met the same fate as the brothers Gracchi had, assassinated in 91". ^*^

Revolt of the Italian Allies (90 B.C.)

As the 1st century B.C. began, Rome’s Italian allies were clamoring for their rights, and threatening war if their demands were not granted. We remember that when Rome had conquered Italy, she did not give the Italian people the rights of citizenship. They were made subject allies, but received no share in the government. The Italian allies had furnished soldiers for the Roman armies, and had helped to make Rome the mistress of the Mediterranean. They believed, therefore, that they were entitled to all the rights of Roman citizens; and some of the patriotic leaders of Rome believed so too. But it seemed as difficult to break down the distinction between Romans and Italians as it had been many years before to remove the barriers between the patricians and the plebeians. [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) \~]

The death of Drusus drove the Italians to revolt. The war which followed is known in history as the “social war,” or the war of the allies (socii). It was, in fact, a war of secession. The purpose of the allies was now, not to obtain the Roman franchise, but to create a new Italian nation, where all might be equal. They accordingly organized a new republic with the central government at Corfinium, a town in the Apennines. The new state was modeled after the government at Rome, with a senate of five hundred members, two consuls, and other magistrates. Nearly all the peoples of central and southern Italy joined in this revolt. \~\

Rome was now threatened with destruction, not by a foreign enemy like the Cimbri and Teutones, but by her own subjects. The spirit of patriotism revived; and the parties ceased for a brief time from their quarrels. Even Marius returned to serve as a legate in the Roman army. A hundred thousand men took the field against an equal number raised by the allies. In the first year the war was unfavorable to Rome.

Social Wars (91-88 B.C.)

image on a coins from the Social Wars period

In 89 B.C. new preparations were made and new commanders were appointed: Marius, on account of his age, was not continued in his command; while L. Cornelius Sulla, who was once a subordinate of Marius, was made chief commander in Campania. Marius felt deeply this slight, and began to be envious of his younger rival. The great credit of bringing this war to a close was due to Pompeius Strabo (the father of Pompey the Great) and Sulla. The first Italian capital, Corfinium, was taken by Pompeius; and the second capital, Bovianum, was captured by Sulla (88 B.C.). The social war was thus ended; but it had been a great affliction to Italy. It is roughly estimated that three hundred thousand men, Romans and Italians, lost their lives in this struggle. The compensation of this loss was the incorporation of Italy with Rome. [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) \~]

The Social Wars have their origin in the measures proposed by Drusus. The Italians, having had their hopes raised by the successes of the tribune Drusus, refused to give up. David Silverman of Reed College wrote: “ So in 91 BC began the Social War; as Scullard points out, the name is in some sense a misnomer, since most of the privileged allies (the socii ) remained loyal or at least neutral. There is some debate about why the Italians were willing to press the matter to the point of war. In the annalistic tradition, as we have seen, their desire for enfranchisement gets retrojected to various high points in the history of the peninsula. But was it really citizenship they were after? [Source: David Silverman, Reed College, Classics 373 ~ History 393 Class ^*^]

“As far as the common people were concerned, even with citizenship they would have little chance to vote (as no votes could be cast en absentia, but physical presence in Rome was required) and even less to join the ruling class. The local aristocracy, on the other hand, could easily cope with the journey to the city, and might also hope for a share of the real pie, membership in the Senate and the chance to climb the cursus honorum. It is tempting to think that the impetus for the Social War came from the local aristocracies rather than from the rank and file. In any case the Social War was a conflict on a grand scale, with 100,000 men in arms against Rome. Its object was not to obliterate Rome but to reinvent the political landscape of Italy, to form a new state called Italia in which the position of Rome would be as equal of other large cities. ^*^

“The end of the social war was hastened by a concession embodied in the Lex Iulia, propogated by the consul of 90 BC, L. Iulius Caesar. The law offered the desired citizenship to all Italians (except the inhabitants of Cisalpine Gaul) who ceased hostilities immediately; possibly a separate law also allowed those individuals whose cities remained at war with Rome to gain citizenship on a separate basis ( Lex Papiria-Plautia ). The question is why any of the Italians would have continued to fight after the passage of the Lex Iulia. Possible answers: (a) the law merely restored the status quo ante bellum, whereas the objective of a new nation of Italia without Rome at its head was not met, or (b) the law stipulated that the new citizens could be enrolled only in two (or eight or ten) newly created tribes, which would limit the extent to which the weight of their numbers would be felt in the voting. If (b) is correct, as Salmon believes following Appian BC 1.49, then dissatisfaction over the half-measure explains the continuation of the fighting after its passage.” ^*^

Social Wars: An Effort to Gain Roman Citizenship

coin from the Social Wars period

Resentment grew among the conquered peoples. Many felt they were shouldering responsibilities, such as military service, without receiving their fair share of privileges. In the 1st century B.C. began, some of Rome’s Italian allies began clamoring for more rights, and threatening war if their demands were not granted. We remember that when Rome had conquered Italy, she did not give the Italian people the rights of citizenship. They were made subject allies, but received no share in the government. The Italian allies had furnished soldiers for the Roman armies, and had helped to make Rome the mistress of the Mediterranean. They believed, therefore, that they were entitled to all the rights of Roman citizens; and some of the patriotic leaders of Rome believed so too. But it seemed as difficult to break down the distinction between Romans and Italians as it had been many years before to remove the barriers between the patricians and the plebeians. [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) \~]

The situation came to a head with the Social War of the first-century B.C., a series of revolts against Roman rule in central Italy. The death of Marcus Livius Drusus (before 122 BC – 91 B.C.), a Roman politician and reformer drove the Italians to revolt. The “social war,” or the war of the allies (socii). It was, in fact, a war of secession. The purpose of the allies was now, not to obtain the Roman franchise, but to create a new Italian nation, where all might be equal. They accordingly organized a new republic with the central government at Corfinium, a town in the Apennines. The new state was modeled after the government at Rome, with a senate of five hundred members, two consuls, and other magistrates. Nearly all the peoples of central and southern Italy joined in this revolt. Rome was now threatened with destruction, not by a foreign enemy like the Cimbri and Teutones, but by her own subjects. The spirit of patriotism revived; and the parties ceased for a brief time from their quarrels. Even Marius returned to serve as a legate in the Roman army. A hundred thousand men took the field against an equal number raised by the allies. In the first year the war was unfavorable to Rome. \~\

In order to quell the revolt, laws were passed to grant citizenship to all those who opposed the revolt, or to rebels who were willing to lay down arms. The gesture was regarded as a success: The revolt was successfully terminated soon after. Although Rome was victorious in the field, the Italians obtained what they had demanded before the war began, that is, the rights of Roman citizenship. The Romans granted the franchise (1) to all Latins and Italians who had remained loyal during the war (lex Iulia, B.C. 90); and (2) to every Italian who should be enrolled by the praetor within sixty days of the passage of the law (lex Plautia Papiria, B.C. 89). Every person to whom these provisions applied was now a Roman citizen. The policy of incorporation, which had been discontinued for so long a time, was thus revived. The distinction between Romans, Latins, and Italians was now broken down, at least so far as the Italian peninsula was concerned. The greater part of Italy was joined to the ager Romanus, and Italy and Rome became practically one nation. \~\

Benjamin Leonard wrote in Archaeology magazine: Some time around 89 B.C. — the exact year is debated — Roman forces led by the general Lucius Cornelius Sulla laid siege to the city of Pompeii, likely in response to its residents’ agitation for full Roman citizenship. The walls on the city’s north side, where fortifications were particularly weak, still bear the impact marks of projectiles fired by the attacking Romans. In a number of areas inside the city walls, archaeologists have found catapult balls, small lead slingshot bullets, and machine-launched arrows known as scorpio bolts, all fired during the siege. “I don’t think anyone at the time was under any illusions that sustained bombardment would actually bring down the walls,” says archaeologist Ivo Van der Graaff of the University of New Hampshire. “It looks like one of the Romans’ tactics was to just fire munitions into the city to cause damage and, perhaps, lower morale.” [Source: Benjamin Leonard, Archaeology magazine, May-June 2020]

After of the Social Wars

The Enfranchisement of Italy: Although Rome was victorious in the field, the Italians obtained what they had demanded before the war began, that is, the rights of Roman citizenship. The Romans granted the franchise (1) to all Latins and Italians who had remained loyal during the war (lex Iulia, B.C. 90); and (2) to every Italian who should be enrolled by the praetor within sixty days of the passage of the law (lex Plautia Papiria, B.C. 89). Every person to whom these provisions applied was now a Roman citizen. The policy of incorporation, which had been discontinued for so long a time, was thus revived. The distinction between Romans, Latins, and Italians was now broken down, at least so far as the Italian peninsula was concerned. The greater part of Italy was joined to the ager Romanus, and Italy and Rome became practically one nation. \~

coin from the Social Wars period

The Elevation of Sulla: Another result of the social war, which had a great effect upon the destinies of Rome, was the rise of Sulla. War was not a new occupation for Sulla. In the campaign against Jugurtha he had served as a lieutenant of Marius. In the Cimbric war he had displayed great courage and ability. And now he had become the most conspicuous commander in the Italian war. As a result of his brilliant exploits, he was elected to the consulship. The senate also recognized him as the ablest general of the time, when it now appointed him to conduct the war in the East against the great enemy of Rome, Mithridates, king of Pontus. \~\

“The Jealousy of Marius: Marius had watched with envy the growing fame of Sulla. Although old enough to retire from active life, he was mortified in not receiving the command of the Eastern army. When Sulla was now appointed to this command, Marius determined if possible to displace him, or to satisfy his revenge in some other way. From this time Marius, who once seemed to possess the elements of greatness, appears to us as a vindictive and foolish old man, deprived of reason and the sense of honor. To prove that he had not lost the vigor of youth, it is said that he used to appear in the Campus Martius and exercise with the young soldiers in wrestling and boxing. The chief motive which now seemed to influence him was the hatred of Sulla and the Sullan party. [Source: “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) \~]

Marius rejoins the Popular Party: To regain his influence with the people Marius once more entered politics, and joined himself to the popular leaders. The most prominent of these leaders was now the tribune P. Sulpicius Rufus. With the aid of this politician, Marius hoped to win back the favor of the people, to weaken the influence of the senate, which had supported Sulla, and then to displace Sulla himself. This programme was set forth in what are called the “Sulpician laws” (88 B.C.). By the aid of an armed force these laws were passed, and two messengers were sent to Sulla to command him to turn over his army to Marius. To displace a commander legally appointed by the senate was an act unheard of, even in this period of revolution. \~\

Marius in exile in Carthage

Sulla appeals to the Army: If Marius and Sulpicius supposed that Sulla would calmly submit to such an outrage, they mistook his character. Sulla had not yet left Italy. His legions were still encamped in Campania. He appealed to them to support the honor and authority of their commander. They responded to his appeal, and Sulla at the head of his troops marched to Rome. For the first time the Roman legions fought in the streets of the capital, and a question of politics was settled by the army. Marius and Sulpicius were driven from the city, and Sulla for the time being was supreme. He called together the senate, and caused the leaders of the popular party to be declared outlaws. He then annulled the laws passed by Sulpicius, and gave the senate the power hereafter to approve or reject all laws before they should be submitted to the people. With the army at his back Sulla could do what he pleased. When he had placed the government securely in the hands of the senate, as he thought, he left Rome for the purpose of conducting the war against Mithridates in the East. \~\

The Flight of Marius: Marius was now an exile, a fugitive from the country which he had once saved. The pathetic story of his flight and wanderings is graphically told by Plutarch. He says that Marius set sail from Ostia, and was forced by a storm to land at Circeii, where he wandered about in hunger and great suffering; that his courage was kept up by remembering that when a boy he had found an eagle’s nest with seven young in it, which a soothsayer had interpreted as meaning that he would be consul seven times; that he was again taken on board a vessel and landed at Minturnae, where he was captured and condemned to death; that the slave who was ordered to kill him dropped his sword as he heard the stern voice of his intended victim shouting, “Man, darest thou kill Gaius Marius?” that he was then released and wandered to Sicily, and then to Africa, where, a fallen hero, he sat amid the ruins of Carthage; that at last he found a safe retreat in a little island off the African coast, and waited for vengeance and the time of his seventh consulship. \~\

Mithradates

Mithradates I on a Greek frachma

While all this was going on, Mithridates (reigned 120 to 63 B.C.), the king of Pontus, had extended his power over a large part of Asia Minor. He had overrun the Roman province of Asia. He had induced the Greek cities on the coast, which had been brought under the Roman power, to revolt and join his cause. He had massacred over eighty thousand Italians living on the Asiatic coast. He had also sent his armies into Greece and Macedonia, and many of the cities there, including Athens, had declared in his favor. The Roman power in the East seemed well-nigh broken. \~\

The historian William Stearns Davis wrote: In Mithridates, “the Romans found their most formidable enemy, save only Hannibal. That he was a foe worthy to contend with Sulla, Lucullus, and Pompey is testified to in the following selection from Appian. In conquering Mithridates the Romans, almost against their wish, were forced to conquer most of the nearer Orient---especially all of Asia Minor and Syria---and to come face to face with Parthia. When at last Mithridates had been overthrown the Romans called the victory over him "The Great Victory" and Pompey, his conqueror, Magnus, or "The Great" - on account of the magnitude and intensity of his achievement.” [Source:William Stearns Davis, ed., “Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources,” 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, pp. 118-120, 123-127

David Silverman of Reed College wrote: ““Mithradates, the King of Pontus, had been quietly building his power through the 100s and 90s. In 104 he had attracted attention by seizing Cappadocia, a Roman client. But at this early stage Mithradates was being careful to avoid a confrontation with Rome, and when Sulla concluded an alliance with Parthia (the mighty Sassanian Empire) Mithradates had to be content with relinquishing Cappadocia. But he bided his time. In 90 Mithradates seized upon the Roman distraction at home and captured Cilicia. Rome mounted a feeble counter through her client-king Nicomedes of Bithynia, erstwhile ally of Mithradates and alleged sponsor of the career of one C. Julius Caesar. After crushing Nicomedes' troops, Mithradates soon found himself lord of all Asia Minor. He promptly followed up his success in 88 by encouraging the unhappy people of the province to massacre all the Romans and Italians they could get their hands on. The final toll may have been as high as 80,000 dead. [Source: David Silverman, Reed College, Classics 373 ~ History 393 Class ^*^]

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Rome sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Late Antiquity sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; “Outlines of Roman History” by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, American Book Company (1901) ; “The Private Life of the Romans” by Harold Whetstone Johnston, Revised by Mary Johnston, Scott, Foresman and Company (1903, 1932); BBC Ancient Rome bbc.co.uk/history/ ; Project Gutenberg gutenberg.org ; Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Live Science, Discover magazine, Archaeology magazine, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, AFP, The New Yorker, Wikipedia, Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia.com and various other books, websites and publications.

Last updated October 2024