Roman Society and Law in the mid 3rd Cent., B.C.; the War with Pyrrhus

More on the XII Tables and on the Roman Constitution. Alternative and RC docc. 23-30, esp .27

1. Some general observations on unification and constitution.
   1. Many of the laws that mark different stages of the 'Struggle of the Orders' had to be passed several times. The repetition indicates that the goals of the plebeians were consistent and that they did achieve successes, but also that the implementation could also be frustrated by a united oligarchy..
   2. The most important principle embodied in Table XII and in the Lex Hortensia (287) is that sovereignty is derived from the people, that all must conform to law.
   3. Society and the XII Tables Conclusions:
      1. The Tables reveal a society that is primarily agrarian, note how little is said about commerce or crafts.
      2. The tables do not give a vision of justice, but rather provide procedural means to obtain justice.
      3. Note the pervasiveness of the familia in the discussions, the rights of agnates and of clansmen.
      4. There is no distinction between sacral and secular law.
   4. The issues of the struggle are two:
      1. Access of plebeians to public office (primarily a demand of the wealthy and ambitious plebeians).
      2. Protection from the arbitrary actions of magistrates, that there be appeal to the people in all capital cases and that there be written law.
   5. Through the struggle and the unification of Central Italy Roman society demonstrated that it was open to penetration, both horizontal and verticle (from outside and below). In this respect Rome was radically different from all her competitors both in Italy and in the Mediterranean.
   6. The creation of a new oligarchy (the nobility) provided Rome with an effective and sufficiently permaneable, and sustainable corps of leaders. As long as the values of consultation and consensus were respected, Rome was relatively immune from the dangers of internal dissent.
2. The Western Mediterranean World in the late 5th/early 4th centuries (ca 350-285 BCE)
   1. Italy: by 280, the Romans controlled all of central Italy both directly and indirectly. Esp. to the south, the construction of the Via Appia and the foundation of the colony of Venusia anchored the Roman position. A confrontation with the Greek cities of Southern Italy, especially Tarentum, loomed.
   2. Spain (language diversity) and Gaul.
   3. North Africa from Tunis to the West.
3. The Eastern Mediterranean
   1. The Balkans. Piracy in the Adriatic.
   2. The eastern Mediterranean ruled by number of Macedonian dynasties, by kings who owed their positions to the fact that the founding member had been one of Alexander's generals.
      1. Greece and Macedonia: classical city states dominated by Macedonia.
      2. Anatolia. The coastal areas were either Greek or heavily influenced by Greek culture. A melange of states with different structures
      3. "Greater Syria" with a ruling elite consisting primarily of Macedonians, Greeks and some Hellenized Syrians occupies a precarious position between the major powers in Iran (to the East) and the rival Macedonian kingdom of Egypt (in the southwest), and contended with minor kingdoms like Pergamum and Judaea.
      4. Egypt. The Macedonian family of the Ptolemies controls and rules; supported by a large number of Greek immigrants especially to Alexandria.
   3. All these states of the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa faced the same problem in that the ruling elite consisted of foreign conquerors.
   4. Warfare: Enemies of Rome.
4. Pyrrhus
   1. Background
      1. Roman wars with Samnites one, two, three. Pastoral vs urban. Samnites pushed by Kelts; expansion south. The Greek cities in southern Italy, esp. Tarentum were affected by these movements. Overlapping spheres of influence between Greeks, Samnites and Greek cities led to a minor confrontation at Tarentum and then to escalation.
      2. Anticipating further war with Rome, the Tarantines summoned Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus (Albania) and one of the most highly regarded Hellenistic generals, to assist them.
   2. The War (see textbook for the details). The campaigns. More detail.
      1. Heraclea (280).  Elephants. The battle.   A vase with elephant representation. Fabricius and Pyrrhus
      2. Ausculum (279): 45,000 on each side(!!!). The Pyrrhic victory. Pyrrhus does go off seeking adventure in Sicily; Rome extends her control deeper in Samnium.
      3. Maleventum (276). Decisive Roman victory and two Roman armies converge on Pyrrhus. Forced to withdraw and in 272 abandons southern Italy to the Romans.
   3. Significance:
      1. In terms of military considerations, Rome's strength, both in manpower and in technique, had been challenged and dramatically confirmed. Her position in Italy is secure.
      2. Rome's allies in Central Italy, when given the opportunity to abandon Rome, had remained loyal. Those further away were reconciled. Her policies of inclusion (verticle and horizontal) and managing a common defense were validated.
      3. Rome assumed new responsibilities to protect the Greek cities of southern Italy, to deal with the restless Kelts and Samnites.
5. Carthage (founded by Tyre) ; landscape ; overview of site ; the harbor and arsenal
   1. A commercial power (note her concern for trade in the treaties of RC § 13). Between 600 and 300 she had come to dominate the Phoenician colonies on the north coast of Africa and prevented the Greeks from expanding into the western Mediterranean. Control points especially at Malta and the western end of Sicily.
   2. Income:
      1. successful and scientific farming of Baradas valley
      2. textile manufacture and purple dying
      3. revenues from commerce. rarely penetrates interior, but effective exploitation of particular spheres. Interest esp in metals, tin and gold, as well as ivory from Atlantic coast of Africa
      4. tribute from Punic and Berber vassals (who gained peace).
   3. Military
      1. Citizens served in fleet which was efficient and extensive.
      2. army: mercenary armies (a common practice in Hellenistic world) recruited throughout Mediterranean, but led by a professional and hereditary Carthaginan officer corps (among them, the Barcids).
      3. Its potential undermined because the home government was suspicious of the intentions of army commanders and systematically failed to provide for pay and benefits.
   4. Government
      1. Like that of Rome, noted (so Aristotle) for its stability. Like Rome an oligarchy, but this one of wealthy merchants. An annually elected double magistracy that did not lead army.
      2. Policy: limited territorial aspirations; avoided annexation, preferring vassal / client kings. Cautious; use of diplomacy and treaty to achieve ends. Tenacious when she perceived her interests at stake. Did not allow verticle or horizontal penetration.
6. Up until this time, Roman attention had been focused primarily on security in Central Italy; inevitably this also meant representing the urbanized parts of Italy against the Italic tribes. over the next few lectures, her horizon will expand dramatically and almost inexpicably beyond Italy. How are we to explain this phenomenon?

For a game, try Age of Empires: the rise of Rome