From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (7 page)

A more pressing source of discontent and danger nearer home was the festering sore of Rome’s relations with her allies in Italy. This became so inflamed that it poisoned the whole political system, and Rome’s failure to tackle the problem finally threatened to split Italy into two in the Social War of 90 B.C. In view of its importance, it is necessary to see how the Italian Confederacy stood in 133 B.C. after several centuries of development. Regarded in detail, a political map of Italy at this time resembles a complex mosaic pattern, but all its inhabitants fall into one of two categories, Roman citizens or allies, sharply differentiated groups which might interlock territorially but not politically.

The Roman citizens comprised several sections. These were: (
a
) ordinary citizens in Rome itself; (
b
) cities on which Rome had conferred full Roman
citizenship (e.g. Tusculum, perhaps in 381); the inhabitants continued to live in their own cities which enjoyed administrative autonomy; these
oppida civium Romanorum
later became known as
pro municipiis
or
municipia,
which originally meant something different; (
c
)
municipia civium Romanorum;
in origin these were strictly
cives sine suffragio,
who had received some of the rights and duties of Roman citizenship without all its privileges (this device of ‘half-citizenship’ proved a very valuable training in civic responsibility for some of the more backward peoples of Italy); they were gradually raised to the status of full citizenship so that by 133 the class of half-citizens had virtually disappeared, and the two sorts of
municipia
differed only in their origin and history. For their local administration these
municipia
had a council, a popular assembly and magistrates whose titles varied greatly according to their origins (aediles, praetors or
octoviri
); (
d
) some 27 colonies of Roman citizens, which were established from the mid-fourth century to 177 B.C. normally on the coast. The colonists, who usually numbered only 300, retained their Roman citizenship, including their right to vote, though they could exercise this only in Rome itself. In early times they were excused from normal military service in return for garrison duty, their purpose being to protect the coast from sudden raids. From 183 B.C. some larger citizen colonies were founded inland in N. Italy. These approximated more closely to the Latin colonies (on which see below), but the Roman colonies, unlike the Latin, were not true
respublicae,
though very gradually they acquired a municipal character; (
e
) members of small rural centres,
fora
and
conciliabula civium Romanorum
.

Rome’s allies consisted of two groups: the more privileged
socii nominis Latini
and the rest of the
civitates foederatae
. The Latins comprised (
a
) some original Latin towns as Tibur and Praeneste, whose status was established when the Latin League was dissolved in 338 B.C.; (
b
) some early Latin colonies (e.g. Signia, Norba, Ardea) which were joint foundations of Rome and the Latin League before 340; (
c
) the much larger number of Latin colonies founded by Rome after the dissolution of the Latin League. Most of the colonists were Romans who gave up their citizenship in return for land in the colony. The colonies were normally larger than the Roman colonies (e.g. 3000–6000 men) and over forty of them had been founded before 180 B.C.; then the process ceased, partly because by then Roman citizens were unwilling to lose their citizenship by entering a new community. It was no doubt because they were composed so largely of ex-Roman citizens that they enjoyed so many privileges. These included (i) rights of
connubium
and
commercium
with Romans and presumably also, at this time, with each other; (ii)
ius migrandi
: by going to live at Rome and registering himself in the Roman census, a Latin could obtain Roman citizenship, provided he had left a son behind him at home. This process was unpopular with the Latin cities, who
did not wish to become depopulated, and the right gradually disappeared. It was replaced sometime in the second century by the
ius adipiscendi civitatem Romanam per magistratum
, i.e. by holding local office in a Latin colony; thus a small body of Roman citizens would now form a nucleus of the governing class of the colony, while the principle was changed, since Roman citizenship could now be obtained without domicile at Rome; (iii)
ius suffragii ferendi
: any Latins who happened to be in Rome could vote in a tribe which was chosen by lot in the Comitia Tributa. As independent states the Latins were not subject to tax or tribute, but as Rome’s allies they had to supply a quota of troops to fight alongside the Roman legions. Each colony had its own constitution with council and popular assembly, its own laws and magistrates (often called praetors or
duoviri
, though other titles are found), its own jurisdiction, census and coinage.

The rest of the allies were bound to Rome by treaties (
foedera
) which might be either
aequa
or
iniqua
; the latter may on occasion have bade the allies ‘imperium maiestatemque populi Romani comiter conservanto’. The conditions would vary in accordance with the circumstances in which the state had first come into permanent relationship with Rome. The chief obligation of the allies, who like the more privileged Latins paid no tribute, was to supply troops when required.
^16a
They retained the rights of sovereign states when these did not clash with the supremacy of Rome. A large proportion of the cities of Etruria and of Italy south of Naples were in this legal position.

During the first half of the second century Rome’s relations with her allies deteriorated.
¹⁷
The Senate did not maliciously begin to intervene in their internal affairs, but unless Rome adopted a totally new policy, her growing centralized power would inevitably tilt the balance against them: Roman control (as exemplified in the suppression of the Bacchic conspiracy) would gradually overshadow the local authorities until at length they became part of the machinery worked by the central government. Further, the degree of tact shown by the Senate or individual Roman magistrates varied on occasion: the way in which L. Postumius, consul in 173, abused his
imperium
by making outrageous demands on Praeneste when he was visiting the town, became a notorious scandal. Again in 177 the allies did not get their fair share of warbooty, which hitherto had been divided equitably between Romans and Latins, while some harsh aspects of Roman military law had been modified by some
Leges Porciae
in respect of Roman citizens only and not the Latins. Further, economic conditions began to make life more difficult for many of the allies. Thus numbers of them began to desire Roman citizenship either for its positive benefits or for the protection against oppression that it would confer, while others later began to consider the possibility of breaking away from Rome altogether.

Many Italians and Romans alike were suffering from changing economic conditions. The changes arose partly from the upheaval caused by the Hannibalic War, but chiefly from the influx of wealth from the provinces: this upset the older economy which was based on the peasant farmers who also formed the main bulk of the Roman army. Hannibal’s invasion of Italy had caused widespread devastation so that in some parts of Italy farms and land were neglected and abandoned, but hard work would have restored this deterioration if it had not been accompanied by other difficulties. One complication that faced the small independent farmer who was still trying to make both ends meet was that more corn was being imported into Italy from the provinces, especially Sicily and Sardinia. This competition from abroad is often alleged to have ruined Italian farmers, but until 167 and perhaps until 146 most of this foreign corn was used by the Roman armies fighting overseas and did not reach the home market.
¹⁹
By the time of the Gracchi, however, the pinch may have been felt by many farmers in the relatively limited area around Rome which had hitherto supplied the capital with corn and around some of the coastal towns (transport by sea was cheap, by land extremely dear); Italy as a whole was less affected. Further, conscription fell heavily upon the peasant when overseas wars demanded long periods of service: the rich could ensure that their farms were looked after during their absence, but the poorer man might often return to a ruined homestead.

Two other factors depressed the small farmer’s prospects still further: wealth and slaves. War and provincial administration filled the pockets of senators and Equites, who often returned to Italy and looked around for safe investments. Land attracted most of their capital and it so happened that as a result of the Hannibalic War the State had much
ager publicus
of which to dispose: when unable to attract the peasant-farmer back to it, the State was ready to lease it out in large assignments to anyone who had the capital and vision to undertake the venture. Thus a slow revolution took place: land now became an object of speculation to be exploited as a regular source of profit. The owner might no longer live on his estate or take any personal interest in it, but would entrust its management to a steward (
vilicus
) while he himself joined the ranks of the aristocracy in Rome or some other city. At the same time the foreign wars had flooded the Italian slave-markets, so that servile labour, being abundant, began to oust free labour on the bigger estates. In many parts of Italy, especially in Etruria and the South, peasant husbandry, devoted to arable farming and cereal cultivation, gave place to a capitalist system of large estates (
latifundia
) worked by slaves and given over to pasturage and stock-rearing or to the cultivation of the vine and olive. Mixed farming
could be quite profitable in Campania and Latium, and Cato in his handbook
De Agri Cultura
wrote for men, senatorial nobles or others, who would invest in a mixed estate of 100–300
iugera
(66–200 acres), worked by slaves and with grazing on public land. These mixed farms could supply the towns with oil, wine, fruit, vegetables, meat and wool; together with the larger ranches, they might in fact represent the best use to which the land could be put in some parts of Italy. But few of the small farmers would have the capital or skill to switch over from corn-growing to other forms of production.
²⁰
The result was therefore disastrous: free men began to abandon their land to the larger proprietors. Forced off the land, some were absorbed by commercial enterprise abroad, since the number of Italians trading in the eastern Mediterranean greatly increased; some may have moved northwards to the Po valley, but most drifted to Rome and the other cities. Since no new industries were developed to absorb their labour and since the number of slaves was increasing in the cities as well as in the country, they soon became a useless mass of unemployed, whose presence would lead to social and political unrest.

A symptom of this economic decline is seen in the surviving census figures, which probably represent all adult male Roman citizens. After the great losses in man-power during the Hannibalic War, the figures steadily rose until 164 B.C., but thereafter they declined with equal regularity and had dropped by nearly 20,000 in 136 B.C. Nor was the fall in the population confined to the Romans themselves. The Latin authorities had on occasion to try to counter the drift of their population to Rome, while all the Italians found it increasingly difficult to meet the military demands of Rome. Both Appian and Plutarch stress the plight of the Italians at this time.

The development of the
latifundia
was accelerated not only by the plight of the small farmer, who was compelled to abandon his land, but also by the way in which the State had disposed of the public domain in the past. The
ager publicus populi Romani
was the land that Rome had acquired during her expansion in Italy: after a victorious war she normally confiscated about a third of the enemy’s territory, leaving him in possession of the rest. This
ager publicus
had been used in various ways: for founding colonies, for distribution in allotments to individual Roman citizens, while some had been sold. The rest was leased out by the censors. The more fertile districts, as the
ager Campanus
in Campania, brought in a good revenue to the State, but large tracts were poor ground and the censors in Rome lacked an adequate staff to deal with this in a careful manner. In fact any Roman citizens (and, if there was enough land available, probably Italian allies as well) could occupy this land as squatters (
possessores
) in return for payment of a rent (
vectigal
): this was a poll-tax for graziers, but a fluctuating amount for others (a tithe on ploughland, and a fifth on vineyards and orchards). But to have enforced strict payment clearly
would have involved creating a large fiscal machine which would not have justified itself financially. Instead, the rent was often overlooked and the squatters came to regard the land as their own, which they might even bequeath to their children.

There was, however, one proviso: the amount of
ager publicus
that any individual could hold was limited by law. This limitation had probably been imposed in 367 B.C., and two hundred years later the maximum amount that anyone could hold (Cato refers to it in a speech of 167 B.C.,) was 500
iugera
(some 300 acres). But in practice this limitation had often been disregarded, and the State had turned a blind eye, partly perhaps because the senators themselves, as large landowners, would benefit, and partly because it was better that the land should be occupied rather than remain idle, while the rich would be able to develop it to better purpose. Thus the growth of large estates had gone on apace, though in so far as many men held public land in excess of the legal limit, it was always possible strictly to enforce the law and reclaim the excess land for the
populus Romanus
, its legal owners.
²¹