Parrish Wright and Nic Terrenato – Italian descent in mid republican Roman magistrates: the flip side of conquest
Consular Lists – unparalleled as evidence in of history, although just names, no other data
Importance of Munzer work: grew out of writing individual RE entries and recognition of patterns. Not Parties, but Factions. Parties have opposing goals, Factions have the same goal = Power
Foreign Princes who become Roman Citizens important chapter
Research Question: How big was the influx of new families and where did they come from?
Two historical processes: horizonal mobility vs. vertical mobility, integration of outside elite vs. rising status of Roman
Mouritsen work building on Broughton (look up!)
Graph of number of consulships by gens
Chart with five catagories: Established, Pre-376 Horizontal, Horizontal, Vertical and Unknown
Reproduction as Bourdin 2012 chart on origins of patrician families: local cultural discourse on the openness of Roman society
Ambiguities between Established andPre-376 Horizontal, cf. Mamilii and Licinii Etruscan epigraphic evidence
Horizontal category nearly all from Latium, exception Ogulnii Etruria
Vertical movement less common than Horizontal movement, but Established still have far and away the most consulships (great chart!)
Ogulnian and Licinian laws should be thought about in light of their familial origins outside Rome and an interest in Roman openness.
Cornell: Schultz very speculative on Etruscan origins
Lomas: Etruscan epigraph has depth for families that have actual Etruscan noble origins
Peralta: Some families
Bernard: Important chestnut the lack of vertical mobility at consular level, speculates that more may be their at lower magistracies
Smith: no data on failure: laws allow but system blocks, lets look at other things like priesthoods too… Uncomfortable with XY axis
Terranto: not a tension between old and new money (old land vs new cash), but a tension about how new expanding state will be run
Christopher Smith on “Becoming Political”
Oakley on Livy very comforting us by erasing doubt, but many scholars still harbor doubts and see retrojection in the fasti
Under statements about disagreements about archaic Rome and how to reconstruct, some would have long dark fifth and long bright third with a negligibly short 4th century.
Twelve Tables: Humbert and Corsi moving us beyond Watson
Frier summarizing Watson in book review: “…449 BCE… a grim world…crude code…little innovation…restricting vision to private law…”
Highly substractional process to find a ‘original text’
Humbert and Corsi: the XII put the Magistrates under rules, under whose power is the magistrate put? The Populus?!
de capite civis iniussu populi ne roganto (Pomponius)
de capite civis, nisi per maximus comitiatum ne ferunto (Cicero)
Side step to Greek world, following Emily Mackil in Ando and Richardson ed. vol.: the juridical formulation of property is required for establishment of state, quoted: “The concern for property….lend the state autonomous power” Mackil is working primarily with reference to Gortyn Code
Praises Mignone’s work on lex Acilia, how did the plebiscite work?
Leave Locke aside, property NOT natural, but created contested category.
References how this intersects with Bernhard on 3rd Century Debt
commercium: Humbert and Corsi don’t take on Roselaar’s 2012 and 2013 articles on this as conubium.
Livy 8.14.10. – does this miss describe relationship by reading Latin colony rights onto an earlier period?
Is this all an elite game?
All community restrictions on Elite behavior.
What is the legal mechanism by which someone can stand for office in Rome? If we follow Roselaar and Broadhead by seeing a bigger gap between Romans and Latins…
civitias sine suffragio
Romans read back their later history, and we also need to think about reading forward…
Q&A
Terranto: Elites are coming to Rome with agenda. Believes sortition (assignment of consular provinces by lot) manipulated.
Rosenstein: Are we back as Scullard?
Terranto: can’t throw baby out with bathwater, familial agendas don’t hold up over long periods of time but do exist on shorter time span
Cornell: Candidates not running against each other, but for the Plebeian and Patrician slot, thus running in tandem
Peralta: Let’s think about failure, would it be better strategy for aiming to lower magistrates
Bernard: C. Naevius is the classic example
Smith: Don’t believe the binary of plebeian/patrician as Livy gives us; picture much more complicated on social groupings
Feldherr: Annalistic tradition works against picture both papers are talking about, esp. division between domestic and foreign affairs
Tan: Geltzer doesn’t even believe his own line about mobilizing clients…Livy really doesn’t want to talk about popular sovereignty… How does causation work with matching war and consul?
Terranto: believes in smoke filled rooms where politics stitched up, but also real military threats and necessary defense.
Smith: worrying about who can play with sortition…this is a problem for the smoke filled room theory, the deal that is struck and must legitimated and there are consequences if it goes wrong…
Rosenstein: the prize is glory, sortition manipulation quite unusual, both consuls want the same thing that’s the purpose of sortition, Laelius and Scipiones
Bernhard: is the definition provincia fixed in this period?
Rosenstein, Paying for Conquest
Tributum and Citizen without the Vote
Military challenges of this period would require more material resources: campaigns are longer, evidence: Dates of celebrations on the Fasti Triumphales
excellent scattershot chart of days on campain based on Fasti
Assumptions:
Fasti reliable source, also assuming calendar is running normal, and that starting point of campaign is about the same most years (perhaps varying up to 30 days either way), NOT grappling with start of consular year
Impressionistic chart with trend line, not a claim about any specific campaign
Also limited by the fact that not all campaigns end in triumph, but assuming most
distance from Rome: longer marches
But lots of part of campaigning that doesn’t just include battle includes trying to force opponent into a strategic position, devastation of lands, diplomacy
leaving aside coinage and instead focusing on food
4500 soldiers and food requirement: ration 800g. per person per day = only 70% of caloric need
15 days, 57 tons, 34 days, 130 tons, 138 days, 528 tons
tributum must increase to fund this
long campaign takes more money, BUT does not necessarily or even likely increase spoils
spoils in 2nd century were NOT sufficient to repay tributum (stipendium), we can assume same picture in 4th-3rd Century.
The strategy of imposing citizenship without the vote is usually is interpreted as increasing manpower=>doubling of number of legions marshalled every year, but was this the AIM?
NO.
Dion. Hal. RA 21.4-5 (Ref seems off?!)
Before 2nd Punic war few Campanians citizens without vote used in legions
Suggests Language barrier not a reason not to enroll them in legions, but perhaps just bad infantry soldiers (uses 2nd Punic war performance as support for this)
Citizens without the vote are the TAX BASE
integration like this regularizes and prolongs financial benefit derived from conquest, more valuable than spoils or war indemnities.
Lower tax burden for citizens with vote may have allowed greater investment in land improvements, points to Tymon’s paper from yesterday.
Scheidel on building up Slaveries
very speculative views on Italian development of slavery
Summarizes a Finley-esque view of slow development
BUT Slavery Appears early: in XII tables, manumission tax and abolition of nexum (debt bondage) in 4th century
Can’t trust Livy, but lots of war and also lots of people being taking captive
Captives don’t always transfer into stable slavery population in Italy: ransom, export
Western Greeks like slaves, keep them, raids to be capture Italians of slaves; highly developed slavery in Carthage, but mostly anecdotal evidence
Maybe we don’t need commercial slavery, and we can think about familial model of slavery
Not mutually exclusive models, points back Tymon’s paper again and how this enslavement would support what we see in archaeological
Sub-Saharan Africa as comparison
Most enslavers buy slaves, but SSAfrica and Rome enslavers are also those who capture the slaves themselves
Sudan region, Senegal to Lake Chad (not country)
Slaves traded for north horses and then horses used to enslave more people
Songhai Empire intensifies this effort
In Sudan most slaves exported north to other Islamic societies and retained locally, very very rarely shipped south
Sokoto Caliphate emergence explained. Stated intention to end enslavement of Muslims, but then rationalized that those who resist caliphate are bad Muslims and may be enslaved. Slavery intensifies. Great local demand little selling to Europeans. Many many captured slaves given as gifts to Fulani elite by caliphates. Fulani elite completely supported by slaves.
Similarities with Rome
Religious motivations for war
War is a steady state, assumed necessary every year
political advancement dependent on attainment of military success
network of fortified outposts
familial style slavery
plantations similar to those described by Cato with slave overseers
peculium, systems for incorporating freed slaves,
Does Rome also have the distribution of slaves by gifts on battle field? Perhaps much more important that allowed to date. Cf. model of land distribution
We may need to give more emphasis to non-market distribution. Slavery need not correlated with cash economy
100,000s of slaves need not produce more economic growth for export
Comparison don’t answer questions but help us ask better questions and also suggest what is plausible.
Q&A
Cornell: Reflects on how these two papers work together
Brennan: Brings in Prorogation to support Rosenstein
Terranto and DeHaas: disagree about whether archaeological evidence can be seen as large estates with intensifications
Bernard: Brings in amphora production
Smith: More sites seen
Rosenstein: Indemnities/tribute only work when victims have surplus
Rosenstein: reads back on to this period publicani who hold state contracts, like Polybius says in book 6
Terranto: what is the evidence that citizenship is an imposition?
Tan: because you don’t do it to people who are nice to you, the alternative is killing them, paraphrases Cornell, << if Germans had enfranchised the French (e.g. in WWII) no one would have any allusions about what was going on….>>
Scheidel: big difference between Sokoto Caliphate and Rome is the keeping of female slaves for sex/reproduction as marker of elite status.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 