| |
dt509er
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Posts: 1028
 | | Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/10/2010 5:49:28 PM | I just started a book about Julius Caesar and as often in the past and intrigued by a few comments in the book, I have wondered about what the difference was between 'Romans' and 'Italians', does anyone know the actual difference between these two types of peoples? What battles, if any, were fought between these two and was there one battle that brought them together as a united peoples?
---------------
'Always remember, pillage before you burn.'
Unknown Barbarian
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..."
Diary f/German officer
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
|
| Lavite
Montgomery, AL, USA
Posts: 89
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/10/2010 10:23:36 PM | Initially Romans came from Rome. The rest of the Italian city states contributed separate levies in war. They generally made up 1/2 of a "Roman" army.
At some point, they extended citizenship to all the Italian city states and they all became called Romans. That was a pretty radical move at the time, but it ended the occasional Italian city state revolt. This took place not too long before Julius Caesar was born.
The key thing to pick up on during the era of Julius Caesar is how Roman Legions were raised, funded, and disbanded.
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 286
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/10/2010 10:51:58 PM | I used to read a great deal about the wars of the Classical Period (of Greece and Rome). I haven't in some time now; but as I recall, Italy in the centuries prior to Caesar was composed of many small "states" that vied with each other for dominance of the peninsula. Foremost among them were the Etruscans, the Samnites, and the Romans. The Lucanians and the Boii also existed although I know little about them. Other tribes also existed, but I don't remember their names. Additionally, Gaullic and Germanic tribes periodically penetrated down to Italy in search of plunder. The three main combatants fought repeated battles with one another in which the Romans were not always the victors.
One standout encounter that the Romans "lost" was at the Caudine Forks in 323 {?} B.C. They were trapped in a mountain pass because they had not sent ahead light troops to scout out and secure the two entrances. The entered the first pass; then marched down and found the exit blocked. They doubled back but then found the first blocked as well. After their surrender, the victorious Samnites made the entire army pass under the yoke. Perhaps the Roman Commanders were not the "sharpest tools in the shed" from a tactical standpoint. However, it's been claimed that the Romans copied the existing Samnite tactical organization in what came to be known as the "manipular system"- a deployment in which the basic tactical unit- the maniple- was composed of about 60 men in a checkerboard deployment for ease of maneuvering (but which almost certainly closed up into solid lines prior to hand-to-hand contact).
Eventually, the Romans triumphed and made their former opponents "socii" (allies). In the wars against both barbarian invaders and the Carthaginians, the allies fought alongside the Romans. Roman success led their allies to demand citizenship in the Republic. A number of so-called "social wars" were fought between the Romans and their erstwhile allies; the last being fought when Caesar was about 12-15 years old. By this time, the Romans had discarded the manipular system- supposedly because the maniples were too small in size to deal with barbarian charges. They adopted the Cohortal system invented by Caesar's uncle Gaius Marius. Hope this is of some help.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| John Wallace
Mostly Saudi Arabia, UK
Posts: 139
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/12/2010 7:45:23 AM | A major difference is that the other tribes were mostly more interrelated by family ties, and had longer-standing links with the territory they held. Rome is said to have been founded by Romulus and Remus, the offspring of the god Mars and the Vestal Virgin Rhea Silvia, who in turn was a descendent of Aeneas, who had escaped from the destruction of Troy. They were ostensibly cast adrift on the Tiber in a floating cradle by their uncle, who didn't see much room for compromise on the reputation and qualifications of a Vestal Virgin. Unlike Moses they were saved not by a princess ("Honest, dad, I found him in the bulrushes") but by a she-wolf who fed them.
It is far from impossible that the last part did happen, somewhere besides Kipling's "Jungle Book". The evidence in the case of the 18th century Wild Boy of Aveyron in France is fairly convincing, and Jim Corbett the hunter of maneaters claimed to have met a girl like him in India. Mars is the weak link in the story. I am reminded of the Merovingian dynasty of France, supposedly engendered by a sea-monster of unknown type upon a Frankish princess who went swimming. This is a thing sea-monsters hardly ever do, and I don't suppose Dark Ages princesses very often went swimming, either. Stories like this are very often designed to cover some sort of irregularity, and I will forbear to suggest other examples which might offend the devout.
All this is now mere conjecture, but Romulus, after killing his brother, didn't have an adequate population. So he declared the hills of Rome a sanctuary for men who had made the surrounding states too hot for them. This probably produced some useful characters to have around, but desperadoes were predominantly male, and an imbalance of sexes became extreme. Romulus suggested a mass marriage with women of the Sabine tribe, a proposal the Sabine leaders countered with the suggestion that opening a sanctuary for women might meet his needs better. There followed the seizure known and frequently painted as the Rape of the Sabines. It didn't stop the Sabines making an alliance with Rome once the heat had died down, and it isn't clear whether it was rape or even kidnapping as usually constituted, or merely extreme informality. Similar things were common, and usually smoothed over afterwards, on the borders of Scotland and England around the time other areas had the Renaissance.
One of the great qualities of Rome, from the earliest to much later times, was that like the Zulus, it was capable of absorbing former foes and making Romans of them. Even St. Paul got out of a nasty jam by using his status as Roman citizen to appeal to Caesar. In late Republican times they profited from the eviction of small farmers from the surrounding regions, as large, slave-worked farms came to dominate the economy. This can be compared with the way Britain's Dominions and army benefited from the displacement of small craftsmen by the Industrial Revolution, and subsistence farmers by the enclosure of common land.
|
| Mike Johnson
Fallon, NV, USA
Posts: 1140
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/12/2010 10:40:20 AM | I am not going to quibble with anything written so far. They all, in my opinion, describe events well at different times from the foundation of Rome, on.
I would say that the Romans of the late Republic saw themselves as Italians, but there were a lot of different Italian people. John did a good job describing the founding myths of Rome. I would submit that Rome lay on the border between Latin lands and Etruscan lands and that Rome drew from both cultures. Rome was part of the Latin League for centuries. It was during this time that the army came to be half Roman and half Latin, as the various other Latin states committed troops in equal numbers to Rome. This is because originally the army was the Latin League army that Rome came to dominate. The position of "dictator", which we find at times in Roman history, was not really a Roman institution, but a Latin League institution. In time, the Latins were absorbed by the Romans, beginning a cycle that occurred over and over again--Rome would fight a war with a neighbor, beat the neighbor, and offer fairly liberal peace terms, on the agreement that if either went to war in the future, the other would supply so many troops to protect the other. Roman expansion followed this model--not perfectly, but it seems to be accurate in general, in not in all particulars. In time, inner rings of allies would be absorbed as part of Rome, with the outer ring being the allies.
A lot of Roman allies--in Italy and beyond--adopted the Roman form of municipal government, with two leaders at the top. Of course, they didn't have the authority of the two Roman consuls, but they did exercise common authority inside their own city state.
A fascinating subject that I haven't thought about in a very long time.
|
| John Wallace
Mostly Saudi Arabia, UK
Posts: 139
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/13/2010 4:33:43 AM | The word "colony" in the modern sense didn't really figure in Roman thinking, since "colonia" was used of much smaller local communities, such as the land on which army veterans had been settled. Still, there was an inner core of senatorial states, including Italy, Greece, and parts of Spain, North Africa and Asia Minor, as distinguished from the more recently conquered Imperial states.
Italy seemss to have enjoyed a quite important legal status, different from the other senatorial states. Roman generals were forbidden by law to bring their armies into Italy, hence the importance of Julius Caesar's crossing the Rubicon.
|
| Mike Johnson
Fallon, NV, USA
Posts: 1140
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/13/2010 10:08:43 AM |
Quote:Italy seemss to have enjoyed a quite important legal status, different from the other senatorial states. Roman generals were forbidden by law to bring their armies into Italy, hence the importance of Julius Caesar's crossing the Rubicon.
--John Wallace
They were not allowed to bring armies into the city of Rome, which was always the responsibility of the urban praetor. The issue with Caesar crossing the Rubicon was that it was the boundary between one of his provinces--Cisapline Gual--and the province granted to another. Pompey had legions in Italy at the time as did the sitting consuls. There certainly were Roman armies stationed throughout Italy at the time and later.
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 848
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/13/2010 11:10:52 AM | Mike,
Weren't the successful generals invited to bring a small portion of their army into Rome to recieve a, I can't think of the word they used, parade to celebrate their military success?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 286
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/13/2010 1:47:55 PM | I believe that "Rome" and "Italy" were seen in the same context here. Caesar was not allowed by law to bring his army into Rome; the Rubicon however, was seen as the northern boundary of Rome- and Caesar was not allowed to cross it at the head of an army. He could only do so after stepping down from his command- which he saw as an action that would have made him vulnerable to the Senate's prosecution.
Regards,
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| Mike Johnson
Fallon, NV, USA
Posts: 1140
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/13/2010 10:46:15 PM | No, the Rubicon was not seen as the northern boundary of Rome. Pompey had two legions in Italy and was not seen as being in violation of the ancient law, but Pompey wasn't allowed to bring them into Rome. The issue, I repeat, is that the Rubicon represented the boundary of Caesar's province (the area where he had imperium) and most certainly was not the boundary of Rome. Also, the consuls in 50 BC had legions in Italy and were not allowed to bring them into Rome, as was true of all consuls.
This would have been the same issue if the proconsular or propraetorian governors of another province moved legions into an adjacent province. That was illegal as well.
The sacred boundaries of Rome that weren't to be violated were the pomoerium. Sulla was the first general to violate the pomoerium. The fact that Sulla had a number of legions in Italy wasn't a violation, but his crossing the pomoerium was.
Caesar's move was bold. He took on the 13th legion--the only one available. Potentially, more than 100,000 men could have opposed his march. But, Pompey had no confidence in the loyalty of his legions, which had served earlier under Caesar. The optimates in Rome had no idea the size of Caesar's army in Italy and fled, at least in part, because several northern Italian cities threw in with Caesar and joined his forces.
There were a lot of men under arms in Italy, but they were not in Rome.
|
| dt509er
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Posts: 1028
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/13/2010 11:25:52 PM | Mike:
Quote:The sacred boundaries of Rome that weren't to be violated were the pomoerium. Sulla was the first general to violate the pomoerium. The fact that Sulla had a number of legions in Italy wasn't a violation, but his crossing the pomoerium was.
Where was the pomoerium, I am unable to 'see' your map in detail.
---------------
'Always remember, pillage before you burn.'
Unknown Barbarian
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..."
Diary f/German officer
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 286
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/14/2010 12:20:53 AM | I'm not about to suggest that the city of Rome extended to the Rubicon. However, Roman Italy was an area distinct from Cisalpine Gaul, Transalpine Gaul, or any other Roman province. The Rubicon was seen as the northern boundary between Roman Italy and the province of Cisalpine Gaul. The primary issue was not that Caesar was leaving one of his designated provinces (Caesar was never assigned Britain as a province, yet he went there twice without being branded as an outlaw). The issue revolved around the following:
1. Caesar's term of office as Proconsul was over.
2. Caesar had been ordered to disband his army or be declared an enemy of Rome.
3. Caesar wished to run for the office of Consul in absentia, but had been denied permission to do so by the Senate.
4. Caesar was afraid that if he entered Rome without the protection of either his army or the immunity of the office of Consul, he would be prosecuted on a charge of theft (he had earlier been accused of stealing gold bars and replacing them with fakes).
Under these circumstances, entering Roman Italy (as opposed to any province) at the head of an army that he had been specifically ordered to disband was illegal and automatically made Caesar an outlaw and an enemy of the State.
Pompey did have one Legion in Italy when Caesar crossed the Rubicon (the equivalent of another two were raised after the news of Caesar's crossing), to be sure; it was there with Senate authorization.
As for actually entering the city? My understanding is that no Roman leader was allowed to do so at the head of an army.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| Mike Johnson
Fallon, NV, USA
Posts: 1140
| | Re: Italians and Romans | | Posted on: 1/14/2010 1:55:38 AM | Ok, I think we are in agreement.
Normally, Italy was given to the two consuls elected each year, although circumstances sometimes dictated otherwise. It was also not uncommon for one or more of the praetors to be given a province in Italy with troops as well. Italy, in itself, wasn't protected from idea of not having troops allowed in it, like Rome was. Pompey, of course, was elected sole consul. There were a number of irregularities going on. All involved were playing power politics with the fate of the republic at stake.
Caesar was ordered to disband the army before his term ended and offered to do so if Pompey would as well. Both Caesar and Pompey knew that they would find themselves in this situation at the end of their terms as proconsuls and Pompey, in my opinion, planned a little better to be in a position to be elected consul again. He arranged for himself to become the head of the grain supply with consular powers and that enabled him to be at Rome with consular powers and run for consul.
Like I said, Sulla entered Rome at the head of an army. He is the only general I know of to do so, in the republic. I thought you were suggesting Caesar did the same by crossing the Rubicon. His sin wasn't the violation of the sacred law forbidding troops in the city, his sin was outright rebellion.
BTW, good point about Britain and much of Gaul could be added as Caesar's province of Trans-Alpine Gaul only included what is now southern France.
What I didn't say very well, is that he entered another Roman's province and that was the new consul Pompey. You are absolutely correct that he did so with an army he was supposed to have disbanded. You are right that two legions were rapidly organized, but we need to remember that each year, legions were organized (typically four) for service in Italy and disbanded at the end of the year. There was manpower available, as well as equipment, with the Marian reforms, to quickly raise 10 legions. But, the problem here was that the Senate didn't trust that they wouldn't go over to Caesar. My point about mentioning other legions was to point out that it wasn't the existence of legions in Italy that was the problem. It was the outright rebellion of Caesar, who felt he had little choice as banishment or death probably awaited him at the hands of his political enemies if he disbanded his armies. Still, it was outright rebellion.
|
| |
|
|
|