THE GREAT AGE OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC, 264-31 B.C. [1]
56. THE RIVALS: ROME AND CARTHAGE, 264-218 B.C.
THE PUNIC WARS
The conquest of Italy made Rome one of the five leading states of the
Mediterranean world. In the East there were the kingdoms of Macedonia,
Syria, and Egypt, which had inherited the dominions of Alexander the
Great. In the West there were Carthage and Rome, once in friendly
alliance, but now to become the bitterest foes. Rome had scarcely reached
the headship of united Italy before she was involved in a life-and-death
struggle with this rival power. The three wars between them are known as
the Punic wars; they are the most famous contests that ancient history
records; and they ended in the complete destruction of Carthage.
FOUNDATION OF CARTHAGE
More than a century before the traditional date at which Rome rose upon
her seven hills, Phoenician colonists laid the foundations of a second
Tyre. The new city occupied an admirable site, for it bordered on rich
farming land and had the largest harbor of the north African coast. A
position at the junction of the eastern and western basins of the
Mediterranean gave it unsurpassed opportunities for trade. At the same
time Carthage was far enough away to be out of the reach of Persian or
Macedonian conquerors.
COMMERCIAL EMPIRE OF CARTHAGE
By the middle of the third century B.C. the Carthaginians had formed an
imposing commercial empire. Their African dominions included the strip of
coast from Cyrene westward to the strait of Gibraltar. Their colonies
covered the shores of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and southern Spain. The
western half of the Mediterranean had become a Carthaginian lake.
CARTHAGINIAN CIVILIZATION
Before the opening of the Punic wars Carthage had been much enlarged by
emigrants from Tyre, after the capture of that city by Alexander. [2] The
Phoenician colonists kept their own language, customs, and beliefs and did
not mingle with the native African peoples. Carthage in form was a
republic, but the real power lay in the hands of one hundred men, selected
from the great merchant families. It was a government by capitalists who
cared very little for the welfare of the poor freemen and slaves over whom
they ruled. The wealth of Carthage enabled her to raise huge armies of
mercenary soldiers and to build warships which in size, number, and
equipment surpassed those of any other Mediterranean state. Mistress of a
wide realm, strong both by land and sea, Carthage was now to prove herself
Rome's most dangerous foe.
[Illustration: COLUMN OF DUILIUS (RESTORED)
The Roman admiral, Duilius, who won a great victory in 260 B.C., was
honored by a triumphal column set up in the Forum. The monument was
adorned with the brazen beaks of the captured Carthaginian vessels. Part
of the inscription, reciting the achievements of the Roman fleet, has been
preserved.]
ORIGIN OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
The First Punic War was a contest for Sicily. The Carthaginians aimed to
establish their rule over that island, which from its situation seems to
belong almost as much to Africa as to Italy. But Rome, having become
supreme in Italy, also cast envious eyes on Sicily. She believed, too,
that the Carthaginians, if they should conquer Sicily, would sooner or
later invade southern Italy. The fear for her possessions, as well as the
desire to gain new ones, led Rome to fling down the gage of battle.
COURSE AND RESULTS OF THE WAR, 264-241 B.C.
The contest between the two rival states began in 264 B.C. and lasted
nearly twenty-four years. The Romans overran Sicily and even made an
unsuccessful invasion of Africa, but the main struggle was on the sea.
Here at first the Romans were at a disadvantage, for they had no ships as
large and powerful as those of the Carthaginians. With characteristic
energy, however, they built several great war fleets and finally won a
complete victory over the enemy. The treaty of peace provided that
Carthage should abandon Sicily, return all prisoners without ransom, and
pay a heavy indemnity.
THE INTERVAL OF PREPARATION, 241-218 B.C.
Carthage, though beaten, had not been humbled. She had lost Sicily and the
commercial monopoly of the Mediterranean. But she was not ready to abandon
all hope of recovering her former supremacy. The peace amounted to no more
than an armed truce. Both parties were well aware that the real conflict
was yet to come. The war, however, was delayed for nearly a quarter of a
century. During this interval Rome strengthened her military position by
seizing the islands of Sardinia and Corsica from Carthage and by
conquering the Gauls in the Po valley. The Carthaginians, meanwhile, began
to create a new empire in Spain, whose silver mines would supply fresh
means for another contest and whose hardy tribes would furnish soldiers as
good as the Roman legionaries.
57. HANNIBAL AND THE GREAT PUNIC WAR, 218-201 B.C.
BEGINNING OF THE SECOND PUNIC WAR, 218 B.C.
The steady advance of the Carthaginian arms in Spain caused much
uneasiness in Rome and at length led that city to declare war. Carthage
herself was not unwilling for a second trial of strength. Her leading
general, Hannibal, who had been winning renown in Spain, believed that the
Carthaginians were now in a position to wage an aggressive war against
their mighty rival. And so the two great Mediterranean powers, each
confident of success, renewed the struggle for supremacy.
HANNIBAL
At the opening of the conflict Hannibal was not quite twenty-seven years
of age. While yet a mere child, so the story went, his father had led him
to the altar, and bade him swear by the Carthaginian gods eternal enmity
to Rome. He followed his father to Spain and there learned all the duties
of a soldier. As a master of the art of war, he ranks with Alexander the
Great. The Macedonian king conquered the world for the glory of conquest;
Hannibal, burning with patriotism, fought to destroy the power which had
humbled his native land. He failed; and his failure left Carthage weaker
than he found her. Few men have possessed a more dazzling genius than
Hannibal, but his genius was not employed for the lasting good of
humanity.
HANNIBAL'S INVASION OF ITALY
The Romans planned to conduct the war in Spain and Africa, at a distance
from their own shores. Hannibal's bold movements totally upset these
calculations. The Carthaginian general had determined that the conflict
should take place in the Italian peninsula itself. Since Roman fleets now
controlled the Mediterranean, it was necessary for Hannibal to lead his
army, with its supplies, equipment, and beasts of burden, by the long and
dangerous land route from Spain to Italy. In the summer of 218 B.C.
Hannibal set out from Spain with a large force of infantry and cavalry,
besides a number of elephants. Beyond the river Ebro he found himself in
hostile territory, through which the soldiers had to fight their way. To
force the passage of the Pyrenees and the Alps cost him more than half his
original army. When, after a five months' march he stood on the soil of
Italy, Hannibal had scarcely twenty-five thousand troops with which to
meet the immense power of Rome--a power that, given time, could muster to
her defense more than half a million disciplined soldiers.
FIRST VICTORIES OF HANNIBAL
The Romans were surprised by the boldness and rapidity of Hannibal's
movements. They had expected to conduct the war far away in foreign lands;
they now knew that they must fight for their own homes and firesides. The
first battles were complete victories for the Carthaginians and opened the
road to Rome. Hannibal's plans, however, did not include a siege of the
capital. He would not shatter his victorious army in an assault on a
fortified town. Hannibal's real object was to bring the Italians over to
his side, to ruin Rome through the revolts of her allies. But now he
learned, apparently for the first time, that Italy was studded with Latin
colonies, [3] each a miniature Rome, each prepared to resist to the bitter
end. Not a single city opened its gates to the invader. On such solid
foundations rested Roman rule in Italy.
A DICTATORSHIP
The Senate faced the crisis with characteristic energy. New forces were
raised and intrusted to a dictator, [4] Quintus Fabius Maximus. He refused
to meet Hannibal in a pitched battle, but followed doggedly his enemy's
footsteps, meanwhile drilling his soldiers to become a match for the
Carthaginian veterans. This strategy was little to the taste of the Roman
populace, who nicknamed Fabius _Cunctator_, "the Laggard." However, it
gave Rome a brief breathing space, until her preparations to crush the
invader should be completed.
[Illustration: A CARTHAGINAN OR ROMAN HELMET (British Museum, London)
Found on the battle field of Cannae.]
BATTLE OF CANNAE, 316 B.C.
After the term of Fabius as dictator had expired, new consuls were chosen.
They commanded the largest army Rome had ever put in the field. The
opposing forces met at Cannae in Apulia. The Carthaginians numbered less
than fifty thousand men; the Romans had more than eighty thousand troops.
Hannibal's sole superiority lay in his cavalry, which was posted on the
wings with the infantry occupying the space between. Hannibal's center was
weak and gave way before the Romans, who fought this time massed in solid
columns. The arrangement was a poor one, for it destroyed the mobility of
the legions. The Roman soldiers, having pierced the enemy's lines, now
found themselves exposed on both flanks to the African infantry and taken
in the rear by Hannibal's splendid cavalry. The battle ended in a hideous
butchery. One of the consuls died fighting bravely to the last; the other
escaped from the field and with the wreck of his army fled to Rome. A
Punic commander who survived such a disaster would have perished on the
cross; the Roman commander received the thanks of the Senate "for not
despairing of the republic." [5]
AFTER CANNAE
The battle of Cannae marks the summit of Hannibal's career. He maintained
himself in Italy for thirteen years thereafter, but the Romans, taught by
bitter experience, refused another engagement with their foe. Hannibal's
army was too small and too poorly equipped with siege engines for a
successful attack on Rome. His brother, Hasdrubal, led strong
reinforcements from Spain to Italy, but these were caught and destroyed
before they could effect a junction with Hannibal's troops. Meanwhile the
brilliant Roman commander, Publius Scipio, drove the Carthaginians from
Spain and invaded Africa. Hannibal was summoned from Italy to face this
new adversary. He came, and on the field of Zama (202 B.C.) met his first
and only defeat. Scipio, the victor, received the proud surname,
_Africanus_.
PEACE IN 201 B.C.
Exhausted Carthage could now do no more than sue for peace on any terms
that Rome was willing to grant. In the hour of defeat she still trusted
her mighty soldier, and it was Hannibal who conducted the final
negotiations. The conditions of peace were severe enough. The
Carthaginians gave up Spain and all their ships except ten triremes. They
were saddled with a huge indemnity and bound to engage in no war without
the consent of Rome. Carthage thus became a dependent ally of the Roman
city.
VICTORIOUS ROME
In describing the course and outcome of the Second Punic War our
sympathies naturally go out to the heroic figure of Hannibal, who fought
so long and so bravely for his native land. It is clear, however, that
Rome's victory in the gigantic struggle was essential to the continued
progress of classical civilization. The triumph of Carthage in the third
century, like that of Persia in the fifth century, [6] must have resulted
in the spread of Oriental ideas and customs throughout the Mediterranean.
From this fate Rome saved Europe.
58. ROMAN SUPREMACY IN THE WEST AND IN THE EAST, 201-133 B.C.
THIRD PUNIC WAR BEGUN, 148 B.C.
Carthage had been humbled, but not destroyed. She still enjoyed the
advantages of her magnificent situation and continued to be a competitor
of Rome for the trade of the Mediterranean. The Romans watched with
jealousy the reviving strength of the Punic city and at last determined to
blot it out of existence. In 149 B.C. a large army was landed in Africa,
and the inhabitants of Carthage were ordered to remove ten miles from the
sea. They resolved to perish in the ruins of their capital, rather than
obey such a cruel command.
[Illustration: A TESTUDO
A relief from the Column of Trajan, Rome. The name _testudo_ a tortoise
(shell) was applied to the covering made by a body of soldiers who placed
their shields over their heads The shields fitted so closely together that
men could walk on them and even horses and chariots could be driven over
them.]
[Illustration: Map, THE EXPANSION OF ROMAN DOMINIONS 264-133 B. C.]
DESTRUCTION OF CARTHAGE, 146 B.C.
Carthage held out for three years. The doubtful honor of its capture
belonged to Scipio Aemilianus, grandson, by adoption, of the victor of
Zama. For seven days the legionaries fought their way, street by street,
house by house, until only fifty thousand inhabitants were left to
surrender to the tender mercies of the Romans. The Senate ordered that the
city should be burned and that its site should be plowed up and dedicated
to the infernal gods. Such was the end of the most formidable rival Rome
ever met in her career of conquest. [7]
SICILY
The two European countries, Sicily and Spain, which Rome had taken from
Carthage, presented to the conqueror very different problems. Sicily had
been long accustomed to foreign masters. Its civilized and peace-loving
inhabitants were as ready to accept Roman rule as, in the past, they had
accepted the rule of Greeks and Carthaginians. Every year the island
became more and more a part of Italy and of Rome.
SPAIN
Spain, on the contrary, gave the Romans some hard fighting. The wild
Spanish tribes loved their liberty, and in their mountain fastnesses long
kept up a desperate struggle for independence. It was not until the Romans
sent Scipio Aemilianus to Spain that the Spanish resistance was finally
overcome (133 B.C.).
ROMANIZATION OF SPAIN
All Spain, except the inaccessible mountain district in the northwest, now
became Roman territory. Many colonists settled there; traders and
speculators flocked to seaports; even the legionaries, quartered in Spain
for long periods, married Spanish wives and, on retiring from active
service, made their homes in the peninsula. Rome thus continued in Spain
the process of Romanization which she had begun in Italy. [8] She was to
repeat this process in Gaul and Britain. [9] Her way was prepared by the
sword; but after the sword came civilization.
ROME AND MACEDONIA
While Rome was subduing the West, she was also extending her influence
over the highly civilized peoples of the East. Roman interference in the
affairs of Macedonia found an excuse in the attempt of that country,
during the Second Punic War, to give aid to Hannibal. It was a fateful
moment when, for the second time, the legion faced the phalanx. The easy
victory over Macedonia showed that this Hellenistic kingdom was no match
for the Italian republic. Macedonia was finally made into a subject state
or province of Rome. Thus disappeared a great power, which Philip had
founded and which Alexander had led to the conquest of the world.
[Illustration: STORMING A CITY (RECONSTRUCTION)]
ROME AND GREECE
Having subdued Macedonia, Rome proclaimed Greece a free state. But this
"freedom" really meant subjection, as was amply proved when some of the
Greek cities rose in revolt against Roman domination. The heavy hand of
Roman vengeance especially descended on Corinth, at this time one of the
most beautiful cities of the world. In 146 B.C., the same year in which
the destruction of Carthage occurred, Corinth was sacked and burned to the
ground. [10] The fall of Corinth may be said to mark the final extinction
of Greek liberty. Though the Hellenic cities and states were allowed to
rule themselves, they paid tribute and thus acknowledged the supremacy of
Rome. A century later, Greece became in name, as well as in fact, a
province of the Roman Empire. [11]
ROME AND SYRIA
Rome, in the meantime, was drawn into a conflict with the kingdom of
Syria. That Asiatic power proved to be no more capable than Macedonia of
checking the Roman advance. The Syrian king had to give up the greater
part of his possessions in Asia Minor. The western part of the peninsula,
together with the Greek cities on the coast, was formed in 133 B.C. into
the province of Asia. Thus the same year that witnessed the complete
establishment of Roman rule in Spain saw Rome gain her first possessions
at the opposite end of the Mediterranean.
POLITICAL SITUATION IN 133 B.C.
Roman supremacy over the Mediterranean world was now all but complete. In
264 B.C. Rome had been only one of the five great Mediterranean states. In
133 B.C. no other power existed to match its strength with that of Rome.
To her had fallen in the West the heritage of Carthage, in the East the
heritage of Alexander. Rome had built up this mighty empire at a terrible
cost in blood and treasure. Let us see what use she was to make of it.
59. THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD UNDER ROMAN RULE
CREATION OF THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM
Rome's dealings with the new dependencies across the sea did not follow
the methods that had proved so successful in Italy. The Italian peoples
had been treated with great liberality. Rome regarded them as allies,
exempted them from certain taxes, and in many instances gave them Roman
citizenship. It did not seem possible to extend this wise policy to remote
and often barbarous lands beyond the borders of Italy. Rome adopted,
instead, much the same system of imperial rule that had been previously
followed by Persia and by Athens. [12] She treated the foreign peoples
from Spain to Asia as subjects and made her conquered territories into
provinces. [13] Their inhabitants were compelled to pay tribute and to
accept the oversight of Roman officials.
EVILS OF THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM
As the Romans came more and more to relish the opportunities for plunder
afforded by a wealthy province, its inhabitants were often wretchedly
misgoverned. Many governors of the conquered lands were corrupt and
grasping men. They tried to wring all the money they could from their
helpless subjects. To the extortions of the governors must be added those
of the tax collectors, whose very name of "publican" [14] became a byword
for all that was rapacious and greedy. In this first effort to manage the
world she had won, Rome had certainly made a failure. A city-state could
not rule, with justice and efficiency, an empire.
THE PROFITS OF CONQUEST
In the old days, before Rome entered on a career of foreign conquest, her
citizens were famous among men for their love of country, their simple
lives, and their conservative, old-fashioned ways. They worked hard on
their little farms, fought bravely in the legions, and kept up with
careful piety all the ceremonies of their religion. But now the Roman
republic was an imperial power with all the privileges of universal rule.
Her foreign wars proved to be immensely profitable. At the end of a
successful campaign the soldiers received large gifts from their general,
besides the booty taken from the enemy. The Roman state itself profited
from the sale of enslaved prisoners and their property. Large sums of
money were sometimes seized and taken to Rome. When once peace had been
made, the Roman governors and tax collectors followed in the wake of the
armies and squeezed the provincials at every turn. The Romans, indeed,
seem to have conquered the world less for glory than for profit.
GROWTH OF LUXURY
So much wealth poured into Rome from every side that there could scarcely
fail to be a sudden growth of luxurious tastes. Rich nobles quickly
developed a relish for all sorts of reckless display. They built fine
houses adorned with statues, costly paintings, and furnishings. They
surrounded themselves with troops of slaves. Instead of plain linen
clothes they and their wives wore garments of silk and gold. At their
banquets they spread embroidered carpets, purple coverings, and dishes of
gilt plate. Pomp and splendor replaced the rude simplicity of an earlier
age.
DISAPPEARANCE OF THE PEASANTRY
But if the rich were becoming richer, it seems that the poor were also
becoming poorer. After Rome became mistress of the Mediterranean, her
markets were flooded with the cheap wheat raised in the provinces,
especially in those granaries, Sicily and Africa. The price of wheat fell
so low that Roman peasants could not raise enough to support their
families and pay their taxes. When agriculture became unprofitable, the
farmer was no longer able to remain on the soil. He had to sell out, often
at a ruinous sacrifice. His land was bought by capitalists, who turned
many small fields into vast sheep pastures and cattle ranches. Gangs of
slaves, laboring under the lash, gradually took the place of the old Roman
peasantry, the very strength of the state. Not unjust was the famous
remark, "Great domains ruined Italy." [15]
THE EXODUS OF THE CITIES
The decline of agriculture and the disappearance of the small farmer under
the stress of foreign competition may be studied in modern England as well
as in ancient Italy. Nowadays an English farmer, under the same
circumstances, will often emigrate to America or to Australia, where land
is cheap and it is easy to make a living. But these Roman peasants did not
care to go abroad and settle on better soil in Spain or in Africa. They
thronged, instead, to the cities, to Rome especially, where they labored
for a small wage, fared plainly on wheat bread, and dwelt in huge lodging
houses, three or four stories high.
THE CITY MOB
We know very little about this poorer population of Rome. They must have
lived from hand to mouth. Since their votes controlled elections, [16]
they were courted by candidates for office and kept from grumbling by
being fed and amused. Such poor citizens, too lazy for steady work, too
intelligent to starve, formed, with the other riffraff of a great city,
the elements of a dangerous mob. And the mob, henceforth, plays an ever-
larger part in the history of the times.
HELLENIC INFLUENCE AT ROME
We must not imagine, however, that all the changes in Roman life worked
for evil. If the Romans were becoming more luxurious, they were likewise
gaining in culture. The conquests which brought Rome in touch, first with
Magna Graecia and Sicily, then with Greece itself and the Hellenic East,
prepared the way for the entrance of Hellenism. Roman soldiers and traders
carried back to Italy an acquaintance with Greek customs and ideas.
Thousands of cultivated Greeks, some as slaves, others as freemen, settled
in the capital as actors, physicians, artists, and writers. There they
introduced the Greek language, as well as the religion, literature, and
art of their native land. Roman nobles of the better type began to take an
interest in other things than simply farming, commerce, or war. They
imitated Greek fashions in dress and manners, collected Greek books, and
filled their homes with the productions of Greek artists. Henceforth every
aspect of Roman society felt the quickening influence of the older, richer
culture of the Hellenic world. It was a Roman poet who wrote, "Captive
Greece captured her conqueror rude." [17]
60. THE GRACCHI
TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
In 133 B.C., a year otherwise made memorable by the final subjugation of
Spain and the acquisition of Asia, efforts began Rome to remedy some of
the disorders which were now seen to be sapping the strength of Roman
society. The first persons to undertake the work of reform were the two
brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The Gracchi belonged to the highest
nobility of Rome. Their father had filled a consulship and a censorship
and had celebrated triumphs. Cornelia, their mother, was a daughter of
Scipio Africanus, the conqueror of Hannibal. A fine type of the Roman
matron, she called her boys her "jewels," more precious than gold, and
brought them up to love their country better than their own lives.
Tiberius, the elder brother, was only thirty years of age when he became a
tribune and began his career in Roman politics.
AGRARIAN LAW OF TIBERIUS GRACCHUS
Tiberius signalized his election to the tribunate by bringing forward his
celebrated agrarian law. He proposed that the public lands of Rome, then
largely occupied by wealthy men who alone had the money necessary to work
them with cattle and slaves, should be reclaimed by the state, divided
into small tracts, and given to the poorer citizens. By getting the people
back again on the soil, Tiberius hoped to revive the declining agriculture
of Italy.
DEFECTS OF THE AGRARIAN LAW
This agrarian law, though well intentioned, did not go to the root of the
real difficulty--foreign competition. No legislation could have helped the
farming class, except import duties to keep out the cheap grain from
abroad. But the idle mob at Rome, controlling the assemblies, would never
have voted in favor of taxing their food, thus making it more expensive.
At the same time the proposal to take away part of the public domains from
its possessors roused a hornet's nest about the reformer's ears. Rich
people had occupied the public land for so long that they had come to look
upon it as really their own. They would be very sure to oppose such a
measure. Poor people, of course, welcomed a scheme which promised to give
them farms for nothing. Tiberius even wished to use the public funds to
stock the farms of his new peasantry. This would have been a mischievous
act of state philanthropy.
FAILURE AND DEATH OF TIBERIUS, 133 B.C.
In spite of these defects in his measure, Tiberius urged its passage with
fiery eloquence. But the great landowners in the Senate got another
tribune, devoted to their interests, to place his veto [18] on the
proposed legislation. The impatient Tiberius at once took a revolutionary
step. Though a magistrate could not legally be removed from office,
Tiberius had the offending tribune deposed and dragged from his seat. The
law was then passed without further opposition. This action of Tiberius
placed him clearly in the wrong. The aristocrats threatened to punish him
as soon as his term of office was over. To avoid impeachment Tiberius
sought reelection to the tribunate for the following year. This, again,
was contrary to custom, since no one might hold office for two successive
terms. On the day appointed for the election, while voting was in
progress, a crowd of angry senators burst into the Forum and killed
Tiberius, together with three hundred of his followers. Both sides had now
begun to display an utter disregard for law. Force and bloodshed,
henceforth, were to help decide political disputes.
GAIUS GRACCHUS BECOMES TRIBUNE, 123 B.C.
Tiberius Gracchus, in his efforts to secure economic reform, had
unwittingly provoked a conflict between the Senate and the assemblies. Ten
years after his death, his brother, Gaius Gracchus, came to the front.
Gaius quickly made himself a popular leader with the set purpose of
remodeling the government of Rome. He found in the tribunate an office
from which to work against the Senate. After the death of Tiberius a law
had been passed permitting a man to hold the position of tribune year
after year. Gaius intended to be a sort of perpetual tribune, and to rule
the Roman assemblies very much as Pericles had ruled the people at Athens.
[19] One of his first measures was a law permitting the sale of grain from
the public storehouses to Roman citizens at about half the market price.
This measure, of course, won over the city mob, but it must be regarded as
very unwise. It saddled the treasury with a heavy burden, and later the
government had to furnish the grain for nothing. Indiscriminate charity of
this sort increased, rather than lessened, the number of paupers.
MEASURES OF GAIUS TO RELIEVE THE POOR
Having won popular support, Gaius was able to secure the additional
legislation which he deemed necessary to carry out his brother's work. He
reenacted the land laws for the benefit of the peasantry and furnished
work for the unemployed by building roads throughout Italy. He also began
to establish colonies of poor citizens, both in Italy and in the
provinces. This was a wise policy. Had it been allowed to continue, such
state-assisted emigration, by providing the landless poor of Italy with
farms abroad, would have relieved the economic distress of the peninsula.
AN EFFORT TO EXTEND ROMAN CITIZENSHIP
Gaius now came forward with another measure which marked him as an able
and prudent statesman. He proposed to bestow the right of voting in the
Roman assemblies upon the inhabitants of the Latin colonies. [20] He
thought, also, that the Italian allies should be allowed to intermarry
with Romans and hold property under the protection of the Roman law. No
doubt Gaius believed that the time might come when all the Italian peoples
would be citizens of Rome. This time did come, thirty years later, but
only after a terrible war that nearly ruined Rome.
FAILURE AND DEATH OF GAIUS, 121 B.C.
The effort by Gaius to extend Roman citizenship cost the reformer all his
hard-won popularity. It aroused the jealousy of the selfish city mob,
which believed that the entrance of so many new citizens would mean the
loss of its privileges. There would not be so many free shows and so much
cheap grain. So the people rejected the measure and, turning from their
former favorite, failed to reëlect him to the tribunate. When Gaius was no
longer protected by the sanctity of the tribune's office, [21] he fell an
easy victim to senatorial hatred. Another bloody tumult broke out, in
which Gaius and three thousand of his followers perished. The consul who
quelled the disturbance erected at the head of the Forum a temple to
Harmony (_Concordia_).
THE GRACCHI BEGIN THE REVOLUTION
The pathetic career of the Gracchi had much significance in Roman history.
They were the unconscious sponsors of a revolutionary movement which did
not end until the republic had come under the rule of one man. They failed
because they put their trust in the support of the Roman mob. Future
agitators were to appear with the legionaries at their heels.
61. MARIUS AND SULLA
MARIUS AND THE JUGURTHINE WAR, 112-106 B.C.
Although Rome now ruled throughout the Mediterranean, she was constantly
engaged in border wars in one corner or another of her wide dominions.
These wars brought to the front new military leaders, of whom the first
was Gaius Marius. He was a peasant's son, a coarse, rude soldier, but an
honest, courageous, and able man. Marius rose to prominence in the so-
called Jugurthine War, which the Romans were waging against Jugurtha, king
of Numidia. That wily African had discovered that it was easier to bribe
the Roman commanders than to fight them; and the contest dragged on in
disgraceful fashion year after year. Marius at last persuaded the people
to elect him consul and intrust him with the conduct of the war. By
generalship and good fortune he speedily concluded the struggle and
brought Jugurtha in chains to Rome.
MARIUS AND THE WAR WITH THE GERMANS, 102-101 B.C.
A few years later Marius had another opportunity to win distinction. He
became the defender of Rome and Italy against a dangerous invasion of
Germanic barbarians, who were ravaging Transalpine Gaul and the Po Valley.
The decisive victories which Marius gained over them removed a grave
danger which threatened the Roman world. The time had not yet come for
ancient civilization to be submerged under a wave of barbarism.
SULLA AND THE SOCIAL WAR, 90-88 B.C.
The second military leader whom this troubled period brought forth was
Lucius Cornelius Sulla. He was a man of noble birth, and with his social
gifts, his appreciation of art and letters, his knowledge of men and the
world, presented a sharp contrast to Marius. Sulla's great abilities
quickly brought him into public notice; he rose rapidly from one office to
another; and in the Social War showed his skill as a commander. This
struggle was the consequence of Rome's refusal to grant the rights of
citizenship to her Italian allies. The strength of the rebellion lay among
the Samnites and other peoples of central and southern Italy. The war came
to an end only when Rome promised the franchise to all Italians who
returned to their allegiance. Before many years had passed, the
inhabitants of nearly all the Italian towns south of the Rubicon River
received Roman citizenship. It was this same wise policy of making
conquered peoples equal with herself that afterwards led Rome to grant
citizenship to the inhabitants of the provinces. [22]
SULLA AND THE MITHRADATIC WAR, 88-84 B.C.
What military honors were gained in the struggle belonged to Sulla. His
reward was the consulship and an appointment as general in still another
conflict which distracted Rome had to face. While that city had been busy
with civil enemies and barbarian foes, a powerful state, known as Pontus,
had been growing up in Asia Minor. Its king, Mithradates, overran the
Roman provinces in the Orient and threatened to annex them to his own
kingdom. But Sulla, with greatly inferior forces, compelled Mithradates to
abandon his conquests, surrender his fleet, and pay a large indemnity. If
Marius had the honor of repelling the barbarian invasion of the West,
Sulla had the honor of preserving Rome's possessions in the East.
RIVALRY OF MARIUS AND SULLA
Marius and Sulla were rivals not only in war but also in politics. Sulla
naturally espoused the aristocratic cause and stood as the champion of the
Senate. Marius just as naturally became the head of the democratic party.
The rivalry between the two leaders finally led to civil war. During
Sulla's absence in the East the democrats got the upper hand at Rome and
revenged themselves by murdering their political foes among the
aristocrats. The reign of terror ended only with the sudden death of
Marius, just after he had been elected to his seventh consulship. A few
years later Sulla returned to Italy with his army and defeated the
democrats in a great battle outside the Colline Gate of Rome. Sulla
signalized his victory by ordering the assassination of every prominent
man in the democratic party.
SULLA AS "PERPETUAL DICTATOR"
Sulla regarded this legalized butchery as a necessary step in his self-
appointed task of putting the Roman government once more to rights. He now
received the title of "Perpetual Dictator," with complete authority to
govern the state until the new order of things should be established. Rome
thus came under the rule of one man for the first time since the expulsion
of the kings.
SULLA'S DEATH, 78 B.C.
The various measures by which Sulla intrenched the Senate in power did not
long survive his death and hence had no lasting influence on Roman
politics. After a rule of three years Sulla voluntarily gave up the
dictatorship and retired to his villa on the bay of Naples. He died a few
months later. The Senate honored him with a public funeral, the most
splendid that Rome had ever seen. His monument bore an inscription which
the dictator himself is said to have composed: "No friend ever did him a
kindness and no enemy, a wrong, without being fully repaid." [23] That was
one epitaph which told the truth.
62. POMPEY AND CAESAR
RISE OF POMPEY
The struggle between Marius and Sulla, decided as it was by the sword,
marks a stage in the decline of the Roman Republic. The careers of these
two men showed how easily the state could be ruled by a successful
commander who had his soldiers behind him. After Sulla's death his friend
Pompey became the leading figure in Roman politics. Pompey's first service
was in Spain, where the adherents of Marius sought to humble the Senate
and the aristocratic party by encouraging the Spaniards to rise against
Roman rule. Having crushed this rebellion, Pompey returned to Italy in
time to take part in putting down a formidable insurrection of slaves,
outlaws, and ruined peasants. He was next intrusted with the war against
the pirates, who swarmed in the Mediterranean, preyed on commerce, and
plundered wealthy cities near the coast. Brilliant success in clearing the
seas of these marauders led to his being sent to the East to end the war
with Mithradates, who was once more in arms against Rome. Pompey drove the
Pontic monarch from his kingdom and then annexed Syria to the Roman
dominions. When Pompey returned to Rome in 62 B.C., he brought with him a
reputation as the most successful general of his time.
[Illustration: GNAEUS POMPEIUS MAGNUS (Spada Palace, Rome)]
MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO
We have seen how steadily since the days of the Gracchi the Roman state
had been moving toward the rule of one man. Marius, Sulla, and Pompey each
represent a step in the direction of monarchy. Yet there were still able
and patriotic leaders at Rome who believed in the old order of things and
tried their best to uphold the fast-perishing republic. No republican
statesman was more devoted to the constitution than Cicero. A native of
Arpinum, the same Italian town which had already given birth to Marius,
Cicero came to Rome a youth without wealth or family influence. He made
his way into Roman society by his social and conversational powers and by
his capacity for friendship. His mind had been carefully trained under the
influence of Hellenic culture; he had traveled and studied in Greece; and
throughout life he loved to steal away from the tumult of the Forum and
the law courts and enjoy the companionship of his books. Though the proud
nobles were inclined to look down on him as a "new man," Cicero's splendid
eloquence soon gave him prominence in politics. He ranks in fame as the
second orator of antiquity, inferior only to Demosthenes.
[Illustration: MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO (Vatican Museum, Rome)]
IMPEACHMENT OF VERRES, 70 B.C.
Cicero rose to prominence through his prosecution of Verres, a thieving
governor of Sicily. Verres had powerful friends among the nobles at Rome
and counted on his influence and wealth to escape punishment. He openly
boasted that he had plunder enough to live in luxury, even though he had
to surrender two-thirds of it as fees to his lawyers and bribes to the
jury. But Verres had not reckoned with the brilliant young advocate who
took up the cause of the oppressed provincials. Cicero hurried to Sicily
and there collected such an overwhelming mass of evidence that the bare
statement of the facts was enough to condemn the criminal. Verres went
into exile. Cicero became the head of the Roman bar. Seven years later he
was elected consul.
CONSPIRACY OF CATILINE, 63 B.C.
The year of Cicero's consulship was marked by an event which throws a
lurid light on the conditions of the time. Lucius Catiline, a young noble
of ability, but bankrupt in character and purse, organized a conspiracy to
seize Rome, murder the magistrates, and plunder the rich. He gathered
about himself outlaws of every description, slaves, and starving peasants
--all the discontented and needy classes throughout Italy. He and his
associates were desperate anarchists who sought to restore their own
broken fortunes by overturning the government. The spread of the
insurrection was checked by Cicero's vigorous measures. In a series of
famous speeches he exposed Catiline's plans to the astounded Senate.
Catiline then fled to his camp in Etruria and shortly afterwards perished
in battle, together with three thousand of his followers. Cicero now
gained fresh popularity and honor. The grateful citizens called him
"Father of his Country" (_Pater Patriae_).
RISE OF CAESAR
Rome at this time held another prominent leader in politics, namely, Gaius
Julius Caesar. He belonged to a noble family, but his father had favored
the democratic cause and his aunt had married Marius. After Sulla's death
Caesar threw himself with energy into the game of politics at the capital
city. In these early years the future statesman seems to have been a
demagogue of the usual type, who sought through the favor of the people a
rapid rise to power. He won the ear of the multitude by his fiery
harangues, his bribes of money, and his gifts of food and public shows.
Caesar's expenditures for such purposes were enormous. Before he was
twenty-four he had spent all his private fortune. Henceforth he was
"financed" by the millionaire Crassus, who lent him the money so necessary
for a successful career as a politician.
THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE, 60 B.C.
Caesar and Crassus, the two leaders of the democratic party at Rome, now
joined with Pompey in what is called the First Triumvirate. To this "ring"
Pompey contributed his military reputation, Crassus, his wealth, and
Caesar, his influence over the Roman mob. Supported both by the people and
by the army, these three men were really masters of Rome. An immediate
result of the First Triumvirate was the appointment of Caesar as governor
of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul.
[Illustration: GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR (British Museum, London)]
CAESAR'S CAMPAIGNS IN GAUL, 58-50 B.C.
The story of his career in Gaul has been related by Caesar himself in the
famous _Commentaries_. This book describes a series of military successes
which have given the author a place among the world's generals. Caesar
overran Transalpine Gaul, twice bridged the Rhine and invaded Germany,
made two expeditions to Britain, and brought within the Roman dominions
all the territory bounded by the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Rhine, and the
Atlantic Ocean.
ROMANIZATION OF GAUL
Caesar's conquests in Gaul are more than a chapter in the history of the
art of war. They belong to the history of civilization. Henceforth the
frontier of prehistoric Europe retreated rapidly to the north. The map of
the ancient civilized world widened from the Mediterranean basin to the
shores of the Atlantic. Into the conquered lands came the Latin language,
the Roman law, and the customs and institutions of Rome. Gaul speedily
became one of the most flourishing parts of the Roman world. "Let the Alps
sink," exclaimed Cicero, "the gods raised them to shelter Italy from the
barbarians, but now they are no longer needed."
DEFEAT AND DEATH OF CRASSUS, 53 B.C.
During Caesar's long absence in Gaul the First Triumvirate was suddenly
ended by the death of one of its members. It had been a part of their
bargain in dividing the Roman world that Crassus should have the
government of Syria. But this unlucky general, while aspiring to rival
Caesar's exploits by new conquests beyond the Euphrates, lost his army and
his life in battle with the Parthians. Besides checking the extension of
the Roman arms in the remote East, the disaster had its effect on Roman
politics. It dissolved the triumvirate and prepared the way for that
rivalry between Caesar and Pompey which formed the next step in the
downward course of the republic.
GROWING OPPOSITION BETWEEN POMPEY AND CAESAR
The two men were now rapidly drawing apart. Pompey grew more and more
jealous of Caesar and more and more fearful that the latter was aiming at
despotic power. He himself had no desire to be king or dictator. He was
equally determined that Caesar should not gain such a position. In this
attitude he had the full support of Cicero and the other members of the
Senate. They saw clearly that the real danger to the state was Caesar, not
Pompey.
CAESAR DECLARES WAR IN THE REPUBLIC, 49 B.C.
Caesar's command in Gaul was to expire in 49 B.C. The senatorial party
desired that he should return to Rome without an army. His opponents
intended to prosecute him when he became a private citizen. Caesar had no
inclination to trust himself to their tender mercies and refused to
disband his legions unless his rival did the same. Finally the Senate,
conscious of Pompey's support, ordered him to lay down his arms on pain of
outlawry. Caesar replied to this challenge of the Senate by leading his
troops across the Rubicon, the little stream that separated Cisalpine Gaul
from Italy. As he plunged into the river, he exclaimed, "The die is cast."
[24] He had now declared war on the republic.
CAESAR MASTER OF THE WEST
Caesar's bold movement caught the senatorial party unawares. Pompey could
not gather his legions before his audacious foe reached Rome. Finding it
impossible to make a stand in Italy, Pompey, with the consuls and many
senators, withdrew to Greece. Caesar did not follow him at once. He
hurried to Spain and, after a brilliant campaign only six weeks in length,
broke down the republican resistance in that peninsula. Having now secured
Italy and Spain, Caesar was free to turn his forces against Pompey in the
East.
[Illustration: Map, THE EXPANSION OF ROMAN DOMINIONS 133-31 B.C.]
BATTLE OF PHARSALUS, 48 B.C.
The final battle took place on the plain of Pharsalus in Thessaly.
Pompey's troops, though nearly twice as numerous as Caesar's, were
defeated after a severe struggle. Their great leader then fled to Egypt,
only to be foully murdered. Pompey's head was sent to Caesar, but he
turned from it with horror. Such was the end of an able general and an
honest man, one who should have lived two hundred years earlier, when Rome
was still a free state.
CAESAR IN EGYPT, ASIA MINOR, AND AFRICA, 48-46 B.C.
After Pharsalus there still remained several years of fighting before
Caesar's victory was complete. He made Cleopatra, the beautiful queen of
Egypt, secure in the possession of the throne and brought that country
into dependence on Rome. He passed through Asia Minor and in one swift
campaign crushed a revolt headed by the son of Mithridates. The conqueror
sent tidings of his victory in a laconic dispatch: "I came, I saw, I
conquered." [25] After subduing the remnants of the senatorial party in
Africa, Caesar returned home to crown his exploits by a series of splendid
triumphs and to enjoy less than two years of untrammeled power.
63. THE WORK OF CAESAR
AUTHORITY AND POSITION OF CAESAR
The new government which Caesar brought into being was a monarchy in all
except name. He became dictator for life and held other republican
offices, such as the consulship and censorship. He refused the title of
king, but accepted as a civil magistrate the name of _imperator_, [26]
with which the soldiers had been wont to salute a victorious general.
Though he abolished none of the old republican forms, the Senate became
simply his advisory council, the assemblies, his submissive agents the
consuls, praetors and tribunes, his pliant tools. The laurel wreath, the
triumphal dress, the conqueror's scepter--all proclaimed the autocrat.
[Illustration: A ROMAN COIN WITH THE HEAD OF JULIUS CAESAR]
CHARACTER OF CAESAR'S RULE
Caesar used his power wisely and well. No massacres or confiscations
sullied his victory. He treated his former foes with clemency and even
with kindness. No sooner was domestic tranquillity assured than, with
restless energy, he entered on a series of far-reaching reforms.
REFORMS AT ROME AND IN ITALY
Caesar's measures sought to remove the economic evils which a century of
discord had made so manifest. By restricting the monthly distribution of
grain to those actually in need, he tried to discourage the public charity
which was making the capital city a paradise for the idle and the
shiftless. By planning great colonies beyond the sea, notably at Corinth
and Carthage, he sought to provide farms for the landless citizens of
Italy. His active mind even found time for such matters as the
codification of Roman law, the construction of great public works, and the
improvement of the coinage and the calendar. [27]
REFORMATION OF THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM
Caesar's reforms in the provinces had an epoch-making character. He
reduced taxes, lessened the burden of their collection, and took into his
own hands the appointment of provincial magistrates. Henceforth oppressive
governors and swindling publicans had to expect swift, stern punishment
from one whose interests included the welfare of both citizens and
subjects. By granting Roman citizenship to communities in Gaul and Sicily,
he indicated his purpose, as rapidly as possible, to convert the
provincials into Romans. It was Caesar's aim to break down the barriers
between Rome and her provinces, to wipe out the distinction between the
conquerors and the conquered.
ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR, 44 B.C.
Caesar did not live to complete his task. Like that other colossal figure,
Alexander the Great, he perished before his work as a statesman had hardly
more than begun. On the Ides of March, 44 B.C., he was struck down in the
Senate-house by the daggers of a group of envious and irreconcilable
nobles, headed by Cassius and Brutus. He fell at the foot of Pompey's
statue, pierced with no less than twenty-three wounds. His body was burnt
on a pyre in the Forum, and his friend, Antony, pronounced the funeral
eulogy.
CONSEQUENCES OF CAESAR'S DEATH
In the light of all the possibilities of beneficent government which
Caesar was revealing, his cowardly murder becomes one of the most
stupendous follies recorded in history. Caesar's death could not restore
the republic. It served only to prolong disorder and strife within the
Roman state. As Cicero himself said, hearing the news, "The tyrant is
dead; the tyranny still lives."
64. ANTONY AND OCTAVIAN
ANTONY BECOMES CAESAR'S SUCCESSOR
The murderers of Caesar called themselves the "liberators" of the
republic. They thought that all Rome would applaud their deed, but the
contrary was true. The senatorial order remained lukewarm. The people,
instead of flocking to their support, mourned the loss of a friend and
benefactor. Soon the conspirators found themselves in great peril.
Caesar's friend and lieutenant, Antony, who became sole consul after
Caesar's death, quickly made himself master of the situation. Brutus and
Cassius were forced to withdraw to the provinces which had been previously
assigned to them by Caesar, leaving Antony to rule Rome as his successor.
A RIVAL IN THE YOUNG OCTAVIAN
Antony's hope of reigning supreme was soon disturbed by the appearance of
a new rival. Caesar, in his will, had made his grandnephew, Octavian, [28]
his heir. He now came to Rome to claim the inheritance. In that sickly,
studious youth people did not at first recognize the masterful personality
he was soon to exhibit. They rather reëchoed Cicero's sentiment that "the
young man was to be praised, complimented, and got rid of." [29] But
Octavian easily made himself a power, winning the populace by paying
Caesar's legacies to them and conciliating the senatorial party by siding
with it against Antony. Men now began to talk of Octavian as the destined
restorer of the republic.
THE SECOND TRIUMVIRATE, 43 B.C.
Octavian, however, entertained other designs. He had never been sincere in
his support of the Senate, and the distrustful policy of that body soon
converted him into an active foe. From fighting Antony, Octavian turned to
alliance with him. The two antagonists made up their differences, and with
Lepidus, one of Caesar's lieutenants, as a third ally, marched on Rome at
the head of their legions. The city fell again under military rule. The
three men then united in the Second Triumvirate with full authority to
govern and reorganize the state. The advent of this new tyranny was
signalized by a butchery almost as bloody as Sulla's. Cicero, who had
incurred the hatred of Antony by his fiery speeches against him, was the
most illustrious victim. More than two thousand persons, mainly men of
high rank, were slain. The triumvirs by this massacre firmly established
their rule at Rome and in the West.
BATTLES OF PHILIPPI, 42 B.C.
In the East, where Brutus and Cassius had gathered a formidable force, the
triumvirs were not to win without a struggle. It took place on the plain
of Philippi in Macedonia. The two battles fought there ended in the
suicide of the republican leaders and the dispersal of their troops. This
was the last attempt to restore the republic by force of arms.
DIVISION OF THE ROMAN WORLD
Though the republic had been overthrown, it remained to be seen who would
be master of the new empire, Antony or Octavian. The triumvirate lasted
for more than ten years, but during this period the incompetent Lepidus
was set aside by his stronger colleagues. The two remaining members then
divided between them the Roman world. Octavian took Italy and the West;
Antony took the East, with Alexandria as his capital.
OCTAVIAN IN THE WEST
In the western half of the empire Octavian ruled quietly and with success.
Men were already congratulating themselves on the return of peace under a
second Caesar. In a few years Octavian, from an obscure boy of eighteen,
had grown to be one of the most powerful personalities of his age.
ANTONY IN THE EAST
In the eastern half of the empire things did not go so well. Antony was
clever, but fond of luxury and vice. He had married a sister of Octavian,
but he soon grew tired of her and put her away for the fascinating
Cleopatra. [30] The Roman world was startled by tidings that she had been
proclaimed "queen of kings," and that to her and her sons had been given
the richest provinces in the East. It was even rumored that Cleopatra,
having enslaved Antony with her charms, planned to be enthroned as queen
at Rome.
BATTLE OF ACTIUM, 31 B.C.
Antony's disgraceful conduct aroused the Roman people. They willingly
followed Octavian to a war against one who seemed a national enemy. A
naval battle in the bay of Actium, on the coast of Epirus, decided the
issue. The fight had hardly begun before Cleopatra and Antony sailed away,
leaving their fleet to take care of itself. Octavian pursued the
infatuated pair into Egypt. Antony committed suicide, and Cleopatra,
rather than be led a captive in a Roman triumph, followed his example.
With the death of Cleopatra the dynasty of the Ptolemies [31] came to an
end. Egypt henceforth formed a province of the Roman Empire.
THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN
Octavian, on his return to Rome, enjoyed the honors of a three days'
triumph. [32] As the grand parade moved along the Sacred Way through the
Forum, and thence to the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline, men noted
that the magistrates, instead of heading the procession as was the custom,
followed in the conqueror's train. It was a significant change. Octavian,
not the magistrates of Rome, now ruled the Roman world.
65. THE END OF AN EPOCH
DOOM OF THE REPUBLIC
The republic, indeed, was doomed. A hundred years of dissension and civil
warfare proclaimed clearly enough the failure of the old order. Rome was a
city-state suddenly called to the responsibilities of universal rule. Both
the machinery of her government and the morals of her people were
inadequate for so huge a task. The gradual revolution which changed this
Roman city-state into imperial Rome, judged by its results, is perhaps the
most momentous movement in the annals of mankind. Let us summarize its
course.
A CENTURY OF REVOLUTION
In 133 B.C. Roman society had been corrupted and enfeebled as the result
of foreign conquests. The supreme power in the state more and more tended
to fall into the hands of a narrow oligarchy--the senatorial nobility. Its
dishonesty and weakness soon led to efforts at reform. The attempts of the
Gracchi to overthrow the Senate's position and restore popular sovereignty
ended in disaster. Then, in quick succession, arose a series of military
leaders who aimed to secure by the sword what was no longer to be obtained
through constitutional and legal means. Marius, a great general but no
politician, could only break down and destroy. Sulla, a sincere but
narrow-minded statesman, could do no more than prop up the structure--
already tottering--of senatorial rule. Pompey soon undid that work and
left the constitution to become again the sport of rival soldiers. Caesar,
triumphing over Pompey, gained a position of unchallenged supremacy. After
Caesar's death, imperial power was permanently restored in the person of
Octavian. The battle of Actium in 31 B.C. made Octavian master of the
Roman world.
THE FUTURE
But the Romans were not yet an old and worn-out people. On the ruins of
the old republican order it was still possible to build up a new imperial
system in which good government, peace, and prosperity should prevail for
more than two centuries. During this period Rome performed her real, her
enduring, work for civilization.
STUDIES
1. Write a summary account (500 words) of Roman expansion 264-133 B.C.
2. On outline maps indicate the possessions of Carthage and Rome at the
beginning of the First Punic War; at the beginning of the Second Punic
War; at the end of the Second Punic War.
3. On outline maps indicate the boundaries of the Roman world in 133 B.C.
and in 31 B.C. and the division into provinces at these dates.
4. What events are connected with the following places: Zama; Cannae;
Actium; Pharsalus, and Philippi?
5. Who were Quintus Fabius Maximus, Mithradates, Catiline, and Cleopatra?
6. Identify the following dates: 146 B.C.; 264 B.C.; 133 B.C.; 201 B.C.;
44 B.C.; and 63 B.C.
7. Why has Carthage been called the "London" of the ancient world?
8. What is meant by the statement that Carthage is a "dumb actor on the
stage of history"?
9. Was Rome wise in adopting her new policy of expansion beyond the limits
of Italy?
10. Give some examples in modern times of war indemnities paid by defeated
nations.
11. Why did the Romans call the Second Punic War the "War of Hannibal"?
12. What is a "Fabian policy"? Do you know why Washington was called the
"American Fabius"?
13. What reasons can you give for Hannibal's early successes and final
failure?
14. Show the signal importance to Rome of her control of the sea during
the Second Punic War.
15. Comment on this statement: "As the rise of Rome was central in
history, the Second Punic War was central in the rise of Rome."
16. What provinces had been formed by 133 B.C. (map facing page 184)?
17. What parts of the world belonged to Rome in 133 B.C. but were not yet
provinces?
18. Might Rome have extended her federal policy to her territories outside
of Italy? Was a provincial system really necessary?
19. Compare a Persian satrapy with a Roman province.
20. Would import duties on foreign grain have revived Italian agriculture?
21. Why did the cattle breeder in Italy have no reason to fear foreign
competition?
22. Compare the Athenian practice of state pay with the Roman "bread and
the games of the circus."
23. Had the Italians triumphed in the Social War, is it likely they would
have established a better government than that of Rome?
24. Was Marius or was Sulla more to blame for the Civil War?
25. Explain the real meaning of Sulla's "perpetual dictatorship."
26. Why was the rule of the Senate, unsatisfactory though it was, to be
preferred to that of the Roman populace?
27. Why is the First Triumvirate described as a "ring"? Did it have an
official character?
28. Why does the First Triumvirate mark a distinct step toward the
establishment of the empire?
29. Why can wars with barbarous and savage peoples be justified as "the
most ultimately righteous of all wars"?
30. Can you suggest why Caesar's conquest of Gaul had even greater
importance than Pompey's conquests in the East?
31. Was Caesar justified in leading his army against Rome?
32. Had Pompey triumphed over Caesar, is it probable that the republic
would have been restored?
33. What contrasts can you draw between Caesar and Alexander?
34. Justify the aphorism, "In the midst of arms the laws are silent," by
the statements in this chapter.
35. How do you account for the failure of the republican institutions of
Rome?
FOOTNOTES
[1] Webster, _Readings in Ancient History_, chapter xv, "Hannibal and the
Great Punic War"; chapter xvi, "Cato the Censor: a Roman of the Old
School"; chapter xvii, "Cicero the Orator"; chapter xviii, "The Conquest
of Gaul, Related by Caesar"; chapter xix, "The Makers of Imperial Rome:
Character Sketches by Suetonius."
[2] See page 123.
[3] See page 155.
[4] See page 149.
[5] Livy, xxii, 61.
[6] See page 100.
[7] In 29 B.C., one hundred and seventeen years after the destruction of
Carthage at the end of the Punic wars, a new town was founded near the old
site by the emperor Augustus. It became in time the third city of the
Roman Empire. It was destroyed by the Arabs in 698 A.D.
[8] See page 158.
[9] See pages 184 and 197.
[10] Corinth offered too good a site to remain long in ruins. Resettled in
46 B.C. as a Roman colony, it soon became one of the great cities in the
empire. It was to the Corinthians that St Paul wrote two of his
_Epistles_.
[11] The Greeks were not again a free people until the nineteenth century
of our era. In 1821 A.D. they rose against their Turkish masters in a
glorious struggle for liberty. Eight years later the powers of Europe
forced the Sultan to recognize the freedom of Greece. That country then
became an independent kingdom, with its capital at Athens.
[12] See pages 39-40 and 104.
[13] In 133 B.C. there were eight provinces--Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica,
Hither Spain, Farther Spain, Illyricum, Africa, Macedonia, and Asia. See
the map facing page 184.
[14] In the New Testament "publicans and sinners" are mentioned side by
side. See _Matthew_, ix, 10.
[15] _Latifundia perdidere Italiam_ (Pliny, _Natural History_, xviii, 7).
[16] See page 155.
[17] Horace, _Epistles_, ii, 1, 156.
[18] See page 103.
[19] See page 150.
[20] See page 155, note 2.
[21] See page 150.
[22] See page 204.
[23] Plutarch, Sulla, 38.
[24] Suetonius, _Julius Caesar_, 32.
[25] _Veni, vidi, vici_ (Suetonius, _Julius Caesar_, 37).
[26] Hence our word "emperor."
[27] Before Caesar's reform (46 B.C.) the Roman year consisted of 12
months and 355 days. As this lunar year, like that of the Greeks, was
shorter than the solar year, it had been necessary to intercalate an
additional month, of varying length, in every alternate year. Caesar
adopted the more accurate Egyptian calendar of 365 days and instituted the
system of leap years. His rearrangement made the year 11 minutes, 14
seconds too long. By 1582 A.D. this difference had amounted to nearly 10
days. Pope Gregory XIII modified the "Julian Calendar" by calling Oct. 5,
1582, Oct. 15, and continuing the count 10 days in advance. This
"Gregorian Calendar" was adopted by Great Britain in 1752 A.D. and
subsequently by other Protestant countries. It has not won acceptance in
Russia and Greece. The difference between the two systems--the Old Style
and the New Style--is now about 13 days.
[28] His name was Octavius, but after his adoption by Caesar he called
himself Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.
[29] Cicero, _Letters_, xix, 20.
[30] See page 185.
[31] See page 127.
[32] See page 160.