kingdom. _a._ Like the ancient Persian empire, the Parthian arose
out of the conquests made by a rude mountain race of Central Asia,
whose Scythian (probably Tatarian) origin, betrayed itself even in
later times by their speech and mode of life: their conquests,
however, were not effected with the same rapidity as those of the
Persians. _b._ This empire increased at the expense of the Syrian
in the west, and of the Bactrian in the east; but its dominion was
never permanently established beyond the Euphrates, Indus, and
Oxus. _c._ The wars with Rome, commencing in B. C. 53, and
springing out of disputes for the possession of the Armenian
throne, were for a long time unfortunate for the Romans. Success
did not accompany the arms of Rome until she had discovered the
art of raising her own parties within the kingdom itself, by
lending her support to pretenders, an art rendered comparatively
easy, by the unfavourable situation of the Parthian capital
Seleucia and the neighbouring town of Ctesiphon, the real head
quarters of the court. _d._ The empire was indeed divided into
satrapies, eighteen of which are enumerated; nevertheless it
comprised likewise several small kingdoms, which preserved their
own rulers, only that they were tributary, such, for instance, as
Persis, etc. The Graeco-Macedonian settlements were also in
possession of great privileges, and of their own civic
governments; Seleucia more especially, where the coins of the
Parthian sovereigns were struck. _e._ The constitution was
monarchal-aristocratic, something like that of the Poles, in the
period of the Jagellons. At the king's side sat a supreme state
council, (_senatus_, in all probability what was called the
_megistanes_,) who had the power of deposing the king, and the
privilege, it is supposed, of confirming his accession previous to
the ceremony of coronation, performed by the field-marshals
(_surenas_). The right of succession was only so far determined as
belonging to the house of the Arsacidae; the many pretenders to
which this uncertainty gave rise, produced factions and domestic
wars, doubly injurious to the empire when fomented and shared by
foreigners. _f._ With regard to Asiatic commerce, the Parthian
supremacy was of importance, inasmuch as it interrupted the direct
intercourse between the western and eastern countries: it being a
maxim of the Parthians not to grant a passage through their
country to any stranger. This destruction of the trade occurs in
the third period of the empire, being a natural result of the many
wars with Rome, and the distrust thence ensuing. The East India
trade, in consequence, took another road through Palmyra and
Alexandria, which were indebted to it for their splendour and
prosperity. _g._ It is probable that this was the reason why
excessive luxury took a less hold on the Parthians than on the
other ruling nations of Asia, notwithstanding their predilection
for Grecian manners and literature, at that time generally
prevalent throughout the east.
_Line of the kings._ I. Syrian period; that of reiterated wars
with the Seleucidae, until 130. Arsaces I. 256-253, founder of the
Parthian independence, by procuring the death of the Syrian
viceroy, Agathocles, to which he was instigated by the insult
offered to his brother Tiridates. Arsaces II. (Tiridates I.)
brother of the foregoing, _d._ 216. He possessed himself of
Hyrcania, about 244, confirmed the Parthian power by a victory on
Seleucus Callinicus, 238, whom he took prisoner, 236. Arsaces III.
(Artabanus I.) _d._ 196. In his reign occurred the unsuccessful
attempt of Antiochus III. who, in the treaty of 210, was obliged
to renounce all claims on Parthia and Hyrcania, in return for
which Arsaces lent his assistance to Antiochus in the war against
Bactria. Arsaces IV. (Priapatius,) _d._ about 181. Arsaces V.
(Phraates I.) _d._ about 144; he conquered the Mardians on the
Caspian. His brother, Arsaces VI. (Mithridates I.) _d._ 136. He
raised the hitherto confined kingdom of Parthia to the rank of a
mighty empire, having, after the decease of Antiochus Epiphanes,
164, by the capture of Media, Persis, Babylonia, and other
countries, extended the frontiers westward to the Euphrates, and
eastward to the Hydaspes, beyond the Indus. The invasion of
Demetrius II. of Syria, supported by an insurrection of the
conquered races, ended, 140, in the capture of the aggressor.
Arsaces VII. (Phraates II.) _d._ about 127. Invasion of Antiochus
Sidetes, 132, who was at first successful, but being soon
afterwards cut off together with his whole army, 131, the Parthian
empire was for ever freed from the attacks of the Syrian kings.
II. Period of the eastern nomad wars; from 130-53. After the fall
of the Bactrian empire, which had hitherto formed the eastern
rampart of the Parthians, violent wars took place with the nomad
tribes of Central Asia (Scythae, Dahae, Tochari, etc.) in which
Arsaces VII. was slain. Arsaces VIII. (Artabanus II.) shared the
same fate about 124. Arsaces IX. (Mithridates II.) _d._ 87. This
prince appears to have restored tranquillity to the east after
bloody wars; he met, however, with a powerful rival in Tigranes I.
of Armenia. In his reign occurred the first transactions between
the Parthians and Romans, 92, Sylla being propraetor of Cilicia.
Arsaces X. (Mnasciras,) _d._ about 76, waged a long war for the
succession with his follower on the throne, the septuagenarian,
Arsaces XI. (Sinatroces,) _d._ about 68. Unsuccessful war with
Tigranes I. In consequence of civil wars, and of that with
Tigranes, together with the formidable power of Mithridates the
Great, the Parthian empire was now greatly weakened. Arsaces XII.
(Phraates III.) _d._ 60, contemporary with the third Mithridatic
war. Although both parties eagerly courted his alliance, and he
himself was engaged in the contest with Tigranes, he,
notwithstanding, observed an armed neutrality, and made the
Parthian empire continue to be respected as far as the Euphrates.
Neither Lucullus nor Pompey durst attack him. The fall of
Mithridates and of his empire, 64, constitutes, however, an epoch
in the Parthian history, the Romans and Parthians having now
become immediate neighbours.--Arsaces XIII. (Mithridates II.) _d._
54, deposed after several wars, by his younger brother Orodes,
and at last put to death, after the capture of Babylonia, where he
had taken refuge.
III. Roman period; from B. C. 53, to A. D. 226; comprising the
wars with Rome. Arsaces XIV. (Orodes I.) _d._ 36. In his reign the
first war with Rome, caused by the invasion of Crassus; it ends in
the annihilation of the invading army and general, 53. In
consequence of this victory the Parthians acquired such
preponderance, that during the civil wars they were frequently
masters on this side of the Euphrates, and in 52-51 proceeded to
attack Syria.--In the war between Pompey and Caesar they sided with
the former, and thus furnished the latter with a pretext for his
Parthian expedition, which, however, was prevented by his murder
in 44; again in the war between the triumviri and Brutus and
Cassius, 42, they took the republican side. After the defeat of
Brutus and Cassius, the Parthians, at the instigation of the Roman
general and ambassador Labienus, and commanded by him and Pacorus,
(eldest son to Arsaces,) spread over the whole of Syria and Asia
Minor, 40; but, after violent exertions, were driven back by
Ventidius, Antony's general, 39, 38; Pacorus lost his life, and
his father died of grief. Arsaces XV. (Phraates IV.) _d._ A. D. 4,
contemporary of Augustus. He confirmed his power by murdering his
brothers and their dependents; his views were likewise furthered
by the failure of Antony's expedition, B. C. 36, which ended
pretty nearly in the same manner as that of Crassus. The remainder
of his reign was disturbed by a pretender to the throne,
Tiridates, who, after his defeat, 25, found an asylum at the court
of Augustus. The threatened attack of Augustus was diverted by
Phraates's restoration of the standards taken from Crassus, 20; a
dispute, however, subsequently arose respecting the possession of
the Armenian throne, A. D. 2, on which account Caius Caesar was
despatched into Asia, and accommodated matters by a treaty. The
ultimate fate both of the king and the empire was principally
decided by a female slave, Thermusa, sent as a present from
Augustus; this woman, wishing to ensure the succession to her own
son, prevailed upon the king to send his four sons to Rome as
hostages, under the pretext of anticipating domestic troubles,
18.--A practice which from that time became frequent, the Parthian
kings thinking it a convenient mode of ridding themselves of
dangerous competitors, while the Romans knew how to make the
proper use of them.--Thermusa's son having grown up, she removed
the king, and seated Phraataces on the throne, under the name of
Arsaces XVI; he was, however, put to death by the Parthians, A. D.
4; and the crown given to one of the Arsacidae, Orodes II, (Arsaces
XVII.) who was, however, immediately afterwards slain by reason of
his cruelty. In consequence, Vonones I. the eldest of the sons of
Phraates sent to Rome, was called back and placed on the throne
(Arsaces XVIII.); but that prince having brought with him Roman
customs and luxury, was expelled, A. D. 14, with the assistance of
the northern nomads, by Artabanes III. (Arsaces XIX.) _d._ 44, a
distant relation: the fugitive took possession of the vacant
throne of Armenia, but was soon after driven from thence likewise
by his rival. Tiberius took advantage of the consequent disorders
to send Germanicus into the east, A. D. 17, from whence he was
never to return. The remainder of the reign of Artabanus was very
stormy, Tiberius on the one hand taking advantage of the factions
between the nobles to support pretenders to the crown; the revolts
of the satraps, on the other hand, giving proof of the declension
of the Parthian power. After his death war raged between his sons;
the second, Vardanes, (Arsaces XX.) _d._ 47, made good his
pretensions to the crown, and took North Media, (Atropatene;) he
was succeeded by his elder brother Gotarzes, (Arsaces XXI.) _d._
50, to whom Claudius unsuccessfully opposed Meherdates, educated
as an hostage at Rome. Arsaces XXII. (Vonones II.) succeeded,
after a reign of a few months, by Arsaces XXIII. (Vologeses I.)
_d._ 90. The possession of the Armenian throne, given by this
prince to his brother Tiridates, by the Romans to Tigranes,
grandson of Herod the Great, excited a series of disputes, which
began so early as the reign of Claudius, A. D. 52, and under Nero
broke out into open war, waged with some success on the Roman side
by Corbulo, 56-64, and closed by Tiridates going, after the death
of Tigranes, to Rome, and there accepting the crown of Armenia as
a gift at the hands of Nero, 65. Arsaces XXIV. (Pacorus,) _d._
107, contemporary with Domitian. All that we know of him is, that
he embellished the city of Ctesiphon. Arsaces XXV. (Cosroes,) _d._
about 121. The claims to the throne of Armenia implicated him in a
war with Trajan, 114, during which Armenia, together with
Mesopotamia and Assyria, were converted into Roman provinces.
Trajan's consequent and successful inroad into the interior parts
of the Parthian dominions, 115-116, followed by the capture of
Ctesiphon, and the appointment of Parthamaspates as king, appears
to have been facilitated by the domestic commotions and civil wars
which had for a long time harassed the empire. Nevertheless, in
the following year, 117, Hadrian was compelled to give up all the
conquered country; the Euphrates was again acknowledged as the
boundary; Parthamaspates was appointed king of Armenia; and
Cosroes, who had taken refuge in the upper satrapies, was
reinstated on the throne, of which he seems ever after to have
kept quiet possession. Arsaces XXVI. (Vologeses II.) _d._ 149.
Parthia under his reign, and Rome under that of Antoninus Pius,
remained on good terms. Arsaces XXVII. (Vologeses III.) _d._ 191.
Under the reign of this king, the contemporary of Marcus Aurelius
and L. Verus, the war with Rome was again kindled, 161, by Verus,
and carried on in Armenia and Syria; Cassius, the legate of Verus,
at last got possession of Seleucia, and demolished that city,
165.--Arsaces XXVIII. (Ardawan or Vologeses IV.) _d._ 207. This
king having taken the part of Pescenninus Niger, in the war
between him and Septimius Severus, was, after the defeat of his
friend, 194, routed in a war with Septimius Severus, 197, and the
chief towns of Parthia were sacked by the invaders. He is, without
authority, represented as succeeded by a Pacorus, who took the
name of Arsaces XXIX.: his real successor, however, appears to
have been Arsaces XXIX. (Vologeses V.) _d._ 216. Domestic wars
among his sons, fomented by Caracalla. Arsaces XXX. (Artabanus
IV.) At the beginning of his reign, this prince likewise was
contemporary with Caracalla, who, in order to pick a quarrel,
demanded his daughter in marriage; according to some, Arsaces
refused her, in consequence of which the Roman emperor undertook a
campaign into Armenia; according to others, Arsaces having
assented, and escorted his daughter to Caracalla, was, by an
abominable stroke of treachery, cut off, together with all his
train, A. D. 216. Caracalla having been murdered, 217, his
successor, Macrinus, signed a peace with the Parthians. But
Arsaces subsequently raised his brother Tiridates to the throne of
Armenia; this act spurred the Persian Artaxerxes, son of Sassan,
to rebellion; the Parthian king, defeated in three battles, fell
in the last, thus putting a period to the family and dominion of
the Arsacidae, 226, and Artaxerxes became the founder of the New
Persian kingdom, or that of the Sassanidae. The revolution was
accompanied not only with a change of dynasty, but with a total
subversion of the constitution.
VAILLANT, _Imperium Arsacidarum et Achaemenidarum_, Paris, 1725, 2
vols. 4to. The first part comprises the Arsacidae; the second the
kings of Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus. It is an attempt, not
altogether faultless, to arrange the series of kings, by the
assistance of coins.
# C. F. RICHTER, _Historico-critical essay upon the dynasties of
the Arsacidae and Sassanidae, according to the Persian, Grecian, and
Roman authorities_. A prize essay. Leipzic, 1804. A comparative
research into the eastern and western sources. The chronology in
the above sketch has been corrected by this work, in conjunction
with
TH. CHR. TYCHSEN, _Commentationes de Nummis Persarum et
Arsacidarum_; inserted in _Commentat. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting._ vol.
i. iii.
5. The Bactrian kingdom arose nearly at the same time as the Parthian,
254; its origin, however, was of a different nature,--the independence
of this state being asserted by the Grecian governor, who was
consequently succeeded by Greeks;--its duration likewise was much
shorter, extending only from B. C. 254 to B. C. 126. Scarce any
fragments have been preserved of the history of this empire, the borders
of which appear at one time to have extended to the banks of the Ganges,
and the frontiers of China.
Founder of the empire, Diodatus or Theodotus I. B. C. 254; he
threw off his allegiance to the Syrian king, under Antiochus II.
He appears to have been master not only of Bactria, but also of
Sogdiana. He likewise threatened the Parthians; after his decease,
243, his son and successor, Theodotus II. signed a treaty and
alliance with Arsaces II. but was nevertheless deprived of his
crown by Euthydemus of Magnesia, about 221. Antiochus the Great,
at the conclusion of the Parthian war, directed his arms against
Euthydemus, 209-206; the contest ended in a peace, by which
Euthydemus, after delivering up his elephants, was not only left
in possession of the crown, but was allied to the Syrian family by
the marriage of his son Demetrius with a daughter of Antiochus.
Demetrius, though a great conqueror, does not seem to have been
king of Bactria; his dominions comprised, it is probable, North
India and Malabar, whose history now becomes closely connected
with that of Bactria, although consisting only of mere fragments.
The throne of Bactria fell to Apollodotus, and after him to
Menander, who extended his conquests as far as Serica, while
Demetrius was establishing his dominion in India, [as sovereign of
which country he is represented in a medal lately discovered,] and
where, about this time, several Greek states appear to have
existed, perhaps ever since the expedition of Antiochus III. 205.
Menander was succeeded, about 181, by Eucratidas, under whose
reign the Bactrian empire attained its greatest extension; after
defeating the Indian king, Demetrius, who had been the aggressor,
he, with the assistance of the Parthian conqueror, Mithridates,
(Arsaces VI.) annexed India to his own empire, 148. On his return,
he was murdered by his son; the same, probably, that is mentioned
afterwards by the name of Eucratidas II. He was the ally of
Demetrius II. of Syria, and the main instigator of his expedition
against the Parthians, 142; Demetrius being defeated by Arsaces
VI. Eucratidas was, in consequence, deprived of a portion of his
territory; overpowered soon after by the nomad races of Central
Asia, the Bactrian empire fell to the ground, and Bactria itself,
together with the other countries on this side of the Oxus, became
a prey to the Parthians.
TH. SIEG. BAYER, _Historia regni Graecorum Bactriani_. Petropol.
1738, 4to. The few remaining fragments are in this work collected
with industry and arranged with skill.
[TOD, _Account of Greek, Parthian, and Hindu Medals_, in
_Transactions of the R. Asiatic Society_, vol. i. part ii, p. 316.
TYCHSEN, _De Nummis Graecis et Barbaris in Bochara nuper retectis_,
in _Comment. Nov. Soc. Sc. Gotting._ vol. vi.]
6. The restored kingdom of the Jews was likewise a fragment of the
Macedonian monarchy; and although it ranked only with the smaller
states, its history in various respects deserves our attention, few
nations having had so powerful an influence on the progress of human
civilization. The foundation of the independence of the Jews was not, it
is true, laid before the year 167; yet their domestic constitution had
previously assumed its main features, and their history, reckoning from
the return of the Babylonian captivity, accordingly divides itself into
four periods: 1. Under the Persian supremacy, 536-323. 2. Under the
Ptolemies and Seleucidae, 323-167. 3. Under the Maccabees, 167-39. 4.
Under the Herodians and Romans, B. C. 39. to A. D. 70.
First period under the Persians. By permission from Cyrus, a
colony of Jews belonging to the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and
Levi, returned to the land of their forefathers, 536: this colony,
headed by Zorobabel, of the ancient royal family, and the high
priest Joshua, consisted of about 42,000 souls; the far more
important and wealthy portion of the nation preferred to remain on
the other side of the Euphrates, where they had been settled for
seventy years, and continued to be a numerous people. The new
settlers found it difficult to keep their footing, principally in
consequence of differences, produced by the intolerance they
themselves evinced at the building of the temple, with their
neighbours and kinsmen the Samaritans, to whom the colony was only
a cause of expense. The Samaritans, subsequently, having erected a
separate temple at Garizim, near Sichem, about 336, not only
separated completely, but laid the foundation of an inveterate
hatred between the two nations. Hence the prohibition to rebuild
the city and temple, brought about by their means, under Cambyses,
529, and Smerdis, 522, and not taken off until 520, in the reign
of Darius Hystaspes. The new colony did not receive a permanent
internal constitution till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; both
brought in fresh colonists, the former in 478, the latter in 445.
The country was under the dominion of the satraps of Syria; but in
the increasing domestic declension of the Persian empire, the high
priests gradually became the virtual rulers of the nation.
Nevertheless, even at the time of Alexander's conquest, 332, the
Jews seem to have manifested proofs of fidelity to the Persians.
Second period under the Ptolemies and Seleucidae, 323-167. After
the death of Alexander, Palestine, in consequence of its
situation, generally shared the fate of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria,
(see above, p. 249.) being annexed to Syria.--Capture of
Jerusalem, and transplantation of a vast colony of Jews to
Alexandria by Ptolemy I. 312; from thence they spread to Cyrene,
and gradually over the whole of North Africa, and even into
Aethiopia. From 311-301 the Jews remained, however, subject to
Antigonus. After the overthrow of his empire, they remained,
301-203, under the dominion of the Ptolemies; the most conspicuous
of their high priests during this interval were Simon the Just,
_d._ 291, and afterwards his son, Onias I. _d._ 218, who, by
withholding the tribute due to Ptolemy III. exposed Judaea to
imminent danger.--In the second war of Antiochus the Great against
Egypt, 203, the Jews, of their own free will, acknowledged
themselves his subjects, and assisted in driving out the Egyptian
troops, who, under their general, Scopas, had again possessed
themselves of the country, and the citadel of Jerusalem, 198.
Antiochus confirmed the Jews in the possession of all their
privileges; and although he promised their country, together with
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the future
dowry of his daughter, Judaea still remained under the Syrian
supremacy; except that the revenue was for a time divided between
the Syrian and Egyptian kings.--The high priests and self-chosen
ethnarchs or alabarchs were at the head of the people; and we now
find mention made for the first time of a senate, or the
sanhedrim. But the rout of Antiochus the Great by the Romans was
also the remote cause of the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews.
The consequent dearth of money in which the Syrian kings found
themselves, and the riches of the temple treasures, the
accumulation of the sacred income and gifts, made the office of
high priest an object of purchase under Antiochus Epiphanes: hence
arose quarrels between the pontifical families, and out of those
sprung factions, which Antiochus Epiphanes was desirous to turn to
his own account, by the introduction of Grecian institutions among
the Jews, in order thereby to promote the subjection of that
people, now raised by its privileges almost to the rank of a state
within that of Syria. Deposition of the high priest, Onias III.
175; his brother Jason having obtained the mitre by purchase, and
the introduction of Grecian customs: Jason, however, was in his
turn supplanted by his brother Menelaus, 172. During the civil
war arising out of these events, Antiochus Epiphanes, at that time
conqueror in Egypt, (see above, p. 241.) takes possession of
Jerusalem, 170, being provoked by the behaviour of the Jews to
Menelaus, the high priest of his own appointment: the consequent
oppression of the Jews, who now were to be Hellenized by main
force, soon occasioned the rise under the Maccabees.
Third period under the Maccabees, 167-39. Commencement of the
rebellion against Antiochus IV. brought about by the priest
Mattathias, 167, who was almost immediately succeeded, 166-161, by
his son Judas Maccabaeus. Supported by the fanaticism of his party,
Judas defeats in several battles the generals of Antiochus, who
was absent in Upper Asia, where he died, 164; the Jewish leader is
even said to have been favoured by Rome. The primary object of the
insurrection was not, however, political independence; they fought
only for religious freedom. Under Antiochus V. the sedition
continued successful, both against the Syrian king and the high
priest Alcimus, his creature, 163; Judas having died soon after
his defeat by Demetrius I. was succeeded by his brother Jonathan,
161-143. The death of the high priest, Alcimus, 160, opened the
path of Jonathan to that office, which he received in the ensuing
war between Demetrius I. and Alexander Balas, 143, (see above, p.
244, 245.) both rivals courting his alliance: Jonathan sided with
Balas, and consequently, from being merely the leader of a party,
came to be head of the nation, which still, nevertheless,
continued to pay tribute to the kings. Notwithstanding the favour
he had shown to Balas, after the overthrow of that pretender, he
was confirmed in his dignity by Demetrius I. 145; to whose
assistance he marched at the subsequent great revolt in Antioch.
Jonathan however, in 144, passed over to the side of the usurper,
Antiochus, the son of Balas, (see above, p. 245.) and was by
embassy presented with the friendship of the Romans in the same
year, but by the treachery of Tryphon was taken and put to death,
143. His brother and successor, Simon, 143-135, having declared
against Tryphon, was by Demetrius II. not only confirmed in his
dignity, but excused from paying tribute; he likewise received the
title of prince, (ethnarch;) and appears to have struck coins.
After the capture of Demetrius, Antiochus Sidetes allowed Simon to
remain in possession of those privileges so long as he stood in
need of his assistance against Tryphon; but after the death of
that usurper, he caused him, 130, to be attacked by Cendebaeus, who
was defeated by the sons of Simon. Simon having been murdered by
his son-in-law, Ptolemaeus, who aspired to the government, 135, was
succeeded by his son, John Hyrcanus, 135-107, who was compelled
again to acknowledge submission to Antiochus Sidetes; but after
the defeat and death of that prince by the Parthians, 130, he
asserted his entire independence. The deep decline of the Syrian
kingdom, the constant civil wars by which it was distracted, and
the renewed league with the Romans, not only enabled Hyrcanus
easily to maintain his independence, but likewise to increase his
territory, by the conquest of the Samaritans and Idumaeans. But
with him ended the heroic line. Scarcely was he delivered from
foreign oppression, when domestic broils arose; the Pharisees and
Sadducees had hitherto been mere religious sects, but were
converted into political factions by Hyrcanus, who, offended with
the Pharisees, probably in consequence of their wish to separate
the pontifical and princely offices, went over to the Sadducees;
the former sect, the orthodox, were as usual supported by the
many; the latter, the innovators, in consequence of the laxity of
their principles, were favoured by the wealthy. Hyrcanus's eldest
son, the cruel Aristobulus, 107, assumed the royal title, but soon
after dying, 106, was succeeded by his younger brother, Alexander
Jannaeus, 106-79. His reign was an almost unbroken series of
insignificant wars with his neighbours, this prince wishing to
play the conqueror; and having likewise had the imprudence to
irritate the powerful party of the Pharisees, these made him the
object of public insult, and excited a tumult, 92, which was
followed by a bloody civil war which lasted six years. Jannaeus, it
is true, maintained himself during the struggle; but the opposite
party was so far from being annihilated, that, at his death, when
passing over his sons, the feeble Hyrcanus (who possessed the
pontifical dignity) and the ambitious Aristobulus, he bequeathed
the crown to his widow Alexandra, it was with the understanding
that she should join the party of the Pharisees: during her reign,
therefore, 79-71, the Pharisees held the reins of government, and
left her only the name. Provoked at this, Aristobulus, shortly
before the death of the queen, endeavoured to obtain possession of
the throne, and ultimately obtained his ends, notwithstanding
Alexandra nominated Hyrcanus to be her successor. Hyrcanus, at the
instigation of his confidant, the Idumaean Antipater, who was the
progenitor of the Herodians, and assisted by the Arabian prince
Aretas, waged war against his brother, 65, and shut him up in
Jerusalem: but the Romans were arbitrators, and Pompey, then
all-powerful in Asia, decided for Hyrcanus, 64; the party of
Aristobulus, however, refusing to accede, the Roman general took
possession of Jerusalem; made Hyrcanus high priest and prince,
under condition that he should pay tribute; and took as prisoners
to Rome Aristobulus and his sons, who, however, subsequently
escaped and caused great disturbances. The Jewish state being now
dependent on Rome, remained so, and the yoke was confirmed by the
policy of Antipater and his sons, who followed the general maxim
of entire devotion to Rome, in order thereby to succeed in wholly
removing the reigning family. As early as 48, Antipater was
appointed procurator of Judea by Caesar, whom he had supported at
Alexandria, and his second son Herod, governor in Galilee, soon
became sufficiently powerful to threaten Hyrcanus and the
sanhedrim, 45. He gained the favour of Antony, and thus maintained
himself amid the tempests which, after the assassination of Caesar,
44, shook the Roman world, powerful as the party opposed to him
were: that party, however, at last, in lieu of the ill-fated
Hyrcanus, the only surviving son of Aristobulus, placed Antigonus
at their head, and, assisted by the Parthians, then flourishing in
power, seated him on the throne, 39. Herod having fled to Rome,
not only met with a gracious reception at the hands of the
triumviri, but was by them appointed king.
Fourth period under the Herodians, B. C. 39 to A. D. 70. Herod the
Great, B. C. 39 to A. D. 1. put himself in possession of Jerusalem
and all Judaea, B. C. 37, and confirmed his power by marrying
Mariamne of the house of the Maccabees. Notwithstanding his
severity shown to the party of Antigonus, and the house of the
Maccabees, the total extinction of which Herod deemed necessary
for his own safety; yet so greatly did the wasted country stand in
need of peace, that for that very reason his reign may be said to
have been a happy one. Availing himself of the liberality of
Augustus, whose favour he contrived to obtain after the defeat of
Anthony, B.C. 31, Herod gradually increased the extent of his
kingdom, which at last comprised Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and
beyond the Jordan, Peraea, Ituraea, and Trachonitis, (that is to
say, the whole of Palestine,) together with Idumaea; from these
countries he derived his income without being obliged to pay any
tribute. The deference consequently shown by Herod to Rome, was
but the effect of a natural policy, and his conduct in that
respect could be objected to him only by bigoted Jews. To his
whole family, rather than to himself individually, are to be
attributed the executions which took place among its members;
happy had it been if the sword had smitten none but the guilty and
spared the innocent. In the last year but one of his reign is
placed the birth of Christ (according to the usually adopted
computation, made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus. But
the more accurate calculations of modern chronologists show that
the real date of the Saviour's birth was probably four years
earlier).--According to his will, with some few alterations made
by Augustus, his kingdom was divided among his three surviving
sons; Archelaus, as ethnarch, receiving the greater moiety, Judaea,
Samaria, and Idumaea; the two others, as tetrarchs, Philip a part
of Galilee and Trachonitis, Antipas the other part of Galilee, and
Peraea, together with Ituraea; subsequently to which division, the
various parts did not, in consequence, all share the same
fate.--Archelaus, by misgovernment, soon lost his portion, A. D.
6; Judaea and Samaria were consequently annexed as a Roman province
to Syria, and placed under procurators subordinate to the Syrian
governors: among these procurators, the most famous is Pontius
Pilate, about A.D. 27-36, under whom the founder of our religion
appeared and suffered, not as a political--although accused of
being so--but as a moral reformer. On the other hand, Philip
retained his tetrarchy until the day of his death, A. D. 34, when
his country had the same lot with Judaea and Samaria. Soon after,
that is to say, in A. D. 37, it was, however, given by Caligula,
with the title of king, to Agrippa, (grandson of Herod by
Aristobulus,) as a recompense for his attachment to the family of
Germanicus; and when Antipas, who wished to procure a similar
favour for himself but instead of it, was deposed, 39, Agrippa
received his tetrarchy also, 40, and soon afterwards, by the
possession of the territory which had belonged to Archelaus,
became master of the whole of Palestine. Agrippa having died in A.
D. 44, the whole country being appended to Syria, became a Roman
province, and received procurators, although Chalcis, 49, and
subsequently also, 53, Philip's tetrarchy, were restored as a
kingdom to his son Agrippa II. _d._ 90. The oppression of the
procurators, and of Gessius Florus in particular, who obtained the
office, A. D. 64, excited the Jews to rebellion, which, 70, ended
in the capture and destruction of their city and temple by Titus.
The spread of the Jews over the whole civilized world of that
time, although previously commenced, was by this event still
further increased; and at the same time the extension of
Christianity was prepared and facilitated. Even after the
conquest, Jerusalem not only continued to exist as a city, but was
also still considered by the nation as a point of union; and the
attempt, under Adrian, to establish a Roman colony there, produced
a fearful sedition.
BASNAGE, _Histoire des Juifs depuis J. C. jusqu' a present_. La
Haye, 1716, 15 vols. 12mo. The first two parts only, properly
speaking, belong to this period; but the others likewise contain
several very valuable historical researches.
PRIDEAUX, _The Old and New Testament connected in the history of
the Jews and their neighbouring nations_. Lond. 1714, 2 vols. This
work, together with that above quoted, have always been esteemed
the grand books on the subject. The French translation of
Prideaux's Connection is, by its arrangement, more convenient for
use than the original: this translation was published at
Amsterdam, 1722, 5 vols. 8vo. under the title of PRIDEAUX,
_Histoire des Juifs et des peuples voisins depuis la decadence des
Royaumes d'Israel et de Juda, jusqu' a la mort de J. C._
# J. D. MICHAELIS, _Translation of the Books of Esdras, Nehemiah,
and Maccabees_, contains in the observations several historic
discussions of high importance.
# J. REMOND, _Essay towards a history of the spread of Judaism,
from Cyrus to the total decline of the Jewish state_. Leipzig,
1789. The industrious work of a young scholar.
To the works enumerated p. 34, 35, must be added, for the more
ancient history of the Jews:
J. L. BAUER, _Manual of the history of the Hebrew nation, from its
rise to the destruction of its state_. Nuremberg, 1800, 2 parts,
8vo. As yet the best critical introduction, not only to the
history, but also to the antiquities of the nation.
# In the works of J. J. HESS, belonging to this subject, namely,
_History of Moses_; _History of Joshua_; _History of the Rulers of
Judah_, 2 parts; _History of the Kings of Judah and Israel_: the
history is throughout considered in a theocratic point of view.
* * * * *
FIFTH BOOK.
HISTORY OF THE ROMAN STATE.
_Introductory remarks on the Geography of Ancient Italy._
Italy constitutes a peninsula, bounded on the north by the Alps, on the
west and south by the Mediterranean, and on the east by the Adriatic
sea. Its greatest length from north to south is 600 geogr. miles; its
greatest breadth, taken at the foot of the Alps, is 320 geogr. miles;
but that of the peninsula, properly so called, is not more than 120
geogr. miles. Superficial contents, 81,920 sq. geogr. miles. The
principal mountain range is that of the Apennines, which, diverging
occasionally to the west, or east, stretch from north to south through
Central and Lower Italy. In the earlier times of Rome, these mountains
were covered with thick forests. Main streams: the Padus (Po) and the
Athesis, (Adige,) both of which discharge their waters in the Adriatic;
and the Tiberis, (Tiber,) which falls into the Mediterranean. The soil,
particularly in the plains, is one of the most fertile in Europe; on the
other hand, many of the mountain tracts admit but of little cultivation.
In that period when the Mediterranean was the grand theatre of trade,
Italy, by her situation, seemed destined to become the principal mart of
Europe; but she never in ancient times availed herself sufficiently of
this advantage.
It is divided into _Upper_ Italy, from the Alps to the small rivers of
Rubicon and Macra; (this part, however, of Italy, until presented with
the right of citizenship under Caesar, was, according to the Roman
political geography, considered as a province;) into _Central_ Italy,
from the Rubicon and the Macra down to the Silarus and Frento; and into
_Lower_ Italy from those rivers to the southern land's end.
I. _Upper Italy comprises the two countries, Gallia Cisalpina and
Liguria._
1. Gallia Cisalpina, or Togata, in contradistinction to Gallia
Transalpina. It bears the name of Gallia, in consequence of being for
the most part occupied by Gallic races. This country is one continuous
plain, divided by the Padus into two parts, the northernmost of which is
therefore denominated Gallia Transpadana, (inhabited by the Taurini,
Insubres, and Cenomani,) while the southern part (inhabited by the Boii,
Senones, and Lingones) is known by the name of Gallia Cispadana. Various
streams contribute to swell the Padus; from the north the Duria,
(Durance,) the Ticinus, (Tessino,) the Addua, (Adda,) the Ollius,
(Oglio,) the Mintius, (Minzio,) and several less important rivers; from
the south, the Tanarus, (Tanaro,) the Trebia, etc. The Athesis, (Adige,)
the Plavis, (Piave,) and a number of smaller mountain streams, roll
their waters directly into the Adriatic.
The cities in Gallia Cisalpina were, generally speaking, Roman colonies;
and most of them have preserved to this day their ancient names. Among
these are reckoned in Gallia Transpadana, principally, Tergeste,
Aquileia, Patavium, (Padua,) Vincentia, Verona, all east of the Athesis;
Mantua, Cremona, Brixia, (Brescia,) Mediolanum, (Milan,) Ticinum,
(Pavia,) and Augusta Taurinorum, (Turin,) all west of the Athesis. In
Gallia Cispadana we meet with Ravenna, Bononia, (Bologna,) Mutina,
(Modena,) Parma, Placentia, (Piacenza). Several of the above places
received municipal rights from the Romans.
2. Liguria. This country deduced its name from the Ligures, one of the
old Italic tribes: it extended from the river Varus, by which it was
divided from Gallia Transalpina, down to the river Macra; northward it
extended to the Padus, and comprised the modern territory of
Genoa.--Cities: Genua, an extremely ancient place; Nicaea, (Nice,) a
colony of Massilia; and Asta, (Asti.)
II. _Central Italy comprises six countries; Etruria, Latium, and
Campania on the west; Umbria, Picenum, and Samnium on the east._
1. Etruria, Tuscia, or Tyrrhenia, was bounded north by the Macra, which
divided it from Liguria; south and east by the Tiberis, which separated
it from Latium and Umbria. Main river, the Arnus, (Arno). It is for the
most part a mountainous country; the seashore only is level. This
country derives its name from the Etrusci, a very ancient people,
composed, it is probable, of an amalgamation of several races, and even
some early Grecian colonies, to which latter they were indebted, not
indeed for all their arts, but for that of writing; to commerce and
navigation the Etrusci were indebted for their opulence and consequent
splendour. Cities: between the Macra and Arnus, Pisae, (Pisa,) Florentia,
Faesulae; between the Arnus and Tiberis, Volaterrae, (Volterra,) Volsinii,
(Bolsena,) on the Lacus Volsiniensis, (Lago di Bolsena,) Clusium,
(Chiusi,) Arretium, (Arrezzo,) Cortona, Perusia, (Perugia,) in the
neighbourhood of which is the Lacus Thrasimenus, (Lago di Perugia,)
Falerii, (Falari,) and the wealthy city of Veii. Each of the above
twelve cities had its own individual ruler, _lucumo_; although frequent
associations were formed among them, yet no firm and lasting bond seems
to have united the nation into one.
2. Latium, properly the residence of the Latini, from the Tiberis north,
to the promontory of Circeii, south; hence that country was likewise
denominated Latium Vetus. Subsequently, under the name of Latium was
likewise reckoned the country from Circeii, down to the river Liris,
(Latium Novum;) so that the boundaries came to be, north, the Tiberis,
south, the Liris: the seat of the Latins, properly speaking, was in the
fruitful plain extending from the Tiber to Circeii; around them,
however, dwelt various small tribes, some eastward, in the Apennines,
such as the Hernici, Sabini, Aequi, and Marsi; others southward, such as
the Volsci, Rutuli, and Aurunci.--Rivers: the Anio (Teverone) and Allia,
which fall into the Tiber, and the Liris, (Garigliano,) which empties
itself into the Mediterranean. Cities in Latium Vetus: Rome, Tibur,
Tusculum, Alba Longa, Ostia, Lavinium, Antium, Gabii, Velitrae, the
capital of the Volsci, and several smaller places. In Latium Novum:
Fundi, Terracina, or Anxur, Arpinum, Minturnae, Formiae.
3. Campania. The country lying between the Liris, north, and the
Silarus, south. One of the most fruitful plains in the world, but at the
same time greatly exposed to volcanic eruptions. Rivers: the Liris, the
Vulturnus, (Voltorno,) the Silarus, (Selo). Mountain: Vesuvius. Campania
derived its name from the race of the Campani. Cities: Capua the
principal one; and also Linternum, Cumae, Neapolis, Herculaneum, Pompeii,
Stabiae, Nola, Surrentum, Salernum, etc.
_The three eastern countries of Central Italy are as follows_:
1. Umbria. It is bounded, north, by the river Rubico, south, by the
river Aesis, (Gesano,) dividing it from Picenum, and by the Nar, (Nera,)
dividing it from the Sabine territory. It is for the most part plain.
The Umbrian race had in early times spread over a much larger portion of
Italy. Cities: Ariminium, (Rimini,) Spoletium, (Spoleto,) Narnia,
(Narni,) and Ocriculum, (Otriculi.)
2. Picenum. Bounded, north, by the Aesis, south, by the Atarnus,
(Pescara.) The people are called Picentes. This country consists in a
fertile plain. Cities: Ancona and Asculum Picenum, (Ascoli.)
3. Samnium, the name of a mountain tract extending from the Atarnus,
north, to the Frento, south; although that country reckoned among its
inhabitants, not only the rude and powerful Samnites, but also several
less numerous races; for instance, the Marrucini and Peligni in the
north, the Frentani in the east, and the Hirpini in the south. Rivers:
the Sagrus and the Tifernus. Cities: Allifae, Beneventum, and Caudium.
III. _Lower Italy, or Magna Grecia, comprised four countries; Lucania
and Bruttium on the western side, Apulia and Calabria on the eastern._
1. Lucania. Boundaries: north, the Silarus, south, the Laus. For the
most part a mountain tract. It derived its name from the race of the
Lucani, a branch of the Ausones, or chief nation of Lower Italy. Cities:
Paestum, or Posidonia, still renowned for its ruins, and Helia, or Velia.
2. Bruttium, (the modern Calabria,) or the western tongue of land from
the river Laus to the southern land's end at Rhegium. The river
Brandanus constitutes the eastern frontier. A mountainous country,
deriving its name from the Bruttii, (a half savage branch of the
Ausones,) who dwelt in the mountains, while the seashores were occupied
by Grecian settlements. Cities: Consentia, (Cosenza,) Pandosia,
Mamertum, and Petilia. (Concerning the Greek colonies see above p. 155.)
3. Apulia. The country ranging along the eastern coast, from the river
Frento to the commencement of the eastern tongue of land; an extremely
fertile plain, and particularly adapted to grazing cattle. Rivers: the
Aufidus (Ofanto) and the Cerbalus. This country is divided into two
parts by the Aufidus, the northern called Apulia Daunia, the southern
called Apulia Peucetia. Cities: in Apulia Daunia; Sipontum and Luceria:
in Apulia Peucetia; Barium, Cannae, and Venusia.
4. Calabria or Messapia, the smaller eastern tongue of land, which
terminates in the promontory of Iapygium. Cities: Brundusium (Brindisi)
and Callipolis (Gallipoli). Concerning Tarentum and other Grecian
colonies, see above, p. 155.
Three large islands are likewise reckoned as appertaining to Italy: they
are Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. According to the political geography
of the Romans they were, however, considered as provinces. Although the
above islands were, along the coast, occupied by aliens, the
aboriginals, under their own kings, maintained a footing in the inland
parts; among these the Siculi, said to have migrated from Italy, were
the most celebrated; they remained in Sicily, and gave their name to the
whole island. Concerning the cities, the more important of which were,
some of Phoenician, but the most part of Grecian, origin, see above, p.
30, and p. 155, sqq.
FIRST PERIOD.
_From the foundation of Rome to the conquest of Italy and the
commencement of the wars with Carthage, B. C. 754-264, or A. U. C.
1-490._
SOURCES. The most copious author, and, if we except his system of
deducing everything connected with Rome from Greece, the most
critical of all those who have written on the earlier history of
Rome and Italy, is Dionysius Halicarnassensis, in his
_Archaeologia_: of this work only the first eleven books, reaching
down to the year 443, have been preserved; to these, however, must
be added the fragments of the nine following books, xii-xx.
discovered in 1816, and published by the Abbate Mai of Milan. Next
to Dionysius is Livy, who as far as lib. iv, c. 18, is our main
authority, till B. C. 292. Of the Lives of Plutarch the following
belong to this period, Romulus, Numa, Coriolanus, Poplicola and
Camillus; which for the knowledge and criticism they display, are
perhaps more important even than Livy and Dionysius, see A. H. L.
HEEREN, _De fontibus et auctoritate vitarum Plutarchi_, inserted in
_Comment Recentiores Soc. Scient. Gott. Comment. I. II. Graeci, III.
IV. Romani_; reprinted also as an appendix to the editions of
Plutarch by Reiske and Hutten, _Gottingen_, 1821, _ap. Dieterich_.
The sources of the most ancient Roman history were extremely
various in kind. The traditions of the Fathers were preserved in
historical ballads; (no mention is ever made of any grand epic
poem;) and in this sense there existed a bardic history; by no
means, however, wholly poetic, for even the traditions of Numa's
Institutes are without the characteristics of poetry. The art of
writing was in Italy of earlier origin than the city of Rome; how
far, consequently, the public annals, such as the _Libri
Pontificum_, extended back in early time remains undetermined.
Several of the memorials are, beyond a doubt, mere family records,
whether preserved by vocal tradition or in written documents. To
the above must be added monuments, not only buildings and works of
arts, but also treaties engraved on tables; of which, nevertheless,
too little use seems to have been made. The Romans having learnt
the art of writing from the Greeks, their history was as
frequently written in Greek as in Latin; and that not only by
Greeks, such as, in the first place, Diocles of Peparethus, but
likewise by Romans, such as Fabius Pictor, at an early period. From
these last sources Dionysius and Livy compiled. The more ancient
Roman history given by these authorities rests, therefore, in part,
but by no means entirely, on tradition and poetry; still further
amplified by the rhetoric style, that of the Greeks more
especially. At what epoch the Roman history lays aside the poetic
character can hardly be determined with certainty; it may be traced
even in some parts of the period extending from the expulsion of
the kings to the conquest by the Gauls.--For the purposes of
chronology, great importance attaches to the _fasti Romani_,
contained partly in inscriptions, (_fasti Capitolini_,) partly in
manuscripts. They have been collected and restored by Pighius,
Noris Sigonius, etc. in GRAEVII, _Thes. A. R._ vol. xi.; likewise in
ALMELOVEEN, _Fast. Rom._ I. II. Amstel. 1705, etc.
PIGHII _Annales Romanorum_. Antwerp, 1615, fol. 2 vols. An essay
towards a chronological arrangement; it reaches down to Vitellius.
The Roman history has been copiously treated of by the moderns in
many works besides those on universal ancient history before
enumerated, (p. 2.). We shall mention only the more important.
ROLLIN, _Histoire Romaine, Depuis la foundation de Rome jusqu' a la
bataille d'Actium_. 13 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1823, edit. revue par
Letronne. This history, which extends to B. C. 89, has been
continued and terminated by CREVIER. Although the critical
historian might suggest much that is wanting in this work, it
nevertheless contributed to advance the study.
ED. FERGUSON, _The History of the Progress and Termination of the
Roman Republic_. London, 1783, 4to. On the whole, the best work on
the history of the Roman republic; it has superceded the earlier
work of GOLDSMITH.
P. CH. LEVESQUE, _Histoire de la Republique Romaine_, 3 vols.
Paris, 1807. He who would still wish to admire with blind
enthusiasm the glory of ancient Rome, had better not read this
work.
B. G. NIEBUHR, _Roman History_.
Rather criticism than history; the author seems to be perpetually
endeavouring to overthrow all that has hitherto been admitted. The
spirit of acuteness is not always that of truth; and men do not so
lightly assent to the existence of a constitution which not only
is contrary to the broad view of antiquity--inferences drawn from
some insulated passages not being sufficient to overturn what is
corroborated by all the others--but likewise, according to the
author's own avowal, stands opposed to all analogy in history. But
truth gains even where criticism is wrong; and the value of some
deep researches will not for that reason be overlooked.--Consult
on this subject:
# W. WACHSMUTH, _Researches into the more Ancient History of
Rome_. Halle, 1819.
C. F. TH. LACHMANN, _Commentatio de fontibus T. Livii in prima
Historiarum Decade_. Gottingae, 1821. A prize essay.
For the works upon the Roman constitution see below, at the end of
this and at the beginning of the third period.
Abundance of most important writings upon Roman antiquities will
be found in the great collections:
GRAEVII _Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum_. Lugd. Batav. 1694, sq.
12 vols. fol. and likewise in
SALENGRE, _Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum_. Venet. 1732, 3 vols.
fol.
Many excellent papers, particularly in
_Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions_.
With the exception of NARDINI, _Roma Vetus_, inserted in GRAEVII
THES. A. R. t. iv. the best work on the topography of ancient Rome
is
VENUTI, _Descrizione Topografica delle Antichita di Roma_. P. I.
II. Roma, 1763; and especially the new edition of that work by
VISCONTI, 1803. There is also:
# S. H. L. ADLER, _Description of the city of Rome_. Altona, 1781,
4to.
The best representation of the monuments of ancient Rome will be
found in
PIRANESI, _Antichita di Roma_, 3 vols. fol.
1. In certain respects, the history of Rome is always that of one town,
inasmuch as until the period of the Caesars, the city continued mistress
of her extensive territory. The main parts of the internal constitution
of Rome were formed during this first period; which, considered in an
historical point of view, can hardly be said to be void of interest.
Whether every fundamental institution had its origin precisely at the
epoch to which it is attributed, is a question of little importance; it
is sufficient to observe, that they certainly arose in this period; and
that the steps by which the constitution was developed are, upon the
whole, determined beyond the possibility of a doubt.
2. Exaggerated and embellished as the most ancient traditions of the
Romans respecting their origin may be, they all agree in this, that the
Romans belonged to the race of the Latini, and that their city was a
colony of the neighbouring Alba Longa. Long before this the custom seems
to have obtained with the Latini, of extending the cultivation of their
country by colonies.
The primitive history of Rome is as difficult to reduce to pure
historic truth as that of Athens, or any other city of antiquity; this
proceeds from its being principally founded on traditions, handled by
poets and rhetoricians, and likewise differing from one another; as
may be seen in Plutarch's Romulus. As the knowledge of those
traditions, such as they are found in Dionysius and Livy, attaches to
so many other subjects, it would be improper to pass them over in
silence; and that they contained truths as well as poetic fictions is
proved most evidently by the political institutions of which they
narrate the origin, and which certainly reached back to those times.
To attempt to draw a line of demarcation between mythical and historic
times would be to mistake the real nature of mythology.
L. DE BEAUFORT, _Sur l'incertitude des cinq premiers siecles de
l'histoire Romaine_, nouv. ed. a la Haye, 1750, 2 vols. 8vo. Every
thing that can be said against the credibility of the primitive Roman
history has been developed by Beaufort with abundant, and often with
laboured, acuteness.
3. During the first two hundred and forty-five years subsequent to its
foundation this city was under the rule of governors, denominated kings;
these, however, were not hereditary, still less were they invested with
unlimited power, although they exerted themselves to become both
perpetual and absolute. On the contrary, in this period was framed a
municipal constitution, demonstrative of the existence, even at this
early date, of a considerable degree of political civilization; in its
principal parts this constitution was, no doubt,--as in every
colony,--copied from that of the mother city. Its principal features
were: _a._ Establishment and internal organization of the senate. _b._
Establishment and progress of the patrician or hereditary nobility,
which, supported by the privilege of administering the sacred affairs,
and by the introduction of family names, quickly formed, in opposition
to the plebeians, a political party ever growing in power, although not,
therefore, a mere sacerdotal caste. _c._ Organization of the people
(_populus_), and modes of popular assembly (_comitia_), founded
thereupon; besides the original division according to heads into
_tribus_ and _curiae_, another was subsequently introduced according to
property into _classes_ and _centuriae_, out of which, besides the more
ancient _comitia curiata_, arose the very artificially constructed
_comitia centuriata_. _d._ Religious institutions, (_religiones_,) which
being most closely connected with the political constitution, formed a
state religion, by means of which everything in the state was attached
to determined forms, and received a higher sanction. Nor must we omit
_e._ the relations in private life established by law, the clientship,
marriage, and especially paternal authority. In consequence of those
domestic relations, a spirit of subordination and discipline, from the
earliest times, pervaded the people; and to that spirit the Romans were
indebted for the glory to which they attained.
4. Notwithstanding many little wars with their immediate neighbours the
Sabines, Aequi, and Volsci, together with various cities of the Etrusci,
and even with the Latins themselves, Rome added but little to her
territory: nevertheless she took the first step towards her
aggrandizement; from the time of the destruction of Alba Longa, she
aimed at being the head of the collected cities of the Latins, and
finally attained the object of her ambition.
Line of kings. Romulus, 754-717. First establishment of the colony;
augmentation in the number of the citizens, produced by the
establishment of an asylum, and an union with part of the Sabines.
Numa Pompilius, _d._ 679. By representing this prince as the founder
of the religion of the Roman state, that religion received the high
sanction of antiquity. Tullus Hostilius, _d._ 640. The conquest and
destruction of Alba lays the foundation of Roman supremacy in Latium.
Ancus Martius, _d._ 618. He extends the territory of Rome to the sea;
the foundation of the port of Ostia proves that Rome already applied
to navigation, the object of which was perhaps as yet rather piracy
than trade. Tarquinius Priscus, _d._ 578. A Grecian by descent. Under
his conduct Rome was already able to enter the field against the
confederate Etrusci. Servius Tullius, _d._ 534. The most remarkable in
the line of Roman kings. He placed Rome at the head of the confederacy
of the Latins, which he confirmed by _communia sacra_. On his new
division of the people according to property were raised the highly
important institutions of the _census_ and _comitia centuriata_. The
necessity of this measure is demonstrative of the great and increasing
prosperity of the Roman citizens; there can be no doubt, however,
that by its adoption the frame of the republic was already completed.
Tarquinius Superbus, (the tyrant,)--509. This individual, having taken
forcible possession of the throne as nephew to Priscus, endeavoured to
confirm his power by a close connection with the Latins and Volsci; by
this, as well as by his tyranny, he offended both the patrician and
plebeian parties. His deposition, and the consequent reformation of
the government, were however, properly speaking, brought about by the
ambition of the patricians.
ALGAROTTI, _Saggio sopra la durata de' regni de' re di Roma_. (Op. t.
iii.) Chronological doubts. Can the raising of difficulties deserve
the name of criticism?
5. The only direct consequence to the internal constitution of Rome,
proceeding from the abolition of royalty was, that that power,
undetermined as it had been while in the hands of the kings, was
transferred to two consuls, annually elected. Meanwhile the struggle for
liberty, in which the new republic was engaged with the Etrusci and
Latins, contributed much to arouse the republican spirit which
henceforward was the main feature of the Roman character--the evils of
popular rule being in times of need remedied by the establishment of the
dictatorship. The party, however, which had deposed the ruling family,
took wholly into their own hands the helm of state; and the oppression
of these aristocrats, shown principally towards their debtors, who had
become their slaves, (_nexi_,)--notwithstanding the _lex de
provocatione_ established by Valerius Poplicola, ensuring to the people
the highest judicial power--was so galling, that after the lapse of a
few years it gave rise to a sedition of the commons, (_plebis_,) the
consequence of which was the establishment of annually elected
presidents of the people (_tribuni plebis_).
First commercial treaty with Carthage, 508, in which Rome appears
certainly as a free state, but not yet as sovereign of all Latium; the
most important monument of the authenticity of the earlier Roman
history.
HEYNE, _Foedera Carthaginiensium cum Romanis super navigatione et
mercatura facta_: contained in his Opusc. t. iii. Cf. # A. H. L.
HEEREN, _Ideas_, etc. Appendix to the second vol.
6. The further development of the Roman constitution in this period,
hinges almost wholly on the struggle between the new presidents of the
commons and the hereditary nobility; the tribunes, instead of confining
themselves to defend the people from the oppression of the nobles, soon
began to act as aggressors, and in a short time so widely overstepped
their power, that there remained no chance of putting an end to the
struggle but by a complete equalization of rights. A long time elapsed
ere this took place; the aristocracy finding a very powerful support
both in the clientship and in the religion of the state, operating under
the shape of auspices.
Main facts of the contest: 1. In the trial of Coriolanus the tribunes
usurp the right of summoning some patricians before the tribunal of
the people.--Hence arise the _comitia tributa_; that is to say, either
mere assemblies of the commons, or assemblies so organized that the
commons had the preponderance. This institution gave the tribunes a
share in the legislation, subsequently of such high importance, those
officers being allowed to lay proposals before the commons. 2. More
equitable distribution among the poorer classes of the lands conquered
from the neighbouring nations, (the most ancient _leges agrariae_,)
suggested by the ambitious attempts of Cassius, 486. 3. Extension of
the prerogatives of the _comitia tributa_, more especially in the
election of the tribunes, brought about by Volero, 472. 4. Attempts at
a legal limitation of the consular power by Terentillus, (_lex
Terentilla_,) 460, which, after a long struggle, at last leads to the
idea of one common written code, 452, which is likewise realized in
spite of the opposition at first made by the patricians.
# CHR. F. SCHULZE, _Struggle between the Democracy and Aristocracy
of Rome, or History of the Romans from the Expulsion of Tarquin to
the Election of the first Plebeian Consul_. Altenburgh, 1802, 8vo.
A most satisfactory development of this portion of Roman history.
7. The code of the twelve tables confirmed the ancient institutions, and
was in part completed by the adoption of the laws of the Greek
republics, among which Athens in particular is mentioned, whose counsels
were requested by a special deputation. In this, however, two faults
were committed; not only were the commissioners charged with drawing up
the laws elected from the patricians _alone_, but they were likewise
constituted sole magistrates, with _dictatorial_ power, (_sine
provocatione_;) whereby a path was opened to them for an usurpation,
which could be frustrated only by a sedition of the people.
Duration of the power of the Decemviri, 451-447. The doubts raised as
to the deputation sent to Athens are not sufficient to invalidate the
authenticity of an event so circumstantially detailed. Athens, under
Pericles, was then at the head of Greece; and, admitting the proposed
design of consulting the Greek laws, it was impossible that Athens
should have been passed over. And indeed, why should it be supposed,
that a state which fifty years before had signed a commercial treaty
with Carthage, and could not be unacquainted with the Grecian colonies
in Lower Italy, might not have sent an embassy into Greece?
The yet remaining fragments of the code of the twelve tables are
collected and illustrated in BACHII _Hist. Jurisprudentiae Romanae_; and
in several other works.
8. By the laws of the twelve tables the legal relations of the citizens
were the same for all; but as that code seems to have contained very
little in reference to any peculiar constitution of the state, the
government not only remained in the hands of the aristocrats, who were
in possession of all offices, but the prohibition, according to the new
laws of marriage between patricians and plebeians, appeared to have
raised an insurmountable barrier between the two classes. No wonder,
then, that the tribunes of the people should have immediately renewed
their attacks on the patricians; particularly as the power of those
popular leaders was not only renewed, but even augmented, as the only
limit to their authority was the necessity of their being unanimous in
their acts, while each had the right of a negative.
Besides the other laws made in favour of the people at the renewal of
the _tribunicia potestas_, 446, that which imported _ut quod tributim
plebes jussisset, populum teneret_, frequently renewed in subsequent
times, and meaning, in modern language, that the citizens constituted
themselves, must, it would appear, have thrown the supreme power into
the hands of the people; did not the Roman history, like that of other
free states, afford examples enough of the little authority there is
to infer from the enactment of a law that it will be practically
enforced.
9. The main subjects of the new dissensions between patricians and
plebeians, excited by the tribune Canuleius, were now the _connubia
patrum cum plebe_, and the exclusive participation of the patricians in
the consulship, of which the tribunes demanded the abolition. The repeal
of the former law was obtained as early as 445, (_lex Canuleia_;) the
right of admission to the consulship was not extended to the Plebeians,
till after a struggle annually renewed for eighty years; during which,
when, as usually was the case, the tribunes forbade the military
enrolment, recourse was had to a transfer of the consular power
to the yearly elected commanders of the legions; a place to which
plebeians were entitled to aspire, (_tribuni militum consulari
potestate._)--Establishment of the office of CENSORS, designed at first
for nothing more than to regulate the taking of the census, and invested
with no higher authority than what that required, but who soon after, by
assuming to themselves the _censura morum_, took rank among the most
important dignitaries of the state.
10. Meanwhile Rome was engaged in wars, insignificant but almost
uninterrupted, arising out of the oppression, either real or imaginary,
which she exercised as head of the neighbouring federate cities,
(_socii_,) comprising not only those of the Latins, but likewise, after
the victory of lake Regillus, those of the other nations: the cities
embraced every opportunity of asserting their independence, and the
consequent struggles must have depopulated Rome, had not that evil been
diverted by the maxim of increasing the complement of citizens by
admitting the freedmen, and not unfrequently even the conquered, to the
enjoyment of civic privileges. Little as these feuds, abstractedly
considered, deserve our attention, they become of high interest,
inasmuch as they were not only the means by which the nation was trained
to war, but also led to the foundation of that senatorial power, whose
important consequences will be exhibited hereafter.
Among these wars attention must be directed to the last, that against
Veii, the richest city in Etruria; the siege of that place, which
lasted very nearly ten years, 404-395, gave rise to the introduction
among the Roman military of winter campaigning, and of pay; thus, on
the one hand, the prosecution of wars more distant and protracted
became possible, while on the other the consequences must have been
the levy of higher taxes, (_tributa_).
11. Not long after, however, a tempest from the north had nearly
destroyed Rome. The Sennonian Gauls, pressed out of northern Italy
through Etruria, possessed themselves of the city, the capitol excepted,
and reduced it to ashes; an event which made so deep an impression on
the minds of the Romans, that few other occurrences in their history
have been more frequently the object of traditional detail. Camillus,
then the deliverer of Rome, and in every respect one of the chief heroes
of that period, laid a double claim to the gratitude of his native city,
by overruling, after his victory, the proposal of a general migration to
Veii.
12. Scarcely was Rome rebuilt ere the ancient feuds revived, springing
out of the poverty of the citizens, produced by an increase of taxation
consequent on the establishment of military pay, and by the introduction
of gross usury. The tribunes, Sextius and Licinius, by prolonging their
term of office to five years, had established their power; while
Licinius, by an agrarian law, decreeing that no individual should hold
more than five hundred _jugera_ of the national lands, had ensured the
popular favour; so that at last they succeeded in obtaining, that one of
the consuls should be chosen from the commons; and although the
nobility, by the nomination of a praetor from their own body, and of
_aediles curules_, endeavoured to compensate for the sacrifice they were
obliged to make, yet the plebeians having once made good a claim to the
consulship, their participation in the other magisterial offices, (the
dictatorship, 353, the censorship, 348, the praetorship, 334,) and even
the priesthood, (300,) quickly followed as a matter of course. Thus at
Rome the object of political equality between commons and nobles was
attained; and although the difference between the patrician and plebeian
families still subsisted, they soon ceased to form political parties.
A second commercial treaty entered into with Carthage, 345,
demonstrates that even at this time the navy of the Romans was
anything but contemptible; although its principal object as yet was
mere piracy. Roman squadrons of war however appear more than once
within the next forty years.
13. Far more important than any wars in which Rome had hitherto been
engaged, were those soon about to commence with the Samnites. In former
contests the object of Rome had been to establish her supremacy over her
immediate neighbours; but in these, during a protracted contest of fifty
years, she opened a way to the subjugation of Italy, and laid the
foundation of her future greatness.
Commencement of the wars against the Samnites, the Campanians having
called the Romans to their assistance against that nation, 343. These
wars, carried on with vigorous exertion and various success, lasted,
with but short intermissions, till 290. This is the true heroic age of
Rome, ennobled by the patriotic valour of Decius Mus, (father and son,
both voluntary victims,) Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, etc. The
consequences of this struggle were: _a._ The Romans learnt the art of
mountain warfare, and thereby for the first time acquired a peculiar
system of military tactics; not, however, till they had been, 321,
obliged to pass under the _furcas Caudinas_. _b._ Their relations
were more firmly established with their neighbours the Latins and
Etrurians, by the complete conquest of the former, 340, and by
repeated victories over the latter, more especially in 308. _c._ Great
national federations having arisen in Italy, particularly during the
last period of the Samnite wars, the Romans entered into connection
with the more distant nations of the country; with the Lucanians and
Apulians, by the first league, 323, with the Umbri, from the year 308;
and although the nature of this connection frequently varied, the
different nations were perpetually struggling for independence, and
were consequently at enmity with Rome. In this period, moreover,
commenced the practical illustration of the leading ideas of Rome upon
the political relations in which she placed the conquered with regard
to herself.
14. After the subjection of the Samnites, Rome, wishing to confirm her
dominion in Lower Italy, was thereby, for the first time, entangled in
war with a foreign prince; the Tarentines, too feeble to maintain alone
their footing against the Romans, called Pyrrhus of Epirus to their
assistance. He came, indeed, but not so much to further the views of the
Tarentines as to advance his own; but even in victory, he learnt by
experience that the Macedonian tactics gave him but a slight
preponderance, which the Romans soon transferred to their own side,
exhibiting the truth of the principle, that a good civic militia, sooner
or later, will always get the upper hand of mercenary troops.
The idea of calling upon Pyrrhus for assistance was the more natural,
as the predecessor of that prince, Alexander I. (see above p. 275.)
had endeavoured, but without success, to effect conquests in Lower
Italy. In the first war with Pyrrhus, 280-278, two battles were
fought, the first at Pandosia, 280, the other at Asculum, 279; in both
of which Rome was unsuccessful. But Pyrrhus, after crossing over into
Sicily, 278, (see above, p. 173, 174.) once more returned into Italy,
275, when he was defeated by the Romans at Beneventum, and compelled
to evacuate Italy, leaving a garrison at Tarentum. That city, however,
soon afterwards, 272, fell into the hands of the Romans, whose
dominion was consequently extended to the extremity of Lower Italy.
15. The chief means to which, even from the earliest times, the Romans
had recourse for the foundation of their dominion over the conquered,
and at the same time for the prevention of the too great increase of the
needy classes at Rome, was the establishment of colonies of their own
citizens, which, being settled in the captured cities, served likewise
as garrisons. Each colony had its own distinct internal constitution,
modelled, for the most part, upon that of the mother city itself; hence
to keep the colonies in perfect dependence naturally became an object of
Roman policy. This colonial system of the Romans, necessarily and
spontaneously arising out of the rude custom of bereaving the conquered
of their lands and liberty, assumed its main features in the Samnite
war, and gradually embraced the whole of Italy. Closely connected with
this system was the construction of military highways, (_viae
militares_,) one of which, the Appian Way, was constructed so early as
312, and to this day remains a lasting monument of the greatness of Rome
at that period.
Even at the time of Hannibal's invasion, the number of Roman colonies
amounted to 53: but several which had been settled returned to the
mother city.
HEYNE, _De Romanorum prudentia in coloniis regendis_: inserted in
_Opusc._ vol. iii. Cf. _Prolusiones de veterum coloniarum jure ejusque
causis_, in his _Opusc._ vol. i.
16. But the relations existing between Rome and the Italian nations
were extremely various in kind. 1. A few cities and nations enjoyed the
full privileges of Roman citizenship; in some instances, however,
without the right of voting in the _comitia_ (_municipia_). 2. The
privileges of the colonies (_jus coloniarum_) were of a more restricted
nature; the colonists were indeed in possession of their own civic
government, but had no further share whatever either in the _comitia_ or
magistracies of Rome. The other inhabitants of Italy were either
federates (_socii, foedere juncti_) or subjects (_dedititii_). The first
(_a_) preserved their internal form of government; but on the other hand
(_b_) were obliged to furnish tribute and auxiliary troops (_tributis et
armis juvare rempublicam_). Their further relation with Rome depended
upon the terms of the league. The most advantageous of these terms were
3. in favour of the Latins, although each of their cities had its own
separate league (_jus Latii_;) as 4. the rest of the Italian nations had
their _jus Italicum_. On the other hand, 5. the subjects, _dedititii_,
were deprived of their internal constitutions, and were governed by
Roman magistrates, (_praefecti_,) annually renewed.
C. SIGONIUS, _De antiquo jure civium Romanorum_; and his treatise _De
antiquo jure Italiae_, inserted both in his _Opera_ and in GRAEVII
_Thes. Ant. Rom._ t. ii. contain the most learned researches on the
details of these relations.
17. The internal constitution of Rome itself, now completed, bore the
character of a democracy, inasmuch as equality of rights existed both
for nobles and commons. Yet this democracy was modified by expedients so
various and wonderful--the rights of the people, of the senate, of the
magistrates, fitted so nicely into each other, and were so firmly
supported by the national religion, connecting every thing with
determinate forms--that there was no reason, at that time, to fear the
evils either of anarchy, or, what is much more astonishing when we
consider the warlike character of the people, those of military
despotism.
The rights of the people consisted in the legislative power, so far as
fundamental national principles were concerned, and in the election of
the magistrates. The distinction between the _comitia tributa_ (as
independent of the senate) and the _comitia centuriata_ (as dependent
on the senate) still existed as to form, but had lost all its
importance, the difference between patricians and plebeians being now
merely nominal, and the establishment of the _tribus urbanae_, 303,
excluding the too great influence of the people (_forensis factio_)
upon the _comitia tributa_. The rights of the senate consisted in
administering and debating all transitory national affairs, whether
foreign relations, (war and peace only excepted, in which the consent
of the people was requisite,) financial concerns, or matters regarding
domestic peace and security. But the manner in which the senate was
supplied must have made it the first political body at that time in
the world. The rights and rank of magistrates were founded on their
greater or lesser _auspicia_, no public affair being entered upon
except _auspicato_. Consequently he only who was in possession of the
former could hold the highest civic and military power; (_imperium
civile et militare; suis auspiciis rem gerere_;) as dictator, consul,
praetor; such was not the case with those who had only the lesser
_auspicia_. The union of civil and military power in the person of the
same individual was not without its inconveniences, but military
despotism was in some measure guarded against by the prohibition of
any magistrate possessing military command within Rome itself. We must
not dismiss this subject without observing, that as the Roman
constitution arose merely out of practice, there never having been any
completely written charter, we cannot expect that all the details
should be clearly ascertained; to attempt, therefore, in default of
such authority, to describe all the minutiae would be the surest way to
fall into error.
Of the numerous works on the Roman constitution and on Roman
antiquities, we shall mention:
DE BEAUFORT, _La Republique Romaine, ou plan general de l'ancien
gouvernement de Rome_. La Haye, 1766, 2 vols. 4to. A most copious
work, and one of the most solid in regard to the matters discussed;
although it does not embrace the whole of the subject.
_Histoire critique du gouvernement Romain_; Paris, 1765. Containing
some acute observations.
_Du Gouvernement de la republique Romaine_, _par_ A. AD. DE TEXIER, 3
vols. 8vo. Hamburg, 1796. This contains many enquiries peculiar to the
writer.
Some learned researches respecting the principal points of the Roman
constitution, as SIGONIUS and GRUCHIUS _de comitiis Romanorum_,
ZAMOCIUS _de Senatu Romano_, etc. will be found collected in the first
two vols, of GRAEVIUS, _Antiq. Roman._
For the popular assemblies of the Romans, an antiquarian essay by Chr.
Ferd. Schulze, Gotha, 1815, chiefly according to Niebuhr, may be
consulted.
Among the numerous manuals of Roman antiquities, NIEUPORT, _explicatio
rituum Romanorum, ed. Gesner_. Berol. 1743, promises at least as much
as it performs. Of those which profess to treat of Roman antiquities
in general, none have yet risen above mediocrity. Jurisprudence,
however, has been much more successfully handled. We cite the two
following excellent compendiums:
BACHII, _Historia Jurisprudentiae Romanae_. Lips. 1754. 1796.
# C. HUGO, _Elements of the Roman Law_; 7th edit. Berlin, 1820.
SECOND PERIOD.
_From the commencement of the war with Carthage to the rise of the
civil broils under the Gracchi, B. C. 264-134. Year of Rome, 490-620._
SOURCES. The principal writer for this highly interesting period,
in which was laid the foundation of the universal dominion of Rome,
is Polybius as far as the year 146, not only in the complete books
preserved to us, which come down to 216, but also in the fragments.
He is frequently followed by Livy, lib. xxi-xlv. 218-166. Appian,
who comes next, does not confine himself merely to the history of
the war; Florus gives us only an abridgement. The lives of Plutarch
which relate to this portion of history, are FABIUS MAXIMUS, P.
AEMILIUS, MARCELLUS, M. CATO, and FLAMINIUS.
Of modern writers we dare only mention one:--and who is worthy to
be ranked beside him?
MONTESQUIEU, _Considerations sur les causes de la grandeur et de la
decadence des Romains_.
1. The political division of Italy laid the foundation for the dominion
of Rome in that country; the want of union and political relations in
the world paved the way to her universal empire. The first step cost her
much, the succeeding followed easily and rapidly; and the history of the
struggle between Rome and Carthage only shows on a larger scale what the
history of Greece exhibits on a smaller. The whole of the following
history confirms the fact, that two republics cannot exist near each
other, without one being destroyed or subjected: but the vast extent of
this struggle, the important consequences which followed, together with
the wonderful exertions made, and the great men engaged on both sides,
gave it an interest which cannot be found in that of any other nations.
Though the power and resources of both states were nearly equal in
appearance, they were widely different in quality and circumstances.
Carthage, besides her dominion over the seas, had also a better
furnished treasury, by which she was enabled to enlist into her service
as many _mercenaries_ as she pleased: Rome, on the contrary, _strong in
herself_, had all the advantages possessed by a nation of warriors over
one partly commercial, partly military.
2. The first war of twenty-three years between the two republics, arose
from very slight causes: it soon, however, became a struggle for the
possession of Sicily, which in the end naturally extended itself to the
dominion of the sea. Rome, by the aid of her newly-built fleet, having
obtained for some time this power, was enabled to attack Africa, and
succeeded in driving the Carthaginians from Sicily.
The occupation of Messina by the Romans, 264, gave rise to this
war. The defection of Hiero king of Syracuse from the side of
Carthage, and his joining the Romans, first gave the latter the
idea of expelling the Carthaginians from the island. The victory
near Agrigentum, and capture of that city in 262, seemed to
facilitate the execution of this project: it also convinced the
Romans of the necessity of their having a naval power. We shall the
less wonder at their forming a fleet in Italy, where wood was then
plentiful, if we remember their previous experience in naval
affairs; these were not the first vessels of war which they
constructed, but only the first large ones which they built upon a
Carthaginian model. The first naval victory of the Romans under
Duilius, by the aid of grappling machines, 260. The project then
conceived of carrying the war into Africa was one of the great
ideas of the Romans, and from that time it became a ruling maxim of
the state, to attack the enemy in his own territory. The second and
very remarkable naval victory of the Romans, 257, opened the way
for them to Africa, and shows their naval tactics in a very
brilliant light: but the unfortunate issue of their expedition to
Africa, restored the equilibrium; and the struggle for the dominion
of the sea became the more obstinate, as success did not altogether
favour one party. The result of the contest appears to have turned
upon the possession of the eastern promontories of Sicily,
Drepanum, and Lilybaeum, which were in a manner the bulwarks of the
Carthaginians, and seemed impregnable since Hamilcar Barca had
taken the command of them, 247. The last naval victory of the
Romans, however, under the consul Lutatius, 241, having cut off the
communication between Sicily and Carthage, and the finances of both
parties being completely exhausted, a peace was concluded upon the
conditions: 1. That the Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and
the small islands adjacent. 2. That they should pay to Rome, by
instalments in ten years, for the expenses she had been at in
carrying on the war, the sum of 2,200 talents. 3. That they should
not make war against Hiero king of Syracuse.
3. The issue of this war placed the political connections of Rome in a
new situation, and necessarily extended her influence abroad. The length
of the war and the manner of its conclusion had, moreover, inspired a
national hatred, such as is only found in republics; the conviction also
that they could not remain independent of one another, must have become
much more striking, as the points of contact had greatly increased since
the beginning of the war. Who does not know the arrogance of a republic
after the first essay of her power has been crowned with success! Rome
gave a striking example of this by her invasion of Sardinia in the midst
of peace. These successes had also a sensible effect on the Roman
constitution. For although in appearance its form was not in the least
changed, yet the power of the senate now acquired that preponderance
which the ruling authority of a republic never fails to do after long
and successful wars.
Origin and nature of the governments of the first Roman provinces,
in part of Sicily and in Sardinia.
4. An opportunity was soon afforded the Romans, in the Adriatic sea, of
making use of their superior naval power, in chastising the pirates of
Illyria under their queen Teuta. By effecting this, they not only
secured their authority over that sea, but at the same time formed their
first political relations with the Grecian states; relations which soon
afterwards became of great importance.
Commencement of the first Illyrian war, 230, which ended with the
subjugation of Teuta, 226. The war, however, again broke out, 222,
against Demetrius of Pharus, who conceived himself inadequately
rewarded by Rome for the services he had rendered her in the
preceding war. The Romans found him a much more dangerous
adversary than had been expected, even after his expulsion and
flight to Philip, 220, (see above, p. 282.) Throughout this war,
Rome appeared as the deliverer of the Grecian states, which had
suffered extremely from the plunder of these freebooters; Corcyra,
Apollonia, and other cities placed themselves formally under her
protection, while the Achaeans, Aetolians, and Athenians vied with
each other in showing their gratitude.
5. In the mean time, while Carthage endeavoured to make up for the loss
of Sicily and Sardinia by extending her Spanish dominions, which the
jealousy of Rome restrained her from carrying beyond the Ebro (p. 84.),
Rome herself had a new war to maintain against her northern neighbours
the Gauls, which ended after a violent contest with the establishment of
her authority over the north of Italy.
From the first Gallic war to the burning of Rome, 390, the Gauls
had repeated their attacks in 360 and 348, even to the conclusion
of the peace in 336. But in the latter part of the Samnite war, a
formidable confederacy having taken place among the Italian
tribes, some of the Gauls enlisted as mercenaries in the service
of the Etruscans, while others allied themselves to the Samnites.
This led them to take part in these wars in 306, 302, and 292,
until they were obliged, together with the Etruscans, to sue for
peace in 284, before which time the Romans had sent a colony into
their country, near Sena. This peace lasted till 238, when it was
disturbed by the incursion of the transalpine Gauls; without,
however, their coming to any war with Rome. But in 232, the
proposition of Flaminius the tribune, (_lex Flaminia_), to divide
the lands conquered from the Senones, became the cause of new
disturbances. Upon this occasion, the Gauls entered into an
alliance with their transalpine countrymen, the Gaesates on the
Rhone, who had been accustomed to engage as mercenaries. These
having crossed the Alps, the dreadful war of six years (226-220)
began, in which, after defeating the Gauls near Clusium, 225, the
Romans pursued them into their own territory, and encamped upon
the Po, 223. The Gauls having been again completely overthrown by
Marcellus, were obliged to sue for peace; when the Roman colonies
of Placentia and Cremona were established. The number of men
capable of bearing arms in all Italy subject to the Romans during
this war amounted to 800,000.
6. Before this storm was totally appeased, in which it is probable that
Carthaginian policy was not altogether inactive, Hannibal had obtained
the chief command in Spain. From the reproach of having first begun the
war, he and his party cannot be cleared; Rome, in the situation she then
was, could hardly desire it; he however who strikes the first blow is
not always the real aggressor. The plan of Hannibal was the destruction
of Rome; and by making Italy the principal seat of the war, he
necessarily turned the scale in his favour; because Rome, obliged to
defend herself, left to him all the advantages of attack. The
preparations she made for defence, show that it was not believed
possible he could execute his enterprise by the route which he took.
The history of this war, 218-201, of which no later transaction
has been able to destroy the interest, is divided into three
parts: the history of the war in Italy; the contemporary war in
Spain; and from 203, the war in Africa. Hannibal's invasion of
Italy in the autumn, 218--engagement near the river Ticinus and
the battle of Trebia, in the same year. Battle near the lake
Thrasymenus in the spring, 217. Seat of the war transferred to
Lower Italy, and the defensive system of the dictator Fabius until
the end of the year. Battle of Cannae, 216, followed by the
conquest of Capua and the subjection of the greater part of Lower
Italy. The defensive mode of warfare afterwards adopted by the
Carthaginian, arose partly from his desire to form a junction with
his brother Asdrubal and the Spanish army, and partly from his
expectation of foreign support by means of alliances, with
Syracuse, after the death of Hiero, 215, and with Philip of
Macedon, 216. These hopes, however, were frustrated by the
Romans.--Syracuse was besieged and taken, 214-212, (see above, p.
174.) and Philip kept employed in Greece, (see above, p. 282.) In
addition to this, the Romans retook Capua, notwithstanding the
audacious march of Hannibal towards Rome, 211, and he had now no
succour left except the reinforcement which Asdrubal was bringing
from Spain. The latter, however, was attacked immediately upon his
arrival in Italy, near Sena, by the consuls Nero and Livius, and
left dead on the field, 207. From this time the war in Italy
became only of secondary importance, as Hannibal was obliged to
act on the defensive in Bruttium.
_The Course of Hannibal over the Alps ascertained_, by J.
WHITTAKER. London, 1794, 2 vols. 8vo. The author endeavours to
prove that the passage of Hannibal was over the great St. Bernard,
and criticises the opinions of other writers.
[We may likewise mention the learned treatise:--
_A Dissertation on the Passage of Hannibal over the Alps._ By H.
L. WICKHAM, M. A. and the Rev. J. A. CRAMER, M. A. second edition,
Oxon.]
The war in Spain began nearly about the same time between Asdrubal
and the two brothers, Cn. and P. Cornelius Scipio, and was
continued, with various success, till the year 216, the issue
depending much upon the disposition of the Spaniards themselves.
The plan of Carthage after the year 216, was to send Asdrubal with
the Spanish army into Italy, and to supply its place by an army
from Africa; two victories, however, gained by the Scipios near
the Ebro, 216, and the Illiberis, 215, prevented this from being
effected, till at last both fell under the superior power and
cunning of the Carthaginians, 212. But the arrival of the youthful
P. Cornelius Scipio, who did not appear merely to his own nation
as an extraordinary genius, entirely changed the face of affairs,
and the fortunes of Rome soon became attached to his name, which
alone seemed to promise victory. During his command in Spain,
210-206, he won over the inhabitants while he defeated the
Carthaginians, and for the furtherance of his great design,
contracted an alliance with Syphax in Africa, 206. He was unable,
however, to prevent the march of Asdrubal into Italy, 208, which
nevertheless rendered it an easy task for him to subdue all
Carthaginian Spain as far as Gades, 206, and thus procured him the
consular dignity at his return, 205.
The carrying of the war into Africa by Scipio, notwithstanding the
opposition of the old Roman generals, and the desertion of Syphax,
who at the persuasion of Sophonisba again went over to the
Carthaginians (whose loss however was well repaid by Masinissa,
whom Scipio had won over to his side in Spain), was followed by an
important consequence; for after he had gained two victories over
Asdrubal and Syphax, 203, and taken the latter prisoner, the
Carthaginians found it necessary to recall Hannibal from Italy,
202; and the battle of Zama terminated the war, 201. The following
were the conditions of peace: 1. That the Carthaginians should
only retain the territory in Africa annexed to their government.
2. That they should give up all their ships of war, except ten
triremes, and all their elephants. 3. That they should pay, at
times specified, 10,000 talents. 4. That they should commence no
war without the consent of Rome. 5. That they should restore to
Masinissa all the houses, cities, and lands that had ever been
possessed by himself or his ancestors.--The reproach usually cast
upon the Carthaginians, of having left Hannibal unsupported in
Italy, in a great measure vanishes, if we remember the plan formed
in 216, to send the Spanish army into Italy, and to replace it by
an African one: a plan formed with much ability, and followed with
as much constancy. We may add to this, that the Barcine faction
maintained its influence in the government even to the end of the
war. But why they, who by the treaty of peace gave up five hundred
vessels of war, suffered Scipio to cross over from Sicily, without
sending one to oppose him, is difficult to explain.
7. Notwithstanding her great loss of men, and the devastation of Italy,
Rome felt herself much more powerful at the end of this war than at the
beginning. Her dominion was not only established over Italy, but
extensive foreign countries had been brought under it; her authority
over the seas was rendered secure by the destruction of the naval power
of the Carthaginians. The Roman _form_ of government, it is true,
underwent no change, but its _spirit_ much, as the power of the senate
became almost unlimited; and although the dawn of civilization had
broken over Rome, since her intercourse with more civilized foreigners,
the state still remained altogether a nation of warriors. And now, for
the first time, appears in the page of history the fearful phenomenon of
a great military republic; and the history of the next ten years, in
which Rome overthrew so many thrones and free states, gives a striking
proof, that such a power is the natural enemy to the independence of all
the states within the reach of her arms. The causes which led Rome from
this time to aspire after the dominion of the world are to be found
neither in her geographical situation, which for a conquering power by
land seemed rather unfavourable; nor in the inclination of the people,
who were opposed to the first war against Philip; but singly and
entirely in the spirit of her government. The means, however, whereby
she obtained her end, must not be sought for merely in the excellence of
her armies and generals, but rather in that uniform, sharp-sighted, and
dexterous policy, by which she was enabled to frustrate the powerful
alliances formed against her, notwithstanding the many adversaries who
at that time sought to form new ones. But where could be found such
another council of state, embodying such a mass of practical political
wisdom, as the Roman senate must have been from the very nature of its
organization? All this, however, would not have been sufficient to have
subjugated the world, if the want of good government, the degeneracy of
the military art, and an extremely corrupt state of morals among both
rulers and people, in foreign states, had not seconded the efforts of
Rome.
View of the political state of the world at this period. In the
west, Sicily (the whole island after 212), Sardinia, and Corsica,
from the year 237, and Spain, divided into citerior and ulterior
(the latter rather in name than in fact), had become Roman
provinces 206; the independence of Carthage had been destroyed by
the last peace, and her subordination secured by the alliance of
Rome with Masinissa; Cisalpine Gaul, formed into a province,
served as a barrier against the inroads of the more northern
barbarians. On the other side, in the east, the kingdom of
Macedonia, and the free states of Greece, forming together a very
complicated system, had opened a connection with Rome since the
Illyrian war, 230, and Philip's alliance with Hannibal, 214. Of
the three powers of the first rank, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt,
the two former were allied against the latter, who, on her part,
maintained a good understanding with Rome. The states of secondary
rank were, those of the Aetolian league, the kings of Pergamus, and
the republic of Rhodes, with some smaller, such as Athens: these
had allied themselves to Rome since the confederacy against
Philip, 211. The Achaean league, on the contrary, was in the
interests of Macedonia, which Rome always endeavoured to attach to
herself, in order to make head against those of the first rank.
8. A declaration of war against Philip, notwithstanding the opposition
of the tribunes of the people, and an attack upon Macedonia itself,
according to the constant maxim of carrying the war into the enemy's
country, immediately followed. They could not, however, drive Philip so
soon from the fastnesses of Epirus and Thessaly, which were his
bulwarks. But Rome possessed in T. Quintius Flaminius, who marched
against Philip as the deliverer of Greece, a statesman and general
exactly fitted for a period of great revolutions. By the permanency of
his political influence he became indeed the true founder of the Roman
power in the east. Who could better cajole men and nations, while they
were erecting altars to him, than T. Quintius? So artfully indeed did he
assume the character of a great genius, such as had been given by nature
to Scipio, that he has almost deceived history itself. The struggle
between him and Philip consisted rather in a display of talents in
political stratagem and finesse than in feats of arms: even before the
battle of Cynoscephalae had given the finishing stroke, the Romans had
already turned the balance in their favour, by gaining over the Achaean
league.
The negotiations between Rome and Macedonia, from the year 214,
give the first striking examples of the ability and address of the
Romans in foreign policy; and they are the more remarkable, as the
treaty with the Aetolians and others, 211 (see above, p. 283), was
the remote cause of the transactions which afterwards took place
in the east. The peculiar system adopted by the Romans, of taking
the lesser states under their protection as allies, must always
have given them an opportunity of making war on the more powerful
whenever they chose. This in fact happened in the present case,
notwithstanding the peace concluded with Philip, 204. The chief
object of the Romans in this war, both by sea and land, was to
drive Philip completely out of Greece. The allies on both sides,
and the conditions of peace, were similar to those concluded with
Carthage (see above, p. 284). The destruction of the naval power
of her conquered enemies became now a maxim of Roman policy in
making peace; and she thus maintained the dominion of the seas
without any great fleet, and without losing the essential
character of a dominant power by land.
9. The expulsion of Philip from Greece brought that country into a state
of dependence upon Rome; an event which could not have been better
secured than by the present of liberty which T. Quintius conferred upon
its inhabitants at the Isthmian games. The system of surveillance, which
the Romans had already established in the west over Carthage and
Numidia, was now adopted in the east over Greece and Macedonia. Roman
commissioners, under the name of ambassadors, were sent into the country
of the nations in alliance, and were the principal means by which this
system of espionage was carried on. These however did not fail to give
umbrage to the Greeks, particularly to the turbulent Aetolians; more
especially as the Romans seemed in no hurry to withdraw their troops
from a country which they had declared to be free.
Liberty was expressly granted to the state which had taken the
part of Philip, namely, to the Achaeans; to the others it was
naturally understood to belong. It was nevertheless three years,
194, before the Roman army evacuated Greece and withdrew from the
fortified places. The conduct of T. Quintius during this period
fully shows what he was. The Greeks indeed had much want of such a
guardian if they wished to remain quiet: his conduct, however, in
the war against Nabis, 195, shows that he had not really at heart
the tranquillity of Greece.
10. The treaty of peace with Philip contained the seeds of a new and
greater war with Syria; but though this seemed inevitable at that time,
it did not break out till six years afterwards; and in but few periods
of the history of the world is so great a political crisis to be found,
as in this short interval. The fall of Carthage and Macedonia had shown
the rest of the world what it had to expect from Rome; and there was no
lack of great men sufficiently endowed with courage and talents to
resist her. The danger of a formidable league between Carthage, Syria,
and perhaps Macedonia, was never so much to be feared, as when Hannibal,
now at the head of affairs, laboured to effect it with all the zeal
which his hatred of Rome could inspire; and they might calculate with
certainty beforehand on the accession of many smaller states. Rome,
however, by her equally decided and artful policy procured Hannibal's
banishment from Carthage, amused Philip by granting him some trifling
advantages, and gained over the smaller states by her ambassadors. By
these means, and by taking advantage of the intrigues in the court of
Syria, she prevented this coalition from being formed. Antiochus was
therefore left without assistance in Greece, except from the Aetolians,
and a few other unimportant allies; while Rome drew from hers,
especially the Rhodians and Eumenes, advantages of the greatest
consequence.
The first cause of contention between Rome and Antiochus was the
liberty of Greece, which the former wished to extend to the
Grecian cities of Asia, and to those in particular which had
belonged to Philip, and afterwards to Antiochus; while the latter
contended, that Rome had no right to intermeddle with the affairs
of Asia. The second cause of dispute was the occupation of the
Thracian Chersonesus by Antiochus, 196, in right of some ancient
pretensions; and Rome, on her part, would not tolerate him in
Europe. This quarrel therefore commenced as early as 196, but did
not become serious till the year 105, when in consequence of
Hannibal's flight to Antiochus, together with the turbulence and
excitement of the Aetolians, whose object it was to embroil the
rival powers, the political horizon was completely overcast. What
a fortunate thing it was for Rome that such men as Hannibal and
Antiochus could not understand each other!
HEYNE, _de foederum ad Romanorum opes imminuendas initorum eventis
eorumque causis; in Opusc._ vol. iii.
11. This war was much sooner brought to a termination than the
Macedonian, owing to the half-measures adopted by Antiochus. After
having been driven from Greece by Glabrio, and after two naval victories
had opened to the Romans the way to Asia, he felt inclined to act on the
defensive; but in the battle near Magnesia at the foot of Mount Sipylus,
L. Scipio gathered the laurels which more properly belonged to Glabrio.
The total expulsion of Antiochus from Asia Minor, even before this
victory, had been the chief object of the war. The conditions of peace
(see above, p. 284.) were such, as not only weakened Antiochus, but
reduced him to a state of dependence.
During this contest in the east, a sanguinary war was going on in
the west; from the year 201 in Spain, where the elder Cato
commanded; and from 193 in Italy itself, against the Ligurians.
Whatever may be said upon the means made use of by Rome to
increase the number of her citizens, it will always be difficult
to comprehend, not only how she could support all these wars
without being thereby weakened, but how at the same time she could
found so many colonies!
12. Even after the termination of this war, Rome refrained with
astonishing moderation from appearing in the light of a conqueror: it
was only for the liberty of Greece, and for her allies, that she had
contended! Without keeping a foot of land for herself, she divided, with
the exception of the free Grecian cities, the conquered Asia Minor
between Eumenes and the Rhodians; the manner, however, in which she
dealt with the Aetolians, who after a long supplication for peace were
obliged to buy it dearly, shows that she also knew how to treat
unfaithful allies. The war against the Gauls in Asia Minor was not less
necessary for the preservation of tranquillity in that country, than it
was injurious to the morals and military discipline of the Roman army.
They here learned to levy contributions.
13. Thus, within the short space of ten years, was laid the foundation
of the Roman authority in the east, and the general state of affairs
entirely changed. If Rome was not yet the ruler, she was at least the
arbitress of the world from the Atlantic to the Euphrates. The power of
the three principal states was so completely humbled, that they durst
not, without the permission of Rome, begin any new war; the fourth,
Egypt, had already, in the year 201, placed herself under the
guardianship of Rome; and the lesser powers followed of themselves:
esteeming it an honour to be called the _allies of Rome_. With this name
the nations were lulled into security, and brought under the Roman yoke;
the new political system of Rome was founded and strengthened, partly by
exciting and supporting the weaker states against the stronger, however
unjust the cause of the former might be, and partly by factions which
she found means to raise in every state, even the smallest.
Although the policy of Rome extended itself everywhere by means of
her commissioners, or ambassadors, yet she kept a more particular
guard against Carthage by favouring Masinissa at her expense,
against the Achaean league by favouring the Spartans, and against
Philip of Macedon by favouring every one who brought any complaint
against him (see above, p. 285).
14. Although these new connections and this intercourse with foreign
nations greatly aided the diffusion of knowledge and science, and was
followed by a gradual improvement in her civilization, yet was it
nevertheless, in many respects, detrimental to the internal state of
Rome. The introduction of the scandalous Bacchanalia, which were
immediately discovered and forbidden, shows how easily great vices may
creep in among a people who are only indebted for their morality to
their ignorance. Among the higher classes also the spirit of intrigue
manifested itself to an astonishing degree; particularly by the attacks
directed against the Scipios by the elder Cato, whose restless activity
became the instrument of his malignant passions. The severity of his
censorship did not repair the evils caused by his immorality and
pernicious politics.
Voluntary exile of Scipio Africanus to Linternum, 187. He dies
there, 183, the same year in which Hannibal falls under the
continued persecution of Rome. His brother Scipio Asiaticus is
also unable to escape a trial and condemnation, 185. One would
have expected a sensible effect from the exile of these two great
men; but, in a state where the ruling power is in the hands of a
body like what the Roman senate was, the change of individuals is
but of little consequence.
15. Fresh disputes arose, as early as 185, with Philip of Macedon, who
soon found that they had spared him no longer than it suited their own
convenience. Although the intervention of Philip's youngest son, upon
whom the Romans had formed some design, prevented the powers from coming
to an immediate rupture, and war was still further delayed by Philip's
death, yet the national hatred descended to his successor, and continued
to increase, notwithstanding an alliance concluded with him, until the
war openly broke out (see above, p. 287).
The first circumstance which gave umbrage to Philip was the small
portion they permitted him to conquer in Athamania and Thessaly
during the war against Antiochus. But what sharpened his
animosity, much more than the object in dispute, was the conduct
of the Roman commissioners, before whom he, the king, was called
upon to defend himself as an accused party, 184. The exclamation
of Philip, that "the sun of every day had not yet set," showed his
indignation, and at the same time betrayed his intention. The
interval previous to the breaking out of the war was anything
rather than a time of peace for Rome; for besides that the Spanish
and Ligurian wars continued almost without intermission, the
revolts which broke out in Istria, 178, and in Sardinia and
Corsica, 176, produced much bloodshed.
16. In the second Macedonian war, which ended with the destruction of
Perseus and his kingdom (see above, p. 288), it required the active
efforts of Roman policy to prevent a powerful confederacy from being
formed against her; as Perseus used all his endeavours to stimulate, not
only the Grecian states, and Thrace and Illyria, but also Carthage and
Asia, to enter into alliance with him. Where was it that Rome did not at
this crisis send her ambassadors? She did not, indeed, succeed so far as
to leave her enemy quite alone, but prepared new triumphs for herself
over the few allies she left him. The devastated Epirus, and Gentius
king of Illyria, suffered dearly for the assistance they had lent him;
the states also which had remained neuter, the Rhodians and Eumenes,
were made to feel severely that they were the mere creatures of Rome.
Beginning of the Macedonian war, 171, before Rome was prepared; a
deceitful truce, which raised the indignation even of the elder
senators, was the means resorted to for gaining time.
Notwithstanding this, the war at first, 170 and 169, was
favourable to Perseus; but he wanted resolution and judgment to
enable him to turn his advantages to account. In 168, Paulus
Aemilius, an old general, against the usual custom of the Romans,
took the command. Bloody and decisive battle near Pydna, June 22,
168. So completely may one day overturn a kingdom which has only
an army for its support! Contemporary with this war, and highly
fortunate for Rome, was the war of Antiochus Epiphanes with Egypt.
No wonder that Rome did not, till 168, through Popilius, command
peace between them! (See above, p. 261.)
17. The destruction of the Macedonian monarchy was attended with
consequences equally disastrous to the conquerors and the conquered. To
the first it soon gave the notion of becoming the masters of the world,
instead of its arbiters; and it exposed the latter, for the next twenty
years, to all the evils inseparable from such a catastrophe. The system
of politics hitherto pursued by Rome could not last much longer; for if
nations suffered themselves to be brought under the yoke by force, it
was not to be expected that they would long be held in dependence under
the specious name of liberty. But the state of things after this war was
such as contributed to hasten a change in the form of the relations
which existed between Rome and her allies.
The republican constitution given to the already ruined and
devastated Macedonians (see above, p. 288.) and Illyrians, and
which, according to the decree of the senate, "showed to all
people that Rome was ready to bestow liberty upon them," was
granted upon such hard conditions, that the enfranchised nation
soon used every endeavour to procure themselves a king. Greece
however suffered still more than Macedonia. Here, during the war,
the spirit of faction had risen to the highest pitch; and the
arrogant insolence of the Roman party, composed for the most part
of venal wretches, was so great, that they persecuted not only
those who had espoused an opposite faction, but even those who had
joined no faction at all. Rome nevertheless could not believe
herself secure, until she had destroyed, by a cruel artifice, all
her adversaries (see above, p. 288).
18. Entirely in the same spirit did Rome proceed against the other
states from whom she had anything to fear. These must be rendered
defenceless; and every means of effecting that purpose was considered
justifiable by the senate. The quarrels between the successors to the
throne of Egypt were taken advantage of to cause dissensions in that
kingdom (see above, p. 260); while Syria was retained in a state of
tutelage, by keeping the rightful heir to the throne at Rome; and its
military power neutralized by means of their ambassadors (see above, p.
243).
19. From these facts we may also conclude, that the injuries now
meditated against Carthage were not separate projects, but rather formed
part of the general system of Roman policy at this period, although
particular events at one time retarded their execution, and at another
hastened it. History, in recounting the incredibly bad treatment which
Carthage had to endure before her fall, seems to have given a warning to
those nations who can take it, of what they may expect from the
domination of a powerful republic.
Cato was chief of the party which sought the destruction of
Carthage, both from a spirit of envy against Scipio Nasica, whom
he hated for his great influence in the senate; and because, when
ambassador to Carthage, he thought they did not treat him with
sufficient respect. But Masinissa's victory, 152 (see above, p.
88), and the defection of Utica, brought this project into
immediate play. Beginning of the war, 150, the Carthaginians
having been previously inveigled out of their arms. The city,
however, was not captured and destroyed till 146, by P. Scipio
Aemilianus. The Carthaginian territory, under the name of Africa,
was then made a Roman province.
20. During this third war with Carthage, hostilities again broke out in
Macedonia, which brought on a new war with Greece, and entirely changed
the state of both these countries. In Macedonia, an impostor named
Andriscus, who pretended to be the son of Philip, placed himself at the
head of that highly disaffected people, assumed the name of Philip, and
became, particularly by an alliance with the Thracians, very formidable
to the Romans, until overcome by Metellus. Rome wishing to take
advantage of this crisis to dissolve the Achaean league, the Achaean war
broke out (see above, p. 289). This war was begun by Metellus, and
terminated by Mummius with the destruction of Corinth. By reducing both
Macedonia and Greece to the form of provinces, Rome now gave evident
proof that no existing relations, nor any form of government, can
prevent nations from being subjugated by a warlike republic, whenever
circumstances render it possible.
It might have been expected, that the destruction of the two first
commercial cities in the world, in the same year, would have been
followed by important consequences to the course of trade; but the
trade of Carthage and Corinth had already been drawn to Alexandria
and Rhodes, otherwise Utica might, in some respects, have supplied
the place of Carthage.
21. While Rome was thus destroying thrones and republics, she met in
Spain with an antagonist--a simple Spanish countryman named
Viriathus--whom, after six years' war, she could only rid herself of by
assassination. The war, nevertheless, continued after his death against
the Numantines, who would not be subjected, but were at last destroyed
by Scipio Aemilianus.