Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Africans fought in the Roman army?Where were they from and where did they fight?What happened to them after they left ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
-
Message 2
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Not sure if he can be classed as an african but theres a gravestone from a soldier from whats now syria to his british wife on hadrians wall. think the actual stone is in the museum in newcastle?
I would have banked on them mainly serving in Egypt though. -
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
A naive question, but an interesting one since it more than demonstrates the differences of geographical concept that exist between the ancient world and ours.
Rome, from the time of its run-in with Carthage, would have recruited military help from African sources. At that time the terms by which one could be classified a Roman soldier "proper" precluded these auxiliaries from being described thus, but as auxiliaries they were often under direct command of Roman generals (not always - it all depended on the "deal" Rome brokered with its allies at the time).
In the African context Rome's alliance system was for a long time rather fluid, depending on the exigencies of the day. It centred for the most part on cultivating Numidia as a "friendly" ally on the Mediterranean, and later as a client such as Egypt. But there were occasions when even this alliance strategy was suspended or disbanded, and during times of civil war in Rome it all became very confused. To add to the confusion, in the modern mind at least, Spain and Africa were very closely connected in the Roman mentality - a throwback to the Carthaginian territories Rome had subsumed. A similar vagueness existed between Africa and what we now call the Levant.
For these reason it is almost impossible to answer your question in the same terms as it was phrased. Where "Africans" are mentioned by ancient sources the term can mean anything from its modern meaning to supporters of particular Roman military commanders regardless of their origin, and from "allies" to "regulars" recruited from anywhere and everywhere but assigned to African comnmands. It was, in other words, a wholly generic term meaning almost "everything and aynone to the south" of Sicily, be it that they came from there or were simply there through happenstance.
Unlike what prevails today, Romans generally had a pragmatic disregard for race and nationality when it came to factoring outsiders into the Roman system. The usefulness of "acquired" territories and peoples was all that really mattered. The type of records that would have needed to have been kept in order to answer your question, since they would have been largely immaterial in the Roman way of doing things, just weren't. -
Message 4
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Africans did fight in the Roman army. In the earlier period they were mercenaries, or temporarily recruited for specific campaigns, or loaned to the Romans by allies. Under Augustus, permanent auxiliary units were recruited. These were recruited in specific areas, including Rome's african provinces (effectively Africa north of the Sahara). In theory they could be expected to serve anywhere in the empire and frequently served outside of their recruitment area. There's quite a bit of information on Wikipedia, but you have to identify African units, then check back to where those units served:
After they left (assuming the full 25 years service) they were granted Roman citizenship with all its benefits. The pay wasn't too bad either. If the unit had been stationed in one place for many years, then the demobbed soldier would often just stay in his new province, but undoubtedly others went back to their African homes. -
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Hi cloudyj
What the wikipedia article fails to address is the huge complication presented by relocated Romans and their classification as Africans. During the North African stage of the Caesar V Pompey civil war, for example, all sides (including Juba, the Numidian king) recruited heavily locally and the regiments thus raised were classed, naturally, as African. But if you look at the names of some of the more prominent of these recruits you find Roman appellations - which indicates a strong possibility that the legionaries were being recruited from the sizeable Roman community throughout all of North Africa that had been largely founded on the basis of land grants to ex-soldiers in the past, as well as the burgeoning commercial community which was also primarily Roman.
Of course others, people from communities tied to Africa for a considerably longer period than Romans, would also have been Romanised, at least for the purpose of the records - making any attempt at deducing an ethnic breakdown of the people concerned impossible. -
Message 6
Posted by NCH (U9519230) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Quite true Nordmann.
I think the OP needs refining, perhaps Villamarce can tell us what 'picture' they had in their had when posing the OP?
A phalanx of Nubian spearman striding across the dales perhaps? Striding across the House of Commons would be my wish! -
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Quite. The answer to "What happened to them after they left?" for example, in the case of many of those recruited by Caesar and Pompey, was that they went back to their farms in Africa or to their relations in Italy.
-
Message 8
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:31 GMT, in reply to villamarce in message 1
Did the Romans have a concept of of Rome as a nation, to which Africa was alien?
I had always assumed that Rome was very catholic in its acceptence of other "nationalities" and used whatever people were available (if they were cooperative), for their own ends.
i think that it must be taken into consideration that the Romans had a limited geographical understanding. Also there was at the time, virtually nowhere, a concept of "nationality".
[Just a couple of thoughts, please feel free to shoot me down].
glen
(Possibly posting in haste as recently got computer back after a week and may have withdrawal symptoms). -
Message 9
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 30th April 2008
Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:56 GMT, in reply to cloudyj in message 4
Of course, once citizens their (male, obviously) offspring could serve in the legions. They could potentially rise to Prefect status, commanding a unit of - perhaps - African auxiliaries! What goes around comes around... -
Message 10
Posted by Coeur_de_Lion (U2789688) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Re Msg8. There was not a concept of a nation, but the 'idea' of Rome and that of a Privilege, which the oligarch sought to maintain. I would not go on to say that there was just romans and everyone else, as even in Roman society part the population was subject to disdain based on social classes. There was appreciation of other peoples and societies, and while they looked down on them, they genuinely took into account their qualities. Over time a huge number of different peoples resided in Italy and we can see from the social war that Rome was not prejudiced towards other races or cultures, but if they rebelled, then the repercussions were great. Of course, i write here of the republic, not the empire, so i cannot speak of the many emperor's who were inept at politics to say the least. Then there is the situation of huge colonies formed abroad by romans etc.
-
Message 11
Posted by bigfatprodigalson (U5851514) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
I beleive that there was an African Legion that manned Hadrians wall at one point. They either all diappeared or were absorbed into the local gene pool.
This is often used as a point to make a hole in the BNP argument of native British peoples since by definition these Africans pre date the Saxons and the Angles - and probably the Scots for that matter -
Message 12
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Wed, 21 May 2008 15:36 GMT, in reply to bigfatprodigalson in message 11
The Scots derive their name from an Irish tribe who invaded northern Britain in the post-Roman era, possibly doing much to eradicate their native culture in the process. The actual genetic make-up of the modern Scot, however, I couldn't comment on. -
Message 13
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
bigfat
have to suggest here that they couldnt quite disappear or be absorbed without being noticed - semi dark scottish tribesman would have been noticed surely lol
st -
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
As said before - the Roman description of "African" corresponds poorly with today's use of the term, and especially when applied to the military. Troops raised in Africa (as understood by Romans) could well have been ethnically Italian, though most likely a mixture of all ethnicities then assimilated into the Empire as client states and provinces around Europe and the Middle East, and who had been settled on land near the southern shores of the Mediterranean most likely for military services rendered in the past. There is even a possibility that Britons were among them.
-
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Wed, 21 May 2008 21:14 GMT, in reply to Nordmann in message 14
I have to say, it was a very irritating habit of the Romans, raising units of 'Africans', 'Tungrians' and so-on, and then not exclusively recruiting them from those areas - most inconsiderate to future historians!
Auxiliary units frequently were raised from localities with specialist skills (Hamian archers, Balearic slingers and so on) but it does seem that rapidly them were filled up with whoever was available. There's no point in carting recruits halfway across the Empire just so you can maintain the racial purity of a cohort. -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
But they DID recruit them from Africa - it's just that Roman "Africa" with the exception of Egypt, never strayed in concept much further than a few leagues south from the Mediterranean coast, and this strip of cultivatable land had long been used to "reward" military servicemen on retirement, leading to quite an ethnic mix in the whole area with a large dollop of Italian in the blend.
-
Message 17
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
good point nordmann
the africans were arabs - not much racially different to italians
wonder why they didnt do into the darker, negro parts ?? -
Message 18
Posted by bigfatprodigalson (U5851514) on Friday, 23rd May 2008
Quite possible for people of different races to be absorbed in the gene pool - given the amount of time that has elapsed since - there would be no trace - apart from DNA in a petrie dish. The same thing happened in Bristol in much more recent times where there was an African community in the 18th Century that "dissappeared" into the gene pool.
These only go to demonstrate the myth of racial purity that some hold so dear -
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyshakazulu (U6590497) on Wednesday, 25th June 2008
In a thousand years from now northern sudan will be completely paler in shade than it is now!!
Therefore as stated in previous threads it is imposible to really identify what shade of black northern africans were in the times of the conquests of Africa.
They were most probably a mixture of both pale and dark skin colour. -
Message 20
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Friday, 18th July 2008
nordmann..im slightlyconfused...on the one hand you state that Africa in Roman times could be virtually anywhere and yet seem to refer to Africa as a specific place for the soldiers to return to post duty. in addition you stae that they returned to their farms? was farming common in north Africa ( i.e above saharan Africa) at around 400AD?
-
Message 21
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Friday, 18th July 2008
Even if the Roman understanding of the term "African" was different to "our" own I find your argument odd. The Romans themselves quite clearly made distinctions between different racial groups. There were also a number of artefacts depicting Africans ( black Africans)found at Hadrians wall.Furthermore the term Africa is a Latin term used to specifically differentiate a region.
i also find it odd that on the one hand you say that Africa as a modern concept is anachronistic when relating to these times and yet refer to romans as being "ethnically Italian". Im quite sure that the Romans would have had no concept of being Italian whatsoever as the word/country did not exist until hundreds of years later. -
Message 22
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 18th July 2008
Hi Villamarce,
Im quite sure that the Romans would have had no concept of being Italian whatsoever as the word/country did not exist until hundreds of years later.Â
There's this from the start of Book XXVI of Pliny the Elder's Natural History:
Sensit facies hominum et novos omnique aevo priore incognitos non Italiae modo, verum etiam universae prope Europae morbos, tunc quoque non tota Italia...Â
Here's a translation of it:
The face of man has recently been sensible of new forms of disease, unknown in ancient times, not only to Italy, but to almost the whole of Europe. Still, however, they have not as yet extended to the whole of Italy...Â
Note the use of the words "Italiae" and "Italia", which would indicate the word was in use at least during the time of Pliny. I'm fairly certain the word had been around for a good few years before that - I think it's usage by Virgil might be a pretty safe bet, but I'd hazard a guess that it was in use considerably earlier.
Cheers,
RF
p.s. I should point out I'm specifically looking at evidence for the recorded use of the word "Italia". -
Message 23
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 19th July 2008
RF, you are quite correct that the term Italia was in use long before the first century BC although contrary to Vergil it probably has no connection with a King Italos. Most reliable accounts suggest that it stems from the Oscan speaking populations to the South of Rome. The Oscan speakers, groups like the Bruttii, Lucanians and Samnites, are thought to have referred to the area where they lived as Viteliu, derived from vitelus, calf, so it was literally land of the calf. The name was passed to the Greeks that settled Magna Gracia from the eighth century BC, spreading around the Greek speaking world where it became alternative term for bull as well as the name they applied to the south of the peninsular. The north was referred to by the Greek name for the Etruscans, Tyrrhenian, due to the political dominance of their political dominance. As Vitulus was transmitted in the archaic period and initially written using the Euboan Greek alphabet, the V sound was originally represented with a digamma but by the fifth century BC this letter had largely fallen out of use in Attic Greek hence the term Italos and Italoi in many of the prose tracts written at this time.
As it stands the peoples of Italy were quite willing to see themselves as Italians by the end of the second century BC with the campaign to extend Roman citizenship to the rest of the peninsular. Certainly when the Social War broke out after Livius Drusus' assassination the disparate groups of Oscan speaking highlanders and their Etruscan allies to the north as well as Greek city states on the coast settled on the term Tota Italia to describe their federally organised political organisation. The central Italians were the most enthusiastic members of this new organisation, setting up a capital at Corfinum, and as such they borrowed the device of a bull goring a she wolf from the the Samnites. -
Message 24
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 21st July 2008
Hi Lolbeeble,
...settled on the term Tota Italia...Â
Thanks for that - I'd not heard of or read the latin term for their name and it's one that I'll definitely remember.
What really threw me was Villamarce's claim that the Romans didn't use the word "Italian". I was fairly certain they had used it, but I was worried that I'd not be able to find any evidence for it. I knew of the various "rights" given to Rome's political allies, and although in English the two main types are often referred to as Latins and Italians, I wasn't sure that the Romans had ever used "Italians" to describe the latter, and that they knew them as "Socii".
...and as such they borrowed the device of a bull goring a she wolf...Â
That was guaranteed to go down well with the sons of Romulus...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 25
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 21st July 2008
Hi Villamarce,
nordmann..im slightlyconfused...on the one hand you state that Africa in Roman times could be virtually anywhere and yet seem to refer to Africa as a specific place for the soldiers to return to post duty.Â
After the fall of Carthage in 146BC, the area around the city became a Roman province named "Africa Proconsularis". This wasn't the whole of the African continent, but just a sizable chunk in the Libya-Tunisia-Algeria region. The ill-fated colony of Gaius Gracchus in 123/122BC wasn't exactly a success, but before long there would have been a number of Roman colonies established, settled by Roman (or Italian if you prefer) veterans who had been allotted land - I think Octavian (later known as Augustus) established a few. Therefore when Nordmann says "Troops raised in Africa (as understood by Romans) could well have been ethnically Italian..." he's perfectly correct.
was farming common in north Africa ( i.e above saharan Africa) at around 400AD?Â
I can't say for certain about 400AD, but it was definitely a massive part of the economy of the region in the previous centuries:
The prosperity of most towns depended on agriculture. Called the "granary of the empire," North Africa, according to one estimate, produced 1 million tons of cereals each year, one-quarter of which was exported. Other crops included fruit, figs, grapes, and beans. By the second century AD, olive oil rivaled cereals as an export item.
In addition to the cultivation of slaves, and the capture and transporting of exotic wild animals, the principal production and exports include the following for each province:
Africa Province: Olives, corn, cereal, fruits & textiles.
Mauretania: Olives and fruits, marble, wine, timber & livestock.
Numidia: Corn, grains, marble, pottery, wine, wool & livestock. Â
So when you ask:
...in addition you stae that they returned to their farms?Â
I'd answer that yes, in this agricultural economy, a number of soldiers would have returned to their farms.
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Roman colonies weren't just populated by veterans - it was a effective way to get the poor of Rome a decent distance from the city... -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st July 2008
If using a bit of non imaginative imagination, the likes of Numedians and Mauretanians of those times could possibly look like modern Mauretanians and perhaps as southern Algerians or northern Niger people - i.e. looking quite like some of the pre-arabric people that crossed for centuries the desserts: quite dark in face (to be called black by others), with a mix of partly negroid and north mediterranean characteristics. African people? Most certainly. Same as say Senegalese?. No way. Say say as Phoenicians from the coastline. No way either.
I think Moorish people (Mauretanian people) were allies of Carthagenians and later became allies of Romans aiding them to destroy Carthage. Inherently a number of them served in the Roman armies there later also - Romans would not say no to capable armies just because they were a bit more suntanned!!! Even in mythology, the mythological ancestors of Romans (probably no relation of course) Troyans had happily accepted the aid of Ethiopians (i.e. Indians) during their struggle against the Achaians without success in the end anyway. However, while Romans were less racist than Greeks (who were more racist in everyday social terms rather than elsewheer, however being much less violent against other races preferring to make wars among "equals", i.e. among them! haha!) they had always some of that kind of racism that Greeks had for barbarians. They considered the red, the blond (celtics and germanics) and the very dark(Africans) colours in human populations as signs of inferior people, thus they would not easily accept giving higher positions to people coming from there - that remark being generic of course and not excluding such cases. It is also visible that people like Greeks, Iberians, Thraecians, even Illyrians just mingled better with Romans than the likes of the very blond Goths or Slavs or the mongolic hordes or even parts of the Celtics. Why? Perhaps they could have more easily a better social position? For Greeks that was evident, but then so it seems for the aforementioned. -
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st July 2008
It also goes without saying that on the basis of their general racism, for a Greek or a Roman of those times, a Mauretanian anthropologic tribe would be considered as more advanced than say a northern Celtic or a Germanic... Cicero liked to attack just every other nation, but kept the most humiliating comments for the likes of northern celtics (the people of the isles are so backwards that are not even capable of becoming slaves, they understand nothing at all). Imagine that the next time that this was said by anyone for anyone else it was by the British for the poor Aboriginals who lived still in the stone age (Cicero must ate his tongue back in 19th century!!).
-
Message 28
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 21st July 2008
Hi E_Nik,
...considered the red... ...colours in human populations as signs of inferior people...Â
I just wanted to point out that Sulla was supposed to have had red hair, and I've often wondered how his contemporaries in Rome would have felt about - what may have been seen as - a quite "northern" characteristic...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 29
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
my point is one of consistency.When was the nation of Italy founded?
-
Message 30
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Hi Villamarce,
my point is one of consistency.When was the nation of Italy founded?Â
It could be argued that following the aftermath of the Social War of the 1st century BC, that Italy became similar to what we know know. After the war, Roman citizenship had been extended, and the provinces she had acquired, had by necessity, formed boundaries. A few generations later, the Roman writers that we - along with the contemporary Romans - class as "great" were not from Rome itself but from various cities of the Italian peninsula; Livy from Patavium (Padua); Virgil supposedly from somwehere in Cisalpine Gaul; Ovid from Sulmo (Sulmona); Cicero from Arpinum (Arpino); Horace from Venusia (Venuso). It should be noted that the birthplaces of these authors cover quite a geographical area of modern Italy.
I'm just looking at a map of the Roman Empire in 60BC, and Italia is bounded at the north by Gallia Cisalpina (Cisalpine Gaul); to the west and south, the other parts of modern Italy such as the islands of Sicily and Sardinia are other distinct provinces (Sardinia was actually part of a province including Corsica).
So we have usage of the word "Italia", formal boundaries, extended citizenship, evidence that birth in Rome wasn't essential for political progression and recognition, and preferential treatment to those within "Italia" as opposed to those in the provinces (e.g. taxes, I think). To me that sounds like it qualifies as a nation, and also appears to pretty much meet the criteria for a number of Wikipedia's definitions of a nation:
Common descentÂ
Well, put bluntly, you have the ethnicity of the Italian peninsula. I'm also fairly certain that Romans and Italians from the peninsula, who had citizenship and had been placed in various colonies in the provinces, would have still seen themselves as Roman (i.e. Italian by your definition). After saying this, I think at least one of the writers who cover the massacre of 80,0000 Romans in Asia Minor by Mithridates VI in 88BC (the Asiatic Vespers), definitely differentiates between Romans and Italians. It should be pointed out, however, that this was before citizenship had been granted to all those who rose up against Rome during the Social War.
Common languageÂ
Latin. Common-ish perhaps, as there may have been a few places speaking something other than Latin, but I'd say it was at the very least the "Lingua Franca" of Italia (as distinct to the provinces)
Common cultureÂ
Arguable maybe as there were differences, but pretty much a common culture, and I'd say it became moreso over the following couple of centuries.
Common religionÂ
OK, I admit there were a multitude of gods, some from different regions of Italia, but to me, polytheism and relative tolerance indicate a common approach to religion, and as such, meets this criteria.
So, in my opinion, I don't think your concept of an Italian nation could really be applied until at least the aftermath of the Social War; this means it has to be early/mid 1st Century BC at the very earliest, and probably not before (although these dates could possibly be argued against by some as the lower limit).
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Does anyone know which of the towns who fought against Rome during the Social War received citizenship last? -
Message 31
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Was this concept of unity what Drusus was seeking in his move towards granting citizenship to the outlying cities, RF? And is that why he was assasinated?
My knowledge of this as you can see is a tad hazed; an interesting topic.
Regards, P. -
Message 32
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Hi Priscilla,
I've just been reading about Tiberius so I seriously got my Druseseses in a twist when I first read your post! I'm pretty sure that you mean the tribune from 91BC, Drusus whose house - I think - later ended up owned by Crassus and later by Cicero. I really wouldn't want to have been the estate agent trying to sell that property "three previous owners - not very careful..."
As you say, it's a very interesting topic, but unfortunately there's really very little information about the events that occurred from the Gracchi in 133BC to the death of Drusus in 91BC. The best-written sources tend to be centuries after (i.e. Plutarch and Appian) and as they often have discrepanices with each other, and we don't know the veracity of their own sources, it's hard to know in any detail at all what happened.
The more I read about the era, the more I feel I can distance myself form the sophistication of today, and attempt to understand the mentality and motives of these people (granted it's still only an incredibly limited understanding, but it's still a help). To me, it's pretty clear that the tribunate was seen as an easy way to build up a body of clients (the infamous and important "clientelae" we hear of), and any aspiring - and realistic - politician of the time would have used this opportunity to build up a body of support for later in his career. I'd also say that Drusus's house wasn't exactly a cheap two-up-two-down, so he probably had plenty of money, and wouldn't have taken up a political issue such as this without believing it had the potential to be successful. Additionally, a policy such as this must have had some senatorial support, otherwise it wouldn't have been considered by someone like Drusus, as if unsuccessful it would have led to political - if not literal - death.
I'd hazard a guess that this whole idea of extending citizenship had been mooted a good few years before 133BC and the activities of Tiberius Gracchus, and later and more explicitly by his brother, Gaius. The decision by some allies to side with Hannibal during the Second Punic War must have been one of the first strong indications of the shape of things to come, and I'd expect the potential problem was realised - even if in some small way - then. The fact is they did nothing until their hands were pretty much forced by the Social War against the Latins and Rome's Italian allies. Again it's conjecture, but I'm fairly sure that this wasn't something that was ignored or believed that it could simply be swept away under the carpet; the revolt of Fregallae. and more importantly, the reaction by Rome to it, attests to this. Something had to be done, and over the years there must have been some varying senatorial support to attempts to solve an obviously snowballing problem. It's important to say that at the same time there would also have been plenty of senatorial opposition to this policy.
What I find makes the situation even more interesting, is imagining how the lowest plebs of urban Rome must have felt (and they made up a fair-sized percentage of the population). They may have been "scum" according to people like Cicero, but they were still Roman citizens, and this would have given them the belief that they were superior to the Latins and Roman allies. It would have been hell to convince them that extending Roman citizenship was for their benefit and not an affront to their "Dignitas". The importance of the concept of "Dignitas" is something I feel is incredibly important in understanding this era; I can't remember the quote, but I'm sure Julius Caesar, on marching on Rome, said that his was worth dying for...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Hi Priscilla,
Ooops... I hit the wrong button before finishing, and also forgot to re-read what I had written so there's probably plenty of spilleng mistakes, so you might want to cut 'n' paste like you're Williams-Burroughs-with-a-bad-novel before it makes any sense...
One other thing I really wanted to mention was the "agrarian problem", the Gracchi's proposed solution to it, and how it was perceived by the Latins and Roman allies - especially the wealthy and influential. I'm certain plenty was going on at the time that we have absolutely no idea about, but what's clear is that nothing positive was actually done...
Ho hum, never mind, I've had the day off and need to go back to t'pub in a bit to meet some friends...
hic...
Take care,
RF -
Message 34
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Re: Message 32 and 33.
RF,
thanks for your interesting message. I knew that you were a clever guy...but you nearly equals lol beeble...on the first sight...
I had a vague rememberance that I had still to teach Belgium to you
... but had a lot of trouble to find it back...yes the Proust thread from "le port d'Amsterdam". In fact I am a bit sorry that we made him "afraid" of our boards...but if he ever read about the café on the "island"...
Yes I had to teach you Belgium..."France, Germany, the Netherlands and...Wallonia" No, no...in the South is France as you know from your geography lessons...not Wallonia...No, no the fourth country surrounding our "dear" fatherland is in the West...England. Hope that Englishvote didn't made it to this Ancients messageboard...
And yes drunk already that pint in a Brugean "café" on your health...and with the neccessary comments and a I hope a fair description of the "donator" involved...
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul.
PS. Drink one on my health too. Read somewhere that you have a favourite Belgian beer unknown to me...but you have that many brands...now already after the first "café" a second one at Bruges with more than five! hundred! different beers.
Have no time to correct as the Â鶹ԼÅÄ closes...send it as it was born... -
Message 35
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 13th August 2008
Hi Paul,
thanks for your interesting message. I knew that you were a clever guy...but you nearly equals lol beeble...on the first sight...Â
That's really flattering, but I think you may have something in your eyes. Give them a quick rub and on the second sight you should see that I'm nothing of the kind. But thanks anyway.
I couldn't resist joking about Wallonia with you as I really like Flanders, but find it quite funny you having the two regions of Belgium speaking different languages (and that's without mentioning Brussels behaving like it's its own state!) So there's another cafe in Bruges with 500 beers? I know the Brugs Beertje and Cambrinus have beer-menus the size of telephone directories, and Garre has a really nice selection too, but you'll have to let me know the name of this new one for my next visit.
My favourite Belgian beers at the moment? Well, I'm partial to a glass of oude geuze every now and then, but for normal drinking I think it's hard to beat a good tripel, and at 8% they have to be savoured and respected. I really like De Koninck's tripel, most St. Bernardus and St. Feullien Blonde, but given a choice I'd probably go for a Tripel Karmeliet every time (unless there was one of the bottles from that holy grail, Westvleteren, on offer!).
I've a bottle of Duvel in the fridge, so I'll raise a glass to your health after the Arsenal game tonight - as long as we win that is...
Cheers,
Stuart -
Message 36
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Wednesday, 13th August 2008
Thanks for the detailed reply, RF.
If you can drag yourself away from the beer for a tick, yo raised an interesting point - the ongoing fascination of the that extraodinary 150 years of so of Roman politics.
I too get drawn to learning more and trying to finish the jigsaw. It's like a Classical Soap. There are about 15 influential families in the pwer struggle and about whom I know considerably more than I do about current statesmen - or for the last 150 years, apart from Churchill's war Cabinet.
Is it because their lives are so interwoven as is their quest for power?
And I have my favourites and villains; Crassus for instance I find deplorable. How Caesar and Pompey used him in the triumvirate is like cash for honours, if ever. I also have reservations about Crassus' son - the one who fought in Gaul.
At the moment, I am delving into the Domitii family. E.Nik would have been knocked off for implying that Ahenbarbus was inferior because of his colouring. If anyone can suggest a sound ref work to recommend about this family I would be grateful... not in French if you can help it, Paul, though I could cope and I would prefer Latin in translation!
Regards, P. -
Message 37
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 13th August 2008
Hi Priscilla,
I too get drawn to learning more and trying to finish the jigsaw. It's like a Classical Soap. There are about 15 influential families in the pwer struggle and about whom I know considerably more than I do about current statesmen - or for the last 150 years, apart from Churchill's war Cabinet.
Is it because their lives are so interwoven as is their quest for power?Â
It's an incredible era, and whenever I try to explain my love for it, always end up quoting this passage from the opening to Book I of Livy's "History of Rome"
...I shall find antiquity a rewarding study, if only because, while I am absorbed in it, I shall be able to turn my eyes from the troubles which for so long tormented the modern world...Â
The people and the politics grab me more than, for example, military matters (although they're still interesting, just not as much). Trying to unravel the connections between individuals can make you feel dizzy sometimes; you connect person A to person B to person C to person D who in turn is connected to person A...
There are some incredible scenes that would suit a soap: Caesar refusing Sulla's demand to divorce his wife; Clodius and the Bona Dea incident; Pompey's marriage to Julia... The list could go on and on, but you really couldn't do without Crassus as the pantomime villain.
You don't fancy starting a post on your delvings into the Domitii family do you?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 38
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 14th August 2008
Re: message 35.
Stuart,
thanks for the friendly reply. Hmm second or perhaps third, I don't remember the name but it is in the Philipstockstraat...
No, no, not all this...you mentioned something like "moineau" (sparrow?) or "moine"? in one of your messages...But as I see you have already a choice...and at the moment...
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul. -
Message 39
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Saturday, 16th August 2008
Hi Paul,
If it's on Philipstockstraat then it will be "Cambrinus". I'm pretty certain of this because when I'm in Bruges I normally stay in an apartment just round the corner. Further down the street there's a bar called "Celtic Ireland"; you may make some of the best beers known to man, but even Belgium isn't immune from Irish theme pubs!
...you mentioned something like "moineau" (sparrow?) or "moine"? in one of your messages...Â
Aaaahhh... that beer will be "Moinette Blonde". It's a lovely beer, and comes in a great glass, but it's not easy to find in the UK.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 40
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 16th August 2008
Re: Message 39.
RF,
spot on youngen. You know better Bruges than I. About that Celtic one: true too. A bit dark inside I find and I guess they are a bit biased? overthere towards a certain nationality..."Moinette Blonde": you are a "connaisseur"... by far you know more about beer than I... even those Americans...
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 41
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 17th August 2008
Addendum message 40.
Don't know what happened since yesterday but the link worked yesterday correctly:
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 42
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 21st August 2008
RF, I don't think extending Roman citizenship to the Italians became an issue until Tiberius Gracchus put forward the idea of redistributing the ager publicus. It is certainly true that Roman citizenship became more desirable over the course of the second century BC but one might argue that the existing Latin right of migration whereby settlement in Rome allowed one to claim citizenship there went some way towards extending the franchise to those who wanted it. Not that the Romans necessarily appreciated this given the repeated attempts to expel foreigners from the city throughout the second century BC. For the most part the municipal elites seem to have been quite satisfied with maintaining their internal autonomy, something recognised by Fulvius Flacuus in 125 when he proposed the extension of citizenship. Those that did not want Roman citizenship, those with a tradition of urban civic identity that predated Roman expansion like Greek speakers in the South and Etruscan speakers in the North were offered the right of appeal, ius provacatio, thus allowing them to maintain their own civic identities.
There had been a growing disatisfaction with Roman authority, hardly helped by an increasing high handedness on the part of individual Romans during the Second century BC, but mechanisms had been developed so that the Italians could seek to have the perpetrators punished under Roman law. This had developed from individual communities seeking patrons to raise the issue on their behalf in Rome by establishing an inquiry or questio de repetundis on an ad hoc basis to Rome establishing permanent courts, quaestiones perpetuae, in 149. The formalisation of this process did much to reduce the autonomy of the Italian states however as it forced the municipal aristocracies to involve the Roman state directly in their internal affairs. One could argue that the extension of the right of appeal would have had a similar effect on the civic autonomy of Italian communities.
Whereas the courts of investigation would deal with cases brought by individual towns, the Gracchan land commision was a Roman body that would have an adverse affect for the majority of Italian communities and thus appears to have united them like few other issues could. There had been complaints from both the Latins and allies about the number of soldiers Rome demanded from them in their treaties as populations drifted from the Italian countryside to the Latin colonies and then onto Rome. Many Italian communities therefore faced a double blow, further reduction in the land available to the community might increase Rome's own citizens soldiery but it would be at the expense of the number of soldiers the allies could supply and leave them open to further punishment for not being able to meet the terms of their treaties with Rome. It drove them to make a united protest against the Commission by bringing the matter to a sympathetic Roman, Scipio Aemelianus. Italians gathered in Rome in 129 to support Scipio but his death on the morning he was to deliver his speech appears to have lead to breakdown of public order and further threats of Italian protests prompting Junnius Pennus, Tribune of 126BC, to pass a law expelling foreigners and banning them from coming within five miles of Rome. Flaccus' solution a year later appears to be as much a means of averting Italian objections to the Gracchan land commission rather than a specific reaction to this legislation though it was resisted by Gaius Gracchus.
The evidence suggests that the main groups to take advantage of the freedom of settlement promised by the ius migrationis were Italic peoples from central Italy, many of whom came form areas that had suffered the most during the Hannibalic invasion and Roman reconquest. The various attempts to expel foreigners appear to have targeted Italic Oscan speaking populations who were never the most popular people in Rome. It has been suggested that the harsh treatement of Fregellae in 125 was as much down to the change in the makeup of its population from Latin speaking colonists of the fifth century BC to Oscan speaking Samnites and Paelignians from the surrounding highlands, some of whom would almost certainly have been expelled from Rome a year earlier.
As it stands Livy Book 42, 36, 6 is a good place to find the list of communities who defected to Hannibal in the Second Punic war. He isn't too good on their motives however as he suggests it was the baser elements of society that prompted their defection, all of which appears to be contradicted by the status of the individuals that committed suicide or were reserved for special punishment after the Roman reconquest. By and large they are members of the landed aristocracy seeking greater influence for themselves within their community either by reasserting local independence or protecting the property rights against a potentialy hostile Carthaginian army. Part of this appears to have been the potential to dominate their neighbours rather than have to rely on Rome for arbitration of disputes. It seems matters were particularly firecely contested in Campania itself, with towns siding with Hanibal or remaining loyal to Rome as much on the basis of their relation to reach other than any preference for either side. As a matter of fact Praeneste was offered a reward of Roman citizenship at the end of the second Punic war for its refusal to surrender to Hannibal but turned it down. -
Message 43
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
Re: Message 42.
lol,
I hesitate between a standing ovation and quiet admiration...
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 44
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 27th August 2008
Hi lolbeeble,
Great post! I'm pretty busy at the moment (important stuff like looking for a new job, and ummm... photographing a load of my old 1960's 7" singles etc.) but I'll reply when I get a chance.
Cheers,
RF
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.