Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lcgwf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T05:29:20.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

P. A. Brunt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Roman revolution, which transformed an oligarchic Republic into the Principate of Augustus, had its origin, as Sallust (BJ, 41–2) saw, partly in the misery of the poor, in a social crisis, whose origins I cannot discuss here; it began with the Gracchi and with agrarian reform, and agrarian reform remained a leitmotiv in the turbulent century that followed. I need only mention the laws or bills of Lucius Philippus, Saturninus, Sextus Titius and the younger Drusus, the settlement of the Sullan veterans, the proposals of Plotius, Rullus and Flavius, the agitation of Catiline, and the land allotments of Caesar, the Triumvirs and of Augustus himself. Modern accounts tend to obscure or even deny the unity of this theme throughout the period. It is true that in the earlier phase reformers were more concerned to find remedies for social distress as such, and in the later to provide homes for veterans. But the Gracchan settlers and the veterans had two things in common: they were mostly countrymen, and they desired to obtain a secure livelihood by owning their own land. According to Appian (BC 1, 27), whose testimony we have no right to reject, the work done by the Gracchi was not lasting (cf. n. 1). Hence, the distress they had tried to alleviate persisted or revived; the governing class remained indifferent. Unorganized and unarmed, the followers of the Gracchi could save neither their leaders nor their own interests; men of the same class, with arms in their hands, were the essential instruments for bringing down the Republic.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1-2 , November 1962 , pp. 69 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © P. A. Brunt 1962. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Cic. de off. 11, 73: Philippus' assertion ‘non esse in civitate duo millia hominum qui rem haberent’ illustrates and exaggerates the failure of the Gracchi.

2 Obsequens 46; Val. Max. VIII, 1 Damn. 3.

3 Plut. Luc. 34, 4; Dio XXXVIII, 5, 1–2 probably refer to the Lex Plotia agraria (Cic. Att. 1, 18, 6) of 70 (?) B.C. (MRR II, 128), cf. Gabba, E., Par. del Pass, XIII (1950), 66 ff.Google Scholar; Smith, R. E., CQ VII (1957), 82 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; contra Smith, Dio shows it was not implemented.

3a Gabba, E., Athen, XXIX (1951), 212 denies it.Google Scholar

4 Tibiletti, G., Athen. XXVIII (1950), 234 ff.Google Scholar, suggests that Laelius' agrarian bill was designed for veterans, cf. Scullard, H. H., JRS L (1960), 62 ff.Google Scholar, who also conjectures (73) that Ti. Gracchus' partisans had veterans in mind (cf. perhaps Plut. Ti. Gr. 9, 5). For earlier veteran settlements cf. Gabba, o. c. (in n. 3a), 215 ff.)

4a But cf. Cic. de leg. agr. 1, 22; 11, 70; 97; Att. 1, 19, 4; Dio XXXVIII, 1, 3; Suet. Caes. 41, 1.

5 Bevölkerung der gr. röm. Welt (1886), esp. 370 ff., cf. Klio III (1903), 471 ff.; see contra, T. Frank, ESAR 1, 314–5; V, I.

6 Suet. Caes. 41, 3 cf. Plut. Caes. 55, 3; Per. Livy cxv (inaccurate); Dio XLIII, 21, 4. Caesar allegedly reduced the number to 150,000, yet 250,000 received Octavian's congiarium in 44 B.C. (RG 15, 1).

7 RG 15, 2. The plebs frumentaria was reduced to just over 200,000 by 2 B.C. (ib. 16, 4).

8 Before Caesar's reform many obtained the dole illegally, Dio XLIII, 21, 4. Augustus evidently curtailed the practice again by 2 B.C., cf. n. 7.

9 Sall. Cat. 37, 4–7.

10 Gracchus' law was repealed by a Lex Octavia, which substituted less generous distributions (Cic. Brut. 222; de off. 11, 72), probably before 119 (cf. Plut. Mar. 4, 6; contra Niccolini, G., Fasti trib. plebis (1898), 426 f)Google Scholar. If we read ‘senis’ in ad Her. 1, 12, 21, Saturninus only re-enacted the Gracchan law. If his laws were not annulled (Passerini, A., Athen. XII (1934), 350 ff.Google Scholar, cf. Diod. XXXVI, 16; Cic. de orat. 11, 107; Balb. 48), Drusus presumably further reduced or abolished the price (Per. Livy LXXI, gives no details), but his law was quashed (Cic. de leg. 11, 14). If, however, Gabba, E. (Athen XXIX (1951), 12 ff.)Google Scholar is right in concluding from de leg., l.c., that Saturninus' law too was annulled, assuming its date to be 100 B.C. (cf. MRR 1, 578, n. 3.), Drusus may simply have revived it. Sulla ended all distributions (Sall, H. 1, 55, 11; Licin. 34 F), and the Lex Terentia Cassia of 73 provided only for small distributions at the Gracchan price to 40,000 recipients (Ascon. 8 C), a number increased to c. 200,000 by Cato's law of 62; the number grew further after Clodius abolished the price (ESAR 1, 329–30), but even then partly because slaves were manumitted in great numbers to share in the dole (Dion. Hal IV, 24, 5; Dio XXXIX, 24).

11 Livy XXXIX, 3, 4–6; XLI, 8, 6 ff. refer to migration of Italians to Rome in the early second century; the language may be anachronistic. Italians with ‘ius migrationis’ could gain the citizenship thereby, if they settled anywhere in the ager Romanus, cf. XXXIV, 42, 5–6 (with Smith, R. E., JRS XLIV (1954), 18 ff.Google Scholar). A. H. McDonald tells me that he adheres to the view that there was a drift to Rome and other towns from the early second century, cf. Camb. Hist. Journ. VI (1939) 126–7; 132. cf. n. 36 below. Note that Marian veterans did not migrate to Rome (App. BC 1, 29).

12 e.g. Cic. Att. XIV, 3, 1. See Boren, H. C., AJP LXXIX (1958), 140 ff.Google Scholar; Am. Hist. Rev. 1957–8, 890 ff.

13 Sall. Cat. 37, 7. Trebatius, Dig. IX, 3, 5, 1, indicates that patrons might give clients free housing. Ambitus, cf. Last, H. M., AJP LVIII (1937), 470 ff.Google Scholar

13a Sall., l.c. ‘ingrato labori’.

14 H. Gummerus, P-W IX, 1496 ff.; Duff, A. M.Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (1928), 109 ff.Google Scholar

15 Taylor, L. R., AJP LXXXII (1961), 113 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 118 on Republican inscriptions. I do not share her view that ingenui are less likely to have left epigraphic records than freedmen.

16 e.g. Att. II, 1, 8.

17 Dom. 53–4; 89; Sest. 34 and often; ‘servi’ may embrace freedmen, cf. Mil. 87 with Ascon. 52 C ad loc. It may be doubted if Clodius' rowdies included survivors from Catilina's army (Pis. 11, cf. 16; 23; Dom. 58).

18 cf. n. 10 and references in Brunt, , JRS XLVIII (1958), 165.Google Scholar

19 Vell. II, 4, 4; Val. Max. VI, 2, 3; de vir. ill. 58, 8. Fraccaro, P., Studi sull' età dei Gracchi (Stud. stor. per l'antich. class, v, 1912), 387 ff.Google Scholar connected this mot with Scipio's efforts to limit land-allot-ments in the interest of the Italians. This would imply that the urban mob were interested in landallotments. I do not believe this. The sources make Scipio reply with this mot to the outcry when he had pronounced that Gracchus was ‘iure caesus’. This is perfectly plausible; the killing of Gracchus was a violation of provocatio, to which the humblest citizens were profoundly attached, as Cicero found to his cost. See also Astin, A. E., CQ x (1960), 135–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Varro, RR I, 16, 4, shows how such craftsmen might serve surrounding farms.

21 Beloch, Bevölkerung 391, counted 431 in the Principate; some were constituted in the late Republic and before 49 B.C. some fifty in Transpadana lacked citizen rights.

22 Curiae of 100 members, Cic. de leg. agr. 11, 96 (Capua); ILS 6121 (Canusium, A.D. 226), cf. Diz. Ep. s.v. centumviri, but smaller numbers are known, e.g. CIL XIV, 2458; 2466. The property qualification might be 100,000 HSS (Petron. 44; Pliny ep. I, 19, 2, cf. Dio LXXII, 16). In many towns, as in Patavium (Str. v, 1, 7) or Narbo (ILS 112) under Augustus, there must have been well-to-do men outside the curiae, notably freedmen corresponding to the later Augustales.

23 RR I, 17, 3.

24 Colum. I, 7, 4.

25 RR I, 17, 2.

26 Sat. II, 2, 115.

27 De agric. 136–7.

28 RR I, 2, 17; II, 3, 7.

29 Ep. I, 14, 1; cf. Sat. II, 7, 118.

30 Brunt, o.c. (n. 18), 166–7.

31 Ser. Sulpicius, Dig. XIX, 1, 13, 30; 2, 15, 2; 2, 35, 1 (?); Alfenus Varus XV, 3, 16 (slave ‘quasi colonus’); XIX, 2, 30, 4; Aelius Tubero XIX, 1, 13, 30; Labeo VII, 8, 10, 4; XIX, 2, 60, 1 and 5; XX, 6, 14; XXXIII, 2, 30 (?); 2, 42 (?); 7, 12, 3 (slave ‘quasi colonus’); XXXIV, 3, 17 (?) (mentioning ‘reliqua colonorum’); XXXIX, 3, 5.

32 Sall. Cat. 59, 3; Caes. BC 1, 34; 56; for Pompey Vell. 11, 29; Plut. Pomp. 6; App. BC I, 80, 366.

33 cf. Seneca, Contr. VII, 6, 17 (with Plut. Cato Maior 24); Cic. Caec. 17; 57; 94 (métayage ?); Cluent. 175; 182; de off. III, 88; Saserna ap. Colum. 1, 7, 4. Small tenants on ager Campanus, Cic. de leg. agr. II, 84; 88–9.

34 De agric. 144–6, cf. Brehaut, E., Cato the Censor on Farming (1933), xxxiv ff.Google Scholar, on the implications of his calendar of farm work. Free ‘custodes’ in 13; 66–7. Cato's ‘operarii’ are not free (Brunt, o.c. in n. 18, p. 165) nor are the ‘pastores’ of 149–50 who can be pledged.

35 Plut. C. Gr. 13, 2; Cic. de orat. III, 46; Pliny NH XIV, 10 (cf. Kunkel, W., Eos XLVIII (1957), 207 ff.)Google Scholar; Suet. Vesp. 1, 14; Sen. ep. 47, 10 (cf. E. Gabba, o.c. in n. 3a, p. 209, n. 2). Cic. de off. 1, 41; 50 need not refer to agricultural workers, and Caec. 58; 63 may allude to ‘servi alieni’.

36 The labourers who migrated to Rome (Sall. Cat. 37, 7) need not have been completely divorced from the land.

36a Sall. BJ 73, 6, cf. Gabba, , Athen. XXVII (1949), 204, n. 5.Google Scholar

37 XXXIV/V, 6, I = Posidonius (Jacoby, no. 87), F 110 (b).

38 BC I, 13, 57; 14, 58–9.

39 Gell. I, 7, 7 (= ORF2 184), cf. Fraccaro, P., St. Stor. per l'antichità class. 1 (1913), 93, n. 2.Google Scholar

40 Peregrini were so disguised, Plut. C. Gr. 13, 2.

41 App. BC I, 29, 132; 30, 134; 31, 139–40.

42 See above, n. 4a.

43 Sall. Cat. 37; 48, 1–2, cf. Cic. Cat. III, 22; IV, 17; Dio XXXVII, 1, 3.

44 At least there is no evidence for it, and Crassus defended Murena. His, and Caesar's, complicity in the plot was a partisan invention.

45 Cic. Mur. 49, cf. Cat. II, 20; Sall. Cat. 16, 4; 28, 4.

46 Dio XXXVII, 30, puts this after the elections of 63, perhaps too late; Sall. Cat. 21, 2, in 64, much too early, when the plutocrat, Crassus, was still backing Catiline.

47 Florus II, 6, 11 and 14; 9, 22 and 27–8; Oros. V, 18, 25–6; Diod. XXXVIII, 24; App. BC I, 51, 223; 86, 339; Str. V, 3, 10; 4, 11 (but cf. Pais, E., Atti Acc. Arch. Napoli, 1918, 407 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 415–6).

48 Violence on land: Cic. Tull. 13–26, more common since civil wars, ib, 10; hence new remedy devised in 76, ib. 5 ff. (MRR II, 93). cf. Caec. I; 20 ff.; Cluent. 161 (note ‘ut solet’). Violent ejections: App. BC I, 7, 29; 27, 121; Sall. BJ 41, 8; lex agr. 18; Caes. BG VI, 22, 3; Sall. (?) ad Caes. II, 5; alleged against Valgius (de leg. agr. III, 14), Autronius (Sull. 71), Rabirius (Rab. perd. 8), Crassus (Parad. St. 46), Clodius (Mil. 26; 50; esp. 74). Removal of boundary stones: FIRA 1, no. 12, 55 (55 B.C.?); Dig. XLVII, 21, 3 (Caesarian law); Hor. Odes 11, 18, 23. Note the elaboration of the civil law in providing for remedies where violence had been used (Dig. XLIII, 16 and 23, with many citations of early jurists) and of the Augustan criminal law de vi privata (Ada Divi Augusti (1945), 134 ff.); cf. Labeo, Dig. XXXIII, 7, 12, 4; XLI, 2, 6, 1; XLIII, 6, 20; 16, 1, 28–9; 16, 20; 24, 7, 4; XLVII, 9, 3, 2 and 7; Alfenus Varus, XXXII, 60. Kidnapping: Suet. Aug. 32; Tib. 8; App. BC v, 132; Str. VI, 2, 6; Oros. VI, 19, 32. Armed escorts: Ascon. 31 C.

49 Campania and Cisalpina, Florus II, 8, 5 and 10; Lucania, Sall. H. III, 98; Apulia and Picenum, App. BC I. 117; also Bruttium, Spartacus' last stronghold.

50 e.g. Cat. II, 17 ff.; Sest. 97; de off. II, 84.

51 References in Brunt, o.c. (above, n. 18), 168.

52 Cic. Cat. 11, 8; IV, 6; Cato's speech, Sall. Cat. 52, 15.

53 Cic. Cat. 11, 6; Sull. 53; Sest. 9; Sall. Cat. 27, 1; 28, 4; 36, 1; 42, 1; Plut. Cic. 10, 3; 14; App. BC II, 2; Dio XXXVII, 30, 4; 31, 2; Oros. VI, 6, 5–7. cf. n. 45.

54 Data in A. Afzelius, Die röm. Kriegsmacht (1944), seem to show that the ratio of allies to citizens fell between 200 and 168 B.C. and was perhaps only 4 : 3 in 168.

55 Smith, R. E., Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army (1958), 4Google Scholar; E. Gabba, o.c. (n. 36a), 157 ff., whose reconstruction I cannot accept in detail, as it presupposes an interpretation of Roman census figures which I believe Beloch refuted (Bevölkerung, 306 ff.; Klio III (1903), 471 ff. cf. P. Fraccaro, Opuscula II, 90).

56 App. BC I, 7, 30; II, 43 and 45; Plut. Ti. Gr. 8, 3; Q. Metellus' speech in 131 (Per. Livy LIX; Suet. Aug. 89; Gell. 1, 6), but on this cf. Last, H. M., JRS XXVII (1947), 152 ff.Google Scholar Later concern about depopulation: Cic. Marc. 23; Suet. Caes. 42; Dio XXXVIII, 7, 3; XLIII, 25; Livy VII, 25; Pliny NH VII, 149, and the Augustan marriage laws.

57 Sall. BJ 86, 2; Val. Max. II, 3, I; Gell. XVI, 10, 14; Floras I, 36, 13; Plut. Mar. 9, 1.

58 See Appendix, p. 85.

59 App. BC 1, 49, 212 (cf. Gabba ad loc.); Per. Livy LXXIV; Macrob. I, 11,32.

60 Pliny NH VII, 149; Suet. Aug. 25, 2; Dio LVI, 23, 3; Macrob. I, 11, 32. Mr. J. M. Cook has kindly sent me the text of a new inscription which mentions ‘dilectus ingenuorum quern Romae habuit Augustus et Ti. Caesar’ evidently in A.D. 6 or 9. Tac. Ann. I, 31, cf. 16 and Dio LVII, 5, 4 refer to such ingenui in the legions; freedmen served in special cohorts.

61 Cary, M., Hist. of Rome (1947), 303Google Scholar, cf. CAH IX, 492. Most books are vague on the point, but create the wrong impression. The truth was seen but not fully argued by Heitland, W. E., Agricola (1921), 175–6Google Scholar, Carcopino, J., Hist. Rom 2 (1940), 486Google Scholar and E. Gabba, o.c. (n. 3a above), pp. 178–80.

62 Forni, G., Reclutamento delle legioni (1953), ch. IV, cf. 157 ff.Google Scholar; Passerini, A., Coorti pretorie (1939), 148 ff.Google Scholar; for exceptional enlistment of soldiers at Rome in A.D. 132–3, cf. Gilliam, J. F., AJP LXXVII (1956), 359 ff.Google Scholar

63 App. BC 1, 79, 363; 81, 370; 85, 387; 86, 393; 100, 470 (with Gabba's notes) show how Sulla's army grew. Per. Livy LXXXIX gives him forty-seven legions; this must be wrong.

64 Georg. 1, 507, cf. App. BC V, 18, 72; 74, 314.

65 o.c. (n. 55), 44 ff.

66 Livy XXXIV, 56, 9; XXXVI, 3, 5; XXXIX, 38, 6 ff.; XLII, 32, 6–35, 2; XLIII, 11, 10; Per. XLVIII; LV and Oxy. Epit. of LV; App. Iber. 49; 78; Sall BJ 41, 7; App. BC 1, 7, 30; Plut. Ti Gr. 8, 3. Mr. Cuff thinks that harsh discipline in the mid-second century (Pol. VI, 37; Livy, Per. LV; Front., Strat. IV, 1, 20 was a particular grievance; later it was relaxed, cf. below, n. 93a.

67 See esp. Cic., Prov. Cons. 5; Att. IX, 19, 1, cf. VII, 13, 2; Dio XXXIX, 39; Plut., Pomp. 59; Sall. (?) ad Caes. 1, 8, 6; App., BC V, 74; Suet., Tib. 8; Vell. II, 130, 2, with Tac, Ann. IV, 4.

68 Cic, de imp. Cn. Pomp. 26; Plut., Luc. 34–5; App., Mith. 90; Dio XXXVI, 14–6; 46, 1.

69 Cic. Prov. Cons. 5; Pis. 57 with 47; 91–2. There were no legions in Macedon in early 49, cf. Caes. BC III, 4.

70 o.c. (n. 53), ch. III.

71 ibid. 21, n. 2.

72 Caes. BG I, 7, 2; 10, 3; App. BC II, 13; Dio XXXVIII, 8, 5.

73 Hist. of Rome IV, 6 (Everyman ed. vol. iii, 188).

74 So von Premerstein, A., Vom Werden u. Wesen des Prinzipats (1937), 25Google Scholar; E. Gabba, o.c. (n. 3a), 186–7.

74a App. BC V, 17, cf. Plut. Sulla 12, 6–9; Nepos, Eumenes 8, 2.

75 App. BC I, 65, 298–9; for bribes, Vell. II, 20, 4.

76 App. BC I, 85 (with Gabba's notes); Per. Livy LXXXVI.

77 Plut. Cato Min. 64; App. BC II, 50–1; Dio XLIII, 5.

78 Caes. BC I, 7–8 (cf. App. BC II, 33; Dio XLI, 4, 1); 22; 85.

79 Caes. BC I, 71–2; III, 90, cf. 19 and 57; App. BC II, 47.

80 Hermes LXX (1935), 208 ff., stressing B. Hisp. 17; 19, 4, cf. B. Afr. 45; but cf. B. Hisp. I; 42; B. Afr. 25, 5.

81 App. BC IV, 89–99; 133.

81a App. Iber. 84, and evidence in n. 32. Diod. XXXVII, 13, suggests that the Domitii were patrons of the Marsi (P. J. Cuff).

82 Plut. Caes. 16–17; Suet. Caes. 67–70; cf. Vogt, J., Orbis Romanus (1960), 89 ff.Google Scholar

83 Caes. BC I, 84, 3; B. Alex. 58, for Pompey.

84 Nic. Dam. (Jacoby, no. 90), F 130, 41; 46; 49; 56; 118; App. BC III, 12; 32; 40; 43, etc. cf. the loyalty of Marius' veterans to his son, Diod. XXXVIII–IX, 12.

85 Smith, o.c. (n. 55), 31–3.

86 Caes. BC II, 28–32, cf. I, 23, is instructive; cf. I, 76; III, 87; App. BC II, 47, 193; IV, 62, 268; 116, 487. On the distinction between the military oath and the oath of fealty see von Premerstein, o.c. (n. 74), 73 ff. The texts here cited are perhaps instances of the latter.

86a Cic. Qu.fr. II, 3, 4; Att. IV, 16, 6; V, 11, 2.

87 cf. Lex Ursonensis, c. XCVII; Dion. Hal. II, II, I; Cic. Sulla 60 (Pompeii); Caes. BC 1, 35, 4 (Massilia). Besides the Marcelli (II Verr. iii, 45, etc.), Verres (ib. ii, 114; 154; iv, 89) and Cicero (Att. XIV, 12, 1. cf. perhaps Div. in Caec. 2) were patrons of Sicily, and the Scipios of Segesta (II Verr. iv, 80). If Cicero was ‘unus patronus’ of Capua (Sest. 9; Pis. 25), which seems unlikely (Capua owed colonial status to Caesar), his position was surely unusual. In feudal Europe a man might have many lords and an elaborate casuistry governed his obligations when they quarrelled (Bloch, M., Feudal Society (1961), 211 ff.Google Scholar). No such rules are known in ancient Italy; if the fides due to a patron was less binding than mediaeval homage, they were not needed.

88 The different views of Brunt, , PBSR XVIII (1950), 50 ff.Google Scholar, and Watson, G. R., Historia VII (1958), 113 ff.Google Scholar, so far agree.

88a Sall. ep. Pomp. 2–3 (74 B.C.); Cic. Att. v, 14, 1; Fam. xv, 4, 2 (51 B.C.).

88b Fiebiger, P-W, s.v. donativum.

89 Plut. Luc. 14; 17; 19; 29 with 26, 2 (cf. App. Mith. 86 with 78); 30; 37. cf. App. Mith. 82.

90 Pliny NH XXXVII, 16; Plut. Pomp. 45, 3; App. Mith. 116. Booty and Tigranes' gifts (Str. XI, 14, 10; Plut. 33, 6; App. 104) are not included.

91 Plut. Caes. 17; Suet. Caes. 68; App. BC II, 47; cf. Caes. BC III, 6, and more generally Nic. Dam. F. 130, 41.

92 Plut. Luc. 33, 3; Cic. de imp. Cn. Pomp. 39.

93 Cic. de imp. Cn. Pomp. 13; 37–8; Pis. 86; 91.

93a Plut. Sulla 6, 8–9 (cf. 12, 9; Sall. Cat. II); App. BC I, 51, 223.

94 Plut. Sulla 27, 3; Vell. II, 25; Dio fr. 108–9.

95 App. BC I, 86, 389.

96 App. BC I, 94, 438 (Praeneste); 88, 401 (Sena Gallica); Cic. II, Verr. i, 36 (Ariminum); Florus II, 9, 28 (Sulmo). Cf. n. 47.

97 Dio XLI, 26, cf. Caes. BC I, 21; B. Afr. 54.

98 Caes. BC II, 22 (but cf. III, 56; 80); B. Afr. 3; 7; 26, 5. But note Suet., Caes. 54, 3.

99 Cic. Phil, III, 31; VII, 15; 26; App. BC IV, 35.

100 N. H. Baynes, Byz. Studies, 307 ff. (= JRS XIX (1929), 229). See for instance Tac. Hist. II, 87, 2.

101 For Caesar cf. Caes. BC I, 39, 3–4; III, 6 Suet. Caes. 38, 1; App. BC II, 47; 92; Dio XLII, 52, 1; 54, 2 (perhaps nothing had been paid by Sept. 47, cf. Cic. Att. XI, 22, 2, with App. II, 92). For Pompeians, Caes. BC I, 17; 21; 11, 28; III, 82.

102 5,000, App. BC II, 102; Dio XLIII, 21: 6,000, Suet. Caes. 38, perhaps including 1,000 promised (App. II, 92) or actually paid (Plut. Caes. 51, cf. Dio XLII, 54, 2) during the mutiny of 47 B.C., or else an extra largess after Munda, when he feared the plebs (Suet. 38; Pliny NH XIV, 97) and surely gave the soldiers another donative. Or perhaps Gallic veterans received 1,000 more than the rest.

103 Thus Octavian gave veterans in 44 500 denarii Cic. Att. XVI, 8, 1; App. BC III, 40) and then 500 more, with a promise of 5,000 (App. III, 48), ratified by the Senate (ib. 65; 86, cf. Cic. Phil. V, 53; VII, 10, etc.); the Senate's attempt to delay payment in full was one factor that enabled Octavian to march on Rome in 43, when the Senate vainly offered 5,000 to all his troops (App. III, 86; 80–90). Antony's parsimony and attempt to impose strict discipline caused desertions (ibid. 43, cf. Phil. V, 22, etc.). For bribes offered to Spanish legions, cf. Fam. X, 32, 4.

104 App. IV, 89; 100; 120; Plut. Ant. 23, 1.

105 o.c. (above, n. 55), 51 ff.

106 See contra A. N. Sherwin-White, JRS XLVI (1956), 5–7. But the conduct of Metellus Pius in 7 (Sall. H. IV, 49) and Pompey in 62 (Vell. II, 40, 3; Plut. Pomp. 43; Dio XXXVII, 20, 6) when he did not realize fears evoked by his conduct in 71, show that it was irregular for him to retain his army even till his triumph on the last day of 71; cf. Smith, R. E., Phoenix XIV (1960), 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sherwin-White's alleged precedent from 180 B.C. is nothing of the kind; Livy XL, 43, 4–5 merely means that Q. Flaccus triumphed with the soldiers he had been permitted to bring back from Spain (cf. 35–6, esp. 36, 10), not his whole army; for a late parallel cf. Plut. Luc. 36, 4.

106a Cic. de leg. agr. II, 54, is characteristically perverse.

107 Plut. Pomp. 48, 1; Luc. 42, 6; Caes. 14, 3, 6 and 8; Dio XXXVIII, 5, 4. On ‘exercitus Caesaris’ (Att. II, 16, 2) see now Meyer, C., Historia X (1961), 79 ff.Google Scholar

108 App. BC II, 125; 135; 141; III, 87; Nic. Dam. F 130, 103. But see also n. 84.

109 Cic. Phil, VII, 10; XI, 37; XII, 29; Fam. XI, 20; 21, 1.

109a Cic. de off. II, 73; 78; de rep. I, 43.

109b Plut. Cato Min. 31; Dio XXXVIII, 2, 3.

110 CAH IX, 134.

111 o.c. (above, n. 61), 175–6.

112 o.c. (above, n. 55), 52.

113 Steinwender, Philol. II (1889), 285 ff., argued from (i) Livy XXVI, 28; (ii) XLII, 33–4, cf. XXXIV, 49 (Ligustinus' regular service, 200–195 B.C.); (iii) XXXIX, 39; (iv) XL, 36, cf. XXXIX, 20; 30; 33; (v) App. Iber. 78 that 6 years was usual practice in the third and second centuries. Steinwender's other arguments, and those of Cavaignac, E., Rév. de Phil. XXV (1951), 169 ff.Google Scholar, are more fragile. The text in Polyb. VI, 19, 2, is uncertain, and even if ‘16’ is read there, evidence remains that so long a term of service was unusual.

113a App. BC V, 3; Dio XLVIII, 2, 3.

113b App. BC III, 42.

114 Caes. BC 1, 6, 2; Plut. Caes. 29, 4; Pomp. 57, 4; App. BC 11, 30.

115 App. BC II, 47; Dio XLI, 26 ff.

116 Cic. Att. XI, 21, 2; 22, 2; Plut. Caes. 51; Suet. Caes. 70; App. BC II, 92 ff.; Dio XLII, 30, 1; 52 ff. (Cf. Plut. 37 for trouble in 48.)

117 App. BC V, 128–9; Dio XLIX, 13–4; 34; Oros. VI, 18, 33.

118 Tac. Ann. I, 17, 2–3; 31, 1; 36, 3. Note 16, 1, ‘nullis novis causis.’

119 App. BC I, 85; Florus II, 9, 19. Plut. Sulla 28 (cf. Sall. H. I, 91) alleges corruption.

120 Nic. Dam. F 130, 115 ff.; App. BC III, 42 (44 B.C.); Cic. Fam. X, 35, 1, cf. App. III, 84 (Lepidus' army), but cf. Fam. X, 33, 3 (Pollio's) (43 B.C.); App. v, 20–4; Dio XLVIII, 11–12 (41 B.C.); App. V. 57–64 (40 B.C.); V, 124 and 128 (twice in 36 B.C.). Cf. now W. Schmitthenner, Hist. Zeitschr. CXL (1960), 12 ff., esp. on the role of the officers.

121 Cic. Att. I, 19, 4; Dio XXXVIII, 1, 5.

122 CAH IX, 137.

123 cf. Lucan I, 343–5; VII, 257–8.

124 Cic. de leg. agr. II, 78.

125 App. BC III, 2 and 7.

126 Sall. Or. Lep. 21–4, cf. Cic. de leg. agr. II, 68–70; III, 2.

126a Plut. Cr. 2 is worthless on Marian allotments, cf. Gabba, o.c. (above, n. 14), 18–19.

127 Hyginus 199, 14 ff.; 201, 3–6 L. Gracchan settlers perhaps received thirty iugera (Lex agr. 14) Domitius Ahenobarbus offered forty in 49 (Caes. BC 1, 17, 4); in the rich Campanian land ten sufficed (Cic. de leg. agr. II, 78; Att. II, 16, 1).

128 cf. perhaps the corrupt text in App. BC 1, 27, 124; see Cic. Caec. 6 (law's delays); 11 Verr. iii, 27 (hardships litigation imposed on working farmers). cf. n. 51.

128a See e.g. Suet. Aug. 56, 2; cf. Tib. 29 (‘singulis’); ILS 244, 17 (‘privatarum’) for imperial respect for private interests.

128b Mr. Lepper reminds me also of the evidence that imperial legions had their territories or prata, cf. e.g. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE, ch. VI, nn. 65; 74; 78; 81.

129 Neue Jahrb. f. kl. Altertums XVII (1914), 145 ff.

130 Schmitthenner, o.c. (n. 120), 3.

131 o.c. (n. 74), 36 ff. Cf. now Mitford, T. B.JRS L (1960), 75 ff.Google Scholar

132 Brunt, o.c. (n. 87), 67.

133 See especially de off. II, 72–9, cf. de leg. agr. 10 (obviously insincere); 15; 1, 19, 4 (specious); Att. II. 3, 3; 16, 1; 17, 1; Sest. 103; Dotn. 23; Tusc Disp. III, 48; Auctor ad Herenn. 1, 12, 21.

134 Sall. BJ 41, 7; Or. Macri 6; Plut. Cato Min. 18, 1.

135 Fam. v, 20, 9 (2,200,000 HSS). Piso apparently with legality invested his allowance of 18,000,000 at Rome (Pis. 86; cf. 61). Pompey was voted 24,000,000 for his six legions in 52 (Plut. Caes. 28, 5; Pomp. 55, 7): more than enough. Governors made legal profits from sums voted ‘cellae nomine’, II Verr. iii, 195; 217. For sheer peculation cf. de imp. Cn. Pomp. 37.

136 Dio LV, 24, 9–25, 6; LVI 28, 4–6. Cf. on the centesima Tac. Ann. 1, 78; II, 42, 4.

137 Cic. Fam. XII, 30, 4; ad Brut. I, 18, 5. Cf. de off. 11, 74.