The Early Republic: Prelude to the war with Pyrrhus of Epirus (289-281 BCE)

Rome had emerged strong from the Third Samnite war. Samnium had been subjugated for now and Roman power had been extended well into Lucania and Apulia. In the north the Etruscan city states had been brought under the Roman yoke, and thanks to the founding of the Latin colony of Narnia, the Romans had also gained a foothold in Umbria. They had, moreover, made an alliance with the Picentes living on the other side of the Apennines. At some point the Romans founded a colony at Hadria in Picenum and at Castrum Novum in Etruria. No one really expected that this was the end of Roman expansion. Especially in the south, in ancient Magna Graecia with its many Greek colonies, there was still plenty of land to conquer. Roman presence in the south would ultimately lead to a conflict with the Greek city of Tarentum. It was in this conflict that King Pyrrhus of Epirus decided to intervene, so that the Romans would have to take on one of the greatest generals of Antiquity. For the moment, however, this war was still in the future. First the Romans had to suppress internal unrest and stop new Celtic attacks from the north.

The Lex Hortensia

Roman history provides us with many examples of secessions of the plebs. In 494 BCE a debt crisis had been the cause. This crisis had been solved by creating the people’s tribunes, whose duty it was to protect the rights of the plebeians. A secession of the plebs in 449 BCE was said to have caused the downfall of the dictatorial decemviri. There may have been a secession in 342 BCE as well, although the precise events of that year were difficult to reconstruct even for Roman historians such as Livius. We do know that in that year several Leges Genuciae were adopted, which prohibited interest on loans, opened both consulships to the plebeians, prohibited holding two different offices in the same year and created a ten-year interval between holding the same office twice. Patricians and plebeians now had almost identical political rights. In some respects plebeians were even given preferential treatment, as not only did they have their own magistrates (the aforementioned people’s tribunes and the plebeian aediles), at least half of the other offices had been reserved for them as well. Only a number of priesthoods could only be held by patricians.

Nevertheless, the class struggle between patricians and plebeians was not formally ended until 287 BCE. Unfortunately we are poorly informed about the precise events of that year, especially because Book 11 of Livius’ work has not survived and we only still have a summary of its contents.[1] Again a debt crisis in Rome seems to have been the main problem. Although several measures had been taken in the fourth century BCE to curb interest, these had hardly had any effect. It seems that, for instance, the ban on interest from the Leges Genuciae was never enforced. Poor plebeians suffered the most during the crisis and their discontent had led to severe and prolonged rioting. For the last time in Roman history the plebs marched out of the city in a secession that would this time take them to the Janiculan Hill on the other side of the Tiber. The hill was sparsely populated, but had great strategic value. It was clear that only a man who possessed great powers of persuasion could convince the plebeians to come down from the hill.

In times of great need the Romans were used to appoint a dictator, a magistrate with almost unlimited powers. For this job they chose a certain Quintus Hortensius, who was himself a plebeian. He was, in fact, a remarkable choice. Although we know very little about the man, we do know that Hortensius had not yet held the office of consul, while dictators were usually selected from among the former consuls. It was not until the year 108 BCE that a member of the gens Hortensia was called to the highest office of the Roman Republic for the first time, only to resign again immediately because of some unspecified offence. The fact that Quintus Hortensius had never been consul should, however, not be a reason to doubt the story. Apparently the plebeian Hortensius was at that moment the right man for the job. He managed to put an end to the secession and subsequently had the popular assembly adopt the Lex Hortensia, which was named after him.

Whether the Lex Hortensia had any provisions to overcome the debt crisis, we simply do not know. It is clear, however, that as a consequence of this law decisions of the concilium plebis – the assembly of the plebs – were from now on binding for the whole Roman people, so also for the patricians. Although important, the Lex Hortensia should not be seen as a radical break with the past. It actually fits well into a series of constitutional developments that had taken place in the decades before 287 BCE and that had strengthened the position of the popular assembly vis-à-vis the Senate, which was still dominated by patricians. As a consequence of the Lex Publilia, adopted in 339 BCE, the Senate had already lost its veto over legislative decisions taken in the comitia centuriata, the assembly of the 193 centuriae. A Lex Maenia from the early third century BCE had also abolished the Senate veto with regard to elections. On the other hand, decisions of the plebs (plebiscita) still had to be ratified by either an assembly of the whole populus Romanus or by the Senate to become binding for the whole Roman people, including the patricians.[2] The Lex Hortensia now eliminated the ratification requirement. It was the largest and also the last success for Quintus Hortensius, as he died that same year.

Wars in north and south

In the fourth century BCE Rome had fought a series of wars against the Etruscan city of Volsinii (Velzna). At the start of the next century, in 294 BCE, the consul Lucius Postumius Megellus had destroyed the territories of Volsinii and had granted the city a 40-year armistice. Apparently the truce did not hold, as in the 280s BCE a new war broke out between Volsinii and Rome. Details of the conflict have not survived, but there is no reason to doubt that the outcome was a Roman victory. Another Etruscan city recently subjugated by the Romans was Arretium (Aritim). In the mid-280s BCE that city was threatened by the Celtic Senones, the same people who had captured Rome just a century previously. The Romans were duty-bound to render aid to Arretium, but their intervention ended in disaster. The consul of 284 BCE, Lucius Caecilius Metellus Denter, was defeated and killed by the Senones.[3]

The slain Metellus Denter was replaced as consul by Manius Curius Dentatus, who had already been consul in 290 BCE and was considered an excellent general. Dentatus sent envoys to the Senones to discuss the release of Roman prisoners of war, but these were supposedly murdered by the Celts. A furious Dentatus thereupon met the Senones on the battlefield and managed to defeat them in their own territories. The Romans then founded their first colony on Gallic soil, the town of Sena Gallica on the Adriatic Sea, currently known as Senigallia.[4]

The Roman victory over the Senones had led to unrest among another Celtic tribe, that of the Boii. After their invasion of Italy in the fourth century BCE they had captured the important Etruscan city of Felsina or Velzna, which is present-day Bologna (not to be confused with the Volsinii/Velzna mentioned above). According to Polybius the Boii joined forces with the Etruscans and invaded Roman territory in 283 BCE. We do not know who these Etruscans were, but Celtic-Etruscan coalitions were not unusual. The invaders got as far as Lake Vadimo (not far from modern Orte in Lazio), where in 310 BCE or 309 BCE another battle between Romans and Etruscans had been fought. This battle had ended in a Roman victory, and in 283 BCE the result was no different. The consul Publius Cornelius Dolabella cut the combined Celtic-Etruscan army to pieces. In 282 BCE a new confrontation between the Romans and Boii took place, which saw the consul Quintus Aemilius Papus win another victory for Rome. It was a victory that forced the Boii to sign a peace treaty.[5]

In the 280s BCE the Romans had come to the aid of the Greek colony of Thurii in the south of Italy, which was being threatened by the native Lucani. Of course the Romans served their own interests as well by helping the Thurians, but their intervention was nonetheless highly appreciated. This is demonstrated by the fact that around 285 BCE the Greeks had a statue erected in Rome for the people’s tribune Gaius Aelius. It was Aelius who had apparently tabled a bill in the popular assembly to take measures against a Lucanian named Stallius, who had twice threatened Thurii.[6] Unfortunately we read nothing about the nature of these measures, but we do know that in 282 BCE the Lucani began the siege of Thurii and that the city was subsequently saved by the consul Gaius Fabricius Luscinus. Fabricius also successfully fought against the Samnites and Bruttii, for which he was granted a triumph. For Fabricius too the grateful citizens of Thurii had a statue erected.

A problem called Tarentum

The city of Tarentum in the heel of Italy (Taras in Greek) had been founded in 706 BCE by colonists from Sparta. It was now a city under pressure. Tarentum had to cope with attacks by the Samnites, Lucani and Bruttii, and simultaneously took a dim view of further Roman southward expansion. Attempts to turn the tide had generally been unsuccessful. In the 330s BCE the city had summoned King Alexander of Epirus to Italy. Alexander had indeed crossed over to the peninsula, but in 331 BCE he was ingloriously killed in a battle against the Lucani and Bruttii. When in 327-326 BCE the Romans laid siege to the Greek city of Parthenope (near modern Naples) in Campania, the Tarantines sent auxiliary forces, but these had arrived too late. Seven years later the Romans had penetrated deep into Apulia and were laying siege to the city of Luceria. Tarentum had threatened to intervene militarily at the time, but this threat failed to make any impression on the Romans. Lastly, around 303 BCE, Tarentum had called upon the Spartan general Kleonymos to aid the city against the Lucani. Although his intervention had led to the capture of a few towns, Kleonymos was mostly remembered for his despotic behaviour.[7]

Livius claims that during Kleonymos’ intervention a brief military encounter had taken place between the Tarentines and Romans, which had ended with a victory for the consul of 302 BCE, Marcus Aemilius Paullus.[8] After the Spartan had left, the Tarentines were forced to conclude a treaty with the Romans. We do not know the exact provisions of the treaty, but Tarentum was probably required to acknowledge Roman influence in Apulia and the territories of the Samnites, while Rome promised not to send her fleet beyond Lacinium (modern Capo Colonna) in Southern Italy.[9] It is possible that Rome violated this provision during the military operations of the consul Fabricius in 282 BCE. In any case, a small Roman fleet operated in the Gulf of Taranto to support the consul’s campaign. Dismayed, the Tarentines sent out their own fleet and attacked the Roman ships. At the time the Romans hardly had any naval experience, while the Tarentines could boast of a long maritime tradition. The battle in the Gulf of Taranto must have been a one-sided affair. The Roman admiral was killed, several ships were captured and looted, and many Roman sailors were taken to Tarentum as prisoners of war.

As was to be expected, Rome was furious about the attack. The Tarentines then exacerbated the situation by attacking Thurii in 281 BCE. The city was conquered and pillaged, while the Roman garrison was expelled or taken prisoner. The Romans now sent a delegation to Tarentum that was led by the former consul Lucius Postumius Megellus. The delegation was welcomed at the theatre of the city, where Postumius addressed the Tarentines in Greek. Apparently his Greek was not quite perfect, as those present ridiculed the former consul and ignored the Roman demands. When he left the theatre Postumius was even humiliated by a drunk Greek, who pissed or crapped on his toga from the stands.[10] Obviously Rome could now only respond by declaring war on Tarentum. The consul Lucius Aemilius Barbula was given supreme command. Although the Romans were also fighting wars against the Samnites, Brutti, Lucani and Etruscans, their large reserves in manpower allowed them to do this with relative ease. The situation was very different for Tarentum, which was in urgent need of someone to protect them. The Tarentines would ultimately find their protector on the other side of the Ionian Sea, in Epirus.

Notes

[1] Livius Periochae 11. Other relevant sources are for instance Plinius, Naturalis historia 16.37, Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 15.27, Augustinus, De civitate Dei 3.17 en the Digests, Book 1.2.2.

[2] Andrew Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 37 and 122.

[3] Polybius, Book 2.19.

[4] Polybius, Book 2.19; Livius Periochae 11-12.

[5] Polybius, Book 2.20; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 19.13.

[6] Plinius, Naturalis historia 34.32.

[7] Diodorus Siculus, Book 20.104-105.

[8] Livius, Book 10.2.

[9] A source for the existence of this provision is Appianus, Samnite wars 2.15. See Jeff Champion, Pyrrhus of Epirus, p. 43.

[10] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book 19.5-6.