Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:53:57.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman Treaties with Communities of Citizens*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Donald Walter Baronowski
Donald Walter Baronowski
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the ancient Roman world, as in modern times, treaties were usually made between sovereign states. Indeed, prior to the Social War, the foedus was a significant element in relations between Rome and the non-Latin allies (socii). However, the Romans also had treaties with Italian communities integrated to various degrees with their own state. These communities included both the Latin allies (nominis Latini) and cities possessing full or partial Roman citizenship (municipia).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 172 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1988

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.)

References

1 On the Italian Confederation in general see Dahlheim, W., Struktur und Entwicklung des römischen Völkerrechts im dritten und vierten Jahrhundert v.Chr. (Munich, 1968), pp. 111–25Google Scholar; Galsterer, H., Herrschaft und Verwaltung im Republikanischen Italien. Die Beziehungen Roms zu den italischen Gemeinden vom Latinerfrieden 338 v.Chr. bis zum Bundesgenossenkrieg 91 v.Chr. (Munich, 1976), pp. 25–104Google Scholar; Hantos, T., Das Römische Bundesgenossensystem in Italien (Munich, 1983)Google Scholar. Strictly speaking, the term municipium denotes communities of partial Roman citizens, but during the second century B.C. it was extended to cities enjoying full citizenship. The two classes are more accurately distinguished as municipia sine suffragio and oppida civium Romanorum (Galsterer, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 64; Hantos, op. cit. [n. 1], pp. 86–94), but for convenience I use the word to designate both groups.

2 On the Foedus Cassianum see Catalano, P., Linee del sistema sovrannazionale romano i (Turin, 1965), pp. 248–70Google Scholar; Petzold, K.-E., ‘Die beiden ersten römisch-karthagischen Verträge und das Foedus Cassianum’, ANRW 1.1 (1972), 364 n. 1Google Scholar; De Martino, F., Storia della costituzione romana2 ii (Naples, 1973), p. 73 n. 2Google Scholar; Galsterer, , op. cit. (n. I), pp. 84–7Google Scholar; Humbert, M., Municipium el civitas sine suffragio: L'organisation de la conquête jusqu'à la guerre sociale (Rome, 1978), pp. 68–72Google Scholar; Hantos, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 150–1Google Scholar.

3 Livy 2.33.9; Cic. Balb. 53; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.95.2; Festus (ed. Lindsay), p. 166, s.v. Nancitor; p. 276, s.v. Praetor.

4 Dahlheim, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 122 n. 30Google Scholar; Galsterer, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 86–7Google Scholar; Humbert, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 98–122Google Scholar.

5 Beloch, J., Der Italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie (Leipzig, 1880), p. 195Google Scholar; Manni, E., Per la storia dei municipii fino alia guerra sociale (Rome, 1947), pp. 53—4Google Scholar.

6 Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht iii (Leipzig, 1888), p. 653 n. 2Google Scholar; Catalano, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 283–4Google Scholar; Dahlheim, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 118 n. 19Google Scholar; Galsterer, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 86–7Google Scholar.

7 The grant of Roman citizenship to Tusculum, placed by Livy (6.26.8; 6.33.6; 6.36.2; 8.14.4; cf. Plut. Cam. 38.5) in 381, may belong in 338 (see Hantos, , op. cit. [n. 1], pp. 51–2)Google Scholar; the traditional date is supported by Humbert, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 151–61Google Scholar. The evidence for Lanuvium is Livy 8.14.2).

8 Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius i (Oxford, 1957), p. 683Google Scholar; Harris, W. V., Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford, 1971), pp. 92–3Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, A. N., The Roman Citizenship (Oxford, 1973), p. 126Google Scholar. The text of Polybius (6.14.8) does not make it absolutely clear whether the ius exilii was established by all or by only some of Rome's Italian treaties.

9 Important texts on hostile relations between Rome and the Latins in the fourth century include Livy 6.2.3 (389); 6.10.6–7 (386); 6.21–9 (383–380); Polyb. 2.18.5 (390–358); Livy 7.6.7–18.10 (362–355); 7.25.5 (349). Tibur surrendered to Rome in 354 (Livy 7.19.1), and Praeneste was granted a truce (Diod. 16.45.8). On Roman-Latin relations generally from 509 to 338 see Sanctis, G. De, Storia dei Roman?2 ii (Florence, 1960), pp. 85–98, 229–75Google Scholar. Hantos, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 54 n. IIGoogle Scholar; p. 62, views the Foedus Cassianum as the unique legal basis for Roman-Latin relations before the Latin War. Thus she maintains that the individual treaties, such as those with Lavinium (Livy 8.11.15), Tibur and Praeneste (Polyb. 6.14.8) cannot be dated before this conflict (340–338 B.C.).

10 Humbert, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 260–71Google Scholar.

11 CIL xi 3876a; ILS 409, 5770, 6588; Mancini, G., ‘Capena. Iscrizione onorarie de età imperiale rinvenute in località Civitúcola’, NSA 7 (1953), 18–28, nos. 1–3 and 5–6Google Scholar. The earliest of these inscriptions, ILS 5770, is dated to the Flavian age or later; the rest belong between A.D. 162 and 256. The adjective foederatus, applied to the Capenates or to their municipium, refers to an earlier treaty between Rome and Capena, not to a local federation at Capena. The evidence for Camerinum (CIL xi 5631) and Tarquinii (Romanelli, P., ‘Tarquinia. Scavi e ricerche nell' area della città’, NSA 73 [1948], 267, no. 89)Google Scholar should be viewed in the same way (Galsterer, , op. cit. [n. 1], p. 66 n. 111Google Scholar; Humbert, , op. cit. [n. 2], pp. 260–2)Google Scholar.

12 Hantos, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 76–7Google Scholar; 103 n. 46; 108; cf. Beloch, J., Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Kriege (Berlin, 1926), p. 446CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Toynbee, A. J., Hannibal's Legacy i (London, 1965), pp. 397–403Google Scholar. Frederiksen, M., Campania (London, 1984), p. 193 n. 125Google Scholar; p. 194, accepts these arguments for the survival of the treaty after 338 (adding the decisive reference to Livy 25.18.5, to be discussed presently). The argument based on the word socius is accepted by Humbert, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 269–70Google Scholar. Toynbee's rejection of the Campanian deditio of 343, described by Livy, does not affect my discussion of the treaty (see Briscoe, J., A Commentary on Livy, Books 31–33 [Oxford, 1973], p. 136)Google Scholar. The authenticity of the deditio is defended by Frederiksen, , op. cit. (n. 13), pp. 180–90Google Scholar. On the civitas sine suffragio of Capua after 338 see Frederiksen, , op. cit. (n. 13), pp. 191–3Google Scholar. Frederiksen (p. 186 n. 59; pp. 193–4) places the treaty in 338 rather than 343, but this conclusion rests primarily on the erroneous view that the Campanian foedus was identical with the act of incorporation making Capua a municipium (on this see below, n. 23), and involves rejection of chronological order in Livy 23.5.9 and 31.31.10–12, contrary to the natural interpretation of those passages.

14 Livy uses these terms in connection with Attalus I of Pergamum (26.37.5), Antiochus III (32.8.13, 16) and Rhodes (42.19.8; 42.45.2; 45.10.6; 45.23.6), none of whom, on Livy's own evidence, had foedera with Rome at the time (Attalus: 29.11.1–2; Antiochus: 34.57.4–58.8; Rhodes: 45.25.9–10).

15 In the absence of a categorical statement on this subject in the ancient sources, it seems best to date the incorporation of Lavinium at the time of the Social War (Beloch, , op. cit. [n. 5], pp. 49, 170Google Scholar; Hantos, , op. cit. [n. 1], p. 54)Google Scholar. On the basis of religious evidence, some authors date this event in 338 (Beloch, , op. cit. [n. 12], pp. 376–7, 584Google Scholar; Humbert, , op. cit. [n. 2], pp. 179–84)Google Scholar.

16 See above, note 11.

17 Livy (9.36.7–8) erroneously attributes to the Camertes of Camerinum a treaty made with the Camertes of Clusium in 310 B.C. (Veyne, P., ‘Foederati: Tarquinies, Camérinum, Capène’, Latomus 19 [1960], 430 n. 2)Google Scholar.

18 See above, note 8.

19 Romanelli, , op. cit. (n. 11), p. 267, no. 89Google Scholar.

20 Beloch, , op. cit. (n. 5), pp. 47, 117–23Google Scholar; Beloch, , op. cit. (n. 12), pp. 376–81Google Scholar; Martino, De, op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 91–3Google Scholar; Galsterer, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 68Google Scholar; cf. Humbert, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 257–9Google Scholar. According to Bernardi, A., ‘Roma e Capua nella seconda meta del quarto sec. av. J.-C.’, Athenaeum 20 (1942), 92–3Google Scholar, these treaties were concerned strictly with religious affairs.

21 Beloch, , op. cit. (n. 12), p. 379Google Scholar; Dahlheim, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 113 n. 7Google Scholar. Manni, E., ‘Sur l'origine des municipia romains’, RHD 47 (1969), 66–77Google Scholar, explains these foedera as acts establishing municipia, only some of which, in his view, obtained Roman citizenship. Manni denies an international character to treaties with this type of municipium.

22 Mommsen, , op. cit. (n. 6), p. 567 n. 1; p. 577 n. 1Google Scholar.

23 Humbert, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 253–9Google Scholar.

24 Veyne, , op. cit. (n. 17), pp. 429–36Google Scholar.

25 Humbert, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 260–71Google Scholar; cf. Toynbee, , op. cit. (n. 13), pp. 397–403Google Scholar; Hantos, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 103–4Google Scholar.

26 See Scullard, H. H., From the Gracchi to Nero5 (London, 1982), p. 432 n. 11Google Scholar.

27 See above, note 11.