Williams 1

Citizenship, Identity, and Imperial Control: Roman Italy on the Eve of the Social War

One of the most critical relationships in the Roman Republic was that between the Romans and

their Italian Allies. Rome relied heavily upon the Italians for manpower, and as a buffer zone around

the city of Rome. Rome maintained her control over Italy through a variety of measures, the most

significant of which was the imposition of varying degrees of Roman citizenship. Through the granting

of citizenship, the encroachment of Latin1, and various other methods, the Romans were able to foster

the adoption of Roman identity by the Italian Allies. However, the Romans simultaneously rejected the

rights of the Italians to full Roman citizenship, and in the century following the Second Punic War

worked to solidify the legal, social, and ethnic divisions between Roman and Italian, even as they

increasingly relied upon the Italians for manpower in their foreign wars. On the eve of the Social War,

the Roman Republic was faced with a disgruntled populace close to home that had to an extent

embraced Roman identity, yet had been rejected time and time again by the ruling class. The very legal

structure of the Roman Republic created an unequal, increasingly one-sided relationship between Rome

and her allies, and aided the Romans in resisting the desires of those whom they had succeeded in

Romanizing.

Some of the most recent historiography concerning the Social War itself dates back as far as the

1970s, as does much of the scholarship on Roman Italy. The debate over the causes of the Social War

itself is defined by P. A. Brunt and Brendan Nagle23. Brunt, in his “Italian Aims at the Time of the

Social War”, asserts that the failure of the Romans to enfranchise the Italians was the core conflict of

the Social War, and that the Italians had been thoroughly Romanized by 91 BCE. He dismisses the idea

that land was a major issue between the Italians and the Romans, and downplays the role of separatism

1 Whether this was an intentional policy on the part of the Romans or an unintended side-effect of their expansion will be discussed in this paper; however, there is not enough evidence to conclusively support one side or the other. J.P.V.D. Balsdon, for example, suggests in Romans and Aliens that the Romans did not make any effort to eliminate native languages in Italy, and were in fact rather disinterested in any tongues other than Greek or Latin.

2 D. Brendan Nagle, “An Allied View of the Social War”, American Journal of Archaeology 77, no. 4 (1973): 367-378.3 P. A. Brunt, “Italian Aims at the Time of the Social War,” The Journal of Roman Studies 55, no.1-2 (1965), 90-109.

Williams 2

in the aims of the Campanians during the Social War4. Nagle's “An Allied View of the Social War” is

in many ways a direct response to Brunt's thesis. While he acknowledges the role of citizenship in the

war, Nagle utilizes archaeological evidence to argue that the Italians were pushed towards war by the

expansion of Roman colonies and public land in the second century BCE, and argues that many of the

Allies preferred separatism and an end to Roman encroachment over citizenship and the continued

expansion of Roman land. Examinations of the issues present in Roman Italy, particularly citizenship,

are similarly dated. One of the most valuable examinations of Roman citizenship, Sherwin-White's The

Roman Citizenship, dates its second edition back to 1973. Nevertheless, it is an excellent resource that

collects decades of research on the various exigencies of Roman citizenship from the Regnum

Romanum through the Late Dominate. While Brunt touches on it, the issue of Romanization and its

relation to the citizenship issue is not fully explored in either paper, nor the bad faith system that the

Romans. Nagle tempers Brunt's thesis, in particular his rejection of colonization as a point of

contention and the degree of Romanization among the Italians. The question of citizenship deserves

requires some definition, in order for one to understand just what it was that the Italians desired, and

why.

Citizenship in Political Science and Roman Italy

Political scientists have examined and debated the details of citizenship for centuries, and the

Romans provide an excellent case study in the workings and shortcomings of how citizenship works in

a system where it both derives from ethnicity yet can be applied beyond those bounds. Modern

citizenship is defined in several methods. First, a citizen is a “person with political rights to participate

in the process of popular self-governance”5. Second, a citizen is a person who is recognized as a

member of a “particular, officially sovereign political community...[who] possess some basic rights to

4 Unfairly, in my view. Whereas Nagle correctly identifies expanded colonization as a bone between the Romans and the Allies, yet posits it as the primary impetus for the war. In my view Nagle's hypothesis errs in how far he takes it, as the evidence does point more towards citizenship, and its pertinent issues, being the primary catalyst of the Social War. Brunt's problem is the dismissal of factors that would be touched upon by Nagle.

5 Rogers M. Smith, “Modern Citizenship,” in Handbook of Citizenship Studies, ed. Ingin F. Isin and Bryan S. Turner (London: SAGE Publications, 2002), 105-116.

Williams 3

be protected by that community's government”6. Third, citizenship can be viewed as encompassing a

“certain standard of proper conduct”, which is of course defined by the pertinent community7. These

definitions provide a useful framework through which citizenship in Roman Italy can be examined. By

the first definition, arguably only individuals with full Roman citizenship could rightfully be

considered to be citizens of the Roman Republic. In contrast, the second definition allows for systems

in which all citizens do not necessarily share the same rights, yet where there is an understanding that

the government will protect all of the rights that each citizen has. In other words, those with the

reduced forms of citizenship could still be considered citizens of the Roman Republic, despite their

inability to participate in the political process. And the third concept was highly pertinent to the

Romans, as it can allow for citizenship to be awarded to individuals or even cities who demonstrate a

great degree of virtue and valor in the service of the state. The Romans were apt to award citizenship to

Allied troops, individual heroes, and occasionally entire cities that demonstrated their loyalty and

commitment to the Roman Republic8. A fourth element of citizenship is further discussed in Smith's

essay- one that was highly pertinent to the tensions between the Romans and the Italians on the eve of

the Social War. Smith discusses how a citizen has come be known as anyone who is a member of any

human community, whether or not that community is entirely political9. The last two definitions are

highly pertinent to the discussion of citizenship and identity in Roman Italy- while many of them did

not have formal Roman citizenship, and thereby qualify for the first or second definition of citizenship

provided above, many Italians had successfully assimilated into Roman culture and regarded

themselves as quasi-Roman, despite the repeated rejection of this classification by the Romans

themselves.

6 Smith, “Modern Citizenship”, 105.7 Smith, “Modern Citizenship”, 106.8 J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 82-89.9 Smith, “Modern Citizenship”, 106.

Williams 4

A background on the classes of Roman citizenship during the Republic is essential to

understand just what it was that the Allies were aspiring to. First and foremost were of course full

Roman citizens, who had all of the rights and protections afforded by the Senate and People of Rome.

Among these rights were the right to vote for or run for political office within the Republic, the right to

marry fellow Roman citizens, protection from physical abuse, the right to maintain one's Roman

citizenship should one relocate to a colonia civium Romanorum, the right to hold Roman property, and

the right to join the Roman Legions as an official legionary, rather than an auxilia. Roman citizenship

was not necessarily limited to ethnic Romans. As will be discussed later, full Roman citizenship could

be awarded to individuals or groups (even entire cities) for acts of great loyalty and valor in the service

of the Republic; Roman auxiliaries were offered Roman citizenship on the completion of their terms of

service. A reduced form of citizenship was given to the Latins- the Latin Right, or cives sine suffragio.

Those who were given this reduced form of citizenship had most of the rights of Roman citizens, but

could not vote and could not run for office in Rome. Cives sine Suffragio was, in the early Republic, at

times imposed upon rebellious Allied cities as a means of both stripping them of their independent

identity and imposing a Roman identity upon them, in the hopes of preventing a second revolt10. As will

be discussed later, it was reasonably effective in Romanjzing Italian populations. Like Roman

citizenship, the Latin Right was not necessarily limited to individuals of Latin descent or rebellious

allies. Any Roman citizen who joined a Latin colony was required to give up their full Roman

citizenship and accept the civitas sine suffragio. Communities of cives sine suffragiones were usually

overseen by a prefect appointed by the Roman Senate, rather than a locally elected figure. Below these

were the peregrini, who were foreigners. Both the public and private rights of these peoples had been

stripped from them by the Roman Senate- a rare punishment, only seen in the wake of the Second

Punic War when the Capuans and Bruttians defected to Hannibal. Peregrini did not even possess land

rights- their land was incorporated into the ager publicus11. Outside of Italy, subjected peoples in the 10 Kathryn Lomas, Roman Italy 338 BC-AD 200: A Sourcebook (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), 35.11 Liv. 26.16.

Williams 5

Mediterranean were afforded basic human rights- the ius gentium, which roughly meant what passed

for international law at the time- but rarely more unless specified as such by the Romans12.

The Italian Alliances: An Unequal Partnership

However, much of Italy was bound to the Romans not through bonds of citizenship, but through

treaties which designated these cities as “Allies”13 of the Roman people. The terms of these treaties

varied from city to city. Each Italian city had its own personal relationship with Rome, a relationship

that precluded the formation of independent confederations or alliances. Certain confederations were

allowed to exist within the framework of alliances- the Latin League until its dissolution during the

fourth century BCE existed as such, and the Bruttians and Lucanians were treated as minor

confederations, respectively- but each group owed its allegiance entirely to Rome. Allied states were

nominally autonomous from the Roman Republic, but could not independently negotiate with other

states, and were required to provide troops to the Roman armies when called upon. Matters of land in

particular were the jurisdiction of the Roman Senate.14 They even had to appeal to the Roman Senate in

order to effect a formal change of official language.15 In return, Rome provided for the defense of the

Italian cities, and allowed them some of the benefits of empire, such as the ability to carry out trade

throughout the Mediterranean. Citizens of Allied states retained their own independent citizenship, as

stipulated in the treaties between Rome and these cities. A citizen of one of these Allied states could

theoretically be given citizenship- Cicero's Pro Balbo details a case involving a Roman citizen formerly

of Gades, a city whose treaty with the Roman Republic was similar to those struck with the Italian

Allies. If Roman citizenship was awarded to a citizen of an Allied city, that citizen was expected to

shed his former citizenship in favor of the Senate and the People of Rome16. Violation of treaties with 12 Certain extra-Italian cities had treaties of friendship with Rome; the Second Punic War was initiated when Hannibal

attacked the Iberian city of Saguntum, which had diplomatic links to the Romans. Gades, also in Iberia, also had a treaty of alliance with the Romans, which featured prominently in Cicero's Pro Balbo.

13 Socii in Latin, hence the name “Social War”. The Romans themselves alternately referred to the war as the Social War or the Marsican War, after the Marsicans of central Italy, one of the major rebellious groups.

14 Which led to abuses of power in which Roman magistrates would be called upon to arbitrate land disputes between neighboring Italian cities, and would use the opportunity to claim some of the land as ager publicus. Cic. Off. 1.33.

15 J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 116.16 Cic, Balb. 28.1.

Williams 6

the Roman Republic- usually through perfidy in wartime- resulted in harsh reprisal, as was seen in the

case of Capua after its recapture in 211 BCE.

One of the punishments that could be imposed upon rebellious allies was the revocation of

various rights. One of the earliest examples of this practice is the enforcement of Roman and Latin

citizenship upon the various Latin cities of Latium during the 4th Century BCE. Rome formally

dissolved the Latin League and more closely integrated these cities into the burgeoning Republic17.

During the Second Punic War, Capua, Bruttium, and several other Italian cities chose to side with

Hannibal when the Carthaginians invaded Italy. Roman retribution was harsh, and Capua in particular

was subjected to a brutal reprisal at the hands of the Romans. The leading citizens were executed for

conspiring against the Roman Republic and violating the terms of their treaty with the Romans18. A

sizable portion of the population was sold off into slavery- and those who weren't were reduced to the

status of peregrini, a substantial loss of rights. In this case, we see the Romans forcibly integrating an

independent city into the Republic- Capua and Bruttium had formerly been autonomous cities in

alliance with Rome.

Lesser punishments could also be imposed upon cities that defied the Romans depending upon

the nature of the recalcitrance- during the Second Punic War twelve of the Latin colonies refused to

provide troops for the Roman war effort. In response, the Roman Senate forced those colonies to

colonies to provide double the normal amount of troops for the war effort, as well as to pay a tax to the

Roman Senate19. After the revolt of Tusculum during the 5th century BCE, only a few citizens of the

city were scapegoated for the revolt, and the city as a whole retained its citizenship20. This provided an

object lesson (as the scapegoats were publicly executed), while allowing the Romans to appear

relatively merciful. At the end of that same Latin War, Livy attests that the Latin city of Aricia had its

17 By which I mean that they forced franchiseless citizenship upon the Latins, imposed more direct Roman rule onto the cities of Latium, and removed any doubt as to the dominant position of Rome in the relationship.

18 Liv. 26.16.5-8.19 Liv. 29.15.2-5.20 Liv. 8.14.

Williams 7

walls demolished by the Romans as punishment for repeated revolts, and the leading citizens deported

rather than executed21.

Autonomy. Sovereignty, Treaty, Federation

The question then arises of just what the Roman-Allied relationship entailed. Were the Allied

states sovereign or autonomous? Was their relationship with Rome a federation, or did it merely

constitute a series of treaties? First, we must examine just how modern political science has defined

each of these terms, and how these definitions relate to pre-Principate Rome. While the modern

definitions of these are, to some extent, an outgrowth of the development of the modern nation-state,

they are still useful in determining the nature of the relationship between Rome and her Italian allies.

As John Agnew defines it, sovereignty as the “relationship in which an agent of a state can make

commands that are voluntarily complied with by those over whom the state claims authority”22. Agnew

defines such a status as being intrinsically linked to territoriality, and suggests that a state can only be

considered sovereign when other states acknowledge its capacity to govern its own affairs. Autonomy,

while similar, is not quite the same concept. Autonomy, in the case of governance, is the ability of a

city or other governmental division to make its own decisions with some degree of independence from

a central authority23. An autonomous region is not sovereign- autonomous regions are, by definition,

part of larger sovereign states. The political subdivisions of modern Spain enjoy some degree of

autonomy from the central government in Madrid; another prescient modern example would be the

countries of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Scotland, much like the

ancient Italian Allies of Rome, even has its own internal legislative body.

21 Liv, 8.14. Note that the details of Livy's earlier (chronologically) works should be taken with a grain of salt, and Livy was not immune to inserting anachronisms into his work. The records of such conduct nevertheless reflect Roman historical memories of the events of the 5th century.

22 John Agnew, “Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World Politics”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95, no. 2 (2005), 439.

23 This is, of course, separate from the philosophical concept of autonomy, as developed by Emmanuel Kant.

Williams 8

The evidence from both Roman-Allied treaties and the actual actions of the Romans suggest

that the Italian cities were allowed some form of autonomy, but were not sovereign states24. The

surviving examples of Roman-Italian treaties specified that the Italian cities in question would be

allowed some degree of self-rule25. They retained their own separate Senates, and usually maintained

their own equivalent of a consul, unless Rome decided to impose a prefect or magistrate upon a

particularly troublesome town. They also maintained their own separate constitutions from the Romans,

which in some cases were voluntarily amended in order to better resemble the Romans. In short, they

fulfilled the technical definition of autonomy- as A. H. McDonald puts it in “Rome and the Italian

Confederation”, “The basis of confederate relations... was autonomy in property, constitution and local

politics, provided that the ally maintained the maiestas populi Romani”26. Each Italian city not under

direct Roman rule retained its own unique citizenship, which was exclusive with that of Rome or of any

other city. Of course, this autonomy existed largely at the whim of the Roman Senate. The Republic

had the authority to revoke that autonomy and impose a lower rank of Roman citizenship, to sack the

city and sell the survivors into slavery, and to otherwise interfere in local affairs- the Romans could

take action against the citizens of an allied town without so much as a by-your-leave from the local

Italian authorities, provided that town had violated the terms of their treaty with the Roman people.

Furthermore, the Romans occasionally granted citizenship to the leading citizens within a community-

thereby effectively neutering potential opposition27. Sovereignty rested with the Romans, who could

give orders to the allies (levy troops, hand over land, etc.) and expect those orders to be carried out with

a minimum of resistance28. While the Allies could largely manage their own affairs, this management

24 Balsdon notes that, when challenged on the issue of foedus and autonomy by Antiochus in 193, the Romans described the foedus as a charter of servitude (p. 181).

25 DH. 6.9526 A.H. McDonald, “Rome and the Italian Confederation (200-186 B.C.)”, The Journal of Roman Studies 34 (1944), 18.27 The idea being that, as citizens of the Roman Republic, these individuals would be further bound to its laws and

customs, be further expected to uphold the good of the Republic, and become accustomed to thinking of themselves as Roman citizens rather than citizens of their local polity, thereby reinforcing their loyalty to the Roman Republic and theoretically ensuring that they did not act contrary to the interests of the Republic.

28 Plb. 6.21.4

Williams 9

did not constitute sovereignty; Roman policy did not acknowledge Italian sovereignty, and could

override Italian policy when need be.

While the Romans utilized language that suggested a federation- the modern term even comes

from the Latin foedus29- the relationship between Rome and the Italians was far too one-sided to

constitute a true federation. The Italian cities were by no means sovereign states. Nor did they have the

ability to direct troops, conduct political business totally independent of Roman interference, or have

any real recourse against the Romans themselves for violations of their autonomy. The Romans and the

Italians were indeed bound by treaties- formal agreements between nations that specify the obligations

of each party. Rome could punish any Italian ally that had violated its treaty with the Senatus

Populusque Romanus. Throughout the Republican era, Rome repeatedly violated treaties- both with

external powers and with her own Allies. This was able to happen due to two major factors. First, the

Romans could overpower any Italian state that disagreed. This in turn allowed the Romans to

effectively reinterpret treaties so as to benefit their territorial ambitions in whatever manner they

pleased. The Italian allies had little say in how the Empire was governed, how foreign policy was set,

and how their troops were utilized in war. They were a subordinate partner in a relationship of

domination, where the central power could not be legally censured and defiance carried a violent price.

Even if one or several Italian cities rose up against the Romans, the Romans alone directly provided at

least a third of the Legion's military might, before even the Latins or loyal Allies were factored in.

There was also no guarantee that any Allied troops from those rebellious cities would side with the

rebels- there are examples dating back to the Latin Wars of Campanian cavalry30 loyally serving the

Romans even as their cities of origin revolted. In short, defiance meant a decidedly unfriendly visit

from the Roman military, with nary a friend in sight. The Roman outlook on non-Roman peoples

further complicated the matter of Italian citizenship.

29 Roughly translating to covenant. It was the relevant term used by the Romans to describe their treaties with the Allies.30 Liv. 8.11.13-16

Williams 10

Clifford Ando, in his work “Aliens, Ambassadors, and the Integrity of the Empire” delineates

just how the Romans legally viewed cultures outside of the Republic and Empire, as well as non-

Roman cultures within the borders of the realm. Put simply, the Romans viewed any non-Roman

people or nation either a current or potential subject of Roman, and made little effort to distinguish

legally or diplomatically between the two31. This attitude was by no means exclusive to the Roman

Principate. Some of the earliest demonstrations of this Roman attitude are attested to during the

Samnite and Pyrrhic Wars. Legally, the Romans treated the Italians as subjects of the Senate even

before they had conquered them and incorporated them into the Republic. That subjected status helped

to produce an artificial distance between the Romans and the Italians. It allowed the Romans to view

the Italians as lesser, and better justify the restriction of citizenship. Citizenship consequently was not

just an award- it was an elevation to the status of Roman, an acknowledgment that a person or city had

proved themselves to be above lesser beings, and therefore had to be guarded, lest it be diluted. While

the distinction between citizen and subject may seem to be a mere matter of semantics, this is far from

the case- citizenship, as discussed earlier, carries with it the promise of full membership in a

community, as well as the legal protection that follows as a result of that membership. Subjection

carries with it the connotation of distance between the ruler and the ruled, and the lack of full legal

protection for those subjects. To provide an analogy, the inhabitants of tenth century France could not

be considered French citizens- their rights, if existent at all, were dependent upon the whims of the

nobility. And it was this relationship that the Italians wished to change. The Italians had, for a great

while, been nothing more than subjects of the Romans. Their closer relationship with the sons of

Aeneas was more due to geography than to shared cultural ties. Prior to her expansion outside of Italy,

Rome had been forced to rely upon Italian manpower because it had no other military resources outside

of the peninsula to count upon. By the time that the Romans had begun to colonize and integrate the

Mediterranean into their empire, the Italian system had become thoroughly entrenched through

31 Clifford Ando, “Aliens, Ambassadors, and the Integrity of Empire” Law and History Review (2008), 506.

Williams 11

centuries of cooperation. While the Italians had made progress in accepting Romanization, the Romans

themselves rejected that premise even as it formed the military core of their burgeoning empire.

Latium: An Example of Effective Imperial Control

Latium provides a model for successful Roman Imperialism- how the use of identity politics,

historical legacies, and citizenship could come together to instill steadfast loyalty to the Roman

Republic. After the dissolution of the Latin League in 338 BC, the Romans imposed citizenship of

various stripes upon the Latins. Some Latin cities received full Roman citizenship, while many other

received cives sine suffragio, which came to be known as the Latin Right through its long association

with the Latins. For the next three centuries, the Latins would remain steadfastly loyal to the Romans,

who would return the favor by giving the Latins preferential status within Italy. Latins could conduct

business throughout Italy, could intermarry with Romans and members of Allied states, enjoyed legal

protection under Roman law, conduct business both in Rome and abroad, and maintain their Latin

citizenship should the emigrate to another city. In most cases, Latin cities were largely allowed to

govern themselves post-Second Punic War, rather than have Roman magistrates imposed upon them32.

The loyalty of the Latins cannot be explained purely through the imposition of Roman

citizenship. In 338 BC, the imposition of citizenship was still viewed as a primarily punitive measure,

meant to strip a community of its independent identity and leadership without providing it with the

rights and protections of a full Roman citizen33. Rather, the utilization of Rome's Latin identity was

critical to Rome's continued control over Latium. Roman domination was not seen as foreign rule, but

rather the ascendancy of a particularly powerful Latin state- one that provided her fellow Latins with

the benefits of empire. The Latins explicitly enjoyed greater legal rights within the Italian

Confederation than the rest of the Italians. During the second century BCE, the Roman Republic

moved to grant full Roman citizenship to much of Latium. While this move was carefully crafted so as

to ensure that the Latins could not overwhelm the traditional Roman voting districts, it was 32 A.H. McDonald, “Rome and the Italian Confederation (200-186 B.C.)”, The Journal of Roman Studies 34 (1944), 11-33.33 Lomas, 32.

Williams 12

nevertheless a great signal of Rome's appreciation of Latium's steadfast loyalty- or at least a reward for

Latium's loyalty during the Punic Wars.

Latin loyalty to Rome remained consistent through the Republic's most trying hours. While

several Latin cities refused to send troops to the Romans during the Second Punic War, not a single

Latin city defected to Hannibal, and most of them served willingly alongside the Romans even after the

disaster at Cannae (which was when the Capuans defected to the Carthaginians). During the third and

second century, the Romans are reported to have enacted several laws that restricted the ius migrandi of

the Latins. A law was passed in 265 requiring any Latin who migrated to Rome to leave behind a son in

his home town34. When Fregellae, a Latin town, revolted in 125 over the failure of Flaccus's citizenship

law, it revolted alone. While this incident is up to interpretation- the Latins may have been reticent to

revolt precisely due to the severity of the Roman response35- nevertheless the rest of Latium remained

quiescent. And during the Social War, only one Latin city (Venusia) joined the rebellious allies, even as

several Latin cities were sacked by the Marsicans. Had the Latins chose to rise up alongside the

Marsican and Samnite confederations, the Romans would likely have been overwhelmed through sheer

force of numerical superiority, as well as the lack of a buffer zone of loyal Latin cities around the city

of Rome.

One method by which the Romans endeared themselves to their subjects was through the

practice of awarding full Roman citizenship to particularly meritorious individuals or groups. This

practice was long established during the Roman Republic, and would continue during the Roman

Empire36 By granting an individual full Roman citizenship, the Romans demonstrated that,

theoretically, anyone could become a contributing member of the Roman Republic, with all of the

inherent benefits. It was also an effective method of controlling local populaces. In some cases the

Romans would grant Roman citizenship to the upper classes of an Italian city. This had a two-fold

34 A.H. McDonald, “ Italian Confederation”, 11-33.35 Fregellae was razed by the Roman military and a colony was founded three miles from the former site of the city.36 The kings of Roman client kingdoms were often granted citizenship, a practice which may have had its roots in the

treatment of Italian nobles in Roman Italy.

Williams 13

effect: first, it helped to guarantee the loyalty of that city, as its leaders were now Roman, and hence

were expected to uphold the Republic. Second, this helped to slowly Romanize the populace, which

further pacified the city- as generation upon generation was raised as Roman citizens, Roman culture

would theoretically seep into the local culture of the city. Occasionally, entire cities were granted the

full Roman citizenship; parts of Latium received this reward in recognition of their loyalty after the

Second Punic War.37

Additional Means of Control: Citizenship Grants, Colonies, and Romanization

Colonies were also a means by which the Romans exerted imperial control over Republican

Italy. Colonies were normally established in recently-conquered territory, for several reasons. First, it

provided a ready garrison of loyal troops, lest the locals entertain any thought of revolting38. Second,

the acquisition of said territory could be viewed as punitive, and a warning of further action should the

locals displease the Romans. By claiming Italian territory for herself, Rome weakened the agricultural

base of those Italian cities and strengthened herself, all while providing land for further Roman

expansion into the peninsula. Colonies were sometimes placed at strategic points in order to block

potential enemy incursions into Roman lands- Fregellae in fact originated as a Latin colony intended to

blunt any Samnite invasions of Latium. Strategic colonies in particular were not always built from the

ground up- in some cases the Romans would depopulate an enemy settlement and resettle it with their

own citizens39. And sometimes even the pre-existing town was not left intact- in some cases the

Romans would go so far as to raze a rebellious town and found a colony near its site, one of the most

recent examples of course being the destruction of Fregellae and founding of Fabrateria Nova near its

site40. Such an act would serve as a pointed warning of what would happen to any city that defied the

Romans. Finally, the foundation of colonies was a useful method of relieving the pressure of excess

37 McDonald, “Italian Confederation”, 11-33.38 Colonists were often landless Roman commoners who normally would be ineligible for military service. By becoming

landholders in a new colony, they therefore became eligible to serve in the military, whether as Roman or Allied troops. E.T. Salmon, Roman Colonization Under the Republic (London: Thames &Hudson, 1969), 56.

39 Salmon, Colonization, 58.40 Salmon, Colonization, 117.

Williams 14

landless citizens, who could then go on to become productive landholders. However, the establishment

of colonies was often regarded with suspicion and hostility by the Allies; some historians, such as Dr.

Brendan Nagle, have suggested that the expansion of colonies and ager publicus during the second

century BCE was a critical factor in the eruption of the Social War41.

Colonies and the awarding of full Roman citizenship provided negative and positive

reinforcements of the benefits that Roman citizenship could confer. The awarding of citizenship

contributed to the expectations that the Italians were deserving of citizenship. Not only had Rome

demonstrated that citizenship did not entail a specific mode of ancestry or social class- as even the

children of freed slaves were granted citizenship- but it had demonstrated that to the Allies that merit

was a critical factor in attaining citizenship. Many of the Allies would have rightly felt that they had

earned Italian citizenship through their loyalty to Rome during the Punic Wars, and steady provision of

soldiers throughout Rome's foreign conquests of the second century BCE. The enfranchisement of

much of Latium soon after the Punic Wars would have only further encouraged the Italians to believe

that enfranchisement was soon to be granted. The consistent defeat of citizenship measures, as is

discussed below, only served to inflame the Italians. The expansion of Roman colonization on

traditionally Allied lands, without provocation, would have served to further prod the Allies towards

action. It has been suggested that Tiberius Gracchus intended for Italians to be among the settlers sent

to his proposed Italian colonies. If so, the murder of Gracchus and the failure of the land commission to

settle Italians alongside the Romans- which would have of course granted those Italians Roman

citizenship- would have served to further instigate tensions between Rome and her allies.

Colonies served as a reminder that Rome still viewed the Italians as second-class individuals

who could be pushed around without regard for their rights. As has been discussed earlier, colonies

41 D. Brendan Nagle, “An Allied View of the Social War”, American Journal of Archaeology 77, no. 4 (1973): 367-378. As stated earlier, Nagle views the land issue as the primary cause of the Social War. While it did indeed highlight the unequal nature of the Roman-Italian relationship, and further angered the Allies, the land issue was ultimately a secondary factor in the war.

Williams 15

were explicitly formed in Allied territory, rather than land already held by the Romans. In prior

centuries, colonies had been established primarily in potentially troublesome areas, a correlation that

was expected to remain the norm in Roman Italy. Roman expansion during the second century changed

this equation, as colonies were being established on land (such as Picenum) that had been quiescent for

decades or even centuries. This, combined with the expansion of Roman ager publicus- which was

increasingly used by rich Roman aristocrats, rather than the urban populace- served to rapidly cheat the

Italians out of land that they understandable saw as being rightfully theirs. It was a violation of a

centuries-old arrangement, without any discernible provocation.

Between the Second Punic War and the Social War, several attempts were made to grant Roman

citizenship to the Italians. Many were violently rejected by the Roman Senate, at the mortal expense of

those who proposed the bill. While certain cities received full citizenship throughout that century (for

example, Formiae, Fundi, and Arpinum were granted such rights in 188), generally the Senate resisted

such measures42. In 125, the consul Valerius Flaccus proposed a bill intended to enfranchise all of the

Italians who did not currently enjoy Roman citizenship. Flaccus and his ally Gaius Gracchus were

outmaneuvered by the Senate, who rejected the bill. The rejection of Flaccus's bill resulted in Flaccus

and Gracchus departing for Carthage in an attempt to found a new colony there, and the revolt of the

Latin town of Fregellae. Fregellae was razed by the Roman legions, and upon their return to Rome in

122 Flaccus and Gracchus were murdered by the agents of the Senate43. The next incidence of the

citizenship issue was during the Jugurthine and Cimbrian Wars of the 100s BCE. Under Gaius Marius,

increasing numbers of Italians were recruited to serve in the Roman armies (some estimates suggest

that up to two-thirds of the Roman army at this point was composed of Allied troops), straining the

manpower and relations with the Allies44. Marius granted Roman citizenship to many of his Allied

troops in the wake of the Cimbrian War, which only further galvanized the Italian push for citizenship.

42 McDonald, “Italian Confederation”, 11-33.43 App., BC 1.25-26.44 A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, 2nd Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 217.

Williams 16

Finally, in 91 BCE the tribune Livius Drusus proposed a bill very similar to that of Gracchus and

Flacchus, and was assassinated for his troubles45. The failure of this final citizenship measure was the

spark that ignited the conflagration that would consume Italy for the next three years, and burn in

Campania for the next decade.

Just how Romanized the Italian Allies were is difficult to study through traditional means. Few

Italian works of literature and art exist from the Republican era. While allusions are made in the works

of Roman authors, these bear both the political agenda of the authors and often the distance of centuries

from the events described within- Livy, Appian, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus were all writing during

the era of Augustus, by which point Italy had undergone extensive Romanization46. Brunt argues that

much of Italy primarily spoke Latin, with the Romans encouraging its use as a common language in a

peninsula filled with diverse, often mutually unintelligible languages47. Brunt points to Latin

inscriptions in Umbria, the Central Apennines, and parts of Apulia, as well as the Latin legends

inscribed upon Italian Social War-era coinage, as evidence of the spread of Latin, and hence Roman

culture48. The particulars of the anti-Rome created by the rebellious Allies are also seen as significant.

Brunt argues that the concept of Italy, both the political unit and the short-lived nation formed by the

Italian rebels during the Social War, was largely defined through Roman policies. As discussed earlier,

the Romans relied heavily upon the Italians for manpower, and generally granted the Italians greater

rights and autonomy than the Spanish tribes, Punic cities, or Greek poleis conquered throughout the

middle Republican era49. The appeals of the Italians on the eve of the Social War appear to bespeak a

45 App., BC 1.36.46 And by which point most of the peninsula had received full Roman citizenship.47 The Etruscan language was not even part of the Indo-European language family. The most accepted hypothesis is that it

belongs in the Tyrsenian family, although more bizarre origins have been suggested in the past, ranging from Semitic to Altaic. To this day the language is only partially understood, despite that the Etruscans likely had a major influence upon Latin culture and language. Several of the Roman kings are believed to have been Etruscan in origin.

48 P. A. Brunt, “Italian Aims at the Time of the Social War,” The Journal of Roman Studies 55, no. 1-2 (1965), 90-109. An excellent examination of the role of citizenship in the instigation of the Social War, as well as the Romanization of the Allies. However, I do feel that Brunt unfairly downplays the issue of increased colonization and ager publicus.

49 Brunt, “Italian Aims”, 98.

Williams 17

sense of kinship and brotherhood-in-arms between themselves and the Romans50; however, once again

these accounts were written beyond living memory of the events51. Archaeological evidence is perhaps

the most useful in examining the Italians- as mentioned above, on some occasions Italian inscriptions

survive in archaeological sites. Coinage dating to the Social War is infrequently recovered by

archaeologists, and will be addressed later as a piece of linguistic evidence.

However, there is evidence for the Romanization of the Italians. While it can also be interpreted

as the Romans pushing a lingua franca on a linguistically diverse region, nevertheless Latin does seem

to have been adopted by many of the Allies. There are specific instances of Italian allies petitioning to

change their official language to Latin52, and Italian coinage dating to the Social War bears inscriptions

in both Oscan and Latin- an indicator that the rebellious Allies had accepted the spread of Latin and its

use throughout Italy, rather than rejecting it as the language of an imperial overlord53. Further, Balsdon

notes that the Roman colonies interspersed throughout Italy would have served as “Roman speech-

centres”, thereby aiding the spread of the language54. Linguistics is a key component of identity- in

recent memory, various states have restricted the linguistic rights of minorities in order to force

assimilation into the dominant culture. For example, the during the Cold War Azerbaijan restricted the

ability of the Armenians living in the Nagorny-Karabakh region to utilize their native language and

writing system. This was done in order to force the local Armenian population to assimilate into the

dominant Azeri ethnic group. The debate in the United States over whether or not the nation should

officially designate English as its primary language- and consequently require immigrants to learn and

use English in official capacities- is tied into ideals of cultural identity. The idea is that being required

50 App. BC 1.35.“They sent ambassadors to Rome to complain that although they had cooperated in all ways with the Romans in building up the empire, the latter had not been willing to admit their helpers to citizenship.” Once again Appian, like others, is writing at a great remove from the event. His account notably exculpates the Italians of wrongdoing, and places the impetus for the war on the Romans.

51 Brunt, “Italian Aims”, 104.52 Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 116. The city of Cumae petitioned to change its official language from Oscan to Latin in

180 BCE.53 Balsdon (117) suggests that the coinage indicates that the rebellious Italians were primarily Latin-speakers, and that

local languages had fallen to the wayside. However, this conclusion is not supported by Nagle or even Brunt.54 Balsdon, 116.

Williams 18

to speak a certain language will further encourage an individual or group to integrate into the local

culture that utilizes that language. Italian adoption of Latin would also have likely been encouraged

simply to simplify military command. While the Allies fought in their own formations during combat,

they still took orders from Roman generals. Speed is key to successfully carrying out military orders,

and translation can at times miss the nuances of what one intends to say. Rome therefore had a military

imperative to ensure smooth lines of communication in the heat of combat, which of course

necessitated the use of one common language. Local languages would not have been suppressed- Brunt

argues for bilinguality among many of the Italians, particularly in the upper classes- yet at the same

time, views Latin as the language of the military.

The adoption of Roman-style constitutions by various allies also provides possible evidence for

the extent of Romanization among the Italians. By adopting constitutions modeled upon that of the

Roman Republic, Allied cities brought themselves structurally more in line with the Romans55. This

cannot be interpreted as conclusive proof of Romanization, however. First of all, these constitutional

changes may have been made simply to ingratiate these cities with the Romans. The Romans viewed

themselves as a superior culture, so the Italians may simply have been appealing to that pride. Second,

modern international politics shows that the adoption of a particular set of laws does not necessarily

bring a country in line with the nation from whence those laws originated. Most modern nation-states

utilize- at least on paper- a republican form of government, roughly modeled upon that of the United

States and other western democracies. However, the democratic institutions in many countries are

rather weak, the elections a farce, and the culture wildly different from that of Western Europe or the

United States. Even the technical adoption of specific laws does not bring a nation into line- see, for

example, the Central Asian republics, which have ratified international human rights laws and written

55 Brunt, 100-101. Brunt details how various Italian, non-Latin cities adopted Latin titles for their magistrates, such as quaestor, senator, aedile, and in the case of Bantia, tribunus plebs. He also goes on to suggest that the Bantians in particular, through

Williams 19

them into their constitutions, yet habitually fail to enforce them. The superficial adoption of a law can

be used to garner support and goodwill even when a law isn't actually enforced.

The perspective of other Mediterranean cultures on the Italians is a useful piece of evidence in

evaluating this problem. The expansion of Roman power into the Mediterranean benefited Italian

businessmen, who could then conduct business overseas with the same rights as a Roman merchant.

And ancient sources tell us that Italians were referred to as 'Romans' throughout the Mediterranean,

even prior to their being granted Roman citizenship. Mediterranean cultures perceived the close

relationship between Rome and the Italians, to the point that the two were conflated. Extensive Italian

military service in the Roman military would have further helped to conflate the two groups. Italy itself

was seen as being largely synonymous with Rome, to an extent that Rome's overseas territories could

not claim- the Delians, for example, made no distinction between the two groups, and labelled them all

as “Romans”56.

Roman Intent?

The question of course arises as to whether or not the Romans actually intended for the Italians

to become Romanized, or if the Romanization demonstrated in the historical and archaeological record

was simply the by-product of Roman imperial policy in Italy. Romanization was, without a doubt,

beneficial to the Roman control over and administration of Italy- in theory, it would produce a

culturally familiar and linguistically intelligible populace, who would feel a greater kinship with their

imperial masters and hence be more pliant subjects. Legally, the Romanization of Italian constitutions

and laws would have made it easier for Roman overseers to interpret and manipulate Italian laws. And

whatever the intent, the cultural homogenization of Italy did seem to occur. Yet once again, this did not

work out exactly as expected, assuming that there even was a particular expectation. A near-

catastrophic war over citizenship was decidedly not the goal of the Roman Republic when it expanded

into Italy. The historical record is, at best, lacking. Once again we run into the problem of early Italian 56 W.A. Laidlaw, A History of Delos. Oxford, Great Britain: Basil Blackwell & Mott Ltd., (1933), 209-210

Williams 20

history- few written records survive from the period, and most of the initial historiography was not

undertaken until the era of the Early Principate- and contemporary authors such as Polybius do not

quite address the methods of Romanization, except in passing.

The system of homogenizing Italian identity into a more Roman mode had the unintended effect

of undermining Roman control in Italy, through the Roman failure to follow through on the

implications of that identity. Latium provides such a compelling counterexample because it shows that

the Romans did indeed have the capacity to avert the problems that led to the Social War. The Italians

were only partially Romanized, and citizenship was a key component of further Romanization. By

repeatedly rejecting Italian citizenship, the Romans rejected the Italians' ability to fully take part in

their community and further integrate into the Roman Republic. It was an outright rejection of the

progress that the Romans had made over the previous centuries. Furthermore, it was a rejection of the

sense of community that the Romans had- consciously or unconsciously- fostered in Italy. The Italians

seem to have felt that they had earned their citizenship, and certainly would have fallen under Smith's

third and fourth definitions of citizenship. They were members of an Italian community with Rome

implicitly placed at the center. They had, with some exceptions, loyally served the Romans in war after

war, adopted elements of Roman-Latin culture, and demonstrated a willingness to forgo their own

citizenship and take on the rights and duties of full Roman citizens.

Instead, the Romans continued to stretch the Italians to their limits, through military demands,

expansion of Roman land, the imposition of colonies, and even outright abuses of the Allies57. Whether

these policies were intentional is difficult to establish. Appian tells us that the Senate was entirely

oblivious to the Allies arming themselves until it was far too late58- however, Appian wrote with the

57 Several abuses are recorded by later Roman authors. For example, Livy details graft on the part of Roman magistrates in book 42, while Cicero in his De Officiis discusses how, when called upon to arbitrate boundary disputes, Roman representatives would adjust the boundaries of Italian cities so as to grab land for Roman use. Aulus Gellius references magistrates actually physically assaulting Italians in his Attic Nights; the the veracity of his tale is questionable. Gellius suffers from writing nearly over two centuries after the fact, although he does claim to be working from a speech by Tiberius Gracchus.

58 Which came to a head when a Roman deputation to Asculum was slaughtered by the inhabitants, who feared that the Romans had gotten wind of their plans and sent a force to disarm them. App. BC 1.38

Williams 21

benefit of hindsight, and may very well have been attempting to retroactively justify the actions of the

Italians, who by the time of his writing had been enfranchised and Romanized for over a century.

Further attestations of Roman abuses are recorded in Roman historiography, although the sources

closest to the events are legal treatises written by Cicero59. What we do know is that the second and

early first centuries placed an increasing demand upon the manpower of the Italians, whether the

Romans were invading Greece, suppressing Jugurtha, reestablishing control over the Celtic tribes of

northern Italy, or suppressing the tribes of Spain.

So where does this leave us? The Romans had, to a point, succeeded in demonstrating the

benefits of Roman citizenship to the Italians. They had even partially succeeded in homogenizing the

Italians to the point that, to many outside observers, the Italians were indeed Romans. However, they

had also consistently withheld those benefits and demonstrated that they had no interest in actually

embracing the Italians as fellow Romans. The Romans demonstrated that they were happy to maintain

a system of domination in which the Italians were subordinate partners with no legal means of

censuring the Romans. The very means by which the Romans intended to pacify the peninsula turned

out to undermine that very control.

Imperial control in Italy prior to the Social War, then was based on a series of treaties with the

Italians; the use of citizenship as both a carrot to encourage loyalty from the Italians, and its use as a

wedge to maintain a degree of distance between the Romans and their Italian subjects; the semi-

conscious, semi-successful Romanization of the Italians; and the allowance of local autonomy for the

Italians, dependent upon their fidelity to Rome. This system of control, while effective for a time,

began to break down during the second century BCE due to Roman malpractice and denial of Italian

requests for citizenship- an intransigence that flew in the face of the past 300 years of Romanization in

Italy, and directly denied the Italians a means of affecting Roman policy. Roman control of Italy- and

indeed the Mediterranean- relied upon the manpower of Italy, the loyalty of the Italians, and the

59 Cic. Off. 1.33. The aforementioned land arbitration abuses.

Williams 22

maintenance of Italy itself. Roman policy in Italy, however unintentionally, undermined the very

imperial control that it sought to perpetuate.

Bibliography

Agnew, John. “Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World

Politics.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95, no. 2 (2005), 437-461.

Williams 23

Ando, Clifford. “Aliens, Ambassadors, and the Integrity of Empire.” Law and History Review 26, no. 3

(2008), 491-519.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979.

Baronowski, Donald Walter. “Roman Treaties with Communities of Citizens.” The Classical Quarterly

38, No. 1 (1988): 172-178.

Brunt, P. A. “Italian Aims at the Time of the Social War.” The Journal of Roman Studies 55, no ½

(1965): 90-109.

Laidlaw, W. A. A History of Delos. Oxford, Great Britain: Basil Blackwell & Mott Ltd., 1933. Pg 209-

210.

Lomas, Kathryn. Roman Italy, 338 BC-AD 200: A Sourcebook. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.

McDonald, A. H. “Rome and the Italian Confederation (200-186 B.C.).”  The Journal of Roman

Studies 34 (1944): 11-33.

Morley, Neville. “The Transformation of Italy, 225-28 B.C.” The Journal of Roman Studies 91 (2001):

50-62.

Nagle, D. Brendan. “An Allied View of the Social War.” American Journal of Archaeology 77, no. 4

(October 1973): 367-378.

Reid, J. S. “Problems of the Second Punic War III. Rome and Her Italian Allies.” The Journal of

Roman Studies 5 (1915): 87-124.

Richardson, J. S. “The Ownership of Roman Land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians.” The Journal of

Roman Studies 70 (1980): 1-11.

Salmon, E. T. Roman Colonization Under the Republic. Great Britain: Camelot Press Ltd., 1969.

Williams 24

--------- “Notes on the Social War.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological      

Association 89 (1958): 159-184.

--------- “Roman Colonization from the Second Punic War to the Gracchi.” The Journal of Roman

Studies 26 (1936): 47-67.

Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

Smith, Roger M. “Modern Citizenship.” In Handbook for Citizenship Studies, edited by Bryan S.

Turner and Engin F. Isin, 105-115. London: SAGE Publications, 2002.