The Fall of the Roman Republic

DAVID RAFFERTY the Mediterranean, meant there was no longer anyone for the Romans to fear, which in turn meant that Rome lost her discipline. Another How did crises change ancient theme blamed greed and ambition for Rome’s societies? problems: greed and success had made some men very rich and others very poor. The rich How did key individuals contribute to had appetites which the Republic could not such events? contain, while they also became corrupt, and the poor had nothing to lose from change. A How might we judge the historical similar theme blamed the ambitions of the significance of these crises and the great men who brought down their Republic: individuals who took part in them?1 they were no longer content to be renowned in a free state, but wanted to dominate their fellow-citizens.

Historical significance Most modern scholars have not accepted these explanations. But many causes have been Why did the Roman Republic fall? This blamed for the collapse of the Republic, too question was of great interest to the Romans many to list here. Lintott’s CAH chapter briefly themselves, both at the time and later. The outlines some of them, but the Blackwell best starting point is Andrew Lintott’s chapter Companion to the Roman Republic is a better 1, ‘The crisis of the Republic: sources and source. Such companions tend to be uneven, source-problems’ in CAH 9 (that is, volume but this one is excellent, and thoroughly 9 of the second edition of the Cambridge recommended. The first chapter (by Martin Ancient History, published in 1992).2 Roman Jehne) and the last (by Robert Morstein-Marx explanations were primarily moral rather and Nathan Rosenstein) are particularly useful 3 than structural, which at first glance might here. They point to three of the better known seem to lack explanatory power. Yet these explanations over the past half-century: Peter explanations are worth thinking through, and Brunt’s, Christian Meier’s, and Erich Gruen’s. not simply dismissing: often today we might Brunt’s is contained implicitly in his book posit psychological conditions as one factor Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (which in creating history, or at least in creating the has been widely used as a textbook), but his parameters within which historical actors ideas are distilled in a long (90-page) essay in 4 make their choices, and that is a similar his 1988 book The Fall of the Roman Republic. explanation. One of the Roman explanations For Brunt, the basic cause was that, during the took as its theme the growth of empire. One late second and first centuries, the senatorial version of this blamed the moral corruption government had managed to alienate many arising from greed and luxury: Romans politically important groups: the tax-farmers, increasingly tended to their private desires the army, the urban poor, and so on, so that rather than public duty. Another version was these groups lost faith in the Senate’s ability that the destruction of Carthage in 146, and to respond to their grievances and so were Rome’s position as undisputed hegemon of willing to give support to individual politicians working outside the Senate. The most important of these were Pompey and Caesar, 1 This article addresses one of the key questions in Area who together brought the Republic down. Study 2 of the new VCE Ancient History course (Units 3 & 4), specifically Rome in the ‘People in Power, Societies in Crisis’ section. 3 Jehne (2006); Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx (2006). 2 Lintott (1992). 4 Brunt (1971), (1988).

58 The Fall of the Roman Republic

Meier’s argument (presented in German ‘crisis’ lasting for a century.7 She suggests in his 1966 book Res publica amissa) is more that rather than positing a ‘Roman Republic’ sophisticated, and responds to the fact that no- lasting from 509 to 27, we are better thinking of one we know of consciously wanted to destroy several republics, more or less successful. For the Republic.5 Rather, because Romans were Flower, ‘the Republic of the nobiles’ (aristocratic unable to conceive of an alternate form of families) was destroyed by Sulla’s march on government, they were unable to correct the Rome in 88: Sulla subsequently created a political process when that process prevented new republic system as dictator, which lasted certain problems from being addressed. in modified form for another generation, This in turn meant that the problems facing before civil war and a transitional triumviral Rome became bigger and more insoluble, period were eventually followed by the new, until the Republic collapsed in war. Another stable, Augustan Principate. Flower’s book is point of view is presented by Erich Gruen’s certainly stimulating, and it seems to me she 1974 book The Last Generation of the Roman is right to point to the civil wars of the 80s as Republic, particularly the introduction and a turning point as significant as the civil wars the chapter ‘The coming of civil war’.6 of the 40s. Even speaking of earlier modern Gruen’s interpretation is, explicitly, born of interpretations, the best of them considered the his own observations while teaching in San resolution of Rome’s first-century instability by Francisco in the late 1960s - that in the midst Augustus as a useful end-point (Brunt’s 1988 of revolutionary and countercultural change, essay, mentioned above, is very good on this). it is the continuity of institutions and practices It is clear that taking this slightly longer view which is most striking. For Gruen, the Republic is more helpful (in terms of understanding the was successfully confronting the problems it period) than simply saying that ‘the Republic’ experienced until the late 50s. Then, owing to ended in 49, or 44, or 31, and was immediately a confluence of circumstances and individual followed by ‘the Empire’. That might be a intransigence, Caesar began a civil war against useful way of dividing Roman history, but enemies, and it was as a result of that war that does not help us understand how the one was the Republic was destroyed. That is, civil war transformed into the other. caused the end of the Republic, not the other way around. But for many historians, the outbreak of civil war in 49 is regarded as the main turning Morstein-Marx and Rosenstein, in the chapter point (which is a valid point of view), and so already mentioned, pose the interesting discussions about how and why it happened question that we might be mistaken in have served as useful placeholders for looking for the ‘Fall’ or ‘End’ of the Republic. discussions of historical causation. As should Rather, it might be more helpful to think of a be clear, Gruen’s explanation emphasises the transformation in the Roman political system, role of accident and contingency in shaping over the course of the first century BCE - this the course of history: a particular political leads us away from trying to pinpoint just situation in 50 and 49 created a civil war, after when the Republic ‘fell’. Harriet Flower, in her which the Republic no longer existed, because short and very interesting 2010 book Roman the Republic was above all a civilian way of Republics, makes a similar point: we routinely making political decisions. Meier’s explanation speak of ‘the crisis’ of the Republic from the leaves much more room for thinking about Gracchi onwards, but it is silly to speak of a the grand processes of history, and is much closer to Marx’s dictum that men make their own history, only not under circumstances of their own choosing. Still other explanations, 5 Meier (1980).

6 Gruen (1995). 7 Flower (2010).

58 59 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015

such as Brunt’s, involve a weakening of Roman history in English. Rome’s institutions, so that the Republic was not able to withstand the shocks that history confronted it with. Other explanations speak Individuals - the Gracchi to Sulla of preconditions for collapse, and triggers which activated them. All of these have some On Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, I turn truth, depending on the questions one asks - initially to the Blackwell Companion to the Roman there is certainly no consensus among Roman Republic, and to Konrad’s chapter on the Gracchi historians about how historical events are and the following period: Konrad makes clear caused. that it was not so much Tiberius’ and Gaius’ particular policies which aroused so much Another important question to ask is: what opposition, as their methods and especially the actually changed? How was the Rome, even Senate’s fear that, by seeking reelection to the the Roman politics, of (say) 23 BCE different tribunate, both men sought to perpetuate their from 133 BCE? To put it in Roman terms, the power.9 The aristocracy’s fear, then as always, res publica (‘public thing’, or ‘commonwealth’, was of an individual’s regnum (domination, or ‘state’) had become a res privata: Augustus tyranny). Tiberius’ agrarian law does not alone now made all the important decisions. seem to have been disturbed after his death However much he might not parade his (although some parts of its implementation power, no intelligent contemporary could fool were opposed), and many of Gaius’ laws himself that Augustus did not rule the world. survived him too. The greater significance of To put it in Marxist terms, had their been a the brothers lies in the manner of their deaths social revolution? Yes and no. While there and in how they were remembered. Tribunes had been no great change of class control, were sacrosanct: the plebs swore an oath to there had been, under Sulla’s dictatorship (82- avenge any harm done to them. Yet Tiberius’ 79) and even more in the early years of the death (killed by a senatorial lynch mob led by triumvirate (43-36), enormous transfers of the pontifex maximus) as well as Gaius’ (forced land ownership in Italy. In both 133 and 23 to suicide by the consul operating under an there was a ruling class based on ownership extemporised senatorial decree authorising of land, but in between there had been great him to do whatever he felt necessary) grossly discontinuity in this class. That discontinuity violated this sacrosanctity. The precedent was had been accompanied by violence: losing set (as has often been noted): political violence one’s land often meant losing one’s head, too. was normally initiated by the optimates (a For several decades, Roman historians were term which is best rendered simply by its focused on tracing the individuals who made translation: the best men). We see here an up the ruling class and their careers, a style example of what Meier argued: attempts at of history called prosopography. The best reform led to reactions which damaged the English-language representative of this school political process. One’s attitude to the deaths is Sir Ronald Syme’s 1939 book, The Roman of the Gracchi became something of a litmus Revolution.8 Syme aimed to explain Augustus’ test over succeeding generations: if there was success as the triumph of the Augustan ‘party’ a substantial difference between optimates and (his supporters). While many of Syme’s beliefs populares it lay here as much as anywhere. For about Roman politics appear outdated, I example, in his correspondence and senatorial still thoroughly recommend this book: it is speeches Cicero speaks approvingly of Gaius a superb account of the dramatic few years Gracchus’ suppression and the violence after Caesar’s death, and it has a (deserved) which accompanied it. Yet in his speeches reputation as the most stylishly written work of to the People he represents the Gracchi as

8 Syme (1939). 9 Konrad (2006).

60 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015 The Fall of the Roman Republic

heroes and true benefactors to the Roman reforms: enlisting the poorest men in the army, People (see Morstein-Marx’s Mass Oratory and changing the basic unit from the maniple to Political Power, a groundbreaking book on the the cohort and making some changes to the way that public oratory functioned in the late heavy javelin (pilum).14 Marius’ reforms have Republic).10 often been seen as the main reason why Rome was so much more successful militarily in the The next significant figure is C. Marius, who first century than it had been in the mid and received a largely negative press in antiquity late second. This may be the case. But it is - mainly because history was written by his also reasonable to suggest a higher standard enemy Sulla. Yet Marius’ hero status in Rome of leadership: with the exception of Caesar, can be discerned. It is fair to say that the place all the men responsible for Rome’s military of military success in the ancient world was successes in the late Republic had served comparable to that of economic prosperity in (whether as junior or senior officers) in the the modern world: periods of victory brought crucible of the Social War, a war in which the wealth and confidence, while periods of defeat difference between good and bad generals was normally brought despair and political conflict. starkly apparent. Rome’s military fortunes in the second half of the second century were generally bad: the L. Cornelius Sulla is always the counterpart Spanish wars were an ulcer, unpopular and to Marius, and on Sulla there has been a costly, while there was regular pressure in great deal of work in recent decades. Sulla’s Macedonia, topped off by the disasters against march on Rome in 88 is traditionally seen as the Cimbri and Teutoni at the end of the a turning-point in the fall of the Republic: as it century. These culminated in the catastrophic was clashing armies which brought down the defeat at Arausio in 105, in which upwards of Republic, the first time that Roman soldiers 50,000 Italians died.11 It is no wonder then that attacked their own country is obviously very the nobility was under the popular pressure important. This event has been seen as the which Sallust describes in the Jugurthine birth of the revolutionary, mercenary army, War. C. Marius was Rome’s saviour at this loyal to its general rather than to the state point - he defeated Jugurtha and then saved - as Badian put it, Marius had created an Italy from the barbarians, and it is vital to army of the landless with no tie to the res understand the background of defeat in order publica, but it was Sulla who turned it into a to properly appreciate just how much Marius’ revolutionary force.15 But this thesis has been victories meant to Rome. Marius has not been modified in recent years. Keaveney notes that prominent in recent scholarship, but Rawson soldiers viewed their commanders primarily gives a good account of the complicated as magistrates rather than as patrons - at religious situation in which his campaigns least until circumstances of civil war offered against the Cimbri took place.12 Marius was up rivals to defect to.16 And Morstein Marx the first of the great men of the late Republic points similarly to the appeals by Sulla in to have a strong personal religious presence in 88 and Cinna in 87 to their soldiers, appeals Roman life, something which continued and which were much more about a soldier’s (and expanded with Sulla, Pompeius and Caesar.13 a voter’s) loyalty to the elected consul than a A traditional area of interest is Marius’ army mercenary’s loyalty to his paymaster.17 Indeed

14 On Marius’ reforms see Gabba (1976), chs 1 and 2; Keppie 10 Morstein-Marx (2004). (2005) ch. 2; and Cagniart (2007). 11 Flower (2010), ch. 6. 15 Badian (1970), 15-16; cf. Gabba (1976), ch. 2. 12 Rawson (1974). 16 Keaveney 2007. 13 Beard and North (1998), 1.140-9; Flower (2010), 107-8. 17 Morstein-Marx (2011).

60 61 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015

Morstein Marx challenges the way Gabba and just made individual improvements, whether others characterise Sulla in 88 or Caesar in 49. he made radical changes or just enshrined These men were not ‘rebels’ challenging ‘the recent developments in law. In fact, owing state’, but high-ranking public officials: all the to the source problems there is a tendency to civil wars of the first century were born in, and believe that if part of the government structure fundamentally about, crises of legitimacy. They worked one way in Livy, and another way in arose because it was not clear who was in the Cicero’s letters and speeches, then the change right among the various men and institutions must have been made by Sulla, but often this which collectively made up the res publica, and is a mere guess. The key changes were the so there was no obvious political authority for suppression of the tribunate and the restoration soldiers to obey. This is still a relatively new of the courts to the Senate: the probable effect way of looking at the civil wars (and note that of these were that consuls rather than tribunes legitimacy is not the same thing as legality), were expected to take the lead in lawmaking but potentially a very fruitful one. Morstein in Rome, and that the Senate was as much a Marx elaborates these ideas in his 2009 article, pool of jurors as a consultative, policy-making but that may be harder to find.18 body. But Sulla’s aims might have been as much moral as administrative. In considering Sulla returned as dictator in 82, the victor in the Sullan constitution, we need to recall that the civil war. The Italian citizenship question Sulla died in 78 and that what followed may was now firmly settled (although the Italians or may not have been to his design. Moreover, were probably not all registered until 70). But it is important to differentiate between Sulla’s Sulla’s dictatorship fundamentally reshaped own actions and his later significance: Sulla the Rome of succeeding decades, in two ways. served as a model or cautionary example (or First, through his proscriptions, which remade both) to Pompey, Caesar, Octavian and many the landowning class. The best treatment of this later figures.21 is still Hinard’s (in French); Santangelo treats the proscriptions in some detail in English.19 The proscriptions served two functions for Personalities: Sulla: punishing his enemies (i.e. those on the the post-Sullan Republic losing side in the civil war) and rewarding his friends. By changing the ownership of The 30 years between Sulla’s dictatorship much of Italy, Sulla made a revolution - and Caesar’s are the best documented period the dispossessed, or rather their surviving in ancient history, and so we tend to think of children, remained on the margins in the next them as the Ciceronian period or the age of generation. Also, the proscriptions made clear Caesar. To a contemporary Roman, however, that wealth and property were not secure: Cicero was not the most important man in they depended upon access to political power. Rome. Nor was Caesar, despite his importance The second effect of Sulla’s dictatorship was to posterity - until the last few years of this in his administrative reforms. Santangelo and period, Caesar was a relatively minor player. Flower describe Sulla as Rome’s new founder, No, Roman public life was dominated by the as a lawgiver: a man reshaping the state and figure of Cn. Pompeius Magnus - Pompey. 20 setting it back on its feet. It is uncertain just The best biography of Pompey is Seager’s, what counts as a Sullan reform, whether Sulla although the titles of Greenhalgh’s two-part conceived of his reforms working together or biography best capture the two phases of Pompey’s career: the first volume is entitled 18 Morstein-Marx (2009). 19 Hinard (1985); Santangelo (2007), 78-88. 21 On Sulla, Keaveney (1982) is a good starting point; an alter- native is Seager (1992a), while see Badian (1970) for an older 20 Santangelo (2007); Flower (2010). but thoughtful appraisal.

62 The Fall of the Roman Republic

‘The Roman Alexander’ and the second ‘The plagued Roman politics in the fifties. A deal Republican Prince’.22 The relevant chapters of between Pompey and his enemies was finally the Cambridge Ancient History are also useful.23 struck in 52, after the anarchy had reached If Sulla tried to restore Rome to normality such an extent that Cato and his group were and order after the civil wars, from the start willing to give ground, and the consequence Pompey’s place was outside that order: until was an immediate return to order in Rome. At 61 as the great troubleshooter and conquering that point it might have seemed as though the hero, and in the fifties as Rome’s godfather troubles which had plagued the Republic were figure, not powerful or ambitious enough gone, and that stable government might be the to rule but too powerful and too ambitious future, under the aegis of this alliance between to allow the system to function without him. Pompey and the boni (or Good Men, as this Pompey’s modus operandi is best illustrated by faction in the Senate was called). But a key Vervaet, who also explores Augustus’ use of figure was not included: Caesar, the proconsul the same techniques of getting his way.24 of Gaul.

The creation of the First Triumvirate in 60 is Caesar is of course much the most famous often heralded as the beginning of the end figure in this period. New biographies on him for the Republic: according to this viewpoint, appear every year, and it can be difficult to the alliance of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar choose between them. Some students might wielded so much power that the Republic head to the podcast series ‘Life of Caesar’, ceased to function.25 But this has been which is good for thinking through some of disputed - Seager makes the good point that the major themes, and treats the issues in a the objectives of the three were short-term lot of depth, but it is created by non-historians - and really the Triumvirate only held good who frequently misunderstand Roman society until late in 59 and then again from mid-56 and get basic facts wrong.28 Two biographies until Crassus’ departure from Rome at the to look for are Christian Meier’s and Jeff end of 55.26 Meier has the best account: the Tatum’s. 29 Meier is good on the events and on basic political conflict after Pompey’s return Caesar’s significance, both in Roman history to Rome in 61 was between Pompey on one and in world history more generally. Tatum’s side and on the other those leading senators is not a straight biography, but is a good way who had gained control of the Senate - chief of using Caesar’s life as a means of explaining among whom was the young Cato.27 This the Roman world he lived in. It is, moreover, meant that Pompey was forced to build up a written with students very much in mind. power base outside the Senate - of which his alliance with Crassus and Caesar was the most Caesar’s life continues to fascinate historians. eye-catching example, but not the only one - in There is a strong German tradition (seen in order to get anything done. This in turn meant Meier) of viewing Caesar’s life as almost a that Pompey was indirectly responsible for commentary on Rome, as though he was much of the violence and dysfunction which destined (consciously or unconsciously) to destroy the Republic. But it is well to remember 22 Seager (2002); Greenhalgh (1980), (1981). that, until the 50s BCE, he was a minor figure in Roman politics, and during the 50s he was 23 Seager (1992b); Sherwin-White (1992); Wiseman (1992a) absent in Gaul. He only became the centre and (1992b). of his world as dictator. Until then, he can 24 Vervaet 2010. be viewed as one of a number of aristocratic 25 Syme (1939), 35-6.

26 Seager (2005), 85. 28 Reilly and Harris (2014).

27 Meier (1996), 353. 29 Meier (1996); Tatum (2008).

62 63 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015

Roman figures (such as Catiline, or Clodius) a few good ones are listed in the footnotes. 32 who gambled recklessly with their lives and There is more of a tradition on this in German, careers and with the Republic itself, although where Martin Jehne has written extensively Caesar had two advantages on such men: he on Caesar’s dictatorships. Finally, as Caesar was talented, and he was lucky. Some of the was murdered mainly by enemies he had major debates around Caesar’s life are: why did pardoned, was his clemency his undoing, or he cross the Rubicon and go to war in 49? This was it rather the only hope for allowing Rome question has tended to become sidetracked to heal itself after civil war? by what is known as the Rechtsfrage, or legal question: when did Caesar’s command in Gaul One of the great things about the late Republic legally expire and thus (by extension), was he is that it is full of larger-than-life figures. One of legally in the right or in the wrong? Generally, the most interesting is M. Porcius Cato. Little the tendency has been to see Caesar as has been written on him in particular, although automatically in the wrong - as a ‘rebel’ who his speech in Sallust’s Catilinarian War is a led his army against ‘the state’. Yet recent work good starting point (Sall. Cat. 52), as is Cicero’s has tended to avoid the issue - Morstein-Marx’s complaint in a letter that Cato approached is the main article in English, as much of the politics like he was living in Plato’s Republic, other relevant work is in German.30 Morstein- not the cesspool of Romulus. The key question Marx makes the point that ‘legality’ is an to my mind is, how did Cato reach a position unhelpful concept in civil war, as it privileges of such political influence so young? From his those who happen to hold the levers of power. early 30s he was regarded as a key person, More useful is the idea of ‘legitimacy’, which someone whom even Pompey desperately has as its judges the Roman people - and in wanted to ally with. He was not alone in living their eyes, Caesar had a case. This approach his philosophical education (rather than simply also makes sense of the otherwise baffling discussing it), although probably no-one else fact that Caesar makes his wounded dignitas did to his extremes. Yet it seems unfair to (dignity, private reputation) one of the main dismiss him as a rigid ideologue, because he justifications for invading Italy (Caes.Civ . 1.7). was also a practical politician. As legendary as he was to contemporaries, his reputation was Another key question is about what Caesar sealed forever by the manner of his suicide at intended for the long term after he won the civil Utica during the civil war. Indeed it seems odd war. He was named dictator for life early in 44, that a man who prided himself on reclaiming but was that how he intended to hold power? old Roman virtues would become that most Did he want to be King of Rome - was he to un-Roman of creatures: a political martyr. become a Roman version of the Hellenistic kings of Macedonia or Egypt? Connected to While Cato was a central figure to this is the issue of his religious status in Roman contemporaries, for us this period is life, on which Weinstock is still the standard dominated by Cicero, who provides the vast text.31 Was Caesar to be worshipped as a god bulk of the evidence we have, in the best- while still alive? Did he make any plans for documented period in the whole of ancient beyond his death - he was, after all, now in his history. Consequently, it is hard not to see mid-50s, with no living (legitimate) children? Rome through Cicero’s eyes. He is, moreover, There are a few tantalising hints, but the field an easy figure to make fun of: we possess has been open for the speculations of modern hundreds of his letters and dozens of speeches historians. There are many works to consult: and so can read, for example, how he could warmly compliment a man in one speech and then violently abuse him in another, or mount 30 Morstein-Marx (2009).

31 Weinstock (1971). 32 Meier (1996), ch. 14; Rawson (1992); and Gardner (2009).

64 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015 The Fall of the Roman Republic

a passionate character defence of a governor to be the king. Crassus has not attracted much on trial when we know that Cicero privately recent attention: he is discussed at length by thought him a criminal and an idiot. Such Gruen (in various places), while two useful examples do not inspire confidence, nor does biographies are by Marshall and Ward.34 Cicero’s evident and monumental vanity or his frequent loss of nerve. But he was a highly intelligent and educated man, worried about Individuals: the triumviral era the direction his beloved Rome was travelling in and determined to do what he could to Until 44 BCE, M. Junius Brutus was a common save her. Against these excuses, however, it type in late Republican Rome: a man with an must be admitted that when, in the final year impressive name whose achievements did not of his life, Cicero found himself in a position match it. He was well connected: his great- of political influence, he used that influence to uncle had been the reforming tribune of 91, try to restart the civil wars and crush Mark M. Livius Drusus. Cato was his uncle (and, Antony. There are many modern biographies posthumously, his father-in-law), while his of Cicero, but it is usually better to approach mother Servilia (one of the truly impressive him through his own words. Good starting women in Roman history) was Caesar’s points are the speech for Caelius, the speeches longtime mistress. He was also a good friend against Catiline, the second Philippic against to Cicero, and was closely involved in Cicero’s Antony, and his letters to Atticus of late 50/ philosophical works in the 40s. Yet until the early 49 (revealing his pain at the outbreak conspiracy of the Ides of March, Brutus’ main of civil war) and 45 (after the death of his claim on the attention of historians was his role daughter Tullia, which crushed him). All of as an extortionate moneylender in Cyprus. But these are available for free online (although along with Cassius, he was at the heart of the usually in older translations) at the Perseus conspiracy to murder Caesar (a man who had 33 Project and elsewhere. done him conspicuous favours). The reasons why are complex: Brutus later issued coins The final figure of note in the late Republic with images of liberty and tyrannicide, while is M. Licinius Crassus. He is an easy figure the memory of his ancestor who had founded to stereotype and often appears as Mr the Republic and expelled tyranny, also Moneybags, the typical rich and greedy named Brutus, hung over him. There is no man. Yet he was more complex: his father (recent) full-length work on Brutus in English, and brothers had been killed in the Marian although Tatum provides a good introduction terror in 87 and he had to rebuild the family to the philosophical and political atmosphere fortunes during the Sullan proscriptions. His in which the assassination took place.35 failure and death against the Parthians in 53 obscures his successful military commands The triumviral era proper, or at least its modern as a younger man: he was largely responsible memory, is dominated by three figures: Mark for winning the major battle of the civil war Antony, the young man of many names whom in 82 and in 71 quickly and comprehensively we call (in this period) Octavian but who called defeated Spartacus and his massive army. himself Caesar, and the Queen of Egypt, Crassus was the sort of politician which is a Cleopatra VII. This is partly because, with recognizable type today: very comfortable as Cicero’s death in late 43, our flood of evidence a backroom operator, creating obligations and is reduced to a trickle. There were other men building alliances, who seems less impressive of some importance: the other triumvir M. in the full glare of public view. We might label him as the kingmaker who, late in life, wanted 34 Gruen (1995); Marshall (1976); Ward (1977).

33 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper). 35 Tatum (2008), ch. 7.

64 65 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015

Aemilius Lepidus (soon sidelined), the semi- the Egyptian queen) is by Goldsworthy.38 outsider Sextus Pompeius (now the subject of a wonderful biography by Kathryn Welch), Cleopatra is perhaps the most romanticised and various lieutenants or relatives such as M. figure in the ancient world, and much of what Agrippa, L. Antonius, Octavia and Fulvia.36 people think they know about her is rubbish. Yet the three key figures really did decide the Even so, what we can reconstruct of her life gives fate of the world. great material for this romance. Culturally and ethnically she was Greek-Macedonian: the Mark Antony is hard to find beneath his ruling Ptolemies had retained their Hellenism. Augustan caricature. We know something of Many of the great stories are (probably) true his loose living as a youth from Cicero (who or largely true: how she smuggled herself in hated him), which appears to be true: late in to see Caesar in a soldier’s kit-bag, how she life he wrote a reply to Octavian’s propaganda sailed upriver at Tarsus to meet Antony on a called On his own drunkenness. He had been one golden barge, and how she poisoned herself to of Caesar’s main deputies (not always reliable), escape being paraded in Octavian’s triumph. but he was consul on the Ides of March and She owed her throne to Romans, as had her thus absolutely central to everything that father and grandfather before her, and her happened after, until his suicide fourteen main policy priority was to gain the support year later. The best account of this period is of the powerful Romans of the day. To that Pelling’s first chapter in CAH vol. 10, which end she bore Caesar a son and children to does a good job of explaining the uncertainty Antony as well, eventually. But the nature of of the period.37 Two great questions are these relationships is difficult to disentangle repeatedly asked about Antony over this behind Octavian’s propaganda: he lambasted period. First, was he infatuated with Cleopatra her as the wicked witch of the east, enchanting to his own loss, or was it also good policy to Antony’s mind against his country and support a friendly queen? And second, why ensnaring him in oriental luxury. There was did he lose the supremacy to Octavian - was also the fact that she was a woman, and many it a slow-building transfer of primacy based on of the tropes used on Cleopatra are standard Octavian’s good fortune and his own bad luck for negatively depicting female power. But it and miscalculation, or did the fate of the world is important to consider her as herself, and as really just come down to the outcome of the the Queen of Egypt, not simply as Mrs Mark naval campaign of Actium in 31? It is true that Antony. She was a powerful political player by 31 his fate and Cleopatra’s were entwined in a time when this was essential for survival. and that Octavian made use of this, but as And even in defeat she won, against Octavian, late as 33 when it came to war a large part of by managing to die on her own terms. the Senate had come across to Antony, and Goldsworthy is again the best starting point, objectively he must have appeared the more although Thompson gives a good introduction likely to win. He had achieved massive military to the Egypt she was born into and ruled.39 glory as the victor of Philippi in 42, glory which was partly spent by his failures against Which brings us finally to Augustus. Almost the Parthians. Antony remains a fascinating alone among the people studied here, he died and attractive figure, appropriately favouring peacefully in his bed as an old man, secure in Dionysus to Octavian’s emphasis on Apollo. the power he had possessed, undisputed, for The best introduction to Antony (and also to more than forty years. There is a huge amount to say about Augustus, but I will focus here on

36 Welch (2012). 38 Goldsworthy (2010).

37 Pelling (1996). 39 Goldsworthy (2010); Thompson (1992).

66 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015 The Fall of the Roman Republic

his role in the end of the Republic. It cannot be emphasised enough that, when Caesar died David Rafferty and C. Octavius (as he then was) found himself The University of Melbourne a player in the snake pit that was Roman [email protected] power politics, he was only 18. He was not born into the high aristocracy: his father was only a praetor but died prematurely, and the family came from municipal Italy. Augustus is the small-town boy made good. He made good through a youth of extreme violence, betrayal Bibliography and opportunism, and had he died in the early 30s he would be remembered as a savage Badian, E. (1970). Lucius Sulla: the deadly gangster. Another key point is that he started reformer (Sydney: Sydney UP). off only with his adopted name, Caesar, and a bit of money, and it was incredibly unlikely Beard, M., North, J. & Price, S.R.F. (1998). that he should have emerged as triumvir at Religions of Rome. 1: A history the end of 43. The ‘real’ Augustus is almost (Cambridge: CUP). impossible to recover, although there has been a recent splurge in activity on him, occasioned Brunt, P.A. (1971). Social conflicts in the Roman by the bimillenium of his death in 2014. The republic (London: Chatto & Windus). best book I know on Augustus is a collection of articles by different authors, although it is — (1988). The fall of the Roman republic 40 aimed at a scholarly audience. Two recent and related essays (Oxford: Clarendon biographies are a good start: Goldsworthy’s is Press). aimed at a general audience, while Galinsky’s is more in depth and better on the world of Cagniarat, P. (2007). ‘The Late Republican Augustan Rome (including the literature 41 Army (146-30 BC)’, in Paul Erdkamp of the Golden Age). It is also always worth (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army the trouble to go back to Syme, who viewed (Malden: Blackwell), 80-95. Augustus through the lens of the Europe of 42 his day. The debates around Augustus are Edmondson, J. (2009). Augustus (Edinburgh: usually much the same. How should we judge Edinburgh UP). him: as the ruthless triumvir, or as the bringer of peace? Did his service to Rome outweigh Flower, H.I. (2010). Roman Republics (Princeton: his (many) crimes? Just what was the base of Princeton UP). his power in Roman society: was he speaking the truth when he concentrated on his own Gabba, E. (1976). Republican Rome, the army, auctoritas (authority, influence) rather than his and the allies (Oxford: Blackwell). power? Or was all that simply a way to disguise and make palatable the rule of the man who controlled the legions? Galinsky, K. (2012). Augustus: introduction to the life of an emperor (Cambridge: CUP).

Gardner, J.F. (2009). ‘The Dictator’, in Miriam Griffin (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar (Malden: Blackwell), 57-71. 40 Edmondson (2009). 41 Galinsky (2012); Goldsworthy (2014). Goldsworthy, A.K. (2010). Antony and Cleopatra (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson). 42 Syme (1939).

66 67 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015

— (2014). Augustus: From Revolutionary Marshall, B. (1976). Crassus. A political biography to Emperor (London: Weidenfeld & (Amsterdam: Hakkert). Nicolson). Meier, C. (1980). Res publica amissa: eine Studie Greenhalgh, P. (1980). Pompey, the Roman zu Verfassung und Geschichte der späten Alexander (London: Weidenfeld & römischen Republik (Frankfurt am Nicolson). Main: Suhrkamp).

— (1981). Pompey, the Republican prince — (1996). Caesar (London: Fontana). (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson). Morstein-Marx, R. (2004). Mass oratory and Gruen, E.S. (1995). The Last Generation of political power in the late Roman Republic the Roman Republic Paperback edn. (Cambridge: CUP). (Berkeley: UCP). — (2009). ‘Dignitas and res publica: Caesar Hinard, F. (1985). Les proscriptions de la Rome and Republican legitimacy’, in Karl- républicaine (Paris: de Boccard). Joachim Hölkeskamp and Elisabeth Müller-Luckner (eds), Eine politische Jehne, M. (2006). ‘Methods, Models, and Kultur (in) der Krise? (München: Historiography’, in Nathan Rosenstein Oldenbourg), 115-40. and Robert Morstein-Marx (eds), A Companion to the Roman Republic — (2011). ‘Consular appeals to the army (Malden: Blackwell), 3-28. in 88 and 87: the locus of legitimacy in late-republican Rome ‘, in Hans Beck, Keaveney, A. (1982). Sulla: the Last Republican Antonio Duplá, Martin Jehne and (London: Beckenham). Francisco Pina Polo (eds), Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the — (2007). The Army in the Roman Roman Republic (Cambridge: CUP), Revolution (London: Routledge). 259-78.

Keppie, L. (2005). The Making of the Roman Morstein-Marx, R. & Rosenstein, N. (2006). Army: From Republic to Empire, e-book ‘The Transformation of the Republic’, edn. (London: Routledge). in Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx (eds), A Companion Konrad, C.F. (2006). ‘From the Gracchi to the to the Roman Republic (Malden: First Civil War (133–70)’, in Nathan Blackwell), 625-37. Rosenstein and Robert Morstein- Marx (eds), A Companion to the Roman Pelling, C. (1996). ‘The triumviral period’, in Republic (Malden: Blackwell), 167-89. Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin and Andrew Lintott (eds), Cambridge Lintott, A. (1992). ‘The crisis of the Republic: Ancient History, Volume X: The Augustan sources and source-problems’, in Empire, 43 B.C - A.D. 69 (Cambridge: J. A. Crook, Andrew Lintott and CUP), 1-69. Elizabeth Rawson (eds), Cambridge Ancient History, Volume IX: The Last Rawson, E. (1974). ‘Religion and Politics in the Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C. Late Second Century B. C. at Rome’, (Cambridge: CUP), 1-15. Phoenix 28 (2), 193-212.

68 Iris | Journal of the Classical Association of Victoria | New Series | Volume 28 | 2015 The Fall of the Roman Republic

— (1992). ‘Caesar: civil war and Tatum, W.J. (2008). Always I am Caesar dictatorship’, in J. A. Crook, Andrew (Oxford: Blackwell). Lintott and Elizabeth Rawson (eds), Cambridge Ancient History, Volume IX: Thompson, D.J. (1992). ‘Egypt, 146-31 B.C.’, The Last Age of the Roman Republic, in J. A. Crook, Andrew Lintott and 146-43 B.C. (Cambridge: CUP), 424- Elizabeth Rawson (eds), Cambridge 67. Ancient History, Volume IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C. Reilly, C. & Harris, R. 2014-6. Life of Caesar (Cambridge: CUP), 310-6. (podcast series, http://lifeofcaesar. com). Vervaet, F. (2010). ‘Arrogating despotic power through deceit: the Pompeian model Rosenstein, N. & Morstein-Marx, R. 2006. for Augustan dissimulatio’, in Andrew A Companion to the Roman Republic Turner, James H. Kim On Chong- (Malden: Blackwell). Gossard and Frederik Vervaet (eds), Private and Public Lies: The Discourse Santangelo, F. (2007). Sulla, the elites and the of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco- empire: a study of Roman policies in Italy Roman World (Leiden: Brill), 133-66. and the Greek east (Leiden: Brill). Ward, A. (1977). Marcus Crassus and the late Seager, R. (1992a). ‘Sulla’, in J.A. Crook, A. Roman Republic (Columbia, MO: Lintott and E. Rawson (eds), Cambridge Missouri UP). Ancient History, Volume IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C. Weinstock, S. (1971). Divus Iulius (Oxford: (Cambridge: CUP), 165-207. Clarendon Press).

— (1992b). ‘The rise of Pompey’, in Welch, K.E. (2012). Magnus Pius: Sextus J. A. Crook, Andrew Lintott and Pompeius and the transformation of the Elizabeth Rawson (eds), Cambridge Roman republic (Swansea: Classical Ancient History, Volume IX: The Last Press of Wales). Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C. (Cambridge: CUP), 208-28. Wiseman, T.P. (1992a). ‘The Senate and the populares, 69-60 B.C.’, in J.A. Crook, — (2002). Pompey the Great: a political Andrew Lintott and Elizabeth Rawson biography (Oxford: Blackwell). (eds), Cambridge Ancient History, Volume IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, Sherwin-White, A.N. (1992). ‘Lucullus, 146-43 B.C. (Cambridge: CUP), 327- Pompey and the East’, in J.A. Crook, 67. A. Lintott and E. Rawson (eds), Cambridge Ancient History, Volume IX: — (1992b). ‘Caesar, Pompey and Rome, The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 59-50 B.C’, in J. A. Crook, Andrew 146-43 B.C. (Cambridge: CUP), 229- Lintott and Elizabeth Rawson (eds), 73. Cambridge Ancient History, Volume IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, Syme, R. (1939). The Roman Revolution (Oxford: 146-43 B.C. (Cambridge: CUP), 368- Clarendon Press). 423.

68 69