DIPLOMACY IN ITALY IN THE SECOND CENTURY BC

Martin Jehne

When thinking of diplomacy in the period from the Second Punic War to the Social War the relationship between Rome and her Italian allies is not the first topic which comes to mind. Far more prominent are negotiations with transmarine kingdoms, federal states and Greek poleis. In the second century scores of Roman ambassadors departed for the Greek East, and scores of ambassadors set out from the Greek states to Rome in order to bring their requests before the senate.1 One can all too easily forget that in Italy itself the contact between Rome and her allies was a diplomatic event. These contacts are not well documented, but the small number of examples suffices to establish the fact. The Italian socii, who regularly supplied Rome with contingents of cavalry and infantry and who now marched alongside the Roman legions all over the Mediterranean world, could only communicate with the Roman state by sending an embassy to Rome, just as the states which they conquered in common with the Romans had to do. The practice of sending ambassadors from Rome to allied communities seems to have fallen into desuetude. Mommsen supposed that representatives of the allied community were ordered to Rome when necessary,2 but the state of the sources does not allow us to decide whether or not this was the only available procedure.3 For the most part communication by letter was probably deemed sufficient.

1 Cf. for the Greek embassies to Rome now F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana (Studi pubblicati dall’Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica, 63; Rome, 1997). For Roman ambassadors see the compilation of E. Krug, Die Senatsboten der römischen Republik (Diss. Breslau, 1916). Cf. now also F. Canali De Rossi, Le relazioni diplomatiche di Roma, i: Dall’età regia alla conquista del primato in Italia (753–265 a.C.) (Rome, 2004).—For the translation I would like to thank Frank Ryan, who made a great job in transforming long German phrases into a readable English text. 2 T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht (3 vols. in 5, 3rd edition, Leipzig, 1887/8), iii 2. 1196–1197. 3 That Polyb. 6. 13. 6, as Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii 2. 1196 n. 2 emphasizes, only considers Roman embassies to powers across the sea, does not necessarily mean that ambassadors were no longer sent to Italian states. Rather, it reflects the extent to which Roman diplomacy in the East overshadowed all other diplomatic activity. 144 martin jehne

In his report on the events of 173BC Livy informs us about such a letter from Rome and its consequences. Before the higher magistrates left for their provinces in this year the senate decreed that L. Postu- mius Albinus, one of the new consuls, should proceed to Campania and oversee the demarcation of the ager publicus from the ager privatus there. The consul had a grudge against the denizens of Praeneste, since he believed that he had been treated shabbily both by the public offi- cials and by private individuals when he had visited the city in a pri- vate capacity in order to make a sacrifice in the temple of Fortuna there. Before leaving Rome he sent a letter instructing the magistrates of Praeneste, a city which numbered among the socii nominis Latini, to meet him before the city and provide him with quarters and beasts of burden for the continuation of his journey.4 Apparently the Praen- estines fulfilled these requests without complaint. Livy remarks that this was the first incident of this type. In order that the Roman magistrates not prove burdensome to the allies, they were provided in Rome with mules, tents and all necessary military equip- ment. Roman office-holders had private ties of hospitality and stayed with their guest-friends in other cities just as their guest-friends stayed with them in Rome. Whenever ambassadors needed to get somewhere quickly, they instructed every city through which they would pass to provide them with a beast of burden. That was the most the allies had to do for Roman officials. Even if the consul in question had a right to be upset, it was inappropriate for him to give vent to his feelings while in office. The restraint or frightened silence of the Praenestines, as in an accepted exemplum, could be construed as establishing a magisterial right to issue ever more oppressive demands.5

4 Livy 42. 1. 6–7: “Priusquam in provincias magistratus proficiscerentur, senatui placuit L. Postumium consulem ad agrum publicum a privato terminandum in Cam- paniam ire, cuius ingentem modum possidere privatos paulatim proferendo fines con- stabat. (7) Hic iratus Praenestinis, quod, cum eo privatus sacrificii in templo Fortunae faciundi causa profectus esset, nihil in se honorifice neque publice neque privatim fac- tum a Praenestinis esset, priusquam ab Roma proficisceretur, litteras Praeneste misit, ut sibi magistratus obviam exirent, locum publice pararent, ubi deverteretur, iumentaque, cum exiret inde, praesto essent.” 5 Livy 42. 1. 8–12: “Ante hunc consulem nemo umquam sociis in ulla re oneri aut sumptui fuit. (9) Ideo magistratus mulis tabernaculisque et omni alio instrumento militari ornabantur, ne quid tale imperarent sociis. (10) Privata hospitia habebant; ea benigne comiterque colebant, domusque eorum Romae hospitibus patebant, apud quos