Civil Wars

THE plebeians[*](o( dh=mos. The Greek language uses this word for the whole body of free citizens. In Latin the word plebs was used for the commonalty and populus for the whole body of commonalty and aristocracy together. In this translation the word "people" will be used in all cases as the equivalent of dh=mos, except where a distinction between plebs and populus is necessary to a correct understanding of the text.) and Senate of Rome [in the olden time] were often at strife with each other concerning the enactment of laws, the cancelling of debts, the division of lands, or the election of magistrates. Internal discord did not bring them to blows, however; these were dissensions merely and contests within the law, which they composed by making mutual concessions, and with much respect for [*](Y.R. 260) each other. Once when the plebeians were going to a war [*](B.C. 494) they fell into such a controversy, but they did not use the weapons in their hands, but withdrew to the hill, which from this time on was called the Sacred Mount.[*](Cf. Livy, ii. 33, 34.) Even then no violence was done, but they created a magistrate for their protection and called him the tribune of the plebs, to serve especially as a check upon the consuls, who were chosen by the Senate, so that the political power should not be exclusively in their hands. Whence arose still greater bitterness, and the magistrates were arrayed in stronger animosity to each other after this event, and the Senate and plebeians took sides with them, each believing that it would prevail over the other by augmenting the power of its own magistrates. In the midst of contests of this kind Marcius Coriolanus, having been banished contrary [*](Y.R. 262) to justice, took refuge with the Volsci and levied war [*](B.C. 492) against his country.

This is the only case of armed strife that can be found in the ancient seditions, and this was caused by an exile. The sword was never carried into the assembly, [*](Y.R. 621) and there was no civil butchery until Tiberius Gracchus, [*](B.C. 133) while serving as tribune and bringing forward new laws, was the first to fall a victim to internal commotion; and many others besides, who were assembled with him at the Capitol, were slain around the temple. Sedition did not end with this abominable deed. Repeatedly the parties came into open conflict, often carrying daggers; and occasionally in the temples, or the assemblies, or the forum, some one serving as tribune, or prætor, or consul, or a candidate for those offices, or some person otherwise distinguished, would be slain. Unseemly violence prevailed almost constantly, together with shameful contempt for law and justice. As the evil gained in magnitude open insurrections against the government and large warlike expeditions against the country were undertaken by exiles, or criminals, or persons contending against each other for some office or military command. There were chiefs of factions in different places aspiring to supreme power, some of them refusing to disband the troops intrusted to them by the people, others levying forces against each other on their own account, without public authority. Whichever of them first got possession of the city, the others made war nominally against their adversaries, but actually against their country. They assailed it like a foreign enemy. Ruthless and indiscriminate massacres of citizens were perpetrated. Men were proscribed, others banished, property was confiscated, and some were even subjected to excruciating tortures. [*](Y.R. 672)

No unseemly deed was wanting until, about fifty years after the death of Gracchus, Cornelius Sulla, one of these chiefs of factions, doctoring one evil with another, made himself the absolute master of the state for an indefinite period. Such officials were formerly called dictators -- an office created in the most perilous emergencies for six months only, and long since fallen into disuse. Sulla, although nominally elected, became dictator for life by force and compulsion. Nevertheless he became satiated [*](B.C. 82) with power and was the first man, so far as I know, holding [*](Y.R. 675) supreme power, who had the courage to lay it down voluntarily [*](B.C. 79) and to declare that he would render an account of his stewardship to any who were dissatisfied with it. And so, for a considerable period, he walked to the forum as a private citizen in the sight of all and returned home unmolested, so great was the awe of his government still remaining in the minds of the onlookers, or their amazement at his laying it down. Perhaps they were ashamed to call for an accounting, or entertained other good feeling toward him, or a belief that his despotism had been beneficial to the state. Thus there was a cessation of factions for a short time while Sulla lived, and a compensation for the evils which Sulla had wrought.

After his death the troubles broke out afresh and [*](Y.R. 705) continued until Gaius Cæsar, who had held the command [*](B.C. 49) in Gaul by election for some years, was ordered by the Senate to lay down his command. He charged that it was not the wish of the Senate, but of Pompey, his enemy, who had command of an army in Italy, and was scheming to depose him. So he sent a proposal that both should retain their armies, so that neither need fear the other's enmity, or that Pompey should dismiss his forces also and live as a private citizen under the laws in like manner with him-self. Both requests being refused, he marched from Gaul against Pompey in the Roman territory, entered it, put him to flight, pursued him into Thessaly, won a brilliant [*](Y.R. 706) victory over him in a great battle, and followed him to [*](B.C. 48) Egypt. After Pompey had been slain by the Egyptians Cæsar set to work on the affairs of Egypt and remained there until he had settled the dynasty of that country. Then he returned to Rome. Having overpowered by war his principal rival, who had been surnamed the Great on account of his brilliant military exploits, he now ruled without disguise, nobody daring any longer to dispute him about anything, and was chosen, next after Sulla, dictator for life. Again all civil dissensions ceased until Brutus and Cassius, envious of his great power and desiring to restore the government of their fathers, slew in the Senate this most popular man, who was also the one most experienced in the art [*](Y.R. 710) of government. The people mourned for him greatly. [*](B.C. 44) They scoured the city in pursuit of his murderers. They buried him in the middle of the forum and built a temple on the place of his funeral pile, and offered sacrifice to him as a god. [*](Y.R. 711)

And now civil discord broke out again worse than [*](B.C. 43) ever and increased enormously. Massacres, banishments, and proscriptions of both senators and the so-called knights took place straightway, including great numbers of both classes, the chief of factions surrendering their enemies to each other, and for this purpose not sparing even their friends and brothers; so much does animosity toward rivals overpower the love of kindred. So in the course of events the Roman empire was partitioned, as though it had been their private property, by these three men: Antony, Lepidus, and the one who was first called Octavius, but afterward Cæsar from his relationship to the other Cæsar and adoption in his will. Shortly after this division they fell to quarrelling among themselves, as was natural, and Octavius, [*](Y.R. 718) who was the superior in understanding and skill, first [*](B.C. 36) deprived Lepidus of Africa, which had fallen to his lot, and [*](Y.R. 723) afterward, as the result of the battle of Actium, took from [*](B.C. 31) Antony all the provinces lying between Syria and the Adriatic gulf. Thereupon, while all the world was filled with astonishment at these wonderful displays of power, he sailed to Egypt and took that country, which was the oldest and at that time the strongest possession of the successors of Alexander, and the only one wanting to complete the Roman empire as it now stands. In consequence of these [*](Y.R. 727) exploits he was at once elevated to the rank of a deity while [*](B.C. 27) still living, and was the first to be thus distinguished by the Romans, and was called by them Augustus. He assumed to himself an authority like Cæsar's over the country and the subject nations, and even greater than Cæsar's, not needing any form of election, or authorization, or even the pretence of it. His government being strengthened by time and mastery, and himself successful in all things and revered by all, he left a lineage and succession that held the supreme power in like manner after him.

Thus, out of multifarious civil commotions, the Roman state passed into solidarity and monarchy. To show how these things came about I have written and compiled piled this narrative, which is well worth the study of those who wish to know the measureless ambition of men, their dreadful lust of power, their unwearying perseverance, and the countless forms of evil. It is especially necessary for me to describe these things beforehand since they are the preliminaries of my Egyptian history, and end where that begins, for Egypt was seized in consequence of this last civil commotion, Cleopatra having joined forces with Antony. On account of its magnitude I have divided the work, first taking up the events that occurred from the time of Sempronius Gracchus to that of Cornelius Sulla; next, those that followed to the death of Cæsar. The remaining books of the civil wars treat of those waged by the triumvirs against each other and the Roman people, until the end of these conflicts, and the greatest achievement, the battle of Actium, fought by Octavius Cæsar against Antony and Cleopatra together, which will be the beginning of the Egyptian history.

The Romans, as they subdued the Italian nations successively in war, seized a part of their lands and built towns there, or established their own colonies in those already existing, and used them in place of garrisons. Of the land acquired by war they assigned the cultivated part forthwith to settlers, or leased or sold it. Since they had no leisure as yet to allot the part which then lay desolated by war (this was generally the greater part), they made proclamation that in the meantime those who were willing to work it might do so for a share of the yearly crops a tenth of the grain and a fifth of the fruit. From those who kept flocks was required a share of the animals, both oxen and small cattle. They did these things in order to multiply the Italian race, which they considered the most laborious of peoples, so that they might have plenty of allies at home. But the very opposite thing happened; for the rich, getting possession of the greater part of the undistributed lands, and being emboldened by the lapse of time to believe that they would never be dispossessed, and adding to their holdings the small farms of their poor neighbors, partly by purchase and partly by force, came to cultivate vast tracts instead of single estates, using for this purpose slaves as laborers and herdsmen, lest free laborers should be drawn from agriculture into the army. The ownership of slaves itself brought them great gain from the multitude of their progeny, who increased because they were exempt from military service. Thus the powerful ones became enormously rich and the race of slaves multiplied throughout the country, while the Italian people dwindled in numbers and strength, being oppressed by penury, taxes, and military service. If they had any respite from these evils they passed their time in idleness, because the land was held by the rich, who employed slaves instead of freemen as cultivators.

For these reasons the people became troubled lest they should no longer have sufficient allies of the Italian stock, and lest the government itself should be endangered by such a vast number of slaves. Not perceiving any remedy, as it was not easy, nor exactly just, to deprive men of so many possessions they had held so long, including their own trees, buildings, and fixtures, a law was once [*](Y.R. 387) passed with difficulty at the instance of the tribunes, that [*](B.C. 367) nobody should hold more than 500 jugera of this land,[*](th=sde th=s gh=s. "Of this land," the public land (ager publicus), not land in general. There has been much controversy over the question whether the agrarian laws of Rome were sumptuary laws intended to restrict the amount of landed property that one man could hold, or whether they applied only to the public domain, and this passage in Appian has played a large part in the controversy. M. Dureau de la Malle in his Economie Politique des Romains (ii. 282 seq.) held that they were true sumptuary laws and he cited numerous authorities in support of the position. The most thorough examination of this question has been made by Mr. Geo. Long in his Decline of the Roman Republic (i. 144-159). His argument is convincing to the effect that these laws applied only to the public lands. This is the opinion also of Niebuhr, Mommsen, and Duruy. It may therefore be considered settled that they were not sumptuary laws and did not limit the amount of land a man might acquire by purchase, inheritance, or gift. The word possessio in Roman law meant not ownership, but a seizing or sitting upon land. A Possessor was a squatter. The law referred to by Appian as having been formerly passed with difficulty was the Licinian law, B.C. 367. The Roman jugerum was about two-thirds of an acre.) or pasture on it more than 100 cattle or 500 sheep. To ensure the observance of this law it was provided also that there should be a certain number of freemen employed on the farms, whose business it should be to watch and report what was going on.[*](ta\ gignome/na, "what was going on." Mr. Long in his history (i. 161 and 166) construes this phrase by the word "produce," meaning that it was the duty of the freemen employed on the farms to keep account of the crops and make reports to the public authorities so that the state might receive its due share. This may be the true meaning, but it should be observed that in the preceding section where the author speaks of the yearly produce he uses the words tw=n e)thsi/wn karpw=n. According to the other interpretation it was the duty of the freemen to keep watch and make reports to the masters in order to prevent servile insurrection.) Those who held possession of lands under the law were required to take an oath to obey the law, and penalties were fixed for violating it, and it was supposed that the remaining land would soon be divided among the poor in small parcels. But there was not the smallest consideration shown for the law or the oaths. The few who seemed to pay some respect to them conveyed their lands to their relations fraudulently, but the greater part disregarded it altogether. [*](Y.R. 621)