The Beginnings of Rome

But this somewhat violent experiment only answered for a time. In 148 the Achaeans rashly persisted, in spite of warnings, in attempting to compel Sparta by force of arms to submit to the league. When threatened by Rome with the loss of all that they had gained since Cynoscephalae, they madly rushed into war. They were easily defeated, and a "commission of ten," under the presidency of L. Mummius, was appointed by the senate thor oughly to resettle the affairs of Greece. Corinth, by orders of the senate, was burnt to the ground and its territory confiscated. Thebes and Chalcis were destroyed, and the walls of all towns which had shared in the last desperate outbreak were razed to the ground. All the existing confederacies were dissolved ; no com mercium was allowed between one community and another. Everywhere an aristocratic type of constitution was established, and the payment of a tribute was apparently imposed. Into Greece, as into Macedonia in 167, the now familiar features of the provincial system were introduced—disarmament, isolation and taxation. The Greeks were still nominally free, and no separate province with a governor of its own was established, but the needed central control was provided by assigning to the neigh bouring governor of Macedonia a general supervision over the affairs of Greece. From the Adriatic to the Aegean, and as far north as the river Drilo and Mt. Scardus, the whole peninsula was now under direct Roman rule.

The Roman Protectorate in Asia.

Beyond the Aegean the Roman protectorate worked no better than in Macedonia and Greece, and the quarrels and disorders which flourished under its shadow were aggravated by its longer duration and by the still more selfish view taken by Rome of her responsibilities. At one period indeed, after the battle of Pydna, it seemed as if the more vigorous, if harsh, system then initiated in Macedon and Greece was to be adopted farther east also. The levelling policy pursued towards Macedon and the Achaeans was applied with less justice to Rome's two faithful and favoured allies, Rhodes and Per gamum. The former had rendered themselves obnoxious to Rome by their independent tone. On a charge of complicity with Perseus they were threatened with war, and though this danger was averted they were forced to exchange their equal alliance with Rome for one which placed them in close dependence upon her, and to resign the lucrative possessions in Lycia and Caria given them in 189. Finally, their commercial prosperity was ruined by the establishment of a free port at Delos. With Eumenes of Pergamum no other fault could be found than that he was strong and successful; but this was enough. His brother Attalus was invited, but in vain, to become his rival. His turbu lent neighbours, the Galatae, were allowed to harass him by raids. Pamphylia was declared independent, and favours were heaped upon Prusias of Bithynia. These and other annoyances and humiliations had the desired effect. Eumenes and his two suc cessors—his brother and son, Attalus II. and Attalus III.— contrived indeed by studious humility and dexterous flattery to retain their thrones, but Pergamum (q.v.) ceased to be a powerful State, and its weakness, added to that of Rhodes, increased the prevalent disorder in Asia Minor. During the same period we have other indications of a temporary activity on the part of Rome. The frontier of the protectorate was pushed forward to the confines of Armenia by alliances with the kings of Pontus and Cappadocia beyond the Halys. In Syria, on the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (164), Rome intervened to place a minor, Antiochus Eupator, on the throne, under Roman guardianship. In 168 Egypt formally acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome, and in 163 the senate, in the exercise of this new authority, restored Ptolemy Philometor to his throne, but at the same time weakened his position by handing over Cyrene and Cyprus to his brother Euergetes.

But this display of energy was short-lived. From the death of Eumenes in 159 down to 133 Rome, secure in the absence of any formidable power in the East, and busy with affairs in Macedonia, Africa and Spain, relapsed into an inactivity the disastrous results of which revealed themselves in the next period, in the rise of Mithridates of Pontus, the spread of Cretan and Cilician piracy, and the advance of Parthia.

Both the western and eastern Mediterranean now acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome, but her relations with the two were from the first different. The West f ell to her as the prize of victory over Carthage, and, the Carthaginian power broken, there was no hindrance to the immediate establishment in Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and finally in Africa, of direct Roman rule. To the ma jority, moreover, of her western subjects she brought a civiliza tion as well as a government of a higher type than any before known to them. And so in the West she not only formed provinces but created a new and wider Roman world. To the East, on the contrary, she came as the liberator of the Greeks ; and it was only slowly that in this part of the empire her provincial sys tem made way. In the East, moreover, the older civilization she found there obstinately held its ground. Her proconsuls gov erned and her legions protected the Greek communities, but to the last the East remained in language, manners and thought Greek and not Roman.

(c) The Period of the Revolution (146-49 B.C.). In the course of little more than a century, Rome had become the supreme power in the civilized world. Although in its outward form her old constitution had undergone little change during the age of war and conquest from 265 to 146, the causes, both in ternal and external, which brought about its fall had been silently at work throughout. Its form was in strictness that of a moderate democracy. The patriciate had ceased to exist as a privileged caste, and there was no longer any order of nobility recognized by the constitution. The senate and the offices of state were in law open to all, and the will of the people in assembly had been in the most explicit and unqualified manner declared to be supreme alike in the election of magistrates, in the passing of laws, and in all matters touching the caput of a Roman citizen. But in prac tice the constitution had become an oligarchy. The senate, not the assembly, ruled Rome, and both the senate and the magis tracies were in the hands of a class which, in defiance of the law, arrogated to itself the title and the privileges of a nobility. The ascendancy of the senate is too obvious and familiar a fact to need much illustration here. It was but rarely that the assembly was called upon to decide questions of policy, and then the pro posal was usually made by the magistrate in obedience to the express directions of the senate. In the enormous majority of cases the matter was settled by a senatus consulturn, without any reference to the people at all. The assembly decides for war or peace, but the conduct of the war and the conditions of peace are matters left to the senate (q.v.). Now and then the assembly confers a command upon the man of its choice, or prolongs the imperium of a magistrate, but, as a rule, these and all questions connected with foreign affairs are settled within the walls of the senate-house. It is the senate which year after year assigns the commands and fixes the number and disposition of the military forces, directs the organization of a new province, conducts negotiations and forms alliances. Within Italy, though its con trol of affairs was less exclusive, we find that, besides supervising the ordinary current business of administration, the senate decides questions connected with the Italian allies, sends out colonies, allots lands, and directs the suppression of disorders. Lastly, both in Italy and abroad it managed the finances. Inseparably con nected with this monopoly of affairs to the exclusion of the assem bly was the control which in practice, if not in theory, the senate exercised over the magistrates. The latter had become what Cicero wrongly declares they were always meant to be, merely the sub ordinate ministers of the supreme council, which assigned them their departments, provided them with the necessary equipment, claimed to direct their conduct, prolonged their commands, and rewarded them with triumphs. It was now at once the duty and the interest of a magistrate to be in auctoritate senatus, "subject to the authority of the senate," and even the once formidable tribuni plebis are found during this period actively and loyally support ing the senate, and acting as its spokesmen in the assembly.