Rome Reaches Out Lucius Veratius was an extremely wicked man of immense brutality. He used to consider it very amusing to slap the face of a free man with the palm of his hand. A slave used to follow him, carrying a purse full of small change and whenever he had slapped someone, he would order twenty-five small coins (a.s.ses) to be counted out, as prescribed by the Twelve Tables. As a result, the praetors later decided that this law in the Tables was obsolete and defunct, and declared by edict that they would appoint a.s.sessors to estimate personal damages instead.

Favorinus (c. AD 12050), in Aulus Gellius, AD 12050), in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 20.1.13, on a change in the 20.1.13, on a change in the early law-code of Rome We left Rome in 451 BC BC at the time of its early laws, the Twelve Tables, and looked at it mainly in the context of the surrounding Etruscans and western Greeks. The site of Rome had long been inhabited, but, like so many of the towns in the Greek-speaking world, by the fifth century at the time of its early laws, the Twelve Tables, and looked at it mainly in the context of the surrounding Etruscans and western Greeks. The site of Rome had long been inhabited, but, like so many of the towns in the Greek-speaking world, by the fifth century BC BC Rome traced her origin back to a founding hero. In fact, she looked back to both a founder and a visitor, and they were a remarkable contrast. One was Romulus, who was believed to have been suckled by a she-wolf and brought up by the wife of a simple shepherd. As a 'once and future king' he began as an outcast, a type of story which is quite frequent for founders and leaders in many societies. In due course, Romulus killed his brother Remus, a less usual turn to the story. Rome traced her origin back to a founding hero. In fact, she looked back to both a founder and a visitor, and they were a remarkable contrast. One was Romulus, who was believed to have been suckled by a she-wolf and brought up by the wife of a simple shepherd. As a 'once and future king' he began as an outcast, a type of story which is quite frequent for founders and leaders in many societies. In due course, Romulus killed his brother Remus, a less usual turn to the story.

Alternatively, Rome was credited with a visit from the wandering Trojan hero Aeneas, who arrived in Italy and founded nearby Lavinium after the sack of Troy. Aeneas was well known in Greek poetry, including Homer, but his connection with Rome is not attested for us before c. c. 400 400 BC BC. By then it was part of a wider Western trend. Non-Greek cities in south Italy and Sicily also claimed similar links with travelling Trojans. These Trojan claims were a useful way for non-Greek outsiders to connect with the respected myths of the Greek world. For the Romans, the 'Trojan connection' was developed through Aeneas' son and was to prove very useful when they began to have dealings with Greeks in Greece and Asia.1 Wolf's milk, exile and fratricide were an unusual ancestry. But they went with something very important: an exceptionally generous asylum policy. Romulus was supposed to have declared his new Rome to be an asylum centre for all comers. In Athens, myths and dramas presented the Athenian hero Theseus as kind to strangers too, but at Rome the kindness went with a most un-Athenian readiness to grant citizenship to outsiders. The citizenship was even granted to Romans' slaves when they were formally freed by their citizen-masters. Freeing became frequent in Roman households (less so on Roman farms), but there was a hard-headed reason for much of it. Many slaves paid for their freedom and continued to pay or help their masters when freed. For masters, therefore, it was more sensible to free slaves after a while than to maintain them as an ageing a.s.set. The community also benefited: children born to slaves when freed were available for recruitment as Roman legionary soldiers. From this abundant source, Rome's military manpower thus grew far beyond the armies of Athens' or Sparta's tightly limited citizenry.

Nonetheless, it was slow to bear fruit. From the 450s (when the laws of Rome's Twelve Tables were published) until the 350s Romans evidently had had to confront a whole series of difficulties. There were recurrent political tensions in their citizenry; years of bad harvests beset them; many of their Latin neighbours renewed hostilities. The late fifth century was a time of widespread migrations by other peoples in Italy, especially those who descended from the inland Apennine mountains. They entered the plains and the fertile western coast of Italy and blocked Rome's expansion in that direction. The best-known of these migrants are the Samnites in south Italy: their warriors on horseback were honoured by stylized tomb paintings, well preserved in the area of Paestum in southern Italy.2 For a century or so, from 460 to 360 BC BC, there were fewer than ten years in all when the Romans were not at war. Their darkest hour was c. c. 390 390 BC BC, when Gauls (ultimately from southern France) came south into Italy and raided Rome itself. Legends later multiplied around this event, but it had been big enough to be noticed by Greeks, including Aristotle.3 The most famous story is that the raiding Gauls were dislodged from Rome's revered Capitol hill when they caused the sacred geese of the G.o.ddess Juno to cackle in the night. The brave Manlius was alerted and drove the enemy off. Actually, the Gauls' looting may have continued without interruption. Holy objects from Rome's religious cults were escorted for safety to the nearby Etruscan town of Caere (modern Cerveteri) in the company of the six Vestal Virgins, the distinctive young servants of Rome's virgin G.o.ddess Vesta (Hearth). It was this retreat, not the geese, which became known to Aristotle in Greece. The day of Rome's worst defeat by the Gauls, 18 July, remained a day of ill omen and no business in the Roman calendar. The most famous story is that the raiding Gauls were dislodged from Rome's revered Capitol hill when they caused the sacred geese of the G.o.ddess Juno to cackle in the night. The brave Manlius was alerted and drove the enemy off. Actually, the Gauls' looting may have continued without interruption. Holy objects from Rome's religious cults were escorted for safety to the nearby Etruscan town of Caere (modern Cerveteri) in the company of the six Vestal Virgins, the distinctive young servants of Rome's virgin G.o.ddess Vesta (Hearth). It was this retreat, not the geese, which became known to Aristotle in Greece. The day of Rome's worst defeat by the Gauls, 18 July, remained a day of ill omen and no business in the Roman calendar.

After this crisis, a Greek visitor in the 370s, the age of Plato, would have found Rome a rambling muddle. Later the Romans explained the absence of any town plan as due to their hasty rebuilding after Rome's sack by the Gauls. In fact, it was endemic. Unlike Alexandria, Rome was never planned by a king or lawgiver. Instead, it evolved untidily, both in politics and architecture. The expulsion of the kings in the late sixth century had led to the immediate founding of the Republic and the dividing of the king's powers among magistrates. They were to hold office for a year and, in most historians' opinion, the most important of them were to be two consuls, serving as colleagues. Arguably, the consulship was not formally confined to patrician n.o.bles, but initially patricians almost always held it. Much depends on how much trust we can put in the later lists of consuls, or fasti fasti, but even so it seems clear that there were periods of irregularity, especially in the eighty years or so after the Twelve Tables. Quite often, two consulships were not filled.

Beyond the small group of ex-consuls, there were many other Roman citizens to consider, both in the town area and in its dependent [image]

countryside. Politically, the position of half of them is easily summed up. As in the Greek world, half of the city of Rome, the women, could not vote or hold political office. Unlike Athenian women, they were not even able to be priestesses of the G.o.ds, unless they were one of the six Vestal Virgins. While their father or grandfather lived women were legally (like sons) in his 'power', and when he died they were put promptly (unlike sons) under the guardianship of their male next of kin. As perhaps more than half of Roman women aged twenty did not have fathers or grandfathers still alive (on a likely average), most adult women would be under guardianship. When they married, the predominant form of marriage conveyed them like children into the 'hand' of their husband. But even when 'guarded' they could own or inherit property (although they could not dispose of it without their guardian's consent). When married, they could inherit from their husband on his death, like one of his children. Moreover, husbands were often away fighting and women were authoritative both within their own households and with their children. The legal formalities seem to exclude almost any independent action on their part, and yet the legends of the early Republic (perhaps reflecting domestic reality, especially in the upper cla.s.s) are rich in stories of courageous or chaste heroines. Politically, however, women were irrelevant on the public stage.

Here the most important people were the small male clique of senators. Most probably, they had served as advisers to Rome's kings and after the kings' expulsion their advisory council had lived on as the Roman Senate, a body of distinguished men, many of whom had been magistrates themselves. They could advise the holders of public offices and resolve disputes between them. The crucial question was whether non-n.o.bles were to be made members of this Senate or not. As in Greek cities of the seventh century BC BC, the question became increasingly acute, until it was agreed, c. c. 300 300 BC BC, that the 'best men' should be selected by merit, not by birth. At first, the 'best' would mostly be the well-born, nonetheless. Senators had presumably been enrolled at first by the consuls, but by c. c. 310 310 BC BC enrolment became the job of the two annually appointed censors. enrolment became the job of the two annually appointed censors.

Beyond the Senate, there were the people at large, the citizens on whom Rome's military activity depended. There were particular reasons why they could not be overawed and relied on, unlike their contemporaries in Philip and Alexander's Macedon, the 'Foot Companions'. Rome's first popular strike, or secession, in 494 BC BC had not been forgotten by the common people and there were ample reasons why it might recur: debt continued to tie poor people harshly to their social superiors, but politically they had scope (though not much) for manoeuvre. For the citizenry did meet in a.s.semblies (including a 'council of the plebs' which no patrician could attend). Formally, at least, each adult citizen-male did have a vote in these meetings, and the citizen-majority was sovereign in the a.s.semblies which pa.s.sed laws. What the majority decided became a law, without any further checks on a law's legality and its relation to existing statutes; in this respect, the Romans' a.s.sembly was even more capable of instant legislation than the contemporary a.s.sembly in democratic Athens. However, the a.s.semblies were organized as if the prime aim was to exclude the 'tyranny' of the crowd. The a.s.sembly of the 'tribes' mainly met so as to pa.s.s laws, and by 332 had not been forgotten by the common people and there were ample reasons why it might recur: debt continued to tie poor people harshly to their social superiors, but politically they had scope (though not much) for manoeuvre. For the citizenry did meet in a.s.semblies (including a 'council of the plebs' which no patrician could attend). Formally, at least, each adult citizen-male did have a vote in these meetings, and the citizen-majority was sovereign in the a.s.semblies which pa.s.sed laws. What the majority decided became a law, without any further checks on a law's legality and its relation to existing statutes; in this respect, the Romans' a.s.sembly was even more capable of instant legislation than the contemporary a.s.sembly in democratic Athens. However, the a.s.semblies were organized as if the prime aim was to exclude the 'tyranny' of the crowd. The a.s.sembly of the 'tribes' mainly met so as to pa.s.s laws, and by 332 BC BC it was divided into twenty-nine 'tribes', or districts. The system was one of block-voting, and when a majority of the twenty-nine tribes had voted the same way the others did not even vote at all. Such votes as were given went only to establish the majority within each tribal 'block'. As these 'blocks' were of very different sizes, many more voters might have voted against a law than for it, and yet by a majority of 'blocks' the law would go through. it was divided into twenty-nine 'tribes', or districts. The system was one of block-voting, and when a majority of the twenty-nine tribes had voted the same way the others did not even vote at all. Such votes as were given went only to establish the majority within each tribal 'block'. As these 'blocks' were of very different sizes, many more voters might have voted against a law than for it, and yet by a majority of 'blocks' the law would go through.

The other main a.s.sembly, the 'centuriate a.s.sembly', was most important for electing most of the magistrates and for judging certain trials. Its organization was even more cleverly weighted against a lower-cla.s.s majority. Those without property were bunched into only one century (out of a total of 193) and, yet again, would very seldom vote. The richest, including the cavalry, voted first and their centuries' majority votes usually sufficed for a majority. Such changes as there ever were to this unprecedented system were only changes of detail.

Each type of a.s.sembly could only be summoned and presided over by a magistrate. n.o.body else could speak, and until the later second century BC BC voters voted visibly and could therefore be intimidated by 'canva.s.sers'. The 'tribal' a.s.sembly gave most blocks of votes to people outside the city, with the inevitable result, no doubt intended, that only the reliable and richer citizens who could come into Rome would vote at all. These a.s.semblies were complicated bodies and certainly a.s.sumed that 'the people' were sovereign. But that sovereignty was so cleverly contained that only a few modern historians would insist on calling it democratic, quite apart from the hierarchical social context (and clever bribery) within which votes were exercised at all. voters voted visibly and could therefore be intimidated by 'canva.s.sers'. The 'tribal' a.s.sembly gave most blocks of votes to people outside the city, with the inevitable result, no doubt intended, that only the reliable and richer citizens who could come into Rome would vote at all. These a.s.semblies were complicated bodies and certainly a.s.sumed that 'the people' were sovereign. But that sovereignty was so cleverly contained that only a few modern historians would insist on calling it democratic, quite apart from the hierarchical social context (and clever bribery) within which votes were exercised at all.

There was, however, a glimmer of popular sovereignty and rights here. The 'people' did elect magistrates, including the tribunes who could veto unacceptable proposals put to a public meeting. The tribunes were not necessarily populist, but there was scope to be so if they dared to use it. There was also a brute fact of life: the Senate could not legislate. It could pa.s.s advisory decisions (consulta) and for a while it either did or could vet any decision which was to go to an a.s.sembly and be made into a law. But the senators were not 'the government' nor was public business consigned for a matter of years to any representative body of delegates or magistrates, chosen from their number. As the Romans had not adopted a const.i.tution from a lawgiver, it is we who look for their 'const.i.tution' in what was a bundle of evolving customs, traditions and precedents. At the heart of their practice, there was a two-headed beast, as some of them later characterized it: the venerable senators and the (formally) sovereign plebs.

At first, the tensions were contained within a sharply stratified social order. Nonetheless, they were there, and as a result the years from the mid-fifth to the mid-fourth centuries are rightly described by historians as Rome's 'struggle of the orders'. It was not carried on as an extreme struggle of the poor against the rich: there were no demands by the poor to redistribute private property, as in some of the contemporary Greek cities in nearby Sicily. There is a constant risk of believing the much later traditions which were projected back into this period from later times of crisis and are overwhelmingly our main type of evidence. However, it does seem that the main struggle over land was simply over the 'public land' which was being annexed by conquest from Rome's neighbours. Rich Romans used this land, but it was not strictly theirs. Should this use be restricted for other Romans' benefit?

More immediately important were struggles over debt and the related issues of 'freedom'. The demand was not, as in the Greek world, to abolish existing debts. It was rather to regulate the ways in which debtors were treated and to check the hara.s.sment of poor men by their social superiors. Far more than at democratic Athens, 'freedom' was valued at Rome in a negative sense, as 'freedom from' interference. Among the senators the most prized freedom was the 'freedom from' monarchy or tyranny, the one-man rule against which the Roman Republic had developed. Among the people, the most prized 'freedom' was 'freedom from' unchecked hara.s.sment by superior persons like senators. But there was also a stubborn sense of Roman citizens' 'freedom to...', freedom to legislate, freedom to judge cases of treason and freedom to elect magistrates. These 'freedoms' were embedded in the a.s.semblies which had existed before the Republic took over from the rule of kings.

There was scope for struggle on each of these points, but the most likely dangers lay with initiatives from within the upper cla.s.s. A prominent Roman might break rank with his own cla.s.s and, in order to be dominant, appeal for support to the lower orders. Manlius, the hero against the Gauls, was accused of such a tyrannical tactic. As riches were never static within only a few families, there was also tension in the upper levels of society over the distribution of privileges: within the growing ranks of the rich, who was to be eligible for magistracies and the Senate? Gradually, the n.o.ble patricians gave ground in order to preserve a united ruling cla.s.s, but not because the poor as a cla.s.s rose against them on this issue.

Historians formerly tended to see the struggling Rome of this era as out of touch with the main Greek world. Nowadays, the opposite is emphasized, with good reason. Indeed, there were acute food shortages, but they caused Romans to look outwards and send envoys to south Italy and Greek Sicily. There were wars with the migrant Gauls and others, but in 396 BC BC the spoils of a Roman victory over nearby Veii were sent to Greece to be dedicated at Delphi: the intermediary was Ma.s.silia (Ma.r.s.eilles), an important western Greek contact of Rome who had her own 'treasury' already on the site. the spoils of a Roman victory over nearby Veii were sent to Greece to be dedicated at Delphi: the intermediary was Ma.s.silia (Ma.r.s.eilles), an important western Greek contact of Rome who had her own 'treasury' already on the site.4 In the 340s this same Delphic oracle was said to have been consulted by Romans in their own right and to have told them to put statues of two famous Greeks, the 'wisest' and the 'best', on their designated s.p.a.ce for public meetings. The wisest Greek was Pythagoras (well known in south Italy and Tarentum), and the bravest Greek was Alcibiades the Athenian aristocrat (known for his actions in Sicily and at Thurii in south Italy). In the 340s this same Delphic oracle was said to have been consulted by Romans in their own right and to have told them to put statues of two famous Greeks, the 'wisest' and the 'best', on their designated s.p.a.ce for public meetings. The wisest Greek was Pythagoras (well known in south Italy and Tarentum), and the bravest Greek was Alcibiades the Athenian aristocrat (known for his actions in Sicily and at Thurii in south Italy).5 Thenceforward, the images of these two Greeks are said to have looked down on Roman public business. Thenceforward, the images of these two Greeks are said to have looked down on Roman public business.

In the 320s the wars of Alexander and of the Successors were marginal to the Romans, although they did probably send an emba.s.sy to the great man in Babylon. Much more important were their dealings with Carthage. Since the late sixth century a series of treaties had regulated the two powers' access to one another's spheres of interest. These treaties prove that 'struggling' Romans were certainly not cut off from interest in north Africa, either.6 Each of these foreign outlets (south Italy, Sicily, Carthage and mainland Greece) were to attract Roman troops within a single lifetime, in a remarkable burst between the 280s and the 220s BC BC. But the prelude was remarkable too. Between the 360s and the 280s the Romans sorted out most of their political tensions and became dominant among the Latins who surrounded them. They also extended their power into the rich hinterland of the Bay of Naples (from 343 onwards) and even to Naples itself (in 326). A setback at the Caudine Fosks (321 BC BC) against a Samnite ambush was promptly avenged (320 BC BC). In 295 they won a huge battle up at Sentinum in Umbria which confirmed their growing power to the north. The battle was even mentioned by a distant Greek historian, Duris of Samos.7 This surge up and down Italy occurred in what was the single lifespan of the Macedonian Ptolemy, friend of Alexander and founder of the royal line in Egypt. Ptolemy is most unlikely to have even mentioned Rome in his history of Alexander: the great Greek minds in his contemporary Alexandria were moving on a totally different level to that of the Romans. The Roman expansion was the work of people who had no literature and as yet, no formal art of oratory. At Rome, Homer was still unknown and Aristotle would have been completely unintelligible. The great arts of the most cla.s.sical Greeks, thinking, drawing and democratic voting, were not talents of the Romans. Nonetheless, plain blunt Romans reformed their army and gave up their 'hoplite' style of tactics, arguably in the 340s330s, the years of further concessions by the n.o.ble patricians to the non-n.o.bles.8 They also broke up the political league of their Latin neighbours and imposed settlements on its member-states one by one. They also broke up the political league of their Latin neighbours and imposed settlements on its member-states one by one.

This decade (348338 BC BC) is therefore of crucial importance to ancient history. In Macedonia, King Philip, Alexander's father, was balancing and training a new Macedonian army with a new type of tactics. In Italy, Romans were also undertaking a military revolution. It resulted in three main ranks of infantry being combined in a flexible formation and being equipped with heavy throwing-spears and swords. The two resulting types of army would dominate the East and West respectively, before clashing decisively in the 190s BC BC; the Romans' greater flexibility won the encounter, and the tactics of this time remained the backbone of her world-conquering armies for centuries. In 338 BC BC, a cardinal year, Philip had conquered the Athenians and their Greek allies and then imposed a 'peace and alliance' which marked a decisive limit on political freedom in Greece. In this same year, Rome imposed long-lasting settlements among the neighbouring Latins. She did the same elsewhere in Italy, in the towns then and later who submitted to her. The various grades of citizenship which she offered to these Italian towns were also to have a long, important future. They became a blueprint from which the Romans' relations with towns throughout their Western Empire later developed.

These years of Roman struggle occurred outside the course of politics in the Greek world, but the major themes of justice and luxury were as prominent in Romans' public life as 'freedom'. The older Roman framework of public justice had been relatively simple. Much was left to self-help and privately initiated prosecution, but according to the Twelve Tables (in 451 BC BC), a few major crimes, including murder and theft, would also be prosecuted before one of the magistrates.9 In 367 In 367 BC BC a major change was made to the magistrates available. A separate 'praetor' was introduced besides the two consuls. Thereafter Roman praetors became major overseers of justice. Their edicts while holding office were to have a fundamental impact on Roman law; praetors did not legislate, but they did grant legal actions for a far wider body of civil cases than the Tables had specified. Successive praetors took over previous praetors' edicts which thus grew by gradual additions; the edicts filled in gaps in the civil law, becoming the 'Roman equity' of later legal thinking. a major change was made to the magistrates available. A separate 'praetor' was introduced besides the two consuls. Thereafter Roman praetors became major overseers of justice. Their edicts while holding office were to have a fundamental impact on Roman law; praetors did not legislate, but they did grant legal actions for a far wider body of civil cases than the Tables had specified. Successive praetors took over previous praetors' edicts which thus grew by gradual additions; the edicts filled in gaps in the civil law, becoming the 'Roman equity' of later legal thinking.

Within this growing framework, Roman justice was still heavily conditioned by social relations and by wide discrepancies of social cla.s.s. In the 320s one major oppression of the poor, debt-bondage, was at least brought under legal restraints. The status itself did not disappear (as it had in Athens since Solon's reforms in 594 BC BC), but henceforward a Roman creditor could put a defaulting borrower into bondage only after obtaining a judgement in court. Citizens, meanwhile, did have one major resort against physical hara.s.sment and the blatant use of force by a social superior. Inside Rome itself, they could 'appeal' or call out, by the famous Roman right of provocatio provocatio.10 This right had begun as an informal cry for help which any citizen might make to the public at large. It acquired a new focus when tribunes of the people were established in 494 This right had begun as an informal cry for help which any citizen might make to the public at large. It acquired a new focus when tribunes of the people were established in 494 BC BC. These officers had the right to interpose their persons between a bully and his victim if a citizen 'called' on them inside the city; the tribunes had been declared 'sacrosanct' by oath and could not be hara.s.sed without the wrong to them being avenged. By c. c. 300 300 BC BC the practice of appeal became formalized further in law. It became a 'wicked crime' for someone to execute a citizen who had appealed for justice. However, no actual penalty is prescribed in our surviving evidence for anyone who was so wicked, nor were beatings or other types of hara.s.sment outlawed. the practice of appeal became formalized further in law. It became a 'wicked crime' for someone to execute a citizen who had appealed for justice. However, no actual penalty is prescribed in our surviving evidence for anyone who was so wicked, nor were beatings or other types of hara.s.sment outlawed.

Among the people, this right of 'calling out', or appeal, was a cornerstone of freedom. Among the senators, 'freedom' had a further connotation: equality within their own peer group. This ideal was sustained by a very strong tradition of the rejection of luxury. Great Roman leaders of the past were idealized as simple farmers, men like Cincinnatus (the namesake of modern Cincinnati) who left his plough only briefly in order to serve as Rome's dictator. Curius Dentatus (a consul four times, with three triumphs) lived simply in a little cottage and was believed to have rejected offers of gold from the Samnites (who were idealized as a hardy, simple people too). Curius' cottage continued to be revered, and a special 'Meadow' near Rome commemorated Cincinnatus.11 Roman women were also supposed to behave with restraint and here too examples upheld values, in a typically Roman fashion. Continuing tales were told of the virgin Tarpeia who had been seduced by the sight of the gold bracelets on Rome's enemies, the Sabines. Roman women were also supposed to behave with restraint and here too examples upheld values, in a typically Roman fashion. Continuing tales were told of the virgin Tarpeia who had been seduced by the sight of the gold bracelets on Rome's enemies, the Sabines.12 In early days a Roman wife was said to be forbidden even to drink wine. One Roman woman who tried to steal the keys to the wine cellar was actually said to have been clubbed to death by her husband, a cautionary tale to the others. In early days a Roman wife was said to be forbidden even to drink wine. One Roman woman who tried to steal the keys to the wine cellar was actually said to have been clubbed to death by her husband, a cautionary tale to the others.

This ideal of austerity did not exclude the use of slave-labour by its exemplary heroes and their heirs. Such labour was freely available at Rome, because captives in war and defaulting debtors became enslaved and were readily available for the richer Romans' use. As in Athens, there was never a Roman 'golden age' before slavery. Slave-owning was not, then, seen as unbridled luxury; rather, 'luxury' was ascribed to rival cities in Italy, south of slave-owning Rome, where it was cited as their undoing. The most effete were said to be Capua (near Naples), a city of Etruscan origin, and Tarentum (modern Taranto), the b.a.s.t.a.r.d child of her austere founder, Sparta. These cities' love of scents, baths and ornaments was said to have sapped their capacity to resist or to take wise political decisions. In fact, each city marked an important staging-point on Rome's advance southwards down Italy. In 343 Capua's appeal to Rome first brought Roman troops into the immensely fertile land behind Naples. In 284 Rome's attack on Tarentum ended by entrenching her power among the Greek cities of southern Italy.

During this advance through Italy Roman power was not without attractions for the upper cla.s.ses in the towns along her route. Men in the upper cla.s.s who feared their own lower cla.s.ses were much more ready to team up with these apparently sound conservative leaders in Rome. In 343 such people in Capua threw themselves on Rome's decision by opting for voluntary surrender (or deditio deditio).13 Roman troops entered the city and in the following year, an outburst of discontent among Rome's occupying garrison was blamed on the 'corrupting' luxury of 'soft' Capua. In fact, the discontent probably had political roots too. At Rome, it led on to further concessions to the plebs by their Roman superiors: one good reason for giving them was that the commoners were needed as working soldiers. Roman troops entered the city and in the following year, an outburst of discontent among Rome's occupying garrison was blamed on the 'corrupting' luxury of 'soft' Capua. In fact, the discontent probably had political roots too. At Rome, it led on to further concessions to the plebs by their Roman superiors: one good reason for giving them was that the commoners were needed as working soldiers.

In the 280s yet more local rivalries drew Rome even further into the south of Italy. In the south, Greek cities of considerable size and cultural distinction still regarded themselves here as 'Great Greece', but they had continued to be beset by non-Greek barbarian peoples and by deep-seated rivalries between each other. Rome did not hesitate to accept a request for help from distant Thurii, Herodotus' former refuge and the Greek city which had been founded by Pericles' Athenians. Thurii's immediate enemies were the non-Greek Lucanians, but a friendship with Thurii traditionally caused the hostility of another Greek city, Tarentum, further north. Tarentum, an ancient Spartan foundation, was by now a rich and cultured democracy.

Siding with Thurii, Rome then turned against Tarentum and justified herself later with a concerted campaign of historical spin. When Roman envoys arrived in Tarentum they were said to have been mocked before an a.s.sembly in the city's theatre. One citizen, Philonides, was even said to have excreted on the Roman envoy and to have made fun of his barbaric Latin.14 To the Tarentines, the Romans seemed like illegal troublemakers. Some of their ships had been infringing a previous agreement that they would not sail beyond a specified point on Italy's south-east coast. For there was a long diplomatic history here in the Greek-speaking south. Fifty years before the Roman incident Tarentum had summoned the brother-in-law of Alexander the Great to help her cause locally ( To the Tarentines, the Romans seemed like illegal troublemakers. Some of their ships had been infringing a previous agreement that they would not sail beyond a specified point on Italy's south-east coast. For there was a long diplomatic history here in the Greek-speaking south. Fifty years before the Roman incident Tarentum had summoned the brother-in-law of Alexander the Great to help her cause locally (c. 334331 334331 BC BC) and the coastal agreement in question may go back to his short-lived intervention.15 Instead, Rome pleaded an 'insult' by Tarentum and attacked her. Armed intervention in the south required willing soldiers and, once again, we find that important political concessions had recently been made at Rome to the common people from whom the soldiers would be drawn. Shortly before the involvement with Thurii, it was enacted that decisions of the Roman people's a.s.sembly were to be binding on all the people, n.o.bles included. The senators, moreover, would no longer be able to vet decisions of the a.s.semblies before agreeing to adopt them.

This fateful rule, the Hortensian Law, was pa.s.sed with a background of continuing resentment by debtors and probably did not seem an unduly dangerous concession in the eyes of the governing cla.s.s at the time. From the 340s onwards magistracies at Rome had progressively been opened to non-n.o.bles, and so a broader cla.s.s of former office-holders had been gradually built up. As these same office-holders became senators, a like-minded governing cla.s.s had been formed from the n.o.bles and the rich newcomers. In the eyes of this cla.s.s, there was not too much danger in giving 'popular' decisions the form of law. The 'tribal' a.s.sembly which approved them was heavily weighted against the city-dwelling poor, the majority. It only met when magistrates summoned it, and only voted when they put proposals to it. The magistrates were usually reliable members of the governing cla.s.s.

Spurred on nonetheless, Roman soldiers would fight decisively against old, civilized Tarentum. Their ally, 'Athenian' Thurii, was no longer a democracy, whereas their enemy, 'Spartan' Tarentum, was now the democracy instead. The age-old rivalry of Sparta and Athens was thus played out again, but this time in the presence of Romans, and Roman troops proved to be the decisive military force.

26.

The Peace of the G.o.ds When the Roman legate arrives at the frontier... he covers his head with a band of wool and says, 'Hear, Jupiter: hear, boundaries of this people; let the divine law hear. I am the official herald of the Roman people; I come lawfully and piously commissioned; let there be trust in my words.' Then he sets out his demands and calls on Jupiter as a witness. 'If I unjustly and impiously demand that these men and these goods be surrendered to me, then let me never be a full citizen of my fatherland.' He recites these words when he crosses the boundary, again to the first person he meets, again when proceeding through the town gate and again when he enters the market-place... If his demands are not met, at the end of thirty-three days... he declares war as follows: 'Hear, Jupiter and you too, Ja.n.u.s Quirinus and all you G.o.ds of heaven and you G.o.ds of earth and you G.o.ds below, hear! I call you to witness that this people [naming them] is unjust and does not render just reparation. But we will consult the elders in our fatherland about these things, as to how we may requite what is our due.'

Livy, 1.32.6, on the Romans' early ritual for declaring war Romans' ever closer encounters with the Greek world were not to be a simple meeting of minds. Romans regarded Greeks as essentially frivolous, people who talked too much and were too clever by half. They were duplicitous, and quite unreliable with money, especially their own public funds. Among the Greeks, free male citizens had s.e.xual relations with one another; Roman males were only supposed to do so with male slaves and non-Roman inferiors. Greeks even exercised and competed at games in the nude. Greeks' tunics left the body free, whereas Romans were wrapped up in their solemn, inhibiting togas. Greek drinking-parties, or symposia symposia, were also very different. Romans gave dinners at which the food was the central item and free-born women, including wives, were present. At Greek parties, the only women were slave-girls and the point was to drink wine after dinner: the free-born guests were all men, and s.e.x was a possibility, with a slave-girl or with one another. During the third century BC BC a new Latin word was coined, a new Latin word was coined, pergraecari pergraecari, to 'have a thoroughly Greek time': it meant the lazy feasting and debauching which Greek drinking-parties encouraged. Romans' conversation was prosaic and factual: 'repeating Greek verses was for a Roman something like telling dirty stories.'1 Greeks loved beauty and (except the Spartans) brains. They also loved their invention, celebrities. None of these distinctions was a hallmark of the Romans' ancestors. They stood for solid, serious 'gravity', gravitas gravitas, which Cicero regarded as a Roman particularity.2 When the traditionalist Cato wrote his history of the origins of Italy, he was so opposed to celebrities that he left out all the major players' personal names. Our first long surviving appraisal of Roman customs by a Greek visitor, the historian Polybius (writing When the traditionalist Cato wrote his history of the origins of Italy, he was so opposed to celebrities that he left out all the major players' personal names. Our first long surviving appraisal of Roman customs by a Greek visitor, the historian Polybius (writing c. c. 150 150 BC BC), emphasizes the solemnity of two special Roman features. At funerals of prominent Romans, the dead man was brought into the Forum and a fine memorial speech was spoken before an admiring crowd. Families brought with him the lifelike wax funerary masks of their dead relations which were set on robes of honour or worn by partic.i.p.ating actors. These masks were a privilege given to men who had held one of the higher magistracies and made them publicly 'known' or n.o.biles n.o.biles (our 'n.o.bles'). Crowds gazed on the splendour of these family processions and then a wax mask of the dead man was added to the masks which the family kept in their halls. They were an encouragement, Polybius rightly believed, to the young family members to rival their ancestors in glory. (our 'n.o.bles'). Crowds gazed on the splendour of these family processions and then a wax mask of the dead man was added to the masks which the family kept in their halls. They were an encouragement, Polybius rightly believed, to the young family members to rival their ancestors in glory.3 The other distinctive feature, he thought, was Roman religion. It was so much more elaborate and more prominent in public and private life than in any other society. Polybius believed that the Roman upper cla.s.ses had emphasized it so as to terrorize the lower cla.s.ses with religious fear. Roman n.o.bles would not have seen religion in that detached way. For them, their religious rites honoured and appeased the G.o.ds so as to maintain the all-important 'peace of the G.o.ds' and avert their anger. They were kept up as the proven tradition of their ancestors, a tradition which had worked across the ages and could not be lightly abandoned. It kept Rome and the Romans safe. Ancestral tradition had 'authority', an element in Roman religiousness which has been argued to be still surviving in the 'authority' of tradition in the Roman Catholic Church.

Greek religion teemed with stories, or 'myths', about the G.o.ds, but the Romans' own myths had been very few during their earlier history. Art, especially statues, shaped the Greeks' ideas of their superhuman G.o.ds, but the learned Roman scholar Varro reckoned that there had been no Roman statues of their G.o.ds until as late as c. c. 570 570 BC BC. Nonetheless, many underlying principles of Roman religion were similar to the Greeks' own. Like the Greeks, the Romans were polytheists who worshipped many different G.o.ds. Important divinities had Latin names (Jupiter, Juno, Mars or Minerva), but they could be equated with Greek ones easily enough (Zeus, Hera, Ares, Athena). There were also many other G.o.ds, as if anything which might go wrong had a divine power to explain it: diseases of the crops ('Robigo', or blight) or the opening and shutting of doors (Ja.n.u.s, in various aspects). Yet, behind the big G.o.ds of Greek literature, similar divinities can be found in the calendars of the local demes, or villages, in cla.s.sical Attica.

As in a Greek city, the main aim of religious cult was to aid worldly success, not to save citizens from sin. Romans' own ideas of a future life were as shadowy and ghostly as those of the Greeks with which they later enhanced them. The purpose of religious worship was honour and appeas.e.m.e.nt, pursued by pouring libations, giving animals or offering first-fruits at country altars. In Virgil's superb poem of country life, the Georgics Georgics, we glimpse the simplest of all offerings, garlands of 'Michaelmas daisies' on turf altars.4 As in Greece, the main act of public religious cult was the killing of an animal, parts of whose meat were eaten afterwards. Priests attended, but in Rome they were almost always male priests and, distinctively, their heads were covered during the ceremony. As in Greece, too, there was an active art of divination so as to infer the G.o.ds' will. The entrails of sacrificed animals, the flight of birds, omens and oddities were all studied closely. At Rome, these arts were especially technical, because of the Etruscans' legacy to Roman culture. On military campaigns or before public meetings, a presiding magistrate would 'take the As in Greece, the main act of public religious cult was the killing of an animal, parts of whose meat were eaten afterwards. Priests attended, but in Rome they were almost always male priests and, distinctively, their heads were covered during the ceremony. As in Greece, too, there was an active art of divination so as to infer the G.o.ds' will. The entrails of sacrificed animals, the flight of birds, omens and oddities were all studied closely. At Rome, these arts were especially technical, because of the Etruscans' legacy to Roman culture. On military campaigns or before public meetings, a presiding magistrate would 'take the auspices auspices', or look for signs of the G.o.ds' wishes, and a priestly augur would be consulted too. Romans were particularly concerned by 'prodigies', odd things and events which seemed to be signs of the G.o.ds' communication. A prodigy might be a deformed child at birth, a mole (reportedly) with teeth or an apparent shower of blood from heaven. Soothsayers and a priest stood by to list prodigies and interpret them.

Divination, then, was particularly elaborate at Rome and bad omens could be used even to interrupt a public a.s.sembly. On their way through Italy in the fourth and third centuries BC BC, Roman commanders would have paid close attention for any signs from the G.o.ds that relations with them were amiss. When Romans became aware of Greek philosophical theories a few of them did begin to reflect on the validity of this pseudoscience: there were a very few sceptics, including Cicero, but even Cicero was delighted to be chosen to be an augur and to uphold tradition, although the thinking half of his personality knew that divination was false. Every important Roman, whether Sulla, Pompey or Augustus, lived with a sense of the potential presence of the G.o.ds. In the 50s and 40s Julius Caesar's career was punctuated by omens, by escaping animals who were about to be sacrificed (twice in the Civil Wars, in 49 and 48) and by animals whose entrails were defective (in Spain, in 45, and in February 44, a month before his murder). He reinterpreted some of these signs so as to encourage his troops, but he never denied that they were signs.

Omens and prodigies warned of the G.o.ds' ill-will; the public calendar of cults aimed to avert evil and encourage safety, fertility and prosperity. As in cla.s.sical Athens, an individual's personal religion was unimportant for the public rites: the rites, however, a.s.sured each individual Roman's well-being as a member of the community. Again as in Greece, there were no holy books or scriptures: the G.o.ds' 'due', or ius divinum ius divinum, was pa.s.sed on largely by oral tradition. Male priests attended the major rituals and, to Greek eyes, were organized in unusually specialized 'colleges'. The main female officials were the six Vestal Virgins, attached to the cult of Vesta, the G.o.ddess of the Hearth, whom they served for many years as virgins (though free, eventually, to move on and marry). As in the Greek cities, Roman festivals included processions, or pompae pompae (whence Christians' 'pomp of the Devil'), and elaborate prayers and hymns. Romans' respect for tradition meant that if a priest made a mistake while reciting a traditional Latin prayer the rite was invalid and had to be repeated all over again. (whence Christians' 'pomp of the Devil'), and elaborate prayers and hymns. Romans' respect for tradition meant that if a priest made a mistake while reciting a traditional Latin prayer the rite was invalid and had to be repeated all over again.

As in Greece, there was a lively accompanying culture of individuals' vows, made to a G.o.d in hope of, or thanks for, a favour. Unlike the Greeks, Romans sometimes picked on human beings as the object which they vowed to offer. A general might 'vow' his enemies to the G.o.ds of the underworld (this rite was used in the siege of Carthage in 146 BC BC). On rare occasions he even vowed himself on behalf of his soldiers in battle. Stories were told of three such vows by Decius Mus and then by his descendants, all in the third century BC BC. Later, an ordinary soldier was said to be permissible as a subst.i.tute.5 In their households and on their farms, families would also pay religious cults to the 'G.o.ds in a small way', G.o.ds of crossroads or boundaries or G.o.ds of the inner recesses of the household (the penates penates); the powerful father of the household conducted the rites. Publicly and in households, there were also rites for the dead and their unseen ghosts. None of this worship would have surprised a Greek, and as time pa.s.sed, Roman religion had more and more of a Greek imprint anyway. For its evolution reflected the influences on the city which we have traced since the seventh century BC BC: the age of kings, including the Etruscan kings; the change to a Republic; the role of the plebs, or commoners; the ever-growing contact with the Greek world, especially the Greek cities of Italy and Sicily. The single most important temple in Rome, Jupiter's on the Capitol, dated back to the last years of the kings. Unlike the last tyrants in Athens and their temple of Zeus, the kings had actually finished building it. In 496 BC BC, after the kingship had ended, an important temple to the agrarian Ceres, with Liber (Bacchus) and Libera, was founded: the cult was surely influenced by the cults of Demeter and Dionysus in Greek cities in Italy. It was adapted as a religious centre by the plebs.

There was, then, never a time when Roman cults were static. Things changed, new temples arrived and, in a crisis, a new cult might be sanctioned by another 'foreign' import, the oracular Sibylline Books. This collection of written Greek oracles had entered Rome, tradition said, under the Etruscan kings. Yet beside these additions to tradition, the Romans' calendar of yearly festivals retained obvious roots in the military and agricultural year, even when the calendar-months had fallen far out of line with the underlying seasons. In March the G.o.d of war and youth, Mars, was especially honoured, as befitted the month which had marked the new military year. One distinctive March rite was the prolonged dancing of twelve young patrician n.o.bles, chosen from those with living parents, who served as the Salii, or dancing priests. They wore distinctive dress, including red cloaks and conical helmets, and danced through the city on a traditional route, carrying twelve ancient bronze shields which were said to be modelled on a prototype fallen from heaven. Each night, they stopped at a special house and ate a sumptuous dinner. Their entire ritual lasted for more than three weeks.

On 14 March there was a fine horse race on Rome's Field of Mars, balanced by another race in October, the month when soldiers would clean their weapons and put them away for the winter. On 15 October chariots raced in the Field of Mars and one of the winning horses (on the near side of the chariot) was sacrificed to the G.o.d. Its tail was cut off and hurried to the 'royal house' in the Forum so that its blood would drip on the hearth's sacred ashes. On the following 21 April these bloodied ashes were mixed with the ashes of cremated unborn calves and thrown onto ceremonial fires at another festival, the Parilia. The horse's head, meanwhile, had been cut off: two of the main districts of Rome competed for it, before nailing it (it seems) to the outside of the 'royal house' in the Forum.6 This rite of the October Horse spanned both war and agricultural fertility, according to Roman interpreters. Nonetheless, it would have struck many Greeks as barbaric. They would have been surprised, too, by mid-February's Lupercalia, when two teams of young men met at the Lupercal cave on the Palatine hill, a.s.sociated with the she-wolf who had suckled Romulus and Remus. They sacrificed a goat and a dog and had the blood rubbed on their foreheads. They feasted and drank heavily in the cave and then ran out, naked except for goatskins, following an ancient route along the Palatine hill. They would whip anyone they met with the goatskin, a rite which was thought to promote fertility. It survived, nonetheless, for centuries, becoming famous with Mark Antony in the month before Julius Caesar's murder and living on, remarkably, until AD AD 494 in Christian Rome, when the Pope replaced it with the festival of the Purification of the Virgin. 494 in Christian Rome, when the Pope replaced it with the festival of the Purification of the Virgin.

In the public calendar, there were plenty of such festivals, festivals for the dead in February (the Parentalia, especially for the aged dead), or a 'carnival' festival in December, the Saturnalia, when social roles were briefly reversed and slave-masters would wait on their domestic slaves in their households. Greek cities, too, had these types of festival, just as they had festivals of release and merriment. At Rome, the main such feast was Flora's in April. Then goats and hares, highly s.e.xed animals, were let loose on the last day of the accompanying games. s.e.x and fertility were part of the ritual's reference, and by the time of Julius Caesar striptease shows were being staged, too, on theatre stages in the city.7 Traditionalism was the overwhelming self-image of Roman public religion, but the festival of Flora is an instance of the scope, nonetheless, for additions and innovations. The festival gained a week of games only in 238 BC BC during a time of famine: they were sanctioned by the Sibylline Books. These contained obscure Greek oracular verses, supposedly spoken by a prophetic female Sibyl, and were kept by a board of fifteen respectable Romans. Plainly, the prophecies were Greek by origin, but they gave a divine sanction to the Romans' religious innovation. In 399 during a time of famine: they were sanctioned by the Sibylline Books. These contained obscure Greek oracular verses, supposedly spoken by a prophetic female Sibyl, and were kept by a board of fifteen respectable Romans. Plainly, the prophecies were Greek by origin, but they gave a divine sanction to the Romans' religious innovation. In 399 BC BC they had encouraged the adoption of a type of 'heavenly banquet', known in the Greek world, whereby statues of the G.o.ds were arranged for a feast on couches. In the 290s, during famine, they backed the introduction to Rome of the Greeks' G.o.d of healing, Aesculapius. In times of crisis, therefore, the Books would tend to add yet more Greek cults to the core of Roman tradition. they had encouraged the adoption of a type of 'heavenly banquet', known in the Greek world, whereby statues of the G.o.ds were arranged for a feast on couches. In the 290s, during famine, they backed the introduction to Rome of the Greeks' G.o.d of healing, Aesculapius. In times of crisis, therefore, the Books would tend to add yet more Greek cults to the core of Roman tradition.

Wars, naturally, were under the care of the G.o.ds, and they were treated by Romans in two distinctive ways, at their end and at their beginning. With the Senate's permission, a victorious general could be granted a 'triumph', whereby he would be allowed, uniquely, to bring his troops and booty across the sacred city-boundary and into Rome. His face was painted red for the day, like Jupiter on the Capitol; he held a sceptre and wore special dress. His troops were allowed to shout obscenities and rude remarks at him, while a slave (it was said) stood by his shoulder and whispered to him, 'Remember, you are a man.' The ceremony crossed normal social boundaries in a single day of 'festival time': just for one 'red-carpet' moment, the triumphing Roman was like a G.o.d (or, some said, like a king). He ascended the Capitol and left his wreaths of laurel in Jupiter's lap. His name was then entered in honour into the public records. The generals who went south against Tarentum would certainly be hoping for a triumph. They also believed that their war was 'justified'. For, one of the priestly colleges, the fetiales fetiales, would have declared it according to rites which were believed to go back into the mid-seventh century BC BC. The Romans, this rite showed, did not fight except in 'self-defence': the fetial priests would traditionally send an envoy to throw a spear into the enemy's territory. At Tarentum, sufficient 'insults' were reported in the Roman tradition to 'justify' self-defence. When Tarentum was helped by King Pyrrhus from Greece, his territory was too far for an envoy to be sent all the way to cast the spear into it. So a prisoner taken from him was said to have been made to buy land at Rome so that the priests could declare a 'just war' on this nearby territory instead.8 In the Greek world, concern for a 'justified' war had long been current, whether with the Spartans or Alexander the Great or the philosopher Aristotle. Romans were not the inventors of the doctrine of the just war: they were merely more punctilious and ceremonious about it. Their publicity was that their successes in war confirmed that the G.o.ds were indeed on their side. They would soon a.s.sert as much to the Greek cities in their conquering path. But first the G.o.ds had to cope with Tarentum's rightful opposition.

27.

Liberation in the South The Roman emba.s.sy was led by Gaius Fabricius... to whom Pyrrhus was privately disposed to be kind, and so he tried to persuade him to accept gold... But Fabricius refused... and so on the next day, wanting to terrify him as he had never seen an elephant, Pyrrhus ordered the biggest of his beasts to be set just behind them while they conversed, with only a curtain drawn across. When a signal was given, the curtain was drawn and the elephant suddenly raised its trunk, held it over Fabricius' head and let out a terrifying, harsh cry. But Fabricius turned round calmly and said to Pyrrhus with a smile: 'Yesterday, your gold did not sway me; today, this beast of yours does not sway me, either.'

Plutarch, Life of Pyrrhus Life of Pyrrhus 20 20 Rome's attack on the city-state of Tarentum turned out to be a military milestone. In self-defence, the men of Tarentum appealed for help to a Greek adventurer across the Adriatic Sea, for the third time in recent history. In the late 330s they had turned to Alexander the Great's brother-in-law and in 302 to an adventurous Spartan king. Now they appealed to King Pyrrhus in Epirus in north-western Greece. In spring 280 he crossed into south Italy and confronted the Romans for the first time with troops who had been trained in the world-conquering tactics of Alexander the Great. He also brought another of Alexander's novelties: war-elephants. No Italian had ever seen an elephant before. Pyrrhus' herd were real 'Indians', direct descendants of Alexander's, and he had taken them over in Macedon.

Through Tarentum the child of Sparta Rome and the h.e.l.lenistic world thus met face to face. But King Pyrrhus was also a throwback; he was the last great rival of Homer's heroes in Greek history. Like Alexander, he matched himself with Achilles, his ancestor, and set off to fight a new Trojan War against the Romans of 'Trojan' descent. Pyrrhus shone in the front line of battle in his silver armour and crowned helmet (silver armour was later copied, a cla.s.sical allusion, for the great fighter of the Italian Renaissance, the duke of Urbino, in the fifteenth century). He enjoyed single combat and claimed that once, with a single swipe, he hacked a savage Mamertine mercenary in half. But he was not just a lout. He wrote a book on tactics and a book of memoirs and was later admired for his siegecraft and diplomacy. Nowadays, the Carthaginian general Hannibal is remembered as the famous user of war-elephants. In fact, Pyrrhus used them in far more settings, including Italy, throughout his career. In the West, he, not Hannibal, is the true 'elephant-king'.

When Pyrrhus reached Italy in 280 BC BC, he was already thirty-nine, seven years older than Alexander at his death. Discontented non-Greek peoples in southern Italy started to join him and, after a b.l.o.o.d.y victory against Roman troops near Tarentum's colony, Heraclea, he even dashed north towards Rome and sent a trusted Greek diplomat, Cineas, to offer terms to the Roman Senate. It was a great meeting. The elderly Cineas had once studied with the master-orator, Demosthenes. For the first time Roman senators heard a real Athens-trained speaker, but, in order to understand him, they surely had to have an interpreter as very few of them knew a word of Greek. In turn, Cineas was struck by his majestic audience (the Senate, he thought, was a council of kings). He was refused bluntly, but he is also said to have reported that the Roman people were like a many-headed monster whose numbers would keep on being replenished.1 Many such comments were attributed later to Cineas by Romans who liked this connection with Greece, but if this one is true, Cineas, pupil of Demosthenes, was a shrewder judge of Roman manpower than of the Roman const.i.tution. Many such comments were attributed later to Cineas by Romans who liked this connection with Greece, but if this one is true, Cineas, pupil of Demosthenes, was a shrewder judge of Roman manpower than of the Roman const.i.tution.

After this refusal Pyrrhus won a second hard victory in 279 in Apulia, in which his elephants played a major role. Only when a Roman foot soldier hacked the trunk off one are the Romans said to have realized that 'the beasts were mortal'.2 Nonetheless, they still terrified the enemy cavalry. The Romans are said to have mounted long spears on wagons to poke them away and to have tried to throw fire against the beasts from a height. Once again, the casualties on both sides were very heavy: 'another such victory,' Pyrrhus is said to have remarked, 'and we shall be lost' Nonetheless, they still terrified the enemy cavalry. The Romans are said to have mounted long spears on wagons to poke them away and to have tried to throw fire against the beasts from a height. Once again, the casualties on both sides were very heavy: 'another such victory,' Pyrrhus is said to have remarked, 'and we shall be lost'3 (whence our saying, 'a Pyrrhic victory'). (whence our saying, 'a Pyrrhic victory').

In 278 BC BC Pyrrhus faced a choice: either to turn back to Macedon where recent events gave him a new hope of the throne, or else to turn to Sicily, in keeping with his recent marriage to a Syracusan of dynastic family. While continuing to protect Tarentum, he chose to go south into Sicily. In Italy, he had been promising 'freedom' from Rome to the Greek cities, although they were wary about accepting it. In Sicily, he now promised 'freedom' from the Carthaginians, perhaps with a new joint Siciliansouth Italian kingdom of his own in mind. For three years he showed no more of a commitment to real freedom than any true h.e.l.lenistic king and failed in his hopes. On his return journey to Italy he lost several of his war-elephants and although he won a third victory against Rome at Beneventum in 275, it was another b.l.o.o.d.y encounter, with heavy losses on his own side. In this victory, too, the elephants played a big part, until a mother-elephant ran riot to protect its calf (the pair of them are perhaps commemorated in art on a contemporary plate found in Campania). The Romans are said to have terrified the elephants by setting pigs among them, squealing because the Romans had covered them in fat and set them on fire. So Pyrrhus left a garrison at Tarentum and withdrew back to Greece. He ended up fighting first in Macedon, then in Sparta and Argos. In Macedon, he replenished his elephants by a victory over the king, Antigonus, and then took them down to southern Greece. While his elephants blocked the gates of Argos in 272 Pyrrhus faced a choice: either to turn back to Macedon where recent events gave him a new hope of the throne, or else to turn to Sicily, in keeping with his recent marriage to a Syracusan of dynastic family. While continuing to protect Tarentum, he chose to go south into Sicily. In Italy, he had been promising 'freedom' from Rome to the Greek cities, although they were wary about accepting it. In Sicily, he now promised 'freedom' from the Carthaginians, perhaps with a new joint Siciliansouth Italian kingdom of his own in mind. For three years he showed no more of a commitment to real freedom than any true h.e.l.lenistic king and failed in his hopes. On his return journey to Italy he lost several of his war-elephants and although he won a third victory against Rome at Beneventum in 275, it was another b.l.o.o.d.y encounter, with heavy losses on his own side. In this victory, too, the elephants played a big part, until a mother-elephant ran riot to protect its calf (the pair of them are perhaps commemorated in art on a contemporary plate found in Campania). The Romans are said to have terrified the elephants by setting pigs among them, squealing because the Romans had covered them in fat and set them on fire. So Pyrrhus left a garrison at Tarentum and withdrew back to Greece. He ended up fighting first in Macedon, then in Sparta and Argos. In Macedon, he replenished his elephants by a victory over the king, Antigonus, and then took them down to southern Greece. While his elephants blocked the gates of Argos in 272 BC BC, he was stunned by a roof-tile (thrown by the mother of an Argive opponent) and was decapitated. His head was brought to the king of Macedon who rebuked its bearer, his son, and wept with a truly Homeric sense of his past losses. It was a typical show of sympathy between h.e.l.lenistic princes. Pyrrhus' head and body were buried, but his big toe survived, a sign (men said) of its divine quality.

When Pyrrhus left Sicily, he is said to have described