On the Annexation of Provinces to the Roman Empire

Philip Freeman[1]

University of Liverpool

In recent decades debate concerning the vibrancy of Roman territorial expansion, often called Roman imperialism, has been revitalised. Indeed it is proving increasingly difficult to keep up with the rate of discussion. In the late 19th century the prevailing explanation followed the Polybian view that Rome's territorial growth owed much to pre-destiny.[2] This view subsequently shifted to the notion of defensive or accidental imperialism, where the Romans "...did not want an empire and did not look for one. War and empire were imposed on them from outside, by chance factors beyond their control".[3] This form of explanation held sway through to the 1960s, as exemplified in the works of Ernst Badian, who in turn was at pains to play down economic factors determining Roman actions.[4] Questioning of the thesis commenced in the 1970s when it was argued, for instance by Veyne, that Roman expansion was forced by a series of pragmatic decisions based on the criterion of self-preservation.[5] The fullest development of this hypothesis and the rejuvenation of the issue of Roman imperialism came as a result of William Harris' War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (Oxford 1979) with its underlying tone that the Romans "...consciously wanted, if not planned, to acquire overseas territory and that they were at least partly motivated by the desire for gain".[6] In time Harris' views have generated a number of counter-attacks, some of which attempted to reiterate 'established' explanations or else advance variants on his thesis.[7]

This summary has been about what drove Roman imperialism. What has hardly varied is the perception that the speed of Roman expansion fluctuated, as measured by the rate at which provinces were annexed. This in turn is supposed to be a reflection of Senatorial 'policies'. In its earliest overseas wars, Rome is supposed to have been reluctant to annex or at least to absorb as much as she might have of her foreign conquests. Thus the rather hesitant treatment of Sicily after the First Punic War and the disposal of Dalmatia at the end of the 3rd century. How long this reticence endured is a matter of debate. Some would attribute a shift in Roman attitudes in the 2nd century BC, perhaps after Pydna or the sack of Corinth, or following the bequest of Attalus of Pergamum when there seems to have emerged a much harder attitude as to how foreign territory might be used in Roman domestic politics. Whatever date is preferred, and pivotal dates in to the 1st century BC has also been advanced, the fact remains that at some time Rome is supposed to have reached a point where the processes of expansion became systematised. With this came appreciation of the ability to make decisions about what should or should not be annexed. How territory was actually annexed has not been an issue. Rather it has been assumed that whatever the particular dynamic that shaped Roman expansion, its outcome was always the formal integration of territory.

With respect to Roman annexations it is commonly believed that there were three interconnected elements. These are expressions like redacta in formam provinciae (literally 'reduced to the status or form of a province') which implies a process of formal absorption. This impression is evidently confirmed by the existence of the lex provinciae, a device which has been interpreted as the legal confirmation of the annexation, a decision which was initiated by the third element, the despatch of 10 senators, the decem legati, to that region.[8] Combining the three elements, the sequence of events for the annexation of any province would be that, after the surrender of an enemy, the successful Roman general would request that the Senate despatch a commission of 10 who would confirm the terms of surrender that had been imposed on the defeated and/or else make their own arrangements (the organisation of the province). In whichever case, these arrangements would be confirmed in Rome, as a law presented for ratification by the Senate, after which the region could be said to have been (legally) transformed into a Roman province.

This explanation makes a certain amount of sense, conforming as it does to the sort of sequence that one might expect when empires expand and integrate systematically. And the Romans were supposed to be an organised pragmatic people. However the impression might be challenged on two counts. First, history shows that the growth of empires is never as simple as we might imagine. Secondly, the three components for the Roman process of annexation do not bear close scrutiny. It is this aspect that I wish to examine here.

Reduced To The Status Of A Province

In general terms it is difficult to say that there existed a (Latin) vocabulary comparable to our word 'annexation'. Irrespective of this, when considering the potential manifestations of annexation into the Roman empire, there exist a number of expressions which have been accepted as indicative of it. A good example of this is the phrase in formam provinciae redigere and its variants. There are roughly 24 examples known, scattered among 9 different authors as well as a discrete group of epigraphic examples.[9]

Close examination of the literary instances reveals a number of features which serve to undermine the common view that these expressions denote some sort of formal process of annexation. The phrase seems to have enjoyed only a limited currency, coming into vogue with authors in the early Principate. Indeed with two exceptions none of the literary examples are contemporary with the events they relate. This applies to those from the Periochae, Tacitus and Suetonius. Aurelius and Ammianus are still later. Nor are the examples of Ulpian and Justinus relevant in this context. What is more they are all summary statements, profiting from hindsight, rather than parts of more detailed accounts, where the provinces they describe have become fact. They cannot be taken as indicative of process. At best only the examples found in Caesar and Velleius might be said to be nearly contemporary with the reality, but there again they tell us nothing of substance.

With these observations about the summary nature and the time lapses associated with the extant redacta attestations, we come to the epigraphic examples. These all come from Arabia, from milestones which commemorate the construction of a new road, the via nova Traiana, from the borders of Syria to the Red Sea. The stones date to between 111 and 114. The inscriptions also declare the reduction of Arabia to 'provincial condition', redacta in formam provinciae, some 5 to 8 years after the Roman invasion of Nabataea in 106. The gap between the invasion and the declaration is consistent with the way that it was not until 111 that coin issues proclaim that Arabia had been acquired rather than captured (adquisita against capta). How we are to explain the milestones is a complex matter, but I have argued elsewhere[10] that they merely record the (re-) construction, or better consolidation, of an earlier road (the Biblical King's Highway) at a moment when Trajan decided that the Roman (military) presence in Arabia was going to be a fixture for the foreseeable future. But this decision was only made 5 years+ after the Roman military had to move in. The implications of this are that annexation, in this case in 106, was not on the immediate agenda. The gap between the invasion and the 'public' declaration on the stones and the coins can be attributed to problems or confusion in Roman policy. Irrespective of these comments, in this context the 'reduced to a province' formula for Arabia has to be a reflection of contemporary perceptions of what was going on. It complements a broader trend in how Roman perceptions of empire were solidifying towards the end of the 1st century AD, and an appreciation of what expansion resulted in. That is that wars led to occupation and this, usually, to provinces. Whereas the other examples of the formula can be summarised as anachronistic attributions, in this case annexation had just about become a tangible process, one which had become evident over several decades of imperial expansion.

Provincial Commissions

With respect to the use of decem legati the evidence is also patchy. Furthermore in trying to compensate for this there has been a certain amount of conflation of the evidence. The practice of despatching legati appears to have been a phenomenon of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. None are known for the period of the Principate. The earliest known (10 man) commission was that sent to Achaea in 146. Other later commissions include those sent to assist Lucullus in Anatolia in the 70s (although curiously his successor Pompey was not so hindered). Caesar, in Gallia Comata, may have requested a commission in 56, although this is debatable. On at least one occasion a commission of 5 was sent to Asia in 133.[11]

There is also another perspective to consider. Modern scholarship makes a crude distinction between two types of decem commissions. On the one hand there are those which were involved in 'provincial' organisations and those involved in other 'diplomatic' activities (i.e. delivering decisions, stating policy, conducting negotiations and gathering information). Generally speaking the former is thought to have evolved out of the latter. The inadequacy of the view that decem legati organised provinces can be demonstrated by looking at those settlements which involved 10 man commissions but which did not, according to received wisdom, result in the creation of new provinces. Such 'diplomatic' commissions include those sent to end the Second Macedonian War, the one entrusted with the Treaty of Apamaea in 189BC and that which was responsible for concluding the Third Macedonian War.[12] None of these can be described as orchestrating 'provincial' organisations, for no provinces resulted as a consequence of them. In fact, if we ignore the fact that provinces appear to have resulted after them, the range of duties and actions of the so called 'provincial' commissions is hardly different to those of their 'diplomatic' counterparts.

The situation is similarly unclear when we look at the nature of the lex provinciae. The best known leges are those of Sicily (131BC) and Bithynia-Pontus (67-60BC) although others, including those for the Spains, Africa, Macedonia and Crete have been identified. Others have been postulated.[13] It has also been noted that for the provinces acquired under the Principate comparable leges do not seem to have been formulated. As another feature of the Republican period then, the provisions of the attested leges have almost universally been read as forming the basis for the subsequent Roman administration of each of these provinces. This legislation it is assumed was concerned with the establishment of the judicial regulations for that province. However it is only by combining all the extant provisions that the unitary impression of the lex provinciae results. In fact no complete example of a lex survives, only fragmentary extracts. Where it is recognised that the extant fragments are diverse, this is believed to be coincidental, and that in reality all the leges would have been similar in structure and content. Within this there was scope for the lex to be open to occasional and piecemeal reassessment by later governors and by representations from within the province. Above all, the principal means for the alteration of a lex lay with the governor's edict, where an incoming governor would lay down the principles for his administration, along with those aspects of the lex which he would maintain, change or dispense with. This represents the common view about the role of the lex provinciae. It has enjoyed a long currency. Subsequent interpretation has been within these limits.[14]

A reappraisal of the evidence by Hoyos[15] emphasised a number of misrepresentations in this characterisation of the lex provinciae. For instance, the term is not used in the ancient sources. Nor do the extant leges preserve the name of the provinces but rather the gentilicium of the individual responsible for the law. The L.Rupilia, often called the lex provinciae for Sicily was named after the consul P. Rupilius. The L.Aquilia for Asia was in effect the creation of the praetor M.Aquilius. Few of the leges are contemporary with the annexation of the provinces. For example, for Sicily, traditionally thought to be annexed in 241BC (or even the 220s or 210s), the law described as its lex provinciae was not promulgated until 132/1. For these reasons Hoyos concluded that "...the idea of a single lex provinciae laid down on the annexation and more or less permanent is misleading ...it is much likelier that the modern idea of lex provinciae is an overrigid concept obscuring a more fluid system of organising provinces" (p.49).

However we can go further. Doubts might be expressed as to whether it is suitable, let alone accurate, to speak in terms of direct or systematic organisation. There is no evidence to show how a lex would organise life in the province concerned to the extent imagined. What we have are discrete passages, dealing with specific aspects of that life: to legal themes (as in the L.Rupilia), or to specific constitutional problems (as with the L.Aemilia in Achaea and the L.Pompeia).[16] The L.Agraria of 111, in consolidating and confirming the status of the categories of land affected by the Gracchan land laws and the sale of the ager publicus, made reference to a Livian law effective in Africa.[17] The Livius was probably the tribune of the plebs for 146 and presumably acting as a consequence of the Third Punic War. The law might then might represent confirmation of the acta of Scipio working in tandem with a Senatorial commission determining the apportioning of territory to Rome's allies, the 'free cities' and what was to become ager publicus. For this reason, in the traditional accounts, it has been called the province's defining lex. Although this part of Africa is commonly said to have become a praetorian province in 146, no 'governors' of it can be identified until 111.

A common feature of all the 'provincial' leges is that they all followed wars and the diplomatic activities associated with their conclusion. Indeed these leges can just as easily be characterised as peace settlements as 'provincial organisations', in which the terms for the cessation of hostilities were dictated and confirmed as a law by the Senate through its legati. The lex established Rome's relationship with those she had been in conflict with. Other matters peculiar to that region might also be determined. In any peace settlement one would expect to find defined the status of the defeated and of the allies as well and the impositions and rewards made to them. It might also apportion war-guilt as well as define other points of contact, notably how these provisions were to be enacted and guaranteed. It is these factors which may go some way to explaining the diverse provisions of the extant leges. If this is the case then we have to find the reason why these 'settlements' resulted in the emergence of the provinces which the leges have been commonly associated.

Provincial Legislations

What we know of the 'provincial' leges is due entirely to their influence on later events and discussions in the Senate. This applies especially to the two best known provincial organisations for which there are supposed to be leges, the L.Rupilia for Sicily and the L.Pompeia associated with Pompey's so-called 'Eastern Settlement'. That which is preserved of the L.Pompeia is a consequence of Pliny's correspondence with the emperor Trajan. This law has been seen as the means by which Bithynia, and presumably the other provinces whose creation are credited to him, were organised by Pompey. That modern scholarship cannot agree on how many provinces he is supposed to have created undermines this idea at source. In fact if we look at the course of his command and of the decisions he made, Pompey could not have worked with a pre-conceived organisation in mind. Similarly there was not enough time for him to have organised the provinces to the extent that the L.Pompeia/L.provincia scenario demands. Nor does there appear to have been a consistent determinant behind his decisions other than the best interests of Rome and himself (and his staff). Instead it can be argued that Pompey was less concerned with organising provinces as with filling the vacuum created by his reduction or removal of the Mithridatid, Seleucid and Hasmonean dynasties. Towards this end the L.Pompeia represents some aspects of the consequences of these actions rather than being a template for future provincial administration. The one element we know of this law is his attempts to bolster the traditionally weak autonomy of some of the urban communities of Pontus now detached from the Mithridatids.[18]

The same sort of considerations apply to the L.Rupilia. That we know so much about it is due to Cicero's prosecution of Verres in 70BC. From Cicero's account we can see that this law was concerned, in part at least, with the administration of justice between Roman and Sicilians and between Sicilians against Sicilians. Other provisions included limits on the hearing of cases, the composition of juries and the selection of judges. But the case for regarding this as the lex provinciae for Sicily is weakened by the fact that whilst the law dates to 132, probably after the suppression of the First Servile War, in traditional scholarship the island was annexed sometime in the 3rd century. What prevailed in the interim is not clear. Cicero implies that there functioned three if not more pieces of legislation concerning the island. The earliest was a law initiated by T.Manlius in 207 laying down conditions for election to the Senate of Agrigentum.[19] The L.Hieronica made provision for the financial management of the island based on the arrangements previously used by Hiero of Syracuse.[20] There was also a law, formulated by Cl. Pulcher, c.95BC, in response to a request from the city of Halaesus, for advice on how to elect candidates to its Senate.[21] In addition to this there are also strands of evidence which imply Roman 'interference' in other Sicilian communities.[22]

If the L.Rupilia was meant to achieve the 'final' organisation of Sicily as a Roman province, how is it related to these other laws? At present, in the normal sense, there is no satisfactory solution. The principal lex lies so distant from the annexation in the traditional sense that it casts serious doubts as to how far it can be described as definitively organisational in character. Nor does Cicero count Rupilius' acta as a great event in his summary of Sicilian history. It is also clear that the lex did not rescind nor negate existing legislation. But these are problems which arise only if the lex is interpreted as a lex provinciae. If one discounts this characterisation, then there is a simpler explanation. It was merely a piece of legislation enacted at a particular moment in response to a problem of that time. No more, no less. What has helped to foster a misunderstanding of the significance of the lex is Cicero's continual emphasis on the contribution of the decem legati which assisted Rupilius. However Cicero's emphasis is more to do with him building up the case of Verres' tarnishing the advice and reputation of the Senate.[23]

In light of these observations it is reasonable to conclude that the emphasis placed on the purpose of the lex provinciae is misplaced. They were not unique nor universal. The extant leges do not claim to represent or reflect a formal process of annexation. Instead, as confirmations of the acts of generals or senatorial commissions they are broadly similar to the activities of a number of senatorial 'diplomatic' missions which did not result in provincial organisations. The only difference between the two types of commissions is that the 'provincial' types, whilst doing exactly the same as their 'diplomatic' counterparts had an air of necessity. At the end of wars, settlements had to be arranged and confirmed along with those who had assisted Rome. So-called leges provinciarum represent confirmation of these, regulating Rome's relations with monarchs, leagues, communities and tribes. They did not set up the machinery for provincial government per se, nor establish a blue-print for Roman rule. Instead they aimed to replace or define points of contact, to confirm obligations and to replace what had be removed rather than to alter and reorganise. In this the commissions were the Senate's means of checking on the activities and decisions of its representatives. Therefore the concept of the legal or juridical annexation should be struck from our ideas of how annexations were achieved.

Conclusion

What this presentation has attempted to show is that in trying to explain how the Roman empire expanded as a physical entity there has been the tendency to adapt the primary evidence to conform to a set of preconceptions. These preconceptions are derived, rightly or wrongly, from how modern empires are believed to have grown. Bolstering that impression is the understandable assumption that because provinces resulted from the events (eg. as in the despatch of decem legati) and that ancient authors could make what read like definitive statements, this process was systematic. However in taking these assessments at face value there is the tendency to accept uncritically that the outcome (that is the subsequent emergence of provinces) was intent (the desire to acquire or to create them). This leads in turn to the distorting of the evidence, to bending it to fit modern preconceptions. It has the effect of decontextualising that evidence. Instead of this I would argue that there is a more appropriate way of explaining the growth of the Roman empire, as measured by its provinces. The evidence discussed here, along with that which we have not had chance to note let alone discuss, points to the fact that the emergence of provinces was a more gradual process, one not accomplished immediately or by systematic organisation at the time of the Roman victory. Instead it has to be seen as the outcome of a series of other factors which were appropriate in relation to other priorities operating in Rome.


[1] This discussion, a revised extract from my 1989 Sheffield Ph.D thesis (From Provincia to Province: The Nature of Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic - Early Principate) was prepared for the Empire and Archaeology: Seeing What We Want To See session at the AGM of the Classical Association held at the University of Nottingham in April 1996. I am grateful to the session organiser, John Drinkwater, for the original invitation and to the Editor of Classics Ireland for the approach to include it here. I am also indebted to Fiona Aiken for casting a critical eye over the text. For the sake of brevity, I have tried to keep referencing to a minimum.[Return to text]

[2] eg. Polybius Book VI: Virgil Aeneid I. 278-279.

[Return to text]

[3] W.V.Harris War and Imperialism in Republican Rome: 327 - 70 B.C. (Oxford. 1979. 15); cf. T. Mommsen Romische Geschichte12 i.781-782 (Berlin. 1920).

[Return to text]

[4] eg. E.Badian Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (Oxford. 1968); Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic (Oxford. 1973).

[Return to text]

[5] P.Veyne "Y a-t-il eu un imperialisme romain ?" MEFRA 87.1975.793-855.

[Return to text]

[6] M.Beard and M.Crawford Rome In The Late Republic. (London. 1985. 73)

[Return to text]

[7] eg. A.N.Sherwin-White 'Rome The Aggressor ?' JRS 70.1980.177-181; Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168BC - AD1 (London. 1984); A.M.Eckstein Senate and General: Individual Decision Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264 - 194BC (California. 1987); R.Kallet-Marx Hegemony to Empire. The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 BC (California. 1995). See Harris' responses in The Imperialism of Mid-Republican Rome (Rome. 1982) and On Defining the Political Culture of the Roman Republic: Some Comments on Rosenstein, Williamson and North. Classical Philology 85.1990.288-295.

[Return to text]

[8] eg. A.H.J. Greenidge The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time. (Oxford. 1901) 244: 284; 286; 318; Roman Public Life. (London. 1901) 113-132: W.T.Arnold The Roman System of Provincial Administration to the Accession of Constantine the Great. (Oxford. 1914) 25-29: J.E.Sandys A Companion to Latin Studies. (Cambridge. 1938) 581: G.H.Stevenson Roman Provincial Administration till the Age of the Antonines. (Oxford. 1939) 68: F. De Martino Storia Della Constituzione Romana I (Naples. 1954) 283-286: A.H.M.Jones The Cities of the Roman Empire: Political, Administrative and Judicial Institutions. Recueil de la societe Jean Bodin6 (London. 1954) 141: H.F.Jolowicz and B.Nicholas Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law. (Cambridge. 1972) 69-71: J.S.Richardson Roman Provincial Administration: 227BC to AD117. (London. 1976) 34: B.Schleussner Die Legaten der romischen Republik. Decem legati und standige Hilfsgesandte. Vestigia, Beitrage zur alten geshichte. Band 26. (Munich. 1978).

[Return to text]

[9] Caesar Bell.Gall.I.45; VII.77: Livy Epit.45; 104; 134: Velleius II.38.1; 38.2; 97.4: Suetonius Div. Iul. 15.1; Aug.18; Tib.37; Calig.1; Nero 18; Vesp.8; Rhet.6: Tacitus Anns.II.56; XIV.31: Hist.III.47: Agric.14: Ulpian Dig.XLVIII.22.7: Justinus 39.5: Aurelius Victor Caes.20.15: Ammianus XIV.8.12; XXIV.3.9: CIL III.14149.21, 29, 30, 39, 42, 50,: 14150.11: cf. A.J.Christopherson The Establishment of Roman Government in the Three Gauls. (Univ. of Maryland Ph.D 1966).

[Return to text]

[10] P.W.Freeman The Annexation of Arabia and Imperial Grand Strategy. In D.Kennedy (ed.) The Roman Army in the East. JRA Supplement No.18. 1996. 91-118.

[Return to text]

[11] 146: Polybius XXXIX.4-5: Lucullus: Plutarch Lucull. XXIV.1; XXXV.5; XXXVI.36.1; Cicero ad Att.XIII.6a.4; Dio XXXVI.43.2; XLVI.1: Asia in 133: Strabo XIV.38; Cicero Pro Flacc.75; Plutarch Tib.Gracchus XXI.2. In 167, a 5 man delegation operated in Illyria; Livy XLV.17. In the case of Caesar and Gaul, see n.13 below.

[Return to text]

[12] 2nd Macedonian War: Polybius XVIII.42.4-52; Livy XXXIII.24-44.5: Treaty of Apamea: Polybius XXI.24.2-16; 41.6-45; Livy XXXVII.55.4-56; XXXVIII.37.11-40; 3rd Macedonian War: Polybius XXX.13.6; Livy XLV.17-18.8; 29.1-31.9.

[Return to text]

[13] For Sicily and Pompey, see below. Spain 133: C. Ebel Transalpine Gaul: The Emergence of a Roman Province. (Leiden, 1976) 75-77; Africa: see below n17: Macedonia: Lex Aemelia Livy XLV. 17.32; Crete: Lex Metelli Livy Epit. 100; Postulated leges include Cyprus (E. Badian M.Porcius Cato and the Annexation and Early Administration of Cyprus. JRS 55 1965.115): Spain 153 (Ebel op.cit. 45). The case of Gallia Transalpina is an interesting one, helped by the fact that the evidence is not clear. According to Cicero (ad Quint.frat.II.45 II.53; ad Fam. I.7.10; de Prov. Cons. XXVIII) in 56BC proposals were discussed in the Senate as to whether or not Caesar in Gaul should, among other matters, be sent decem legati, as he had requested. Two explanations have been advanced about this request. Rice-Holmes (The Roman Republic and the Founder of Rome (Oxford. 1923.ii.294 n2) maintained that these were additional officers allocated to Caesar, referring to de Prov.Cons.II.28 and Pro Balbo 27 and 61). Alternatively Balsdon (Roman History: 65 - 50BC: Five Problems. JRS 52. 1962.137), following Dio XXXIX.25.1 argued that Caesar was requesting a commission in the traditional manner to assist him in the organisation of his conquests. Whilst Gardner noted that Cicero (de Prov.Cons.XIX; XXXIV, XXXV; Loeb 1958.572) would appear to contradict Balsdon, equally XXXII and XXXIII would also seem to negate Gardner. The point at issue between either interpretation centres on when Gallia Comata was or had to be organised. This debate may be resolved quite simply if the temptation to see a commission necessarily having to be involved in the 'final' organisation of the conquests is dispensed with. A more attractive proposition is to see his request as a stage in the consolidation and tidying-up of a number of campaigns but without the formal annexation objective usually credited to these sorts of settlements. In essence the commission Caesar requested was to confirm those decisions which had already been implemented, to neutralise a region which had been defeated.

[Return to text]

[14] So for instance: "The existence of a lex provinciae is an objective standard which, all would agree, is the measure of a regularly organized province, but it is one that we cannot insist upon, in part because of the weakness of our sources. If we know of the existence of a lex provinciae for a particular province, doubtless that province has been regularly organised. If on the other hand we do not happen to know that a lex has been formulated for a certain province, we cannot say that the province has not been organized. One need only recall the two Spanish provinces, which are considered 'regular' from 197, but are not known to have had a lex until about 132, and Sicily 'regular' from 227, but which is first accorded a truly Roman lex in 131" (Ebel op.cit. n.13 76-77).

[Return to text]

[15] B.D.Hoyos Lex provinciae and Governor's Edict. Antichton 7.1973.47-53.

[Return to text]

[16] Lex Aemelia: Livy XLV.31ff.

[Return to text]

[17] S.Riccobono (ed.) Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani. (Florence. 1940-1943) 8.77-81.

[Return to text]

[18] P.W.Freeman Pompey's Eastern Settlement: A Matter of Presentation? In C. Deroux (ed.) Studies In Latin Literature and Roman History VII. Collection Latomus. 1994.143-179 and see now C.Marek Stadt, Ara und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord Galatia (Frankfurt. 1993).

[Return to text]

[19] Cicero Verr.II.2.133.

[Return to text]

[20] Cicero Verr.II.2.12-15; 18-24; 38; 44.17; 120, 123, 147, 150: 5.53.

[Return to text]

[21] Cicero Verr.II.2.122.

[Return to text]

[22] Cicero Verr.II.2.4: Livy XXV.40.1-4: XXVI.39f; 32.5.8: Plutarch Marcell. XXII.7.

[Return to text]

[23] A case similar to that for Sicily can be constructed for the Spains. As noted in n13, a Spanish lex has been postulated for 133. However we know of instances where legati and/or leges as well as 'provincial organisations' were formulated for the peninsula before this date (eg. in 205: Polybius XI. 33-3-8; Livy XXXVII.25.9; XXXVIII.1.16; Zonaras IX.10.1: in 197; Livy XXXII. 28.1: 195: Livy XXXIV.21.7: Plutarch Cato Mai.11.2. etc.

[Return to text]

COPYRIGHT: All material published in Classics Ireland is copyright. Responsibility for, and ownership of, copyright remains with the author of each article.
Classical Association of Ireland
www.classicalassociation.com : www.classicsireland.com