Guy Leven-Torres 2003

    Rome and Assimilation

  

  Roman Society and various social and civil institutions like the patron-client system were the basis of the whole subject of assimilation and with it a process still found in later centuries well into the modern era. Even today in Spain and elsewhere the Romans ruled or where their descendants emigrated, such as Central and South America, an almost identical system still exists. During the days of Empire however, it was the army that seems to have been the starting point of the whole process that led in many cases to rapid 'Romanisation'. There had been older systems of patronage, based upon traditions of tribal and group loyalty, often inherited from one generation to another before the Romans came but it was they who exploited the true potential of clientele through Imperial policy. The army was an attractive career and its history as one of the main instruments of assimilation/Romanisation within the empire and without, is crucial to the central theme of argument in this book that assimilation was a positive thing and benefited all who partook of it.

    The idea of Romanitas held the empire together like no other force then in existence. The basis of this Romanitas was the eventual award of the Roman citizenship to those who achieved over time the highest degree of assimilation into the ruling regime. There were degrees along the path to this final goal such as the Latin Rights jus latini. By the acquisition of this latter benefit and status, the Roman state recognised that an individual and indeed whole towns had achieved a degree of Romanitas that marked them out as something quite distinct from others in a subjugated area.

  This award was usually acquired through the achievement of magisterial office within a town or settlement awarded a certain type of constitution by the Roman authorities. Since the only people who could stand for office were generally the rich or tribal leaders, this usually meant the gradual Latinisation and then Romanisation of the upper classes.

Empires, Nation States and institutions survive because people who make up the ruling classes believe in them. We have already seen in the earlier parts of this book that, our own liberal bien-pensant elites in Europe apparently do not. The lower classes will mostly take their lead from their leaders and follow suit. However, in a democracy like ours and in the United States and elsewhere, this is vitally important. Ignore the enfranchised population and the results are those also discussed earlier, apathy, crime and the serious threat of civil unrest. Take away this belief and the institution will wither and fail like an organ starved of blood and oxygen. So the best way to preserve the institution is to ensure that the populations that make it up, have a strong personal interest in preserving it.

The British Empire ended in India because the peoples that it ruled there no longer felt it worth their while to support such an institution. This was especially so among the Indian upper classes, who felt strongly that it was time the foreign power that ruled them depart from their lands. In other words it was no longer in their interests. No government, no matter how strong can survive for long without the consent of the people it rules, especially that of the upper classes or those with influence. The British clung onto power, albeit reluctantly using armed force where necessary but to no avail; in Macmillan's famous words 'The winds of change were blowing!' Elites, like ours can pass as many laws as they want, politicise the police against its own People, send bureaucrats and civil servants on 'racial and minority awareness courses', socially engineer on the grand scale as the Soviets attempted to do and largely succeeded in doing, with the aid of millions of secret police and their informers and rapid and savage punishment, including brainwashing of dissenters, but the will of the majority will sooner or later rise to the surface as it always and inevitably does, fed up with coercion and fear. The human spirit cannot be crushed under heel; it needs the heady aroma and air of freedom to survive. No amount of religious hatred laws, banning of age old pastimes, ancient traditions and freedoms that Britain has enjoyed or the appeasement of aggressive religious minorities and the pathological pursuit of multiculturalism can change the fact.

  If the British had been a little more forthcoming a little earlier than the latter part of Queen Victoria's reign and given the Indian and African elite a share of real political power not only in India and Africa itself but across the empire, then the situation may well have been different today. It has taken many years to ensure that an Indian or an African have a seat in the House of Lords for example. The political establishment in the British Empire was largely white and male and thought solely in terms of British politics at home in England. Ideas of a common citizenship came late in British Imperial history. A different attitude to the American colonies may have preserved much that was good. Today America could have been a Dominion similar to Canada or Australia. Empires need to be liked and respected, even if occasionally force has to be used to remind those of the 'benefits' of such rule. World history would have been very different.

   In contrast, from very early times, the Roman authorities encouraged, through the paternalistic system of patronisation, not only the chance to Romanise/Latinise but also to become part of the ruling elite by becoming a member of the equestrian class ordo equester and even a member of the elite Roman Senate itself. Even future emperors such as the Severans ruling in the early third century, came from origins far from Roman. The Severan dynasty came from North Africa and are rumoured to have spoken Punic among themselves. There was probably more than a touch of Moor and other races within its bloodline. Several of the later military emperors could claim descent from former barbarian chieftains. Some like Stilicho were half-castes, yet commanded armies important enough to threaten the throne. The fact that Stilicho never became emperor is not the point but the fact is, the Romans encouraged such people to gain important positions like commanding armies despite being racially mixed. The fact was that despite his parentage, Stilicho felt himself to be a Roman.

Why should a man be despised because of his colour or his background? Why should a person be denied position on the grounds of gender or because of their ancestry? Such attitudes appear to have had no place within the Roman world. There was prejudice against the slave and barbarian, especially the Germans who became over time the Roman obsession that the Carthaginians had once been.  However if a man or woman were willing to accept the laws and ways of Rome, that is assimilate into the culture itself, then the rewards were quite phenomenal, especially for one's descendants.

    Rome was a paternalistic culture and there is no point in denying this fact. However as we shall see below, women unlike in other less tolerant ancient societies had a lot of freedom including the right to hold property. It is wrong however to judge a past civilisation from today's moral standpoint. There are however certain criteria that seem common to human behaviour. The first of these is the respect to be accorded to one's parents and elders or to those placed in authority over others. Women too have usually been greatly respected as mothers and occasionally as heads of households, even queens of whole tribes.

    The basis of Roman society, as in most cultures, was the family with the eldest male as pater familias at its head. In early republican times this individual had the right to kill unwanted infants or to put to death any within his family who breached the strict rules then in existence. Above him were more powerful males who held greater authority within his gens by being head of a senior part of the extended family structure. At the head of the whole would be the senior paterfamilias, an individual whose authority auctoritas by virtue of birth and social standing, outshone any other male within the extended family of which he was the head.

    Above him would be the state of Rome itself, which would be the most senior paterfamilias of all. The Roman state would guarantee to protect the Roman family from outside threats such as enemy tribes and criminals and intercede on its behalf with the various Roman gods in its role as guardian of the state religion. Likewise, the more junior paterfamilias in his role as family head would also contract with his family to provide protection against outside influences, safeguard the family property and ancestral custom, and intercede with the family gods on the family's behalf in religious matters. In other words the Roman family was modelled on the same organisation and obligations as the larger paterfamilias of the Roman state. The Roman system was a series of interdependencies based upon family cells that all gave allegiance to the head family of the Roman state itself. This lead to the development of serious obligations on both sides of the contract between Roman family and the state often protected by religious sanction and custom, which if broken threatened the perpetrator with very unpleasant punishment from gods and state. In later times Augustus remonstrated with those of the Roman upper classes who fell well below the expected standard of obligations (Dio The Roman History, Augustus, Bk 56, 2-10).

One of those obligations was to supply men in time of war for the army and there are recorded examples of fathers being stripped of citizenship or even being reduced to slavery, for cutting off the thumbs of their sons so as not to send them to war. Augustus even put citizens to death who failed to rally to the state's defence in times of serious defeat (Dio, Bk56, 23). This obligation to have sons and provide soldiers was a prime requirement of the contract between state and paterfamilias. The need for the paterfamilias to provide land for his sons as citizen soldiers was also a prime obligation. In the earlier period nobody could serve in the Roman army unless he owned land. The lack of this led to great political turmoil during the second century and eventually led to the civil wars and the establishment of the Principate.

Beyond those related by blood, there were the freed slaves who became citizens on emancipation and also adopted the family name of their former owner and benefactor who was usually the paterfamilias. This placed a series of obligations upon the freedman and his descendants. The Freedman was forever in the thrall of his old master and the penalties for breaking such obligations could even mean re-enslavement. Effectively the property of the freedman libertvs was for the use if necessary of the old master. There are recorded cases of freedmen hiding their fortunes from their former masters (Tacitus, Histories Bk 2, 92). In this latter case exiles returning from overseas were restored to their previous status.

  The freedman was quite literally and legally adopted into the former master's family. His children of course would also be clients of the former master but could enrich themselves and even serve in the Roman army, the Senate, and even hold senior office within the state. The freedom of their freedman father to do such things was seriously curtailed within law and even here there were exceptions as both Julius Caesar and Augustus recognised (Suetonius, Aug. 74. Caesar B.G. III)

   The patron-client system was the bedrock of Roman society. It was a system of reciprocity. The patron would look after the interests of his clients as paterfamilias of the clan and his clients would support him politically and support him in other ways as well such as handling his banking and property interests. The paterfamilias himself may have been the client of a more senior patron to whom he and his own family owed allegiance. To renege upon these obligations from either side was a threat to the state itself since it disturbed the delicate balance between the gods and the state itself sanctioned by religious belief and superstition.

  There were past examples where Romans ignored these ties to more senior families. Such men were Sertorius and Marius, who as novi homines or new men sought the political and finical support of the powerful Metelli clan, an aristocratic but plebeian ancient senatorial house in Rome itself. Both of these men raised great concern when they snubbed this ancient house in order to pursue the higher offices of the Roman state. These ancient obligations were enshrined in the ancient ways of Rome or the mos maiorum. Rome in effect was a series of miniature family states within a larger family state. This led to many problems during the later republic and especially during the days of the Principate. We may return to Augustus above who in 9AD lectured the more irresponsible sections of Roman upper class society on the responsibilities of marriage and children.

Cassius Dio has him corner the Roman equestrian class in the forum and even though such speeches were a recognised literary device usually invented for the reason of putting across the essential arguments of historical characters where no actual speech survives, in its central message it was actually how Augustus felt in such matters. Dio obviously expressed some of his own ideas on the matter and used a supposed speech of Augustus as a convenient vehicle to disseminate these, since he was well aware of the similar problems of his own day.

       Dio himself was a Consul twice and held several other offices of state. He had been born in Asia Minor in the province of Bithynia and although of Greek origins entered upon a senatorial career in the reign of Commodus. He subsequently served under future emperors such as the Severans and the later Macrinus. It is clear his career had spanned the more troubled times (Dio Bk 72, 23. 1-3, 5.) of an empire coming out of the peaceful Antonine period which Gibbon thought was the most blessed of mankind. In many ways Dio is the quintessential example of an upper class provincial whose family assimilated successfully enough to consider themselves suitable material for the highest offices of state.

  But consider also the state, to which we owe many duties that may not come easily to us. How excellent, and how imperative it is, if peoples and cities are to exist, and if we are to rule others and the rest of the world is to obey you, that there should be a flourishing race of ours; such a race as will in time of peace till the soil, sail the seas, practise the arts and pursue handicrafts, and in time of war protect what we hold with an ardour which is all the greater because of the ties of blood, and which will bring forth others to take the places of those who fall. You have chosen to disregard both the providence of the gods and the devotion of your forefathers; your purpose is to extinguish our entire race and make it literally mortal, to put an end to the existence of the whole Roman nation. Besides this, you are guilty of destroying the state by disobeying its laws, and betraying your country by making her barren and childless&. For a city is made up of human beings, not of houses or porticoes or market-places with no people in them&& Would it not enrage the Romans who were his followers, if they knew that after they had gone so far as to carry off foreign girls (rape of the Sabine brides, my insertion) you by contrast have no feeling even for those of your own race, and that after they had engendered children even by the women of an enemy country, you refuse to beget them even by women who are your fellow-citizens? From the earliest times, as soon as government was established, strict laws were laid down on these matters, and afterwards many decrees were voted both by the Senate and the people. You talk of this unconstrained and emancipated life you have chosen, without wives or children, but you are no different from outlaws or the most savage wild beasts. Certainly it is not because you take pleasure in a solitary existence that you live without wives, for there is none among you who either eats or sleeps alone. What you want is complete liberty to lead an undisciplined and promiscuous life. You can see for yourselves how much more numerous you are than the married men. How can the state be preserved if we neither marry nor beget children?(Bk 56,3-7, Cassius Dio, The Reign of Augustus, Penguin Classics: Trans: Scott-Kilvert, London 1987).  

   

  Obviously, the major concern for Augustus and indeed any potential imperator in the Roman world was the need for troops in order to win wars of conquest and increasingly defensive campaigns. The failure of the Romans in Italy to enlist in the army is painfully clear from inscriptions found on grave stones and monuments found on archaeological sites around the former empire even today. Many of these give the origins of legionaries as being provincial and even the rather strange epithet for a bastard origo castris or of the camp. In other words recruitment was increasingly among Romans and even provincials whose origins were anything but Italian let alone Roman. Most had never seen Rome at all and probably never would. This is the reality of the legions that entered Rome with Vitellius in 69AD (Tacitus, Histories, Bk 2, 88). This was the reality of assimilation- Rome had to do so, in order to survive!

  Yann LeBohec, the French academic, in his book on the Roman Army cites various studies of the birthplaces or origins of Roman legionaries over longer periods of time. For example a 1914 study showed that of the recruits to Legion III Augusta in north Africa during the First century AD, 19 came from Italy, 23 from Senatorial provinces and 56 from Imperial provinces. By the 2^nd Century, 1 man came from Italy, 54 from Senatorial provinces and 44 from Imperial provinces. By the 3^rd century none came from Italy, 62 came from Senatorial provinces and 37 from Imperial provinces. The distinction between Senatorial provinces and Imperial provinces is important for our purposes. The Senatorial provinces were technically ruled by the Senate, normally had few troops in them as they were supposed to be the most Romanised. Such a province was Baetica in Southern Spain. Imperial provinces were those within the imperial remit imperium of the Princeps and were those usually on the more dangerous frontiers and as a result contained the bulk of the Legions and Auxilia. They were therefore probably considered the less Romanised although archaeology has done much to change this view. But they were the provinces where Rome felt less secure (LeBohec, The Roman Imperial Army, Chap.3, p89, table 20. Batsford, trans from picard editeur 1989, London 1994).

  The majority of these men in the second and third centuries came from the most Romanised provinces, namely the senatorial. These men may have been descendants of Roman colonists but most would probably have held the citizenship not so much from colonisation by ancestors but through the gradual assimilation of Roman culture by their none Romanised ancestors. Perhaps a term such as latinisation is more appropriate. One would have thought the Imperial military provinces would have provided most recruits but this does not appear to have been the case except in the Ist Century. Le Bohec feels that the legionaries came from a higher social milieu than is generally accepted. Rostovtzeff believed that barbarians or at least sturdy peasants entered the army (Le Bohec 1989). This was probably more appropriate to his own time when armies were made up of largely peasant stock.

  To live in a town usually meant that the inhabitant was highly Romanised. This after all was Rome's greatest contribution to western civilisation and at least in the western part of the empire such urbanisation would have been seen as the mainstay of Roman influence and occupation. Le Bohec cites the following numbers of legionary recruits provided by the cities and towns of the most highly Romanised area of Gaul, modern day Provence Gallia Narbonensis. Vienne 24, Narbonne 18, Frejus 13, Luc-en-Diois 12, Arles, Beziers, Nimes, 6 each, Alba 5, Valence 4, Aix 3, Riez 2, Carcassonne, Antibes Apt, Castelnau-de Leze Cavaillon, Digne, Tarascon, Uzes, Vaison, 1 each. When one compares this to other areas of the empire the tally still favours the more Romanised parts of the whole. Other parts of Gaul, Lugdunensis (central France) 12, Aquitania (Bordeaux) 6 or Germania, Lower 27, Upper 2. Spain, Tarraconensis (near Taragona) 11, Baetica (Andalucia) 3 in Flavian-Trajanic period, but 13 latter Julio-Claudian period. Interestingly the same process happens around the same time in Narbonensis 31 early Julio-Claudian period, 58 latter Julio-Claudian period, then 34 Flavian-Trajanic period. In all cases recruitment drops off in the second century. One's own studies of Baetica at the site of ancient Italica would seem to confirm his findings. For example  Lucius Rulius Alrius of the Sergian Tribe, was a soldier of the Tenth Legion (CIL V, 932). Another was L. Valerius Nepos of the Seventh Gemina who may have not only been the bearer of a famous name but an officer as well. There is also evidence of a former member of the Legion Third Gallica.

  Italica itself was originally founded in the late third century BC by Scipio Africanus for his wounded veterans in the war against Hannibal. Its history as the original Roman municipal city municipium in Spain is interesting. This of all places would be primary recruiting ground for the legions. Pliny mentions it as one of the most Romanised towns in the province of Baetica (NH,III 4). Hardly anything is known about the original settlement in 206BC but that it was for Scipio's veterans and their unofficial families. This very fact confuses the archaeological record as there is a clear fusing of cultures. Take for instance the stratigraphy of the site shows that early on in the city's existence there is a mixture of cultures and only later a more Italianate appearance. Lets look at this in more detail:- This is from the site of the Casa de Venus situated in the older part of what was Italica.(Guy Leven-Torres, Italica, From Vicus to Imperial Throne, UCL 1997, from EAE 1982 p13 fwd)

Level I. Approximately 4^th century BC. Ceramica Iberica (globular form). Punic vases, local pottery of Final Bronze Age traditions.

Level II. 4^th to 3^rd century BC. Italo-Greek fish-plate pottery, ceramica Iberica, Campaniense B, 4^th century pottery, Amphorae Punica Macareno B, C, and E. 4^th  - 3^rd century Macareno pottery in great abundance.

Level III. 3^rd to 2^nd century (foundation period of Roman city). Increase in Romano-Italic material but also with quantities of native manufacture such as ceramica Iberica etc. Roman tiles tegulae, opus quadratum, Italo-Greek pottery corresponding to 3^rd century type, Ceramic forms Lamb 23A, Campaniense A, Lamb 27, 29, 31, and 33, presigillata, ceramica Iberica. Amphorae, Dressel 1A and B . Macareno C, D, etc, Punic amphorae of 3^rd century and localised pottery.

Level IV. 2^nd to 1^st century. Hardly any terra sigillata but presigillata, Campaniense A, Lamb 27/29, 30, 31, and 63, Campaniense B, ceramica Iberica. Amphorae, Dressel 1A, 1B, 1C, 18. Macareno 1, community pottery, Vegas 4, polychrome.

Level V. 1^st century. Archaic Arretine Goud 5 and 6B. South Gallic and Hispanic, Ceramic presigillata. Campaniense A and B, Lamb 1A and 5A, ceramica Iberica in relative abundance. Amphorae, Dressel 1A, 1C, and 7/8, Pelchet 2 and Macareno C, Vegas 8, 14A, 31, 39, 42, and 44. Teracotta un rostro femenino or woman's face.

Level VI. 1^st century AD. South Gallic terra sigillata, Drag 15/17, 18/31, Ritt 18, Arretine Goud, 16 and 27, Ritt 8, Drag 24/25, sigillata hispanica, Drag 8 and 35. Fine warse Mayet XXXII, XXXVIIB, and XIIIB Roman amphoras, Dressel 1b and 1c, Macareno D, Ceramica campaniense A and B.  

Level VII. Late 1^st century AD. Terra sigillata, conforming to Drag 15/17, 24, 27, 29B and 32.  Arretine Drag 24/25, Ritt 5 and 5a, Goud 27, Drag and La hispanica Drag 18. Fine wares XLIII, XLIIIA, and XXXVIIIA and other types. Amphorea Dressel 1.

Level VIII. 1^st to 2^nd century AD. South Gallic terra sigillata, forms Drag 11, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 37A. Also forms Ritt 13, Hermet 25. Arretine terra sigillata  Haltern 7, Goud 18, Drag 36, Ritt 1, terra sigillata hispanica, Drag 29 and 37. Also abundant terra sigillata of Graufesenque origin. Fine wares Mayet II to III, X-C, XXXVII etc.

  

    At the beginning of the period, that is level 1 we observe a lot of native material and some Punic wares. Obviously the site was inhabited before the foundation of Italica itself in 206BC. We know that much of Spain at this period was under the Carthaginians or had strong trading links with them. By Level 2 the deposit includes or Italo-Greek remains. This would have come into inhabitants' possession through contact with Greek colonies further up the coasts of Spain who also traded with Italy. By Level III there is a veritable sea-change in the type of material found, still local but with a strong Italo-Roman theme. This seems to confirm the foundation of Italica by Scipio Africanus and the settlement of veterans there. Level IV contains mainly local material and this seems to indicate a rather impoverished period for the city, which is not surprising with the civil wars and piracy disturbing links with Italy. The veterans and their immediate descendants probably intermarried with Iberians and felt little loyalty to Rome so far away.

    By Level V however, seems to indicate that by the later period of the 1st century BC Roman or at least Italian wares were again obtainable. We do know that many Italians defeated in the Social War of the 90s BC settled in Spain and in Italica to escape the turmoil in Italy itself. Levels VI and VIII seems a period of wealth came about in the Ist century AD. There is an increased amount of material from Roman and Italian origins but there is also material imported from Gaul. We know there was economic growth with the establishment of the Principate in 27BC and Augustus campaigned her to secure the frontiers of the Spanish provinces. The Romano-Iberians profited greatly from this increased stability and more Italians settled attracted by the trading links with other parts of the Empire and the garum fish-sauce industry which supplied this rich condiment to the finest dining tables in Rome and the provinces. Level VIII shows that this imperialisation through contact with the rest of the Roman world continued unabated. Italica itself grew in importance but seems to have overreached itself by trying to emulate the metropolises of the Near East.

    From the point of view of our discussion the archaeology of Italica is a revelation of the process of assimilation into the Roman imperial structure and into which the lives of the population of the empire were increasingly embedded and encouraged to become Romans. Some academics prefer the term imperilisation to Romanisation since they feel that Romanitas itself evolved in its meaning over time with direct contact and assimilation of other cultures and peoples and in particular hellenism that led to different forms of 'Romanisation' perhaps specific to the locality in question. However, this imperialisation-Romanisation was recognisably Roman. There was therefore no doubt of what it meant to be Roman, even though it may have evolved over the centuries especially under the influence of the eastern Helleniic world. Greek was the language of the man-of-letters and despite early resistance to it in the earlier period of contact with Greece, its superiority in literature and as the language of a far older and civilised culture proved irresistible.

  If one should doubt this process just examine the way the perception of our own nationality has changed over the centuries. Just what does it mean to be British today? One hundred or so years ago it meant England and Empire. Englishness was synonymous with Britishness despite the fact that the United Kingdom contained four different countries. Before the advent of empire an inhabitant of these islands would have looked no further than his local manorial landlord or his local parish for a clue to his identity which was strictly local in character.

     The British Empire and in particular sea-power revolutionised the British national consciousness. Even in historical films made as late as the 1950s, England is regarded as the realm to be defended against the foreign foe. The Irish, Scottish and Welsh are seen as representatives of an English national supra identity in the broader epithet of British. It is England and Englishness that they must aspire to even if it means the British Empire. Nelson's signal at Trafalgar started with England expects despite the fact that there were three other nations that comprised Great Britain under King George and he had Scots and other nationalities in his fleet. The British Empire imperialised the nation's perception of itself and its peoples. Our British identity today identity is a far different concept than the idea of Englishness and Britishness held in past times and will continue to evolve.

It is the same with all empires especially when they come into direct contact with exotic cultures like India. America is the new world super power and many of us have subtly assimilated American ways of speech, dress and attitudes. It is a natural human evolutionary process older even than Rome or ancient Greece. The Americans are highly successful in this process despite some misgivings from the older generation in places farther afield. However, 'Americana' is highly desired in general because of the benefits of that civilisation such as a higher standard of living, notions of democracy and a newness and openness often at odds with even the older European nations. In short it is exciting. Roman society with its sophistication and benefits in an improved way of life must have been very attractive to a 'barbarian' or even a 'civilised' Greek simply because it offered security as well, often from a subsistence level of life and free from war. That is why America is looked to today, because it provides security as well.

Italica is also interesting for the fact that in Trajan it supplied a Romano-Iberian emperor to the throne. Hadrian spent time here as a boy. In fact a whole provincial elite entered the senate from this region and southern France. Ronald Syme is worth quoting, The new dynasty, which is Spanish with Trajan and Hadrian, emerges as Narbonensian with Antoninus Pius, and the strains are blended in the grandson of Annius Verus (otherwise Marcus Aurelius). Those rulers are the successive products of a group of families allied and interlocked long since, first in their countries of origin and then at Rome...The first object of matrimony among the gentry, whether Italian or provincial, was to link families of wealth and standing, to concentrate their resources, spread influence, and acquire predominance in a town or a region...Even when a family had risen from equestrian rank to senatorial, from local repute to metropolitan fame, its sons might still look for brides in their own country, so strong was the tie at home..Migrating to the capital, the elite of the western lands took station beside their predecessors from the Italian towns, whom they emulated in ousting the nobiles, and then went on to supplant. Wealth came with them, often ancestral, whereas many Italian fortunes were very recent, deriving from the civil war and proscriptions (Syme, Tacitus, Vol II, ix, p601-2, Oxford 1958, 1997).

This assimilation affected all levels of society. We have already seen the soldiers above, some from legions on the other side of the empire. One Sextus Julius from nearby Hispalis (Sevilla), had quite an astonishing career. We shall quote his career in full. It has been dated to around 160AD.

Sex. IuIio Sex. F. Quir. Possessori, [Prae coh III Gallorum. Praeposito numer[ri Syror. Sagittarior, item alae primae Hispa[nor. Curatori civitas Romulensium...Arlvensium, tribuno, mi[I.leg] XII Fulminat(ae), [Curatori coloniae Arcensium, adlecto[in decurias ab optimus maximisque[imp Antonino et Vero augg, adiu[tor Ulpii Saturnini Praef annon [d oleum Afrum et Hispanim recen[ sendum item solamina transfe[renda item vecturas navicularis exsolvendas, proc augg ad [ripam Baetis, scapharii Hispalen[ses ob iurocentiam Iustitiam [que eius singularem (Dessau ILS 1403).

   It appears the above began life as an equestrian narrow stripe military Tribune tribunus augustclavius. He then went on to Syria where he probably commanded a squad of the famous Syrian archers and then returned home to command a Spanish cavalry squadron. He seems then to have spent some time in a civilian curatorial post at Sevilla Hispalis, then joined the Twelth Fulminata legion wherever it was stationed in the empire at this period. His career then appears to have involved very senior posts of one kind or another as curator of the oil and grain supply in Africa and Spain, in particular imperial procuratorial responsibility for the transport of such materials up the river Baetis that flows through the city of Hispalis, possibly with the direct patronage of the joint emperors Aurelius and Lucius Verus. In other words this confirms Syme's extensive studies on the subject and conclusion, that the assimilated Romanised/imperialised elite gradually supplanted the native senate at Rome and  Italy but also in the more Romanised provinces as well. Sextus was probably descended from Romans and Italians but also numbered native Iberians in his ancestry.

    Baetica and its wealth actually threatened the economic stability of Italy and in particular its wine production (Collumela 3, 1 3-4, Strabo 3. 2. 6). A shipwreck from the time of Claudius, found off the coast, known as Ponte Verdes II was carrying Haltern 70 amphorae from the province and Collumela owned a farm near modern day Jerez de la Frontera.

The region itself had to be highly Romanised in order to achieve this level of penetration at Rome itself. Italica supplied several senators (ILS 8970, CIL 1130) and so did its nearby rival Hispalis. Other inscriptions show how others from the cities served in lower capacities such as imperial procurators and agents in other areas of the empire (CIL 1115, 1116, 1117).

   We have strayed a little from our main discussion but this is essential to demonstrate the level of assimilation that was very real in the Roman Empire, especially in a region so diverse as Spain. Many of these individuals would have either been descended from Roman or Italian soldier settlers or even served in the legions themselves before going onto take up civil posts and offices. The only way they could achieve this was through patronage- a patronage that actively encouraged assimilation into the imperial Roman structures of the day. From high class aristocrat to low born peasant or townsman and slave, this system encouraged the individual to aspire to become Roman sooner rather than later. This is clearly shown by the inscriptions given above.

  Augustus clearly was not the only emperor to face problems of recruitment among native Italians and Romans. The only available source was therefore the provincials themselves. These fast displaced their Italian and Roman predecessors within the power structure at all levels of society, whether legionary, procurator, or senator. This was the secret of Romanitas and its success..

  Rome founded colonies for the reason of not only defence but as a bastion of Roman ways and as an example to conquered peoples of the benefits of Roman life and civilisation. More than this it was a living claim to the land so subjugated. This was a tradition among less civilised peoples as well. Tribes often buried their warlike kings and aristocrats in burial mounds in order to lay claim to ancestral lands. However, there were several types of colonia and in the process of assimilation its meaning and function evolved in much the same way as Romanitas itself. The original colonies were originally settlements of soldiers, often time-served veterans who could be called upon in time of peril to defend an area if they were not too old and fit enough or to breed future legionaries for Rome's armies. Originally colonies had been founded by transplanting whole sections of young Italians and Romans with their families in order to secure an area. This was in fact how Ostia the port of Rome had been founded in the early days of Rome. But as time progressed, these colonies would become established Roman towns, providing further recruits and colonies. This was probably the real reason why Italica was founded -Scipio had an eye upon the future of Spain and especially the potential wealth of a region such as the south.

    Rome was ever conscious of the need to preserve the status-quo. For example once a land had been subjugated it was necessary to secure it in the name of Rome. To Rome this meant the establishment of her idea of urban life. This way the indigenous population, in particular the elite would observe first hand the benefits to be had from Roman life. This was the seed of Romanitas.  

In the Roman west this was not too much of a problem. However in the more civilised and Hellenised Greek speaking East, this was not the case. We shall return to this later. In Spain and Gaul there already existed proto-urbanised settlements influenced by Greek and Phoenecian traders and colonists. Some of these settlements reached a high standard of urbanisation as archaeological remains testify. This was especially so in Spain.

   However, even in existing settlements Rome planted colonies of Roman citizens in order to secure the area. This was often done by confiscation procriptio of land from defeated foes. This had always been the Roman method of conquest. Sometimes whole peoples were ejected if the Romans were particularly uncertain of their hold on a place. Look for example at Colchester founded on such lands after the invasion of Britain in 43AD. Veteran legionaries of XX Valeria were planted here and the local tribes expelled. This eventually led to the Boudiccan rebellion of 61AD (Tacitus, Annals, XIV, 30) wherein the temple of Claudius, seen by the Britons as a symbol of their fate was completely raised to the ground. Contrast the fate of St. Albans, a Roman Municipium, which was too a former native site of some importance but whose chiefs were favoured by Rome with the above status. This city although not a colony was allowed its own defensive walls in the 1^st century, a sure sign of imperial favour. Such settlements usually started life as civitas, a Latin term meaning an urban settlement or area where it was intended to build a city as part of a long term programme to Romanise an area. Urbanisation of an area meant it was easier to control such a territory.

    Each civitas had its own territory or civil boundary. Dependent upon its status, such foundations could ensure that the native ruling elite at least if not the town's inhabitants gained the Roman citizenship by becoming officials or magistrates on the town's senate or council ordo. Effectively, the town's constitution whether, simply civitas, municipium, or colonia, was based upon the constitution of the Roman state itself. Each was a little respublica headed by two or four magistrates termed either duoviri or quattuo-viri usually members of the local ordo each of whose members was termed decurionus. In a municipium the senior magistrates appear to have been two financial officers quaestor and two senior officers akin to the consuls in Rome itself. The citizens had Latin Rights, a half way stage to full Romanisation and the citizenship. Obviously Verulamium was considered Roman enough, in sympathy at least to be granted walls and the Latin Right. Colonies were actually considered Roman territory per se, and enjoyed the same rights as Rome itself and was therefore free of taxation normally levied on lesser towns. The magistrates that headed these seen to have been only two in number and termed duum-viri . Romans like the British loved committees in order to decide upon public business.

   Wacher in his book, The towns of Roman Britain (Batsford, London 1976) lists seven types of settlement recognised officially by the Roman authorities (Leven-Torres, dissertation Italica, From Vicus to Imperial Throne, UCL 1997).

a)   Civitas- citizenship of Roman or non-Roman community. It is also used by both to describe themselves (origo)

b)   Colonia- used in early Empire to describe towns inhabited either by Roman or Latin citizens, many of whom would have been army veterans -governed by Charter based upon the laws of Rome itself.

c)   Municipium- again in the early Empire to described towns, likewise governed by Charter. The inhabitants would have been of Roman municipium civium romanorum or of Latin status according to the grade of municipal charter awarded. Later however, a town with only Latin Rights might have received full Roman citizenship and subsequent promotion to Colonia was not unknown (Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights,.16, 13)

d)   Oppidum- literally meaning a town or other native settlement. In Spain it meant any fortified urban settlement, although its use elsewhere in the Roman world, for example in Britain, might indicate a somewhat primitive nucleated settlement.

e)   Urbs- normally translated as city, and it was used to describe a settlement of higher status than one which might be called an Oppidum.

f)     Vicus- widest range of meanings of all. It could mean a city region, a civilian settlement outside a fort cannabae, as at Vindolanda in England or Zugmantel in Germany. It also appears to have been used to describe simple villages, however, it was also used to describe central towns of some peregrine Civitates. It therefore had the lowest legal status applicable to something approaching an urbanised site. A pagus formed a country district.

g)   Polis- Originally used to describe city-states in Greece, but also used by ancient sources to describe civitates or cities such as Italica mentioned above.  

   

  The elder Pliny, who in his Natural History describes the highly Romanised province of Baetica, actually gives the numbers of towns enjoying some form of Roman status within the region- Oppida omnia numero clxxv, In iis coloniae 1x, municipia xviii, latio antiquitus, xxix, libertate vi, foedere iii, stipendiaria cxx (NH, 3,4; Weisio 1841).

      Returning to Italica, she produced nine Roman senators. In order to do this she must have been extremely Romanised, especially since she was originally  only  a vicus in the local territory (Elder Pliny NH, III, 4) conventus of nearby Hispalis. At sometime in the reign of Augustus, Italica suffered a confiscation of land deductio in order to settle a veteran legionary colony there (Strabo, History 3. 2. 1). However in the reign of Tiberius, Italica issued two series of semisses or small coins displaying the heads of the military commanders Germanicus and Drusus. The first was the nephew of Tiberius and the second his brother of whom he was very fond. On the reverse of both these coins appear military insignia together with a legionary eagle standard surmounted by a vexillum (A.T. Fear, Rome and Baetica 50BC-150AD, Clarendon, London 1996). In particular the legend upon the coinage PER AUG. MUNIC. ITAL, seems to indicate that this was indeed so. There is still debate today among Spanish archaeologists whether it was Hispalis or Italica that suffered the imposition of the legionary colony. Italica would seem to be the preferred choice given the coins above.

From our point of view this is important.  Italica was supposed to be the most Romanised of all towns in the region. Its history began with the settlement of soldiers in the 3^rd century BC and yet it received a second influx in the reign of Tiberius around 20-30AD. Italica had favoured Caesar's cause during the civil wars in the previous century (Caesar, BC, II. 20). Furthermore two of the conspirators who attempted the murder of an unpopular Caesarian governor came from Italica (Alexandrian War, 52. 2). The Caesarians or Octavian's party were obviously anxious to curry favour within a region notoriously sympathetic to Pompeius Magnus and his sons. The murder of an unpopular man may or may not have been most convenient to the Caesarian's cause. Either way, the imposition of a legionary colony would have ensured the continued loyalty of such a town and ensure its loyalty to the newly established Principate which although founded around 27BC, was in Roman terms a very short while. The Republic was still a reality in most Roman minds, the man at the top or Princeps, was merely a first among equals. There was no right of hereditary succession and men still survived from the days of the Republic, men who still thought in terms of their own dominance within Rome itself. Tiberius was not a popular choice.

Either way the new regime needed support primarily among the provinces. It was among the inhabitants of these highly Romanised areas that the Principate sought support not just among the aristocracy at Rome. The new imperial system benefited most of all these peoples. They were for the first time governed by paid professional civil servants. These men were the employees of the emperor even though Baetica itself was a public province, the men who governed it would be conscious of the emperors eye upon them. This prevented them from lining their own pockets and stabilised the region and towns like Italica. We have seen above that archaeology clearly shows the huge growth in prosperity that came about after the establishment of the Principate.

  The planting of soldiers would have reinvigorated the city and area. The move may not have been popular but it ensured the stability of the region and its loyalty to the new regime. The soldiers were Caesar's men to the core. Germanicus was a popular hero and so was Drusus. Their influence upon the already heavily Romanised region ensured that the process deepened still further. Already by the time of Nero, the Gallo-Iberian elite were making serious inroads into the native Italo-Roman aristocracy. The Flavians another new dynasty with an insecure claim to the throne further encouraged the process (PIR2, C1425). One Spanish senator, L. Cornelius Pusio was Consul under Vespasian. other Consuls were Manlius Vopiscus (Statius, Silvae 1.3), his son or grandson in 114AD (ILS 1044), L. Minicius Natalis suffectus in 139AD, and M. Accenna Saturninus (CIL XIV, 3585). These men gained their positions through wealth in land and the patronage of the Imperial elite and the Princeps who by 100 AD would be of Spanish origins himself, often the direct descendant of Roman legionaries intermarried with local women.

  It was to be these men and their descendants who joined the legions as citizen soldiers. The Italians recruited to the army seriously decreased in number. However it was in the interests of their colonial cousins to preserve the status quo and in particular the new imperial regime. Men like those settled at Italica, with more than just a patriotic interest in the survival of the Principate. The emperor to these men and their immediate descendants, was the patron or paterfamilias who gave them land and the opportunity over time to rise up through the Roman hierarchy, even to be a town magistrate. Men like the Sextus Julius above, who became a Tribune in the XII Fulminata. He was not alone.

  These Romanised provincial citizen legionaries were no country bumpkins and as Le Bohec and others have shown, these men had status, not only as soldiers but as Roman men of note in their own right. Junior officers in particular needed to be literate in order to rise to the Centurionate and beyond. Even to enter a legion, the crack troops of Rome, one needed to be of good character as the letters between Trajan and the Younger Pliny clearly show. Above all else, patronage was of utmost importance to any recruit to the military hierarchy (Pliny Bk.X,106). Without a patron to vouchsafe a young aspirant to the colours, entry to office or the legions would be at the very least difficult without a letter to oil the way. This again is made clear by Pliny in his letters to his friends and Trajan. Suetonius, the author of the 'tabloid' Twelve Caesars, turned down such an invitation from his patron Pliny to take up a post as Tribune in the Army (Pliny Letters, Bk.X, 96).

   Whether, legionary or procurator, these provincial Romans relied upon the intricate hierarchy of patron and client that led from the bottom of the social ladder to the Emperor himself. This was the very essence of Romanisation itself. Assimilation within the Roman world relied upon a system of reciprocity wherein the beneficiary looked to his patron to gain position and improve his lot. A whole nexus of inter-relational contacts ensured the stability of the Roman system. This system revolved around one imperial family at the top of a nexus of several smaller rich families, whose wealth and prestige auctoritas protected and enshrined the idea of Romanitas itself....