VI. SOME PHASES OF THE PROBLEM OF PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE ROMAN REPUBLIC. By FRANK BURR MARSH, SOME PHASES OF THE PROBLEM OF PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE ROMAN REPUBLIC. By FRANK BURR MARSH. That the expansion of the Roman Republic was somewhat irregular and haphazard, that its provinces were acquired piecemeal, one here, one there, has long been recognized. That the senate was, upon the whole, opposed to expansion has likewise been recognized, and the motive attributed to the senate has usually been the independence of the governors and the difficulty of controlling them. Yet there are some features of the story which this motive would hardly seem to explain and which, perhaps, have been too little noticed. The first of these is the intermittent character of Roman expansion. In a relatively short space of time Rome annexed several provinces, and then for a number of years no additions were made to her empire. A brief table will, perhaps, make this clearer. From 241 B. C. to 197 B. C., during a period of 44 years, Rome annexed four provinces. Then from 197 B. C. to 146 B. C., during a period of 51 years, no new territories were acquired. From 146 B. C. to 121 B. C., during a period of 25 years, four more provinces were annexed. Then from 121 B. C. to 63 B. C., during a period of 58 years, we find no further acquisitions. Thus the dominions of Rome advanced rapidly for 44 years, then stood still for 51 years, then advanced again for 25 years, then remained stationary for 58 years. The second peculiarity is that in the periods of rest, if they may be so described, the republic not only did not annex new provinces but strove earnestly to avoid it. It is not that opportunities were lacking, but that Rome refused to take advantage of them. One or two illustrations will suffice to make this clear. As was said above, in the 51 years between 197 B. C. and 146 B. C., Rome acquired no new territory. Yet in this time Rome carried on several important wars. From 200 B. C. to 196 B. C., Rome was engaged in the second Macedonian War. The result of that war was to place Greece and Macedon at her feet. Yet Rome contented herself with curtailing the power of Macedon and withdrew. Hardly had Rome withdrawn when in 192 B. C. Antiochus of Syria landed in Greece and Rome 62513°-15- -8 113 was forced into a war with him. The result of that war, which ended with the battle of Magnesia in 190 B. C., was to leave Rome mistress of Greece and Asia Minor. She gave up her conquests, annexed no territory, and withdrew her forces. In 171 B. C. Perseus, king of Macedon, began a war of revenge on Rome. He was crushed at the battle of Pydna in 168 B. C., and Macedon lay helpless. Instead of annexing Macedon, which had so far caused her no less than three wars, Rome abolished the Macedonian monarchy, divided the country into four republics, and went home. Nineteen years after Pydna, the Macedonians revolted under a pretender in 149 B. C. Then at length Rome yielded to the inevitable, and, as there was simply no other way of keeping Macedon quiet, she annexed it as a province at the beginning of the second period of expansion. Another instance of this same aversion to conquest is furnished by the province of Narbonensis. After Rome had acquired possessions in Spain it was, as has been pointed out very often, inevitable that she should seek to get a land connection between Spain and Italy. In ancient times the Mediterranean could only be navigated with safety at certain seasons, and it would thus be unwise in Rome to rely wholly on communications by sea with her provinces in Spain. All historians have felt the force of these considerations. What has not been explained is why Rome remained blind to them for 76 years. Perhaps we may attribute it in part to the policy of no expansion which prevailed from 197 B. C. to 146 B. C. Once she resumed her forward policy, the province of Narbonensis was annexed and land communications with Spain assured. One more instance of Roman anti-imperialism. In the second period of stagnation-from an imperial standpoint-Rome received a bequest of Egypt. The last legitimate Ptolemy in his will bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. The senate promptly declined it. Mommsen has attempted to explain this attitude of the senate. Egypt [he says], by its peculiar position and its financial organization, placed in the hands of any governor commanding it a pecuniary and naval power, and generally an independent authority, which were absolutely incompatible with the suspicious and feeble government of the oligarchy: in this point of view it was judicious to forego the direct possession of the country of the Nile.' Amplified and adapted to the special circumstances of each case, the reason given by Mommsen has been generally followed in explaining the reluctance of the senate to annex new provinces. Jealousy of the governor is the reason generally assigned, yet this can 1 Mommsen, "History of Rome." IV, 319. "That the 2 Thus Mr. Heitland, the latest historian of the Roman Republic, says: senate was anything but eager to annex provinces is clear enough, and was no doubt mainly due to the known difficulty of controlling distant governors." Though he also points out some other considerations, such as the influence of the "old Roman" party and the wealth or poverty of the province, he seems to regard the reason given above as the chief cause of the senate's attitude. "The Roman Republic," II, 187–188. |