Philip Matyszak - Cataclysm 90 BC: The Forgotten War That Almost Destroyed Rome

First published in Great Britain in 2014 by
Pen & Sword Military
an imprint of
Pen & Sword Books Ltd
47 Church Street
Barnsley
South Yorkshire
S70 2AS

Copyright Philip Matyszak 2014

PRINT ISBN: 978 1 84884 789 7
EPUB ISBN: 978 147384 781 1
PRC ISBN: 978 1 47384 792 7

The right of Philip Matyszak to be identified as the Author of this
Work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British
Library

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing.

Typeset in Ehrhardt by
Mac Style Ltd, Bridlington, East Yorkshire
Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Group (UK) Ltd,
Croydon, CRO 4YY

Pen & Sword Books Ltd incorporates the imprints of Pen & Sword
Archaeology, Atlas, Aviation, Battleground, Discovery, Family
History, History, Maritime, Military, Naval, Politics, Railways, Select,
Transport, True Crime, and Fiction, Frontline Books, Leo Cooper,
Praetorian Press, Seaforth Publishing and Wharncliffe.

For a complete list of Pen & Sword titles please contact
PEN & SWORD BOOKS LIMITED
47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS, England
E-mail:
Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk

Contents

Italy circa 90 BC.

Introduction the Prophetic Polybius

T his book is a study of some very odd events of nations so desperate to give up their independence that they fought a war against the state that refused to take it; of the Roman Republic losing that war itself a rarity then winning by giving their enemies what they wanted. So the only instance in history of the opposite of a war of independence, was also one of the few cases where surrender brought victory to the losing side. It is also a study of how one war can create the conditions for the next and then merge almost seamlessly into it. In such topsy-turvy circumstances it is appropriate to start with a short text of whatever is the opposite of history. This was written by Polybius, the Greek diplomat and soldier, who describes pretty accurately events as they happened between thirty and one hundred years in his future.

Aristocracy by its very nature degenerates into oligarchy. Then the common people become infuriated with this government and take revenge on it for its unjust rule. So we get the development of democracy. In due course the permissiveness and lawlessness of this type of government degenerates into mob-rule, and the cycle is complete.

Polybius, Histories 6.3

Thus Polybius saw societies as revolving through six stages from anarchy to monarchy, through monarchy to tyranny, from tyranny to aristocracy, from aristocracy to oligarchy, and from oligarchy to democracy. Then from democracy to anarchy and round and around again. Writing in the late second century BC, at a time when Rome was the dominant power in the Mediterranean, Polybius believed that one of the reasons for Romes success was the stability of the political system. This, he opined, combined the best parts of the three best forms of government. Thus:

If one focussed on the power of the consuls, the constitution seemed completely monarchical and biased towards royalty. Again, if one concentrated on the senate it seemed aristocratic, and when one looked at the power of the common people [Rome] clearly appeared to be a democracy.

Polybius, Histories 6.11

The consuls provided the monarchical element, but they were prevented from becoming tyrants by the senate, which represented the aristocratic element. The senate was prevented from becoming oligarchical by the people, whose democracy was prevented from degenerating into mob rule by the monarchical and aristocratic elements, Yet even though this constitution was able to slow the cycle of human governance, Polybius was too cynical (or realistic) to believe that the process could altogether be stopped.

The truth of what I have just said will be quite clear to anyone who pays attention each form [of government] naturally arises and develops. One can see where, when, and how the growth, peak, change, and end of each form develops. And I believe that, above all, this formula can be successfully applied to the Roman constitution.

Polybius, Histories 6.3

For much of his mini-treatise of the Roman Republic, Polybius lauds the balance of the elements in the Rome of his day. He remarks how the aristocracy competed among each other to be of service to the state, how the consuls were chosen to lead the armies of Rome, and how the Roman people themselves were pious, honourable and public-spirited. Rome was in control of the Mediterranean world, and more importantly, Rome was in control of itself. Yet, in these glory days of the Roman Republic Polybius looked ahead. He saw Romes government degenerating, the system going out of balance and collapsing into chaos and near-anarchy. In short, he foresaw the century to come.

I think it is pretty clear what is going to happen next. When a state endures great danger and subsequently rises to supremacy and uncontested sovereignty, prosperity will become enduring. Under its influence, lifestyles will become more extravagant and the citizens will compete more fiercely than they should for public office and all that goes with it. For as degeneration begins, the first signs of the change for the worse be the coveting of office and the belief that obscurity is disgraceful.

Polybius, Histories 6.67

With the advantage of hindsight, this book will describe the unfolding of the developments that Polybius predicted with such foresight. It will also concentrate on something that Polybius, the soldier and statesman, took so much for granted that he did not bother to describe it the role of the army.

For when Polybius talks of the people he means the people of the Roman Republic, or of the Greek city-states that he knew. For Polybius the people in these states were not the slaves, the children or the womenfolk. They were not even the voters, though voting was an important function of the people. Above all, the people were the army. In the Greece that Polybius knew, and in the Rome of his day, the army was made up of citizens under arms. Many of these citizens enrolled in the levy at the start of the campaigning season in the expectation that they would go home to their family farms or businesses at the end of the year. When the people of such a state become disaffected, the result is not public demonstrations and the hurling of brickbats, or even rioting, which might be controlled by calling in the army. When the army is the people, things much more substantial than brickbats are thrown, and they are thrown with organized professionalism and since they are the army, the only thing that can stop them is another army.

The people will take the initiative, firstly when they feel aggrieved by individuals who have shown egregious covetousness, and secondly when they are puffed up by the flattery of those looking to hold office. Then, roused to fury, and their decisions ruled by emotion, they will no longer consent to obey or even to be the equals of their rulers.

Polybius, ibid.

And this is what happened in the early first century. Threatened by the migrating Cimbric hordes, Rome was indeed in great danger. This was overcome by a combination of good fortune and great generalship. However, the state that had overcome this peril was already sick, and the subsequent peace led as Polybius had predicted a generation before to vicious competition for public office. The aristocracy of the senate had already begun the slide to oligarchy in Polybius day, and what was once the most open and upwardly mobile of all ancient societies had become exclusionary and self-interested. This trend continued, and provoked the cataclysmic explosion of 91 BC. Yet, even when Roman backs were to the wall and the survival of the state itself in doubt, things could still get worse.