WHAT THE ROMAN ARMY WAS DOING WHEN NOT ENGAGED IN BATTLE?

The Roman army was an exceptional and efficient war machine that expressed loyalty to its leaders. However, the army mirrors the evolution of the Roman society as well. In fact, during the republican period, the army was not composed of professional soldiers and the people were drafted from their economic contribution to the Res Publica.In republican Rome the rule was: the more you own, the more you can afford in terms of weaponry and the more you can count when giving orders to other soldiers. The general Marius, uncle of Caesar, introduces an innovative measure: the army begins to be formed by people who owned nothing, and from citizens who were unemployed. The result of this change in the selection of the new recruits was that the new soldiers could serve for more than 20 years, and they were not eager to return back to Rome after the war to take care of their fields.
Marius reformation brought to the stage thousands of men eager to conquer new lands and have part of the booty. In addition, the Roman war machine was restless. When the Romans were off duty, they built bridges, aqueducts and forts. In Rome there is a popular monument that shows how the Roman army was very busy even when not fighting. The Trajan columns shows in its 35 scenes the history of the conquest of Dacia in the years 101- 106 AD. The bottom relief is very popular because it shows a pontoon bridge built by the Romans before crossing the Danube River.In the middle of the column there is also another scene that shows the Roman soldiers building a fort. The sceen is very emblematic of the committment of the Romans in building secure structures that could push back threatening forces.This post cannot end with the most popular construction that the Romans did at the time of the Samnite wars: the Appian way, that linked the city of Rome to the newly conquered Capua in 312 BC. More about Rome's history can now if you will join my tours.

THE GRAIN SUPPLY IN ANCIENT ROME

What needed to be done if there is a bad harvest, famine or poor citizens could not even afford to pay the rent of a field? This vexed problem spanned throughout the history of Rome, from the provisions of the nexum to the attempts of Caius Gracchus to help the Romans in need.In fact, the solutions proposed by his brother Tiberius regarding the equal distribution of the land among the Romans are not sufficient to respond if there is a plague or a long winter that dries the soil.
Romans started to deal with the distribution of grain at a reduced price in the early republican period: the grain was obtained from the provinces as taxes or as a spontaneous form of help sent to Rome. However, grain laws (called in Latin Leges frumentariae) became since their first implementation a propagandistic tool.The grain laws are recored not only in the Latin literature but also in the major monuments of Rome.
For example, the arch of Constantine has a relief, called "Largitio" in which the emperor is shown giving grain to the people. Similarly, reliefs of the emperor Marcus Aurelius show the same generosity of the Roman leader.The law proposed by Gaius Gracchus consisted in the sale at a fixed price of the grain: the grain could not cost more than 6 and one third asses of a modius that is to say it could not cost 6 and 1/3 asses for around 3 pounds per family, given that a standard Roman family was composed by 4 people. The patricians considered this law an absurdity because they believed that Gracchus law was funded with the state treasury and that, with an almost free distribution of grain, the poor would have not gone to work anymore.On the other hand the lex sempronia remains a way to solve the delicate issue of the growing immigration in Rome by the people who lost their assets when Rome expanded its power.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRIBUNAL

In the English language the word " tribunal" refers to a sort of administrative court, because the English and the Americans as well use the word " court" in the broader sense when they define the place where justice is done.The word " tribunal" comes from " tribune" and in ancient Rome referred to the main platform where the supreme magistrates and the tribunes as well spoke to the people. In reading the initiatives taken by Caius Gracchus after the death of his brother I have been surprised by one of his moves to gain more popularity and to speak more directly to the public. Until his time the senate had a rectangular shape and outside of it there was a circular staircase where the comitia were taking place. In order to be better heard and seen, Gaius Gracchus decided to speak from the tribunal of the Rostra, facing directly the people of Rome rather than being oriented towards the senate. This action is for me of extraordinary importance because it sets forth the principle of the direct participation of the people of Rome in the politics of that time and let them know that some political decisions of the aristocracy may affect them.The initiative of speaking from the tribunal of the Rostra (which is a rectangular podium located in the Roman Forum) makes evident that the new center of the political activity belongs to the people and not to the aristocracy.The etymology of the word tribunal still retains one of the main characteristics of the early division of the Romans by tribes.

A PORTRAIT OF THE GRACCHI ACCORDING TO PLUTARCH

When we read the fascinating pages of Plutarch about the Gracchi Brothers, our instinct realizes that these two powerful men came from the plebeians and gained the tribunate because of being sustained by the people.Nothing of all this. The Gracchis were not even among the homines novi but had illustrious origins, since their mother Cornelia was the daughter of the patrician Scipio Africanus,general of the Punic wars. The Gracchi were well educated and their modernity is in that they were aware that Rome's land needed to be assigned also to the people with no income and to the veterans who had fought of almost 35 years for Rome and at the moment of the discharge had nothing to sustain themselves.Tiberius and Gaius had already realized that Rome's territory was in constant growth and that the majority of the people were unhappy with the distribution of the wealth in the city. In addition, the Will of Attalus III from Pergamom was a chance of seeing for the first time Rome having equal citizens with equal rights and equal wealth. Unfortunately the history of these two brave brothers took different paths and they were both killed by the angry senators who saw in them an attempt to become tyrants.Plutarch in his narration gives us a powerful portrait of the the two brothers and emphasizes the differences they had. Tiberius was nine year older than Gaius and was a more charismatic person. Tiberius used to be calmer and measure his words. His charisma brought him many times to balance the diverging instances of patrician with the problems of the plebeians and he was a man of moderation and negotiation. Gaius, however, symbolized an endless energy and will to do things for the poor people of Rome. In terms of activity, Gaius was more prolific that his older brother,because he even envisioned that necessity for the Romans to have more roads,task that normally pertained to the senatorial decisions.

ON THE SENATUS CONSULTUM ULTIMUM

The legal science of the Romans was so developed that even in the constitutional affairs, they were able to keep pace with the changes of its society and with the political turmoil.The senatus consultum ultimum was a legal instrument that could be used by the senate at its own discretion. The senatus consultum ultimum was a complement to the dictatorship. It was first passed during the fall from power of Gaius Gracchus in 121 BC, and subsequently at several other points, including during Lepidus' march on Rome in 77 BC, the Conspiracy of Catiline in 63, and when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49. In fact,, when a bodyguard of Gaius Gracchus killed one of the consul's servant, the senaturs consultum was adopted by the senators and the equites, who were all called to arms.Although Gaius Gracchus occupied the Aventine, the consul took over and killed him and his supporters. The difference between the senatus consultum ultimum and the dictatorship is that the former attributes more powers to the consuls in a moment of danger in the Res Publica. It's a decree that implies promise of senatorial support. The dictatorship, however, is different in that, besides its short term of six months all the consitutional powers of the Roman state are in the hands of the dictator, who can really act as a pater familias,since he has the power of life and death on the Romans.In few words the scu gives the two Roman consuls the supreme power in the state an permits them to deal with a particular situation free from the normal restrictions on their imperium.On of the last uses of the scu was when Cicero was consul in 48 BCE. He asked to investigate on the letters written by Catilina, in which it was discussed an imminent plot against the Roman State. After having acquired the evidence and read the letters of Catilina in the senate, Cicero asked to be bestowed upon the scu and with this power he used the martial law and had Catilina executed.

HOW WAS DIVORCE IN ANCIENT ROME ?

In ancient Rome divorce was easy as getting married. Divorce was normally used among the wealthy patricians who simplified the legislation in order to ease the bureaucracy.Since marriage was a declaration, the divorce, which in Latin was called "repudium" was structured very similarly and consisted in a declaration or a letter in which it was stated the intention to not live together anymore.In case of divorce, the law stated that the declaration had to be pronounced or written before seven witnesses. The consequences of a divorce for a Roman matron,were that her dowry returned back to her in full and she could return back to the potestas of her father. However, if the woman was sui iuris, that is to say she was independent even before getting married, she would regain her independence upon divorce.Unfortunately,always in consequence of having less rights than their male conterparts,women could be divorced because of the adultery.However,the adultery (called stuprum) was legally sanctioned only against women but it never affected men who had the chance of having several mistresses at the same time, without incurring in law infringement.

THE LEGAL DISCIPLINE OF THE ROMAN MARRIAGE

It's now time to ask ourselves how the Romans get married and what kind of legal discipline had to follow to have a family.First of all an important main principle needs to be stated: the authority of the pater familias was extended to all the living members of his family, no matter if his sons were married. As a matter of fact, the daughters in law were subject not to the potestas of their husbands, but to the power of their fathers in laws until his death. Therefore, members of the same family, no matter if they were married and had their own family life, had obligations to the pater familias.This said in ancient Rome there were two forms of marriage: cum manu and sine manu. The marriage cum manu was subdivided in confaerratio, which was a religious ceremony celebrated in front of the Pontifex Maximus with the symbolic break of a piece of bread.The second form was the coemptio, which is a sort of "purchase": the bride had to go visit the father of the bride and stipulate a sort of contract in which money or other objects were paid to him in order to have the woman and marry her. The Usus was a very unformal provision according which a woman who was living for one year with a man in the same house, she was considered under the manus of her husband.in the sine manu marriage the wife legally and ritually remained a member of her father's family, standing under the control of her father's potestas. A sine manu marriage did not change the legal status of the bride after the marriage, in regards to property rights.Therefore, in the sine manu marriage the bride is not in control of her father in law and of her husband, at his father's death.
Although citizens, the women in ancient Rome could not vote in elections, take an active part in public or political life, sit on a jury or plead in court. Only after the revision of the Roman law made by Justinian at the end of the Roman empire,Women could inherit by testament and could write wills because Christianity saw their societal role under a different angle.