für den Kampf xarà IIɛgoor kundgab1), zumal in Sparta, wo die Teilnahme daran in der Folge, wie die Denkmäler zeigen, als besonderer Ruhmestitel geschätzt wurde und dem Staatssklaven Neikokles sogar die Ehre öffentlicher Speisung einbrachte. Dass schon zur Zeit des Partherkrieges des Verus Aushebungen in Griechenland mindestens geplant, wohl auch tatsächlich durchgeführt wurden, dafür spricht Polyainos strateg. I praef. § 2, der den Kaisern anlässlich des Περσῶν καὶ Παρθυαίων πόλεuos (oben S. 360 A. 3) sein Buch widmet, gewissermassen als Ersatz dafür, dass er nicht mehr selbst Kriegsdienste leisten kann: ei μèv nμaté μοι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ στρατιώτης πρόθυμος ἂν ἐγενόμην Μακεδονικῇ δώμῃ χρώμενος. Die damals nach CIG 1495 (n. 3) εἰς τὴν εὐτυχεστάτην συν μαχίαν berufenen Spartiaten bilden also ein Seitenstuck zu dem σύμμαχος diwyμɛing, den ein städtischer Würdenträger des phrygischen Aizanoi um das J. 165 dem Verus zur Verfügung stellte (Dittenberger, Or. gr. II n. 511; u. Abschn. III). Noch grösser aber war der Mangel an Wehrfähigen seit dem J. 169, zur Zeit also, wo neben dem Bellum Germanicum und zahlreichen anderen Verwicklungen in verschiedenen Teilen des Reiches noch die Gefahr eines neuen Partherkriegs entstand. Nach Vita Marci 21, 6-8, einer Stelle, die dem vorzüglichen sachlich-historischen Bestand angehört, verschmähte man damals neben Gladiatoren und Freibeutern weder Sklaven noch Polizeidiener, wie es die speziell in Asien stehenden Diogmiten waren: (6) serros, quemadmodum bello Punico factum fuerat 2), ad militiam paravit, quos voluntarios exemplo volonum appellavit . . . (8) armavit et diocmitas. Unter solchen Verhältnissen hat die jedenfalls von der spartanischen Gemeinde verfügte Einstellung von Leuten, die wie der δημόσιος Neikokles oder der αγωγός Antipatros sklaven und Polizisten waren, weiter nichts befremdliches. Zu ihnen werden sich noch andere Elemente gesellt haben; die Zahl der so an den Partherkämpfen beteiligten Spartaner wird, wie auch Wolters (S. 297) richtig bemerkt, nach den erhaltenen Spuren nicht allzu gering anzuschlagen sein. Die Stellung der aus der civitas foederata Konskribierten im Heere war, wie CIG 1495 (n. 3) ausdrücklich bezeugt, die von Bündnern (ovuuazot, bei Hygin symmacharii) 3), die als irreguläre Leichtbewaffnete,

-

zugleich Staats

1) Der Parthersieg des Verus gab den athenischen Epheben Veranlassung, die Feier des Tages von Plataiai zu erneuern, F. W. Unger, Iwan v. Müllers Handb. I2 761 f. 2) Aehnlich unter Augustus im J. 6 n. Chr.: V. Gardthausen, Augustus II 776 f., 25; unter Hadrian, Vita H. 13, 7. Vgl. im allg. Marquardt-v. Domaszewski, Staatsrerw. II2 433 mit A. 4-6.

3) Auch die Angehörigen der in Roms Klientel stehenden Stämme sowie der unabhängigen Barbarenreiche dienen als Giuuazo (seit dem 4. Jahrh. auch lateinisch bezeugt: foederati); vgl. Mommsen, Hermes XXII 547 ff. (= Ges. Schr. VI S. 145 ff.), bes. S. 550, 4 (= S. 148, 3); XXIV 217 mit A. 3 (= Ges. Schr. VI 226 m. A. 5); meine Bem. Klio Beiheft VIII 63, 1. Zur Stellung der ouuazo in der Marsch- und Lagerordnung s. v. Domaszewski in der Ausgabe des Hyginus 57 f.; Marcus-Saule 110, 2.

366 A. v. Premerstein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Marcus.

deren einen das Relief des M. Aurelios Alexys (n. 1) zeigt, formiert und verwendet wurden. Im Drange der Verhältnisse standen weder Zeit noch Mittel zugebote, sie so sorgfältig auszurüsten und einzuexerzieren, wie dies Dio (LXXVII 7, 1 f.; 18, 1) von der makedonischen Phalanx des Caracalla berichtet. So wird es denn auch begreiflich, wenn Alexys auf seinem Relief eine so eigentümliche Waffe führt, wie die Keule, welche nach den von Wolters (S. 298 f.) zusammengestellten Zeugnissen auf griechischem Boden in historischer Zeit sonst kaum jemals1) - jedenfalls aber nicht bei den Spartiaten zur ordentlichen Kriegsausrüstung gehörte und auch im römischen Heeresverbande in aller Regel nur barbarischen Hilfstruppen letzten Ranges zukam). Die Keule (zogvry) war eben die Spezialwaffe der Polizisten, gleichviel ob diese Staatssklaven (onuóσio) 3) waren, wie jener Neikokles, oder Freigeborene, wie etwa M. Aurelios Alexys, der einen Theon als Vater nennt; insbesondere waren auch die doyuîra in den asiatischen Landschaften höchst wahrscheinlich damit ausgerüstet1). Bei ihrer Einreihung als oouuazo war es nur praktisch, ihnen die schon im Frieden vertraute Waffe zu belassen.

Athen.

1) In der Form wesentlich verschieden sind die von Reinach a. a. O. p. 271 herangezogenen Knüttel, welche auf thessalischen Münzbildern erscheinen.

2) Wolters S. 299 mit A. 5; E. Saglio, Dict. des ant. I 1237 f. (Traianssäule). Nach Zosimos I 53, 2 f. (angeführt von Chapot a. a. O. p. 95, 3) hatten im Kampfe Aurelians gegen Palmyra die Truppen aus Palästina ausser den anderen Waffen zopiraç καὶ ῥόπαλα.

3) Ueber ihre polizeilichen Funktionen Thalheim, R. E. V 161 f.; W. Liebenam, Städtererw. 296, 2; I. Lévy, Revue des ét. gr. XII (1899) 287, 3; G. Cardinali, Rendiconti dell' Acc. dei Lincei, sc. mor., serie V, XVII (1908) 157; 164. In Aegypten heissen dnuógio die Dorfvorsteher und ihr Polizeipersonal: Mommsen, Strafrecht 307, 1; J. G. Milne, A history of Egypt under Roman rule (1898) 212; N. Hohlwein, Musée belge VI (1902) 161; 162 f., 3: 166, 4; IX (1905) 189 ff.; 394; gegen diesen U. Wilcken, Archiv für Papyrusf. IV 223 n. 87 und (nunmehr zustimmend) ebda. V 441. Vgl. Pollux onom. III 83: μεταξὺ δὲ ἐλευθέρων καὶ δούλων οἱ ... Σικυωνίων κορυνηφόροι; zu diesen G. Busolt, Griech. Gesch. 12 211; 216, 2; Liebenam a. a. O. S. 358. Keulenträger (zooringógo) sollten auch die Leibgarde des Peisistratos bilden; die Belege bei G. Busolt, Griech. Gesch. II2 311, 1, dazu St. Waszyński, De servis Athen. publicis (Diss. Berlin 1898) 27.

4) Zur Bewaffnung der d., welche Ammianus Marc. XXVII 9,6 semiermes nennt, mit uzaugu (Schwertern) und giża (offenbar Keulen) s. O. Hirschfeld, Berliner Sitzungsber. 1891 II S. 873 mit A. 138 ff. Wie R. Cagnat, De municip, et provine, militis (Paris 1880) 39 und Hirschfeld a. a. O. A. 142 bemerkten, werden die zoovvyφόροι παρὰ τοῖς εἰρηνοφύλαξιν bei Libanios orat. XLVIII 9 (πρὸς τὴν βουλήν) I p. 530 R. (III p. 433, 1 s. ed. Foerster) von den diozuitau, welche den Eirenarchen zurseite standen, schwerlich verschieden sein.

367

On Rome's conquest of Sabinum, Picenum and Etruria.

By Tenney Frank.

The generally accepted view of Rome's method of subjugating and disposing of the Sabines in the third century B. C. is now, apparently, the one given by Mommsen in CIL IX, p. 396. To outline briefly, Mommsen holds that in 290 B. C. the Romans devastated the Sabine country, driving out most of the natives (plurimos exterminarunt); they then assigned a part of the conquered territory to their own citizens, without the formality of colonization, sold some of it, but kept the greater part as public land for the sake of revenue. A few natives were left in undisturbed possession of their lands, and given Roman citizenship : half rights, immediately, and full rights in 268.

If one examines all the trustworthy evidence now available, however, I think one must arrive at quite a different conclusion, namely, that the native Sabines were left in the possession of most of their land, being by degrees admitted into full citizenship, and that, though a part of their territory was taken as war indemnity, we are not justified in assuming that Rome assigned any of the Sabine land to her own citizens with or without colonization, nor sold any part of it at that time.

We need not trouble ourselves to prove that the inhabitants of Sabinum were Roman citizens at least after 225 B. C. 1). The fact is generally acknowledged. The question is whether or not those citizens were native Sabines. The documentary evidence is as follows: Velleius I, 14 says explicitly: M. Curio et Rufino Cornelio consulibus (290) Sabinis sine suffragio data civitas, ... Sempronio Sopho et Appio consulibus (268), suffragi ferendi ius Sabinis datum. Cicero says on two different occasions (De Off. I, 35, and Pro Balb. 31) that citizenship was early given to the Sabines, and Livy (XL, 46, 12 and XLII, 34, 2) relates incidents that contain the same information by implication. This combined testimony of independent sources not only makes it clear that at least some portions of the Sabine people were early given Roman citizenship but it leaves a

1) Niese, R. G. p. 71, on the strength of Pol. II, 24, assumes that the Sabines were still allies in 225. Considering however that Polybius probably includes the Picentes and Praetuttii under the term Sabini, and that at best their number is exceedingly small, this one passage alone can hardly bear the burden he places upon it.

strong presumption that in the first century B. C. the belief was prevalent that the Sabines as a whole were left in possession of their country and granted Roman rights.

In support of these explicit affirmations we may add a number of less direct, nevertheless noteworthy considerations.

1) Strabo for instance has no idea that the original inhabitants were supplanted by the Romans, as is apparent from his words in Bk. V, 228 ἔστι δὲ καὶ παλαιότατον γένος οἱ Σαβῖνοι καὶ αὐτόχθονες . . . . ἀντέσχον μέχρι πρὸς τὸν παρόντα χρόνον. He apparently includes as the cities of this stock all the well-known municipalities of the Sabine region.

2) Livy XXVIII, 45, 19, by recording the offers of volunteers from the Nursini, Reatini et Amiternini Sabinusque omnis ager among those of the Umbrian and other Sabellic peoples, implies at least that these are of non-Roman stock, otherwise the offer would hardly have seemed worthy of special note.

3) Evidence of a different nature may be gathered from Schulten's studies of some Italic names as presented in Klio, II and III. From his list, it is apparent that the percentage of peculiarly Sabellic names in (edius and idius is nearly as large for inscriptions from Sabinum as for those of the neighboring tribes whose native stock unquestionably remained undisturbed. If the percentage is not quite as large, the explanation lies in the fact that this district was so near Rome that it attracted a considerable immigration from the city. Conway's list of personal names (It. Dial. p. 367) will in convenient form furnish material for additional linguistic proof.

4) The political organization of Sabinum also lends support to our contention). Festus (M. 233) includes Reate and Nursia in a list of prefectures, all of which, with one late exception, consisted of native Italic peoples who had early been given half citizenship by Rome. Furthermore, inscriptions show that the Sabine towns of Amiternum, Nursia, Trebula and Interamnia Praetuttiorum employed the peculiar magistracy of the octovirate 2), a fact that is more easily explained on the assumption that it was a survival of a native form of government in that region than

1) Since Niese has proved that the Campanian cities were foederata and not incorporated into the Roman domain before 210 B. C., it follows that we must also bring down the date of the Campanian prefectures to 210. If we now examine Festus' lists from this point of view, we find that the distinction between his two classes may fundamentally have been a chronological one, since the second group, with one peculiar exception, dates before 290, while the first class dates after 210. If this difference actually points to a historical change, there is further significance in the presence of the Sabine prefectures here.

2) Plestia in Umbria is so near the Sabine country that the presence of octoviri there may point to a Sabine origin of the town.

that it was of Roman invention, since it does not seem to occur in municipalities organized by the Romans at this time.

5) Finally, I would point to the strong probability that Rome did not thus early so disregard her treaty obligations with her Italic allies as to take land in Italy for her own use, whether for assignation to individual citizens, for sale, or for the Roman public domain. This point has not been made before, I think, and it cannot even be established absolutely, but a survey of Roman policy so far as it can be determined for the century following the Latin war will at least establish a probability that during that period Rome fairly divided the fruits of war with her allies, reserving for herself and doubtless by explicit stipulation only the special privilege of planting small maritime colonies of 300 trustworthy citizens at critical coastal points.

The full discussion of this statement must rest at present, with only an indication of the chief evidence. We know for instance that the allies, at least during the third century, shared not only as individual soldiers in the military donatives, but also as communities in the apportionment of booty to the municipal treasuries (Beloch, It. Bund, 217; Mommsen St. R. III 680). Now the most important material fruit of a war was a portion of the land taken, according to an old Italic practice, by way of war indemnity. Many incidental references naturally lead to the conclusion that the allies also shared fairly in the distribution of this form of booty. The evidence 1) is well known, and should, I think, satisfactorily prove that the clause relating to the booty in the so-called foedus Cassianum) was also incorporated in the new treaties signed with the Latins and Campanians about 340-38, and probably in most of the Italic treaties made before the Pyrrhic war.

The reason why this apparently logical conclusion has not long ago been accepted seems to be that the annals contained so much regarding the distribution of Roman public lands to poor citizens that the historian seemed compelled to assume some source for the acquisition of so much land. Most of these references, however, can now be disregarded as anachronistic (Niese, Hermes 23 p. 410). A brief examination of Rome's method. of disposing of captured land during the century following 340 will prove that she must have been obeying some such regulation as we have assumed. A few new tribus of Roman citizens were, to be sure, formed, but in such a way as to betray the fact that Rome had not a free hand. The Maecian and Scaptian tribes (332 B. C.), whether settled by new assignments, or, as is more likely, simply organized for the reception of

1) See Serv. Aen. I, 12; Liv. 42, 4; 34, 42; 33, 24, Lex agr. 1. 29 etc., also Mommsen St. R. II 636.

2) Dating the treaty after 390, but considering it otherwise in the main as an authentic document.