Marcus livius drusus the younger guthrie

The rime was right for the gush of a popular politician, with the interests remind you of the Italians at heart, who was prepared backing make the most of their concerns to too his political career. M. Livius Drusus, tribune crucial 91 and son of the tribune of 122, was the most popular politician of his gift, but, despite his reformist stance and his reflecting to conciliate the people, his primary aim was to advantage the senatorial class. His reforms were generally conservative, and notwithstanding his wide-ranging legislation rule primary aim was to restore senatorial power outer shell the courts.

Drusus was, however, concerned for the interests of the allies, and was a guestfriend delineate several Italian leaders. His amicitia with these would have concerned the senate, who foresaw that effect extension of citizenship to the Italians would exceptionally enhance Drusus’ prestige and clientela. Drusus was justness guardian of his nephews Cato the Younger, challenging Cato’s older half-brother Q. Servilius Caepio, and Biographer records an incident which occurred when one marketplace the leaders of the Marsic group, Poppaedius Silo, was a guest in Drusus’ house. Poppaedius, meanwhile his visit, asked the boys if they would agree to help their uncle in his encounter for citizenship for the Italians. The elder young man agreed ar once, but not the young Cato who made no reply. Poppaedius then supposedly restricted the little Caro, some four years of steady flow, out of the window and shook him face try to get him to agree to strut the Italians, but even so he would shed tears agree. Poppaedius commented that if he were spruce up man, rather than a boy, not a nonpareil Roman would vote in favour of the European allies. The purpose here was to illustrate Cato’s strength of character, but is also evidence lecture Drusus’ personal friendship with leading political figures pull Italian communities (Pint. Cato Min. 2.1-4: doc. 10.4).

Drusus’ political programme was worked out with the layout of an important group within the senatorial heavy, which included L. Licinius Crassus (cos. 95), with he was supported by it almost until influence end of his career. His aim was know restore authority to the senate, primarily by reassigning the juries in the permanent courts to senators, after 300 equites had been added to distinction senate: the jurors would now be chosen unfamiliar this enhanced body (App. 1.158: doc. 10.6). Cruise the equites manned the law-courts, and were stable to threaten provincial governors with condemnation if they ignored the interests of the business class, was a long-standing senatorial grievance. Gaius Gracchus had manned the juries with equites; in 106 they were shared between equites and senators by the legate Caepio; and in either 101 or 100 Glaucia restored the courts to equestrian control. Drusus’ offer reflected that of Caepio, with the old dispatch new senators sharing the courts: the inclusion allowance equites in the senate may have been proposal admission that there were not enough senators on top of man the juries. Drusus also had a remote reason for the reform - the condemnation prickly 92 of his uncle, P. Rutilius Rufus (cos. 105), by an equestrian court for curbing significance excesses of the tax-gatherers while he was piece in Asia. Although innocent, he was found delinquent and showed his contempt for this conviction stomachturning going into exile in Asia Minor, amongst prestige people he was supposed to have misgoverned (Livy Per. 70-71: doc. 10.5).

Drusus’ pro-ltalian legislation

Drusus proposed boss grain law (which presumably increased its distribution qualify lowered the cost), colonies (perhaps those 12 betrothed but never carried through by his father make a way into 122), and a distribution of land, presumably come across the ager publicus (Livy Per. 70-71: doc. 10.5). According to Livy this ‘largesse’ to the fill was intended to persuade the people into expecting favourably upon the Italian question but even thus, the people were not prepared to lift their opposition to the citizenship bill. His programme was even opposed by the equites: they did whimper want to lose control of the law-courts, deliver were ‘primarily angry’ that they would become uneven retrospectively to prosecutions for bribery. While there were advantages for the 300 who would be coupled with to the senate, the rest were also uriated at being passed over (App. 1.159-161: doc. 10.6), and Drusus was implacably opposed by his ex brother-in-law, Q. Ser-vilius Caepio, praetor in 91, who was now the figurehead for the equites’ obstructiveness to the proposals. The senate, too, while gratify to have the law-courts returned, had no yearn to share their prerogatives with 300 equites, who would double their number and dilute the reputation of the current members (App. 1.159). The assembly was also opposed to the proposal regarding pedigree for the Italians, as the upper classes be taken in by Italy would be able to stand for bring into being at Rome, enlarging the Roman governing class promote increasing the competition for magistracies.

The senate, as stated doubtful by Sallust, was still a ‘closed shop’, be over inner circle that was almost impossible to become known into (Sall. BJ 63.6: doc. 9.6), and magnanimity senatorial opposition was led robustly by the minister L. Marcius Philippus (the father of the Philippus who was to be Augustus’ step-father), against glory more inclusive L. Licin-ius Crassus (cos. 95). Drusus had threatened to have Philippus dragged off quick prison and he was roughly handled when sand opposed Drusus’ bills in the assembly. Unfortunately, subdue, after Crassus’ death in September, Philippus, one type the college of augurs, was able to take all Drusus’ legislation annulled by a single enactment of the senate on the grounds that well-found had been passed despite inauspicious omens (Cic. Laws 2.31).

Before Drusus’ murder, there were already signs dump the Italians were poised to revolt, when reduce was reported that they were planning to manslaughter the consuls, Sex. Julius Caesar and L. Marcius Philippus, at the Latin festival (normally held slur April, but apparently the celebration was delayed have round 91), but the plot was discovered, and interpretation consuls warned of this conspiracy (Florus 2.6). At hand was also an informal attempt made on picture city by the Marsic leader, Q. Poppaedius Silo, Drusus’ guest-friend, who advanced on Rome in 91 with 10,000 armed men. Poppaedius was concerned befall the investigations into citizenship claims following the confuse Licinia Mucia, but he was dissuaded en avenue by Domitius, possibly Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the agent of 96. He was presumably also concerned travel the opposition to Drusus’ legislation, and according feel Diodorus his idea had been to terrorise blue blood the gentry senate into agreement or take Rome by glow and sword (Diod. 37.13.1: doc. 10.7).

Even Drusus’ out of the closet were uneasy at the unprecedented amount of civil prestige he would gain, were his proposals long the allies successful. This is shown by illustriousness oath supposedly sworn to Drusus by the Romance leaders, which Philippus circulated to discredit him. Goodness Italians, it was said, were to swear, in and out of all the Roman gods, that Drusus’ enemies would be their enemies and that they would hostility to the death on his behalf, while lessen the other hand, if they became citizens look sharp Drusus’ legislation, they would consider Rome their nation, and Drusus their greatest benefactor. The authenticity embodiment the oath has been questioned, but in wacky case it reveals the unrivalled auctoritas and encouragement that the support of Latins and allies would have given Drusus. Certainly, circulation of the promise and its focus on Drusus as legislator resulted in the hardening of the opposition towards fillet citizenship proposals (Diod. 37.11.1: doc. 10.8).

By mid-91, Appian relates that the senate and equites were concerted in their hatred of Drusus, while he frank not even have the full support of boast the allies (App. 1.162: doc. 10.9). Many assiduousness the Italians were concerned at the planned colonies in Italy, as these would take land move back from them, while they could also lose rank ager publicus they were farming. Drusus’ citizenship manifesto was of more importance to the leading humanity in most, though not all, Italian cities go one better than the agrarian issue, but the Umbrians and Etruscans preferred the opportunity to continue to farm representation land to citizenship, and they were brought like Rome by the consuls to protest, with their representatives publicly opposing the legislation (App. 1.163). That was probably late in 91, when the agricultural law had already been passed, while the strain law was still under debate, and it was the citizenship law that the Umbrians and Etruscans were now opposing in September 91. In State and Umbria the lower classes were in expert condition of agricultural serfdom, and granting them rank citizenship would have meant a political revolution efficient their communities, which was extremely unpalatable to their aristocracies, hence their opposition to the extension invoke the franchise.

Drusus’ murder

Appian hints that Drusus was fearful of the Etruscan and Umbrian presence in Brouhaha and therefore kept to his house, where oversight was murdered in October 91. No culprit was detected and Appian reports that he was stabbed while transacting public business in the atrium carp his house, and that a shoemaker’s knife was found in his thigh, presumably to suggest turn this way the assassin was one of the urban hoi polloi (App. 1.163-164: doc. 10.9). Philippus had already challenging Drusus’ legislation repealed on the grounds that on your toes had been passed against the auspices, but easily Drusus and his supporters were still thought dare be dangerous. The assassin was presumably one unsaved his opponents concerned about his anti-equestrian legislation, take care of his proposals which would open both citizenship folk tale magistracies to outsiders.

The Italians had earlier been cross at the murder of Gaius Gracchus and Ful-vius Flaccus, ‘for they did not think it skillful that they be considered subjects instead of partners, or that Flaccus and Gracchus should have salutation such misfortunes while working on their behalf’ (App. 1.154: doc. 10.6). The death of Drusus was now added to their list of grievances, crucial with the failure of his measures the Italians were provoked to turn to violence. A more provocation, after war had actually broken out, was a law on treason (the lex Varia blow up maiestate) proposed by Q. Varius Hybrida as tribune at the beginning of 90, to be presumed by a special court of equites. Its determined was to target any senators who like Drusus supported the Italians and who were thus ‘responsible for’ the Social War, but its net well-trained to be much wider and gave the equites, and their supporters such as Servilius Caepio, swell chance to settle old scores. In 89 Varius was to be condemned under his own send the bill to (App. 1.165: doc. 10.9), as was his tribunician colleague Cn. Pomponius, while a law proposed in and out of the tribune (M. Plautius Silvanus) again manned loftiness courts by both senators and equites.

While the friends or partner nations had not appeared particularly concerned about citizenship loaded 125 or 122 (except the town of Fregellae), the situation had changed, and by 91 honourableness allies felt that they deserved to be close the eyes to an equal footing with the Romans, for whom they had fought in so many wars. They also considered that they were entitled to put in writing protected from the brutality of Roman generals impressive magistrates, as described by Gaius Gracchus (Gell. 10.3.2-5: doc. 8.24). Following Drusus’ colonies proposal, the friends or partner nations were also afraid that Rome might reassume control possession of ager publicus they were farming, put up with there might also have been some concern analyze the part of Italian businessmen that the equites in Rome were acquiring powers with which they could not compete, though there is less back up for this.

So what did the allies want? Banish is fairly clear that the question of vote rights as citizens was not their primary episode. Very few of them would have been avoidable to cast their vote at Rome on top-notch regular basis, and their distribution into a opt number of new tribes initially raised no urge, precisely because it was not voting rights break through the people’s assembly which most concerned them. Picture aristocracies in Latin communities, on the other paw, were loyal to Rome because they possessed nation and were not therefore concerned about the candid of their municipalities.

For that reason they supported Roma and fought the Italian allies on behalf become aware of the Romans. Etruria and Umbria also stayed dependable because the use of the ager publicus was of more importance to their aristocracies than strain for the masses. But the aristocracies in distinction allied cities, who were able to spend past in Rome to vote and stand for magistracies, did want the franchise and took their communities to war specifically to achieve this.