Spoils in the Roman Republic: boon and bane

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

In 225 BCE, two Roman armies surrounded a force of Celtic tribes at Telamon. Some of the Celts fought naked, wearing only their golden torques and bracelets. This terrified the Romans (despite their favorable position) but also inspired them, since the ornaments stirred their “desire for profit.” The scene illustrates the relationship between empire and avarice nicely, but it also raises several questions. How did soldiers obtain these torques? It was usually trickier than (as T. Manlius had done just over a century earlier) killing an enemy and despoiling the corpse. As a form of moveable loot, were torques won in battle controlled by the general? Being made of gold they certainly had a value that might attract his attention. Or perhaps the commander would use them to recognize acts of valor?[1] However a soldier obtained one of these enticing torques, what would he do with it? Would he focus on its inherent commercial value, melting it down or trading it? Or would he, as others had, display it proudly on his home or person as a memento of his virtus and thereby enhance his standing within the community? There are many questions wrapped up not only with the torques at Telamon but with the logistics of spoil-taking and its immense value – economic and symbolic – in the culture of Republican Rome. Spoils in the Roman Republic covers many of them profitably.

The book is a sprawling collection, divided into five sections, some thematic and others chronological. There are three introductions. In the first, the editors establish the state of the question(s) regarding spoils in the Roman Republic and provide an outline of the volume. The following two are programmatic, alerting the reader to the volume’s two major themes: Beck discusses the impact of spoils on the city of Rome and the political culture that inhabited it, and Rosenstein introduces the debates surrounding the financial impact of spoils on the military and community. The following “comparative” section includes two pieces that discuss the taking of spoils in Greek history. In the first, Stefan Frass looks at raiding in the Homeric epics and points out that such activity often had negative consequences for the raider. Next, Michael Kleu’s piece finds that Macedonian practice controlled loot at a state level, whereas Roman distribution of spoils often had a more “private character.”

The next three chapters discuss the Early Republic. Jeremy Armstrong focuses on two “clusters of anomalies” in the fifth century: two early instances of commanders neglecting to distribute spoils and the debates over spoils that followed the sack of Veii (and elsewhere) at the turn of the fourth century. Armstrong reads these events together with the social tensions that accompanied them and makes a compelling argument for the role of spoils in the Republic’s transition from a quasi-privatized method of warfare to a more centralized, state operation. Turning to the fourth century, Peter Vanderpuy interrogates the problems that accompanied Rome’s early interest in land as a form of spoils, arguing that the seizure of land from small private farms had a negative ecological impact by erasing the surpluses and generational knowledge that had previously ensured their success.

Audrey Bertrand continues discussing land and elucidates the role of the victorious general in the creation of colonies. Because they took time to organize, colonies were a unique form of spoils. Nevertheless, Bertrand shows that generals had options for staying involved in the process and connects these actions with the development of a later, more state-level method for establishing colonies. Marian Helm’s piece – the title of which is a nod to the late, great Kurt Raaflaub – explores the connection between the events of the “long fourth century” and the rise of “predatory warfare.”[2] Interested primarily in the Samnite Wars, Helm argues convincingly that the annual occurrence of warfare and expansion of the legions accelerated the importance and impact of spoils in the city, encouraging the Roman People to adopt a voracious attitude towards conquest.

The section on the Middle Republic is divided into three subsections. The first deals with the “changing nature” of spoils. Saskia Roselaar reviews strategic considerations that colonization posed to the Senate, how the body chose locations that fortified the Republic’s control of conquered territories while also providing conditions for the colony’s economic stability. She separates from the pack, however, by questioning the notion that the end of the Latin War in 338 marked a sudden change in Roman colonization. Instead, Roselaar favors a gradual development of colonization practice following experimentation that extended into the third century. Marleen Termeer’s contribution on coinage shares similar conclusions. Despite their advantage (i.e., portability), coins, Termeer shows, were rarely used as a method for distributing wealth accrued by conquest in the third century. Those examples we do have, she suggests, were produced by commanders who, while testing the efficacy of coinage within a complex economic system, were likely more interested in their communicative potential.

Michael Taylor’s piece addresses the relationship between spoils and the funding of the Republic’s wars, a topic that has sparked a massive bibliography.[3] Specifically, Taylor is interested in the tributum. Although the tributum was (and is) often viewed as a loan (i.e., a tax repaid via spoils), Taylor argues that reimbursements were too small and too rare to support this view. Instead, he suggests that the tributum helped compensate for the inability of spoils to fund the Republic’s wars and, perhaps more importantly, encouraged military service (since one could avoid it by enlisting). Next, John Rich works with (while being sufficiently skeptical of) Livy’s reports of money led in triumphs from the Hannibalic War through Aemilius Paullus’ Macedonian triumph in 167, demonstrating that spoils often failed to fund the campaigns that secured them. Nevertheless, he points out that commanders (and to a lesser degree, soldiers) profited personally from the loot won in battle.

The next subsection addresses “modes of extraction,” and commences with Marta García Morcillo’s piece on the “networks of commercialization” that Roman victories generated. García Morcillo argues convincingly that ad hoc markets of different types (sub hasta, sub corona) served important goals by transforming cumbersome spoils into portable profit while ensuring the rights of the parties involved in the sale of spoils in the field (thereby also advertising state control over loot won in the field). Morcillo’s discussion of markets and methods aids the next chapter, Toni Ñaco del Hoyo’s and Gerard Cabezas-Guzmán’s examination of Roman practice in Spain in the third and second centuries. Where others have seen the legions’ extraction of wealth from the peninsula as an early iteration of a taxation system, Ñaco del Hoyo and Cabezas-Guzmán argue that Roman practice was more ad hoc and informal. Instead, they contend that Roman armies used raiding and spoils to meet short term needs (food, payment, etc.), rather than to direct gains back to Rome. Similarly, Bradley Jordan’s contribution examines the development of Roman policies in Asia. Our (mostly Late-Republican) sources stress the role of Asia’s wealth as the motivation for Roman intervention in the region, but Jordan argues that truly onerous economic exploitation emerged rather late in the province’s development. In fact, the state was more concerned with restricting the flow of Asian wealth into the city in the mid-second century,[4] an outlook that changed only after a cash-strapped Sulla reorganized the province in 85.

The third Middle-Republican subsection looks at the impact of spoils in Italy. Simon Lentzsch’s piece discusses how the chaotic landscape of Italy during the Hannibalic War prompted Roman armies to revert to earlier practice, raiding communities in allied regions. Most importantly, Lentzsch suggests that raiding during the Hannibalic War ultimately strengthened Roman control over Italy by offering it a new opportunity to redistribute the peninsula’s wealth. John Patterson’s piece focuses on spoils’ impact on Italian infrastructure and contends that the influx wealth was vital both for the promotion of prosperity on the peninsula as well as for the ability of Rome’s aristocratic gentes to advertise their success more widely.

Katharine Huemoeller’s contribution turns to “human spoils,” elucidating the commander’s options for exploiting captives. Some were straightforward (e.g., sale, labor), but others were more abstract. A general could, for example, gain political value from freeing captives. These considerations are underestimated, Huemoller argues, by those who discuss the profitability (or lack thereof) of the Republic’s wars. In this subsection’s final piece, François Gauthier examines the profitability of Middle-Republican wars for the soldiers, his main point being that the distribution of spoils among the soldiery was not so orderly as Polybius (and subsequently many scholars) imagined.[5] Gauthier argues that soldiers in the Middle Republic would have had little ability to predict a campaign’s profit. Instead, Gauthier emphasizes the more predictable social benefits of military service (reputation for virtus, standing in the community, etc.).

The volume’s final section examines the “symbolic dimension” of spoils and is thus led appropriately by Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp. Hölkeskamp’s piece takes a step back, returning to the third & fourth centuries to discuss the ways in which the procurement and (more importantly) display of spoils helped a new patrician-plebian aristocracy define itself and its values to the rest of the community. Driven by aristocratic competition, the “new elite” gradually developed a “web of significance” analogous to language, wherein spoils and dedications provided the “vocabulary” for an ever-evolving “grammar” of expectations surrounding what could/should be displayed and when and where.[6] Next, Laura Pfuntner considers the impact the taking (and return) of spoils in Sicily could have on a community’s sense of its identity and relationship with Rome. The taking of spoils created ties between Sicilian communities, the Republic, and the gentes of Roman commanders. She illustrates this nicely by examining Cicero’s rhetorical use of spoils in the Second Verrine. Finally, Michael Fronda’s contribution thinks about the transportation of spoils into Italy from transmarine conflicts. Fronda argues that spoils fueled a surge of construction and epigraphy in the second century, offering us material evidence for the impact of spoils on these communities. Additionally, Fronda suggests that the movement of spoils from port to the city created a kind of long triumphal procession that was more inclusive of Italian communities and their role in Roman expansion.

Clearly, there is much to like about the collection; it marshals a range of issues and perspectives in a way that facilitates meaningful connections among its pieces. Some of the conclusions will be familiar but nevertheless enriched by the discussion. Most importantly, the volume’s repeated emphasis on the prevalence and importance of experimentation in Roman practice advances the conversation on war loot in the Republic productively along several avenues. In a volume that is otherwise rather comprehensive, transgressing the boundaries that often exist between those interested in the economics and symbolism of spoils, it is somewhat surprising that there is no contribution that discusses directly the degree of control Roman commanders exercised over the loot won in their victories (a long and ongoing debate), but authors do make frequent use of the existing bibliography on the topic throughout.[7]

Like the taking of spoils itself, the volume’s appetite comes with some hazards. The comparative section adds little to the collection, most obviously because it does little by way of offering comparison. Both pieces remain firmly fixed on their respective Greek subjects, discussing these expertly but nodding to Roman practice only cursorily while concluding. Collas-Heddeland’s and Ungern-Sternberg’s pieces from Coudry and Humm’s Praeda (Stuttgart, 2009) do a better job of discussing the same topic comparatively and thus offer more value to their volume.[8] The book itself is well produced – including striking images in color in Termeer’s piece on coinage – but the lack of an index is regrettable. These are, however, minor critiques when compared to the insight and erudition the collection offers. To those interested in Republican society, Spoils in the Roman Republic is itself a boon.

Authors and Titles

Introductions

1. Saskia Roselaar & Marian Helm, “Spoils in the Roman Republic.”
2. Hans Beck, “Global Spoils on a Local Stage: The Case of Republican Rome.”
3. Nathan Rosenstein, “Spoils and the Roman Military.”

Comparative Section

4. Stefan Frass, “Homeric Society and the Bane of Raiding.”
5. Michael Kleu, “The Macedonian Approach to Spoils.”

Spoils in the Early Roman Republic

6. Jeremy Armstrong, “Spoils in Early Rome from the Regal Period to c.390 BCE.”
7. Peter Vanderpuy, “The Art of Acquisition: Land Distribution as Spoil and its Impact on Agriculture in the Fourth to Early Third Centuries BCE.”
8. Audrey Bertrand, “Spoils, Land and Colonization from the Latin War to the End of the Third Samnite War.”
9. Marian Helm, “Born to Plunder: Rome’s Shift towards Predatory Warfare in the Fourth Century BCE.”

Spoils in the Middle Republic – Value and Impact

The Changing Nature of Spoils in the Middle Republic

10. Saskia T. Roselaar, “The Grand Strategy?: Spoils and Colonization in the Fourth and Third Centuries BCE.”
11. Marleen K. Termeer, “Spoils and the Allies: Roman Warfare and Coinage Production in Italy before the End of the First Punic War.”
12. Michael Taylor, “Tributum and Spoils in the Middle Republic.”
13. John Rich, “Roman Spoils and Triumphs, 218-167 BCE.”

Modes of Extraction

14. Marta García Morcillo, “Markets on the Move: The Commercialization of Spoils of War in the Roman Republic.”
15. Gerard Cabezas-Guzmán and Toni Ñaco del Hoyo, “Spoils, Army Wages and Supplies in Rome’s Early Military Intervention in Hispania.”
16. Bradley Jordan, “The Revenues of Asia and the Evolution of the Res Publica.”

Impact of Spoils on Roman Italy

17. Simon Lentzsch, “Problems and Opportunities of Warfare in Allied Territory in the Second Punic War.”
18. John R. Patterson, “Spoils, Infrastructure and Politics in Rome and Italy.”
19. Katharine P.D. Huemoeller, “The Human Spoils of the Roman Republic.”
20. François Gauthier, “Plunder, Common Soldiers, and Military Service in the Third and Second Centuries BCE.

Symbolic Dimensions of Spoils

21. Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp, “The Self-Fashioning of the New Elite: Spoils as Representation of Victory.”
22. Laura Pfuntner, “Sicily, Rome, and the Communicative Power of Spoils.”
23. Michael P. Fronda, “Praeda, Latini and Socii: The Movement of Spoils in Italy in the Second Century BCE.”

Notes

[1] On Telamon: Polyb. 2.29.7-9. On Manlius: Liv. 7.104. On torques: Maxfield, V. 1981. The Military Decorations of the Roman Army. UC Press. pp. 86-88.

[2] Raaflaub, K. 1997. “Born to be Wolves?” In Transitions to Empire, eds. R.W. Wallace and E.M. Harris, 273-314. U Oklahoma Press.

[3] E.g., Frank, T. 1920. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Johns Hopkins Press; Rosenstein’s and Bleckman’s pieces (2016) in Money and Power in the Roman Republic, eds. H. Beck, M. Jehne and J. Serrati. Éditions Latomus; Taylor, M. 2017. “State Finance in the Middle Roman Republic: A Reevaluation.” AJPhil. 138: 143-180.

[4] See also chapter two of James Tan’s Power and Public Finance at Rome, 264-49 BCE (Oxford UP, 2017).

[5] Polyb. 10.15-16.

[6] For a similar discussion see Hölkeskamp, Roman Republican Reflections (Steiner, 2020): 97-113.

[7] E.g., Shatzman, I. 1972. “The Roman General’s Authority over Booty.” Historia 21: 177-205; Churchill, J.B. 1999. “Ex qua quod vellent facerent: Roman Magistrates’ Authority over Praeda and Manubiae.” TAPA 129: 85-116; Coudry, M. 2009. “Partage et gestion du butin dans la Rome républicaine: procedures et enjeux,” In Praeda. Butin de guerre et société dans la Rome républicaine, eds. Coudry, M. and Humm, M, pp. 21-79, Franz Verlag Steiner.

[8] Collas-Heddeland, E. “Faut-il libérer les prisonniers de guerre? Pratiques grecques et pratiques romaines” in Coudry and Humm (2009): 223-246; and Ungern-Sternberg, J, “Kriegsentschädigungen – eine vertraglich geregelte Forum der Beute?” in the same volume (pp. 247-264).