SOCII
SOCII The term
socii is the most
general of the many terms used to denote a class of states which, though in
partial dependence on Rome and acknowledging to the full the Roman hegemony,
were yet, through the possession of certain political privileges, not
regarded as subject states, and were therefore strictly outside the circle
of provincial administration. It was the most general term, since it denoted
the only common bond which united these states with one another and with
Rome. The separate relations that Rome might have with these states were
manifold, but the basis of this union was the idea of an armed alliance, of
which Rome was the head. This is expressed in the word
socius, and still more clearly in its Greek form of
σύμμαχος.. The socii of Rome were those who were
regarded as having entered into a perpetual military alliance with the
ruling state; but the term
socius hardly
extends so far as the alliance itself. The original nucleus of this
alliance, which embraced the whole of Italy and many states outside Italy,
was the Latin league. But the Latins were as a rule distinguished from the
socii, chiefly on account of the peculiar privileges they enjoyed in
relation to Rome [LATINITAS], which were pot shared by the other allied
communities. This distinction is shown in such expressions as
socii ac nominis Latini (
Liv.
41.8,
9),
socii et
Latium (Sall.
Hist. 1.17), and
perhaps in
socii Latini nominis, if this is to
be regarded as an asyndeton (Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. p. 661,
n. 2 and 3). At the other end of the scale we find socii sometimes used
loosely to describe purely subject states. Such usage naturally gained
ground after the Social war had merged the Italian states, the original
socii, in Rome, and caused a sharp distinction to be drawn between Romanised
Italy and the mainly dependent outer world: but the usage is incorrect, and
down to the end of the Republic we find the distinction drawn between the
socii, whose alliance with Rome necessarily implied some degree of
independence, and the purely subject states which fell under provincial rule
(Cic.
in Caecin. 3, 7, “socii
stipendiariique.”
Suet. Jul. 25, “omnem Galliam praeter
socias civitates in provinciae formam redegit” ).
The earliest political union under Rome, which formed the type of future
unions, was the Latin league. The circle of alliance was subsequently
extended outside the bounds of Latium by the break up of confederacies such
as the Hernican and the Samnite, and the reception of the states, as well as
of the Greek towns of the south of Italy, into the Roman confederacy; while
the mixed nationalities of these new acquisitions, and the definite military
burdens imposed upon the states so received, gave the alliance a purely
military and political significance, in which the older bonds which drew
these states together, community of blood and language, were wholly lost.
The effect of this extension was to present Italy (Greek, Latin and Oscan)
as a united whole, and to create a new nationality, of which the
geographical and political significances were coincident, that of the
Italici. This term was at first coincident
with the expression
socii nominisque Latini;
but as the socii soon came to include favoured states in the extra-Italian
world, such as Athens and Rhodes, it soon ceased to denote an exclusive
political status, and became merely a descriptive expression. To the similar
connexion, into which Rome entered with states outside Italy, the already
organised Italian alliance gave the form in all its main outlines; there was
the same recognition of independence and autonomy which was necessary to
constitute alliance, although of necessity certain elements which entered
into the Italian were less strongly marked in the extra-Italian union. This
was particularly the case as regards the fixed military duties of the
allies. In Italy such military requisitions were fixed, regular, and
frequent, and the Italians furnished the large portion of the land forces
which were Rome's chief source of power: the Greek states, on the contrary,
like Neapolis and Rhodes, were generally requisitioned to furnish ships; and
as the marine of the Romans attained nothing like the permanent importance
of their land army, fixed requisitions on the extra-Italian allies were less
frequent, and far less of a ruling element in the bond that connected them
with the Romans. But the power to make requisitions always remained an
essential part of the theory (
Liv. 45.25;
Plb. 21.1,
4), and this
condition was the same for the Italian and the non-Italian socii; it carried
with it the idea of subjection as clearly as that of partial independence.
But the notion of subjection was expressed more in the fact than in the legal
theory. It was shown most clearly by that intermediate position in which the
state in question stood, before the terms of alliance were definitely
concluded with it. This was the condition expressed by the word
deditio. A community that as yet had no definite
status in the Roman Empire, and yet sought such a status, had first to
surrender itself to the power (
in dicionem,
Liv. 37.45,
2;
in potestatem,
Liv. 39.54,
7), or
the honour (
in fidem,
Liv. 8.2,
13) of the
Roman people, for the expressions “in fidem” and “in
dicionem,” though they are sometimes distinguished, according as
the expectations and desires of the conquered people are considered, express
the same condition (
Plb. 20.9,
12,
παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις
ἰσοδυναμεῖ τό τε εἰς τὴν πίστιν αὑτὸν ἐγχειρίσαι καὶ τὸ τὴν
ἐπιτροπὴν δοῦναι περὶ αὑτοῦ τῷ κρατοῦντι). A
community that had come into this condition had no legal rights to be
considered, and no legal claims to urge. If an alliance was sought and
accepted, the terms of this alliance were dictated by the Romans; if such
autonomy continued to be possessed by the state as was
[p. 2.682]necessary to constitute it a
socia
civitas, such autonomy was restored to it by the Romans. The
international relations that followed this condition of temporary subjection
were manifold: and the various relations towards herself that Rome imposed
on such communities, as expressed by the terms
foedus,
libertas,
αὐτονομία, cannot be sharply
distinguished. These terms, though they may be used to denote different
sides of the same status, yet express an ascending scale of rights,
αὐτονομία involving least,
foedus most. A state is self-governing (
αὐτόνομος) in virtue of the enjoyment of its own laws: free
(
libera) in virtue of the nominally
sovereign independence it enjoys in relation with Rome. Lastly,
foedus existed between Rome and any state that had a
sworn and therefore binding compact with Rome; but the term
foederati was apparently not applied to all states
that had such a treaty. It was not usually applied to the Latin communities,
although strictly speaking they were
foederati
(Cic.
pro Balbo, 24, 54, “Latinis, id est
foederatis” ), for the same reason that they did not come under
the generic title
socii, because their position
was higher than that of the ordinary socii or foederati. Again the term
foederati was not employed to denote the
dependent kingdoms or dynasties that had terms of alliance with Rome. The
standing relations between Rome and these
reges
socii being only regarded as binding during the lifetime of the
ruling prince and having to be renewed with his successor, these
communities, though regarded as members of the armed alliance, and therefore
as
socii, were not regarded as having their
position secured by a lasting and irrevocable alliance, and were not
therefore spoken of as
foederati: and thus we
find the
reges not included in but classed by
the side of the
populi liberi and the
foederati, in the enumeration of the different kinds
of states that stood in any degree of permanent relationship with Rome
(Aelius Gallus, ap. Fest. s. v.
postliminium,
p. 218, “cum populis liberis et cum foederatis et cum regibus
postliminium nobis est ita uti cum hostibus” ). The distinction
between
liberi and
foederati is the distinction between states that were independent
of any other sovereign power (
Dig. 49,
15,
7,
1, “liber populus est qui nullius alterius populi potestati
est subjectus” ), and states the independence of which was
recognised by a binding treaty. Every
foederata
was of necessity also a
libera civitas, since
no treaty could be concluded with a state that did not possess the sovereign
power expressed in
libertas: but a state might
be libera, and have all the advantages which the recognition of independence
conferred, without having what was in this case merely a permitted
independence, recognised by a treaty the observance of which was guaranteed
by the community that dictated it, without being, that is, a
foederata civitas (
ἐπὶ
συνθήκαις ἔνορκοι,,
App. BC 1,
102), or as it was sometimes more fully called a
libera et foederata civitas (
Plin. Ep. 92;
Suet. Cal. 3;
Niebuhr,
Hist. of Rome, iii. p. 616; Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. pp. 656, 657). In the terms of the foedus
concluded between Rome and an Italian or non-Italian state, there was always
practically a recognition of semi-dependence in the latter, and an assertion
that the fullest hegemony was vested in the central state; but in some of
these treaties there was a formal recognition to the same effect contained
in the clause that the state to which the treaty was granted “should
respect the majesty of the Roman people.” A treaty containing
this clause did not technically diminish the
libertas of the state with which it was concluded, but merely
asserted--what in every foedus was tacitly implied--the superiority of the
state which dictated the treaty (
Dig. 49,
15,
7,
1, “hoc adjicitur, ut intellegatur alterum populum superiorem
esse, non ut intellegatur alterum non esse liberunm.” Cic.
pro Balbo, 16, 35, “ille in foedere
inferior cum alterius populi majestas conservari jubetur” ).
Vague as the expressions
foedus aequum, foedus
iniquum are, yet, when strictly employed, they appear respectively
to denote a treaty the character of which was determined by the absence or
presence of this restrictive clause (Dig.
1. c.:
“is foederatus est item sive aequo foedere in amicitiam venit sive
comprehensum est ut is populus alterius populi majestatem comiter
conservaret” ).
Every alliance implies the sacrifice of some rights on the part of the
contracting states. The nature of the rights sacrificed on either side shows
the equality or inequality of the alliance: and the real dependence of the
socii on Rome was strongly marked by the perpetual sacrifice of certain
rights on their part which were inconsistent with the hegemony of Rome. Such
was the renunciation of the free right of declaring war, which was
accompanied by the loss of the parallel right of making independent
treaties; the sole exceptions are to be found in the case of the more
distant
reges socii, such as those of
Mauritania and Cappadocia, who exercised the right, which was perhaps not
formally denied to them, of conducting border wars on their own account. The
Roman principle of the separation of interests also insisted on the breaking
up of the standing national confederations within the allied states. The
merging of the Latin confederacy in Rome had been followed by the break--up
of the Hernican and Etruscan leagues, and no hegemony, such as that
exercised by Rome over her socii, was permitted to any of these allied
states over others, the “octo oppida sub dicione
Praenestinorum” mentioned by Livy (
6.29）
being probably an exceptional
clientela entered
into for the purposes of revolt (Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. p.
658, n. 1). In the provinces also the ancient
συμμαχίαι were broken up. This was the case with Athens,
whose dependencies when retained became, as the island of Delos did, her
actual possessions, which may have been regarded as cleruchies, and which
were governed directly by Athenian
ἐπιμεληταί (Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. i. p. 425).
Similarly, with the entrance of Rhodes into direct
societas with Rome, her hegemony over Lycia and Caria was
lost (
Plb. 30.5,
12;
Liv. 44.15,
1).
The most distinctive duties performed by the allies of Rome were those
connected with purposes of war. The idea of the alliance presupposed warlike
service, and the position of Rome with respect to her allies no doubt
carried with it the right to an indefinite demand for such service whenever
occasion required. As regards the Italian allies, there were definite
regulations as to the amount of the contingents they were
[p. 2.683]expected to furnish. The same was the case with the Greek
states, the usual requisition on which was ships of war. The amount of the
contingent was definitely fixed, and in some cases, as in that of the
Rhodians, was changed from time to time (Dio Chrysost.
Or.
31, p. 620), while to some of these states a special exemption from regular
service was granted (
Cic. in Verr.
5.19, 50). But it was from the land army of the Italians, the
togati, or, as the Roman formula more fully
expressed it, the “socii nominisve Latini, quibus ex formula togatorum
milites in Italia imperare solent” (
C. I. L.
1.200), that the main strength of the auxiliary forces was derived. The
number of troops required was decreed every year by the senate (
Liv. 41.5, &c.), and the consuls fixed the
amount which each allied state was to send, in proportion to its population
capable of service. The names of persons so liable were contained in the
formulae of the several states (
Liv. 22.57,
27.10,
“milites ex formula paratos esse” ), service being
regulated by the census, which was modelled on that of Rome (
Liv. 29.15, “censumque in iis coloniis agi
ex formula ab Romanis censoribus data” ), and under the
conditions of the special exemptions from service granted by the treaty (
“vacatio rei militaris ex foedere,” Lex Jul. Munic. 50.93;
C. I. L. i. n. 206). The consuls appointed the place and
time at which the troops of the socii were to meet him and his legions
(
Plb. 6.21,
4;
Liv. 34.56,
36.3,
&c.). The contingents of the several states remained together in
separate cohorts, each under its own commander, and each furnished with its
own quaestor (
Plb. 6.21,
5). The commander was, probably, in most cases the magistrate of the
state, as the praetor of Praeneste (
Liv. 23.19,
7) and the soldiers of the separate states
took the
sacramentum to their own commander
(Polyb.
l.c.). Besides these separate officers, the
consuls appointed twelve prefects, apparently Roman, as commanders of the
whole body of the socii, and their power answered to that of the military
tribunes in a consular army (
Plb. 6.26,
5), the whole staff of officers acting in obedience
to the consul. These prefects selected 1/3 of the cavalry and 1/5 of the
infantry of the socii, who formed a select body called the
extraordinarii. The remainder were then divided into
two large divisions, called the right and the left wing (Polyb.
l.c.;
Liv. 35.5); each of these
alae, composed of cohorts and commanded by six praefecti,
closely resembled a Roman legion, and we find the socii on one occasion
organised as legions (
Liv. 37.39). The infantry
of the allies, on the occasion of a single levy, was usually more numerous
than that of the Romans; their cavalry, which was divided into
turmae, generally three times more numerous (
Plb. 6.26). Pay and clothing were given to the
allied troops by the states to which they belonged, the quaestors who
accompanied each contingent being appointed for this purpose; but Rome
furnished them with provisions at the expense of the Republic, the allied
infantry receiving the same as the Roman, the cavalry somewhat less [
STIPENDIUM]. The right of the
allies to share in the distribution of the spoils of war and of conquered
lands was freely recognised, and on some occasions they received an equal
share with the Romans (
Liv. 39.5;
40.43). But that they had no standing right to
such an equal distribution, such as that said to have been possessed in
ancient times by the Latin and Hernican confederacies (
Dionys. A. R. 6.95;
8.77), is shown by the fact that on some
occasions these proportions were not maintained (
Liv.
41.13). The contingents of the Italian socii are sometimes called
auxilia (
Sal. Jug.
39), those of the allies outside Italy being described as
auxilia externa or
provincialia (
Liv. 22.37,
7;
40.31,
1). After the Social war, however, which merged the
Italian allies in Rome, the Italian
auxilia or
togati disappear, and the word
auxilia, during the later Republic and the Empire,
always signifies non-Italian contingents, chiefly those which made up the
light-armed troops of the Roman forces.
Although the furnishing of regular contingents was not held inconsistent with
the autonomy of the states in alliance with Rome, the furnishing of a
regular tribute was. It is true that some of the dependent kingdoms paid a
tribute (
Plb. 2.12,
13) which was in the nature of a war-indemnity; but during the early
period of the Roman Empire liability to tribute was a token of subjection,
and neither the Italian allies nor the
liberae
or
foederatae civitates in the provinces were
subject to it;
foedus implies
libertas, and
libertas
(
ἐλευθερία) is invariably conjoined
with
immunitas (
ἀτέλεια,
Paus. 8.43,
ἐλευθερίαν
καὶ ἀτέλειαν. Strabo, p. 595,
ἐλευθερίαν καὶ ἀλειτουργησίαν.
Cic. in Verr. 3.6, 13,
“liberae et immunes” ). Although this principle was
modified to some extent in the later Republic [
IMMUNITAS], yet
stipendiarii was ever the main antithesis to
socii (Cic.
pro Balbo, 9, 24;
Marquardt,
Staatsverw. p. 346). This general immunity of the
allied states was accompanied by an assertion, such as that contained in the
Lex Antonia de Termessensibus of 71 B.C., that
their territory was under their own control, and that such public revenues
as were raised from it should be raised by their own governments and for
their own local purposes (Lex de Term.
C. I. L.. i. n.
204.1.10, “quei agri, quae loca, &c., utei antea habeant
possideant.” Cf.
C. I. G. 2737,
ἔχωσιν κρατῶσιν χρῶνται καρπίζωνταί τε πάντων
πραγμάτων ἀτελεῖς ὄντες), and it is on this right that
the exemptions from the quartering of troops recognised in the law of
Termessus (2.5) is based. Rome, however, claimed of her own right to confer
exemptions from local burdens on the citizens of such states (
Liv. 23.20,
2;
C. I. L. i. n. 206, 50.93) and to claim exemptions for
her own citizens from local dues (Lex de Term. 1.35). The enjoyment of the
control of their own territory by the allies was necessarily accompanied by
the fullest permission of local administration both in respect to
jurisdiction and the power of living according to local ordinances or of
making local laws, provided these did not conflict with the terms of the
treaty or the conditions expressed in the lex data (Lex de Term. 1.10,
“suis legibus utei liceto, quod advorsus hanc legemnon
fiat” ). As regards jurisdiction, the allied state, if in Italy, was
outside the authority of the Roman magistrate; if without the bounds of
Italy, of the provincial administrator; and the exercise of jurisdiction by
such an official was improper (
Cic. de Prov.
Cons. 3, 6,
[p. 2.684]
“omitto jurisdictionem in libera civitate contra legis senatusque
consulta;”
cf. pro Domo, 9, 23). An important fact in the history of the
allies is the extent to which they were affected by Roman legislation. A
great distinction was observed in this respect between the nearer and the
more distinct socii. Circumstances demanded that the near neighbours of the
Romans, the
Italici, should be brought into
closer conformity with Roman customs than the more distant allies: and many
institutions of the Roman civil law as well as many legislative acts were
extended to the former. With regard to the laws mentioned by Cicero, of
inheritances, testaments, and “innumerabiles aliae leges de civili
jure” which were accepted by the allies ( “quas Latini
voluerunt adsciverunt,” Cic.
pro
Balbo, 8, 21), there is no difficulty, but many others are
mentioned as having bound the Italian allies, such as the plebiscitum
regulating the
jus creditae pecuniae (
Liv. 35.7) and the sumptuary Lex Didia which was an
extension of the Lex Fannia to the Italici apparently against their will
(
Macr. 3.17,
6),
in which there is no mention of the usual formula of acceptance,
“fundi (i. e. auctores, Fest. p. 89) facti sunt.” Formal
acceptance, however, there may have been in these cases, and this was most
distinctly recognised in the important matter of the conferring of the
civitas [
FOEDERATAE
CIVITATES]. As regards this right of acceptance or rejection there
was, in accordance with the principle already mentioned, no distinction
drawn between a
libera and a
foederata civitas (Cic.
pro
Balbo, 8, 20, “foederatos populos fieri fundos oportere non
magis est proprium foederatorum quam omnium liberorum” ). By far
the most striking instance we possess of the direct interference of Rome
with the allied states is the Senatusconsultum de Bacchanalibus, which
extended penalties to the members of the Bacchanalian conspiracy all over
Italy (
Liv. 39.19;
C. I. L. i. n.
190). This was an exceptional assumption of the senate's power even for
Rome, and their power, as exercised in this, case, was based on their actual
control of the Roman world, and does not affect any legal theory of
autonomy. The general position of the Roman senate, as regards the allies,
was that of a uniting and controlling power. It might revoke grants which,
as not being held by a fixed treaty, were terminable at pleasure (Lex de
Term. 2.5, “ne quis magistratus milites introducito nisi senatus
nominatim decreverit” ), and it adjusted the conflicting claims
of states both within and without the bounds of Italy (
Liv. 45.13; Dittenberger, n. 240): sometimes referring questions
respecting the internal difficulties of these states to the decision of
Roman
patrons, with whom they had entered into
relations of clientship (
Liv. 9.20; Cic.
pro Sulla, 21, 60). The senate's control, as it was
usually exercised, did not conflict with the amount of autonomy implied in
the fact of alliance, since this did not extend to independent international
relations. The tenure of independence by a
foederata
civitas lasted theoretically as long as the conditions of the
foedus were observed, the autonomy of the states that were merely
liberae was always from its very nature of a
precarious tenure: but the notorious abuse of self-government by a foederata
civitas might, during the principate, cause a foedus to be rescinded, and
the direct provincial government to replace the misused autonomy (
Suet. Aug. 47;
Claud. 25;
Vesp. 8). The tendency of the imperial administration was
towards an equalisation in the position of provincial states, and even when
libertas was not taken from the states which possessed it, yet the
supervision of these by the
διορθωταὶ or
ἐπανορθωταὶ (
correctores) and the
λογισταὶ (
curatores) appointed by
the emperor (Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii.2 p.
858; Marquardt,
Staatsverw. i. p. 358) rendered their
position but little different from that of the provincial subject towns: and
the libertas, which was the necessary condition of societas, practically
disappeared; but the name
liberae still
continued to be applied to certain states even after the extension of the
civitas by Caracalla, and down to the time of Constantine (Marquardt,
Staatsverw. i>. p. 359).
(Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, iii. pp. 645-715; Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, i. pp. 18-89 and pp. 345-353; Walter,
Geschichte des römischen Rechts, p. 192 ff.)
[
A.H.G]
