previous next


FOEDERA´TAE CIVITA´TES, FOEDERA´TI, SO´CII. In extending her influence and dominions beyond the seven hills, Rome followed two alternative courses. One was to conclude a treaty of alliance with a community between which and herself there had previously been no relation; the other was to reduce such community to complete subjection by conquest or enforced surrender (Liv. 34.17; 4.30; 8.2). Where there was a treaty of alliance (foedus), the allied community was described by the terms prefixed to this note. At first of course such allies were exclusively Italian; in particular the Socii and Latini, who forced on the Social War B.C. 90, though no town which had obtained the Roman civitas, or which was a Roman or Latin colony [COLONIA], was said to be foederata. But even long before that war Rome had attached allies to herself by treaty outside Italy, both states governed on the republican principle, and foreign princes (e. g. Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, B.C. 273, D. C. 147; and Hiero of Syracuse, a year later, Plb. 1.16). After the extension of the Roman imperium into the provinces, two kinds of foederati populi or civitates have to be distinguished: those whose territory lay within the bounds of a Roman province, and those which were genuinely foreign (Dig. 49, 15, 7). The latter, however, after the subjection of the kings of Macedon and Syria, were constantly becoming mere tribute payers to Rome (Liv. 42.6; 45.13, 44), and as a general rule had to be content with concealing their practical vassalage (Sallust, Sal. Jug. 14; Florus, 3.1) under the thin disguise of “friends and allies of the Roman people” (Caesar, Caes. Gal. 1.3, 35, 43; 4.12; 7.31 ;--Cic. pro lege Manilia, 5, 12).

The foedera were of three orders (Dig. 49, 15; 5, 2), stipulating merely for friendship between the contracting parties, or for reciprocal hospitality, or for military subvention. Those of the first order (Plb. 3.22; Liv. 38.38) provided that the two states should not engage in war with one another without first making every attempt at an amicable settlement (e. g. the treaty with Alba, Dionys. A. R. 3.3), and contained regulations as to the sojourn of the citizens of each on the territory of the other, and the measure of legal protection they should enjoy (e. g. Carthage, Plb. 3.22-24). Other terms in such treaties, especially when concluded after a war, are exemplified by those with Carthage after the Sicilian [p. 1.869]Plb. 1.62, 3.27) and Second Punic wars (Plb. 15.18; Liv. 30.37), with Philip of Macedon (Plb. 18.27; Liv. 33.30), and with Antiochus (Plb. 22.26; Liv. 38.38). Treaties of the second class, which bargained for greater intimacy between the two states, are exemplified by that with the Aedui (Caesar, Caes. Gal. 1.31). Those providing for military assistance varied with the power and eminence of the allied state: sometimes they placed the parties on an absolute equality (Liv. 34.57)--e. g. those with Camerinum and Heraclea (Liv. 28.45; Cic. pro Balb. 20, 47; pro Archia 4, 9); with the Aetolians (Liv. 26.24), the Jews (Josephus, J. AJ 12.10, 6), and Rhodians (Appian, App. BC 4.65, 70): in other cases the socius was subordinated to Rome, being required to “respect her majesty” (Cic. pro Balb. 16, 35; Dig. 49, 15, 7, 1): it remained free, but practically was at Rome's orders, as a client at those of his patron (Proculus in Dig. loc. cit.), though the Romans admitted their obligation to afford full protection (Liv. 30.42; Caesar, Caes. Gal. 1.43; Hirtius, de bell. Alex. 34, 36), and included the socius in their own treaties with neighbouring peoples (Plb. 3.22 sq., 15.18; Liv. 30.37, 38.11, 38).

The condition of the socii and foederati was originally one of tolerable independence, subject to the obligation of furnishing a contingent to the Roman army; but it was continuously depressed by the increasing power of Rome, and the resulting discontent culminated in the Social War, at the termination of which the leges Julia and Plautia Papiria brought the Roman civitas within the reach of all who were domiciled in Italy [CIVITAS], from whose territories this class of community now disappeared. Civitates foederatae seem, however, to have acquired the benefits of these statutes only on condition of becoming fundus (Cic. pro Balb. 8, 19).

There were also foederatae civitates in most of the provinces, their treaty of course being anterior to the formation of the province itself: thus there were three in both Sicily and Baetica, and others in Asia Minor: Athens, Rhodes, and Tyre were also federate towns, and Cicero (pro Scauro, 44) regards it as a dishonour to Sardinia that in all that island there was no town which “was free and united by friendship with the Roman people.” These federate towns in the provinces enjoyed certain privileges not shared by the ordinary provincial town. Their citizens were exempted from payment of the land impost (vectigal, Cic. in Verr. 3.6, 13; 40, 91), and perhaps from some of the other ordinary taxes of the state; and they possessed αὐτονομία, the independent control of their own affairs, with some measure of legislative and judicial power, excluding the authority of the provincial governor; but this perhaps was more theoretical than practical, especially when a Roman army came their way (Plutarch, Plut. Pomp. 10). The plebiscitum called Lex Antonia which conferred these rights about 72 B.C. on Termessus in Pisidia, and which has been partially deciphered on bronze, is printed by Ritschl, Priscae Lat. Monum. Epigr. xxxi., and Orelli, Inscriptiones, 1.204. It is hardly necessary to say that the foederatae civitates were forbidden to embark on any independent foreign policy. They were free to adopt the civil law of Rome in whole or part: thus even before the Social War it was not unusual for the Socii and Latini to adopt Roman leges into their own system, and Cicero (pro Balbo, 8, 19) mentions the Lex Furia testamentaria and the Lex Voconia de mulierum hereditatibus, and adds that there were other instances. In such cases the state which adopted a Roman statute was said “in earn legem fundus fieri;” but of course it did not thereby obtain for its citizens any privileges with respect to the Roman state.

But the tendency to uniformity which accompanied the consolidation of the empire favoured the extinction of the provincial foederatae civitates, and they gradually disappeared: many of them voluntarily became coloniae (e. g. Tauromenium in Sicily), and others municipia (e. g. Messana, Pliny, 3.8; Gades, Saguntum, and Malaga).

(Zumpt, Studia Romana, p. 315; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, 1.348; Savigny, Volkschluss der Tafel von Heraclea, Zeitschrift, vol. ix.; Walter, Geschichte des römischen Rechts, § § 94, 95.)


hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: