Pompey's Organization of Transalpina

Author(s): Charles Ebel

Source: Phoenix, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Winter, 1975), pp. 358-373
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1087281 .
Accessed: 01/05/2014 15:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA

CHARLESEBEL

ORGANIZATION of Transalpina has not received the attention

POMPEY'S
it deserves,althoughit is only afterhis settlementthere that separate
administrationof the region is clearly attested.' Earlier intimationsof
Roman control, or influence,tend to fall into one of those informal
categoriesso admirablydescribedby ProfessorBadian under the general
headingof clientela.2
A major obstacle to the properrecognitionof Pompey's role in Trans-
alpina has been the widelyheld assumptionthat the provincehad been
ratherwellorganizedfora good manyyearsbeforePompey's arrivalthere
in 77, and that nothingmuch needed to be done.3That obstaclehas been
greatlyreduced by Badian's vigorousobjection to the traditionalview
that it was Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus(cos. 122) who firstorganizedthe
provincein about 120.4He pointsout that regularproceduresfororganiz-
ing a province,culminatingin the formulationof a lex provinciae,were,
by then,well establishedand are well attestedelsewhere,but that thereis
no trace of themin connectionwith Domitius in Transalpina.
Badian goes on to argue that, for the rest of the second century,
Rome's interestin the regionwas restrictedto the protectionof lines of
communicationbetween Italy and Spain which, forthe most part, was
entrustedto a fewsmall garrisonsstationed at strategiclocations along
the route. A moreimportantcommitment,but forthe same limitedpur-
pose, was the foundationof the citizencolonyof Narbo Martius in 118.5

'In general, I have not cited modern works which treat this subject, or aspects of it,
only incidentally.The notes reflectthose recentworkswhich I foundparticularlyuseful.
The frequentlycited T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistratesof theRoman Republic (New
York 1951-1952) is regularlyabbreviated MRR. Three works by E. Badian are cited as
follows: Foreign Clientelae (261-70 B.C.) (Oxford 1958), FC; a collection of articles,
Studies in Greek and Roman History (New York 1964), Studies; "Notes on Provincia
Gallia in the late Republic," in Milanges Piganiol (Paris 1966) 901-918, Notes.
2FC.
3E.g., T. Rice Holmes, Caesar's Conquestof GauP (Oxford 1911) 3-4; H. H. Scullard,
FromtheGracchito Nero (New York 1959) 41-43; J.-J.Hatt, Histoirede la Gaule romaine
(Paris 1959) 19-47; A. Piganiol, La Conqueteromaine (Paris 1967) 379-385.
4FC 140, 264, 287; Studies 88-104; Notes. Cf. n. 11.
5Notes903-904. Velleius' precise dating of the foundationof Narbo (1.15.5) cannot be
lowered on evidence fromthe so-called "Narbo issue," nor on the basis of Cicero's com-
ments on the career of L. Licinius Crassus (Brut. 43.159 ff.), as H. B. Mattingly has
proposed: "The Foundation of Narbo Martius," Hommages Grenier (Brussels 1958)
1159-1171; "Notes on some Roman Republican Moneyers," NumChron9 (1969) 95-105;
"The Numismatic Evidence and the Founding of Narbo Martius," Revue archiologique
358

PHOENIX,Vol. 29 (1975) 4.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 359

Not until the Cimbric menace proved these arrangementsinadequate

did Rome provide formore regular and firmersupervisionof the area.
Proofof this,in Badian's view,is that we begin to hear of regulargover-
nors-though not for a separate Transalpine province. The two Gallic
regions,Transalpina and Cisalpina, werenormallythrowntogetherunder
one command forminga ProvinciaGallia. When circumstancesrequired,
however,the Transalpine regioncould also be attached to Nearer Spain.
It was not until the seventiesthat the two Gauls became separate prov-
inces, only to be united again in the sixtiesand fifties.
Badian's reconstructionleaves the status of the Gallic province,or
provinces,unnecessarilyambiguousand not consistentwithhis objection
to the view that Transalpina was firstorganized by Domitius. The am-
biguityis, or course,no accident. Badian does mean to show that Rome's
administrationof the two Gauls after100 was veryflexiblebut that they
werenormallytreatedas a unit. Some elaborationand modificationof his
thesisis warranted.
The Transalpineregionshould not be treatedas an indivisibleadminis-
trativeunit. Here, Badian does not escape fromthe verytrap he exposes.
He arguesconvincinglythat, forthe Romans, the Alps and the Pyrenees
were not the natural frontiersthat we have since come to accept as
eternal; he thenproceedsto treatthe regionbetweenthem(Transalpina)
as a unit whenhe attaches it alternativelyto Cisalpina or Nearer Spain.'
There are good reasons for proposing that, before the seventies, only
portionsofTransalpina wereregularlyattached to neighboringprovinces,
and that the trulyformidableboundarybetweenItaly and Spain was the
Rhone. It is worth noting in this respect that a consistentpattern of
Roman policy in Transalpina had emerged by the end of the second
century; it shows a distinctlydifferentapproach to the eastern and
westernhalves of the region.
In the area between the Rhone and the Alps, the cornerstoneof that
policy was Rome's long-standingalliance with Massilia.7 From the first
de Narbonnaise 5 (1972) 1-19. Mattingly's arguments fromCicero's Brutus have been
refutedby B. Levick: "Cicero, Brutus43.159 ff.,and the Foundation of Narbo Martius,"
21 (1971) 171-179. See also G.V. Sumner, The Oratorsin Cicero's Brutus (Toronto
C.
1973) 95-96, rightlydefendingthe 118 date. The supposed connectionbetweenthe coins
and the foundationof Narbo ought to be abandoned. There is no parallel for the pro-
posed duumvirate of Licinius and Domitius (whose names appear on the coins) leading
out of the colony; the usual commission was made up of three men. And the coin type
itself(Gallic warriorin a biga) seems to allude to a militaryevent, not a colonial founda-
tion. It may honor Domitius' capture of Bituitus and his triumph over the Arverni
(MRR 1.525 and 526 n. 6).
"Notes 905-908; Studies 88-97. See also below, n. 45.
7N. J. DeWitt, "Massilia and Rome," TAPA 71 (1940) 605-615; F. R. Kramer,
"Massiliot Diplomacy beforethe Second Punic War,"
A4fP 69 (1948) 1-26; Badian FC
47-49.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 PHOENIX

recorded instance of Roman interventionin the region,down through

Pompey's settlementin 71, the only clearly stated Roman dispositions
thereplaced conqueredGauls under Massiliot control.In 154, the consul
Q. Opimius, coming to the aid of the Massiliot colonies of Nicaea and
Antipolis,defeated the Ligurian Oxybii and Deciatae.8 The territories
of the two tribes were given over to Massilia. Other, apparently less
importanttribes,were disarmed and required to give hostages to the
Massiliots at regularintervals.
In 122, C. Sextius Calvinus (cos. 124), afterdrivingthe Gauls back
from the coast (east of Massilia), again turned the territoryover to
Massilia (Strabo 4.1.5). The garrisonhe stationed at the warm springs
whichpreservedthe memoryof his visit as Aquae Sextiae was probably
small and perhaps not even permanent.9Twenty years later (104-102),
while awaiting the return of the marauding Cimbri and Teutoni in
southernGaul, C. Marius built a canal at the mouth of the Rhone to
supply his troops. He later turnedit over to the Massiliots forwhom,
accordingto Strabo (4.1.8), it proved to be veryprofitable.10
Later, as we
shall see, both Pompey and Julius Caesar grantedsimilarfavorsto the
Greek city.
Along the coast between the Rhone and the Pyrenees, the situation
was different.Direct Roman control is witnessedon two counts: the
buildingof the Via Domitia and the settlementof Narbo Martius. Both
are dated to shortlyafter120 and are usually cited in supportof Domi-
tius' organizationof the province." Both were importantactions which,
if sudden,should have promptedstrongresistancefromthe local inhabi-
tants. We hear nothingof it. And more remarkably,the sources locate
all of the fighting
in the fewprecedingyearsin the area east of the Rhone
(see n. 3). Under the circumstances,we should adopt a theoryof earlier
encroachmentinto Transalpina, forstrategicreasons, fromthe Spanish
provinces.
8Polyb. 33.7-11; Livy Per. 47. Not an isolated incident, but to be viewed, as it cer-
tainly was fromRome, in conjunction with a serious Lusitanian revolt (App. Hisp. 56).
See also Strabo 4.6.3.
'Our sources (Strabo 4.1.5; Livy Per. 61; Pliny HN 3.36) are late and reflectlater
developments.On the foundationof provincial towns and what can be said about them,
see P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (Oxford 1971) 215-220, 570-576.
xoBadian (Notes 909 and elsewhere) unjustly, I think,offersthis as proof that Rome
had no commercial interestsin the area. Marius really had no honorable alternative.
The canal had been drawn throughMassiliot territoryand Massilia was a faithfulally.
Cf. E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization UndertheRepublic (London 1969) 121-123.
"For an elaboration of the traditional view on the basis of a milestone fromthe Via
Domitia, see P.-M. Duval, "A-propos du milliaire de Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus
trouvedans l'Aude en 1949," Gallia 7 (1949) 207-231 and idem,"Le Milliaire de Domitius
et l'organisation de la Narbonnaise," Revue archiologiquede Narbonnaise 1 (1968) 3-6.
But (as Badian saw) neitherthe road nor the colony adds up to provincialorganization
in the normal sense. See also below, n. 20.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 361

Since the late thirdcentury,the centerof Roman power in Spain was

located just south of the Pyrenees'2-which, as we have seen, were no
barrier.Western Transalpina became, in effect,an adjunct of Nearer
Spain. The suggestionwas made long ago by Mommsen on the basis of
the distributionof Iberian coins northof the Pyrenees;13recent numis-
matic studies strengthenit.
The originand spread of Iberian coinage in the Spanish provinceshas
been shown to coincidewith the arrivaland expansionof Roman control
there.M. H. Crawforddates the earliestIberian coinage in Nearer Spain
soon after200, perhapsin 197 when the firstregulargovernorsweresent
out fromRome; theseriesends withthe defeatof Sertorius.'4The correla-
tion should hold as well forIberian issues fromnorthof the Pyrenees,
notably fromthe regionof Narbonne. Unfortunately,they are not pre-
cisely dated. G. F. Hill places them between 175 and 71.15 J. C. M.
Richard, reviewingtheircirculation(rare) in Spain, dates themlater,in
the firstcentury B.C.16 More encouragingis the distributionof other
coins in Transalpina. By farthe most commonGallic coinage in western
Transalpina is theso-calledmonnaiesa la croix,an abundantseriesappar-
ently issued froma number of centers by virtually all of the major
Gallic tribesof the region.1 There is disagreementon when the series
began. Proponentsof a highchronologyargue fora late third-early second
centurydate, those favoringa low chronologydate all issues to after"the
conquest," i.e., 121. There is some hoard evidence (not unchallenged)
favoringthe high chronology.1s

"1See Nicole Dupre, "La Place de la vallie de l'Erbe dans l'Espagne romaine,"
Milanges de la Casa de Veldzquez9 (1973) 133-175.
"1T. Mommsen (ed. Broughton), The Provincesof theRoman Empire (Chicago 1968)
83.
14M. H. Crawford,"The Financial Organization of Republican Spain," NumChron9
(1969) 79-93.
150nthe Coins of NarbonensiswithIberian Inscriptions (New York 1930) 7, 36.
16"Monnaies gauloises du Cabinet numismatique de Catalogne," Milanges de la Casa
de Veldzquez8 (1972) 64-67 and "Les Monnayages indigenesde Narbonne et sa region,"
Narbonne: archiologieet histoire(1973) 135-149. Cf. n. 18 below.
17A. Soutou, "Remarques sur les monnaies gauloises a la croix," Ogam 20 (1968)
101-127 and idem, "Repartition g6ographique des plus anciennes monnaies gauloises a
la croix," Ogam 21 (1969) 156-169; D. F. Allen, "Monnaies A la croix," NumChron 9
(1969) 35-77; J. B. Colbert de Beaulieu, "La Limite septentrionaledes monnaies a la
croix et la politique de Rome," RBNum 117 (1971) 115-131 and idem, "Le Signe du
denier au droit des monnaies d'argent gauloises dites 'a la croix'," Acta Numismatica 2
(1972) 113-119; J. C. M. Richard, "Recherches sur les 6talons mon6tairesen Espagne
et en Gaule du Sud anttrieurementA l'epoque d'Auguste," Milanges de la Casa de
Veldzquez9 (1973) 81-131.
18Soutouand Allen (above, n. 17) propose the late third-earlysecond centurydate for
the earliestissues; Colbert de Beaulieu and Richard suggest the later date. On the hoards
from Valera and Drieves (Spain), which contained monnaies J la croix and datable
(early second century) Roman coins, see Allen 40 and Richard (above, n. 16) 101-102.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 PHOENIX

In eastern Transalpina, Massiliot coinage, which circulated widely

elsewherein the westernMediterranean as well, supplied most needs.
Massilia adopted a denariusstandard by the early second century; the
Gallic tribeseast of the Rhone followedsuit after121.19
In brief,the numismaticevidence does support an east-westdivision
of Transalpina, with the westernhalf more closely followingthe pattern
of Nearer Spain. Since the coins are thoughtto reflectRoman controlin
Spain, we ought to considerthe same probabilityforTransalpina.
In this connection,Polybius' reference(3.39.7-8) to a road, marked
with milestones,fromEmporiae to the Rhone might well predate the
Via Domitia. Biographical and textual considerationsdo suggest an
earlierdate.20
If this view of Transalpina is essentiallycorrect,Badian's Provincia
Gallia would have extendedonly to the Rhone. The known"governors"
in Transalpina beforeM. Fonteius in 74 fitinto this patternvery well.
The evidence forany one of them is woefullythin and it is only a com-
posite view that begins to emerge. They can hardly be styled regular
governorsof a Transalpine province.
The Roman commanderssent to Gaul to oppose the Germaninvaders
(109-102) wereemergencyappointments,even moreclearlythan thoseof
125-121 sent to defendMassilia, and Badian rightlyresistscreditingthem
with any serious organizing activities. Some political adjustments in
Transalpina were, no doubt, necessaryafter Marius' decisive victories
at Aquae Sextiae and (with Q. Lutatius Catulus) Vercellae. But, as the
sources make very clear, Rome's primaryconcern at the time was the
defenseof Italy and only later,perhaps,as Badian suggests,safe passage
between Italy and Spain. That Roman garrisonswere established, or
"1Thefirstcomprehensive studyofMassiliotcoinage,byH. Rolland,is expectedto be
publishedshortly.See, however,the recentsurveywithbibliographical referencesby
J. B. Colbertde Beaulieuand J. C. M. Richard,"La Numismatique de la Gaule et la
numismatique de la Narbonnaise,"Hommaged F. Benoit3 (Bordighera1972) 90-100,
especially95-97 on Massiliaand theGauls east of theRhone.
20Thispassagehas beenchallengedby someeditorsbecauseof its apparentlateness
on theassumptionthattherewas no markedroadin theregionbeforetheVia Domitia.
For a recentdiscussion, withreferences to themodernauthorities, see F. W. Walbank,
Polybius(Berkeley1972) 12-13. Walbankcites the reference to the milestonesas the
latestdate mentioned in the Historiesand allowsthatit may be fromPolybius'own
hand.By conservative estimate,Polybiuswouldhavebeenat leasteightywhenhe wrote
it (Walbank11,n. 53). The nextlatestreference (31.28.13)is an apparentallusionto the
deathofScipioAemilianusin 129 (Walbank19). It is, ofcourse,possiblethattherefer-
enceto themilestones wasinsertedby a latereditor,butit is a strangely obscurepieceof
information to be givensuchtreatment. It seemsmorereasonableto assume,as Momm-
sen suggested(CIL 5.885), thatthereference is to workdonein the 130's. It is a de-
scriptivedetailthatsoundsfirst-hand.Polybiusmayhaveseenthemilestones himself, or
heardof them,whilewritinghis now lost historyof the NumantineWar (Cic. Fam.
5.12.2).

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 363

maintained,at varioussites in theregionis probablebut undocumented.21

If we look now at the meagrerecordof attestedgovernorsin Transalpina
after100,we can hardlypostulate (as Badian does) any significant change
in Roman policy therebeforethe time of Pompey.
The firstcandidate is L. Licinius Crassus (cos. 95), who governed
Gallia after his consulate, for how long, we do not know. Badian's
suggestionthat he had both "provinces" on the basis of "his knowninter-
est in Transalpina and the spread of his nomen there" (Broughton,
MRR 2.13, proposes Cisalpina) is not convincing.22 In any case, we need
not assume that he had the whole of Transalpina.
The firstgovernoractually foundin Transalpina is C. Coelius Caldus
(cos. 94), who was there in 90 puttingdown a revolt of the Salluvii.23
This is east of the Rhone. No otherinformationon Coelius' appearance
in Transalpina has survived.The presenceof his brotherin Cisalpina in
87, perhaps servingas his legate, suggeststo Badian that his command
extended to both Gauls at that time.24Again, we should perhapsinclude
only the eastern half of Transalpina in Coelius' command.
Only slightlymoreis knownabout the commandof C. Valerius Flaccus
(cos. 93). He went to Nearer Spain after his consulate, where he cam-
paigned successfullyagainst the Celtiberians,in 83, and perhaps as early
as 85 he was in Transalpina; in 81 he celebrateda triumphex Celtiberiaet
Gallia.25On the basis of this essentialinformation,Badian proposes that
Transalpina had been attached to Nearer Spain by 85 and Cisalpina to
Italy. Why not assume that the westernhalfof Transalpina was part of
Flaccus' command fromthe beginning?It simplyexplains his presence
in Transalpina and fitshis triumphperfectly.
21Badian (Notes 903-904) proposes garrisons at Narbo, Tolosa, Forum Domitii,
Aquae Sextiae, and probably other sites. The colony of Narbo itselfmightbe counted a
garrison,but no special detachmentof troopsis recorded there.Forum Domitii is known
only fromlate itinerariesand may well be a later development (cf. Brunt [above, n. 9]
570, 715). The garrison attested at Tolosa in 106 is surely to be viewed in the context
of the Cimbric menace. We may doubt that it survived the disastersof 105 or that it was
replaced afterMarius' victoryin 102 when the danger was removed. On Aquae Sextiae,
see n. 9 above.
"Notes 907; Studies92 and n. 146. His "known interest"is, of course,in the foundation
of Narbo Martius.
23Livy Per. 73, where Badian (Studies 90-92) has established the reading Coelius in
place of Caelius.
4Studies92-97.
"2Flaccus was sent to Spain in, or soon after,his consulship (MRR 2.14). He issued
money fromMassilia in the late 80's: A. Alf6ldi, "Les Deniers de C. Valerius Flaccus
frappes a Marseille et les dernibresemissions de drachmes massaliotes," RevNum 11
(1969) 55-61. He was certainlyin Transalpina in 83 where Cicero (Quinct. 24, 28) refers
to him as "Imperator," the same titlewhich appears on his coins. His nephew took refuge
in Massilia in 85 (Cic. Flac. 63 and 100). His triumphwas ex Celtiberiaet Gallia (Gran.
Licin. 39B).

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
364 PHOENIX

In any case, we may safelyobserve that Transalpina experiencedsome

unrestduringthefirsttwodecades of thefirstcentury.The situationthere
deterioratedbadly in conjunctionwith the success of Sertoriusin Spain.
Appointed to a Spanish command by the anti-Sullangovernmentof 83,
he was drivenout by C. Annius in 81 but returnedin 80 to defeat and
dominate a series of Sullan commanderssent against him for the next
several years.26They operated in Gaul as well as Spain as the flowof the
war dictated.27 The Sullan restrictionon governors to stay within
provincialboundariesclearlydid not apply. The overridingprovinciaof
each was the war against Sertorius. It is thereforemisleading,if not
absolutelywrong,to style themgovernorsof particularprovinces.
Revolution in Transalpina set the stage forthe separate organization
of theprovincewhichwe see documentedforthefirsttimein M. Fonteius'
governorshipin 74-72. But who was responsiblefor the new arrange-
ment? Badian, eschewingdiscussionof the matter,suggeststhat it was
Sulla.28 But it seems very doubtful that Sulla would have made new
arrangementsforareas that werestill badly out of controlat the timeof
his death. The command of M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78), moreover,
shows that nothinghad changed.29
Preparing to support his political program with force if necessary,
Lepidus secured a Gallic command. Appian (BCiv. 1.107) mentions
Transalpina but we findhis legate, M. JuniusBrutus,in Cisalpina with
an army when fightingbreaks out. Badian, of course, concludes that
Lepidus tookbothGauls. (In thatcase, one wondersabout thesignificance
of a Sullan settlementthere.) P. BruntsuggeststhatLepidus mighthave
been replacingC. Cosconiusin Cisalpina and Illyricum.30But theCisalpina
forCosconius (who campaignedin Illyricum)is unattestedand the pro-
posal failsto account forAppian's referenceto Transalpina. It seemsmore
reasonable to see Lepidus' provinceas the same Cisalpine-western Trans-
alpine commandof thepre-Sullanera. Lepidus' forceswereratherquickly
6"OnSertorius'career,see A. Schulten,Sertorius(Leipzig 1926). Sent against him after
Annius were C. or M. Aurelius Cotta, defeated at sea in 80, L.? Fufidius, defeated in
FartherSpain the same year, M. Domitius Calvinus, defeatedin Nearer Spain in 79 while
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius was being hard pressed in the Farther province (sources
MRR sub annis). If L. Manlius was indeed assigned Transalpina in 78 (Badian, Notes910:
"the firstgovernor"), it was surely as a militaryprovince aiming at Sertorius. Brunt
(above, n. 9) 464 assigns Manlius threelegions. The inadequate sources (Caesar BG 3.20;
Livy Per. 90; Plut. Sert. 12; Oros. 5.23.4) reporthis fightingin Spain and Aquitania.
1"For a briefsurvey of the flowof the war, see T. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic 1
(Oxford 1923) 379-384; on the forcesinvolved, see Brunt (above, n. 9) 470-472.
"2Notes909-910, but he points out (913) that Sulla did not give the province a lex.
1"Cf.Badian, Notes910-911 and FC 275-277; Brunt (above, n. 9) 287, 465; E. Gabba,
Appiani BellorumCivilium Liber Primus (Florence 1958) 293-296.
3oBrunt(above, n. 9) 465.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 365

dispersed,thoughM. Perpernamanaged to bringa large portionof them

to the supportof Sertoriusin Spain.
Late in the summerof 77, the Senate, with considerablemisgiving,
authorizedthe young Pompey to restorethe situation in the West. The
root of the problem was, of course, Sertorius in Spain. The Senate
recognizedit and our sourcesreflectit. The TransalpineGauls, as we have
noted, were also involved, blocking the road to Spain. But without
effectiveleadership,and threatenedon the flankfromNarbo and Mas-
silia, they had no chance of haltingPompey's advance.31Afterfighting
his way throughthe regionlate in 77, Pompey spent the winternear the
Pyrenees.32
Details of the fightingin Gaul are not recorded.Cicero says that the
Gauls sufferedheavily for resisting,and he lists the Transalpine War
amongPompey's greatvictories(Leg. Man. 28 and 30). Later,in a famous
letterto the Senate, Pompey could claim that he had "recapturedGaul"
(Sall. H. 2.98M). There is no reason to doubt it; at least no one disputed
it, whichmeant,moremaiorum,thathe would supervisea new settlement.
Pompey had both the inclinationand the opportunityforthe task, and
both pointsare worthmaking.He was a determinedorganizerthroughout
his careerand, it seems,not given to followingestablishedforms.He first
revealed a taste for organization in Sicily and Africa, after he had
recoveredthese provinces for Sulla. Later he was to organize the East
on his own authority,wherehis settlementeventuallybecame law after
Caesar, as consul,saw to its ratification.
The successfulconclusionof the SertorianWar was criticallyimportant
to Pompey's future.He had no standingin Rome except at the head of a
victoriousarmy. It was the firstcampaign in which he was not acting
merelyas an agent of Sulla. It was also his firstventureas "The Great"
Pompey, the firsttest of his rightto bear the title of the most famous
organizerof them all. It can hardlybe doubted that he took fulladvan-
tage of the opportunityaffordedby his hard-wonvictorywhen it finally
came.
Pompey, of course,had ample time to workout a detailed settlement
forTransalpina. It took him fiveyears to bringthe SertorianWar to an
end. During that time,Transalpina served as a stagingarea forthemajor
fightingthat was goingon in Spain. Pompey and Metellus each spent at
least one winternorthof the Pyrenees during the war.33And the fact
that M. Fonteius was assigned administrativeresponsibilitiesin Trans-
31MRR 2.90; Rice Holmes (above, n. 27) 143-145.
32MRR2.90.
33MRR 2.104 places Metellus in Gaul the winter of 75/4 and Pompey the winterof
74/3; this is in addition to Pompey's earlier stay the winterof 77/6.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
366 PHOENIX

alpinaforsomethreeyears,whilethefighting wasstillgoingon,doesnot
or
preclude, diminish,Pompey's role as organizer.It is perhapsno
coincidence thatFonteiuswassenttoTransalpinaat aboutthesametime
thattheSenatewas responding to Pompey'sdemandformoresupport.34
Two newlegionsweredispatchedto Spainin 74 and Fonteiusmayhave
deliveredthem.But Pompey'sletterstressedthe need formoneyand
supplieseven morethanformen,and thatis what Fonteiusset about
providing fromTransalpina.
We are fortunate in havingCicero'saccount,if biased,of Fonteius'
serviceinTransalpina.A reasonablelistofhisactivities is easilyextracted
fromtherhetoric:Fonteiusdirectedmilitary operationsagainstat least
some Gauls, the Vocontiibeingspecifically mentioned;he confiscated
lands and clearedthemby force;he requisitioned suppliesof all kinds
and moneyas well; he calledup cavalryforservicein otherwars; he
orderedthe refurbishing of the Via Domitia.He rigidlycontrolled the
circulation of moneyand providedwinterquartersfora largeRoman
army.35 In doingall this,he seemsto havebeencarefulto avoidoffending
Romancitizensand non-Gallic alliesin theprovince.On theotherhand,
virtually everyimportant Gallictribesentwitnesses againstFonteiusat
his trial.On the whole,the description of TransalpinawhichCicero
presents is notoneofan organized province, butratheronein theprocess
ofbeingorganized.
Pompeywas stillin Transalpinain 71, thusstillavailableto make
finalarrangements afterFonteius'departure.The nextgovernor of the
emerging provincewas probablyPompey'strustedlegate,L. Afranius.36
AnotherloyalPompeian,M. PupiusPiso,was dispatchedto Spainin 71
andperhapsheldall ofituntilAntistius Vetusarrivedin69.37The pattern
hereincreasesthelikelihood thatFonteiuswas also an adherent ofPom-
pey,a proposalmaderecently byA. Wardon othergroundsbutresisted
34Broughton(MRR 2.104) and Badian (Notes 912) seem to be rightin assigningFon-
teius' trienniumto the years 74-72. Pompey's letter to the Senate (Sall. Hist. 2.98M)
was writtenthe winter of 75/4; two new legions were sent to him in 74 (App. BC 4.
1.111). See also Rice Holmes (above, n. 27) 378, 382-383; Brunt (above, n. 9) 465, 471.
"6In addition to sections 12-14 (above, 365) see 4.8 (A. Boulanger [Editions Bude,
Paris 1961] 29 attributes this fragmentto the missingexordium.),11, 16, 18, 20, 26, 49.
36MRR2.130-131. Afraniuscelebrated a triumphby 67. Broughtonsuggests a praetor-
ship in 71 and 70-69 for his provincial command (Spain or Transalpina) and triumph.
But 71 seems early forAfranius'praetorshipsince, as Pompey's most effectivelieutenant,
we mightexpect that he was kept on active duty duringmuch of that year. On Afranius'
long and loyal service to Pompey, especially on militarycampaigns, see E. Gruen, The
Last Generationof the Roman Republic (Berkeley 1974) 63, 85, 132-133 (cited hereafter
as LGRR). Cf. Badian, FC 113 and Brunt (above, n. 9) 465 (followingBroughton).
37MRR2.124 and 133. On his association withPompey, see Gruen,LGRR (above, n. 36)
61, 63, 85, 132-133.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 367

by E. Gruen.38It appears that Pompey, at least fora time,was able to

secure the appointmentof provincialgovernorswho would maintainhis
interestsin the westernprovinces.
In late 72, or in 71, Pompey set up a trophyin the Pyreneesto com-
memoratehis victories.39Such trophies,and Pompey was not the first
to set one up, have implicationsbeyondthe mereglorification of conquer-
ing generals. Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbusand Q. Fabius Maximus each
set one up in Gaul in 121 (Strabo 4.1.11; Florus 1.37.4-6). They are noted
as unprecedentedin Roman history(Florus 1.c.). Also in Gaul is the
famous Augustan trophynear Monaco which announced the finalsub-
jection of the Alpine tribes.40The trophieswere physical remindersof
Roman conquest. It is significant,therefore,that both the Pompeian
and the Augustan trophieswere inscribedwith the names of the recently
subjugated peoples. Pliny's description (3.18) of Pompey's trophy is
brief: . . . Pompeius Magnus tropaeis suis quae statuebatin Pyrenaeo,
DCCCLXXVI oppida ab Alpibus adfinesHispaniae Ulteriorisin ditionem
a se redactatestatussit. He later notes (HN 7.96) that it did not mention
Sertorius.He also (HN 3.136-137) providesa fulllist of names fromthe
Augustan trophy,which can be verifiedfromextant fragmentsof the
originalinscription.Officiallyand legally the named tribesor townscon-
stituted a list of the dediticii,the unprivilegedclass of Roman subjects
in a province,as contrastedwith otherswho had enteredinto relations
with Rome under more favorablecircumstancesand were,in fact,allies
and friendswith certainobligationsto Rome but not legally subjects.41
The inscriptionson the tropies,therefore, provideinformation that would
be reflectedin subsequent provincialorganizations.
The figureof 876 oppida on the Pompeian trophyimplies a detailed

38A. M. Ward, "Cicero's Supportof Pompeyin the Trials of M. Fonteiusand P.

Oppius,"Latomus27 (1968) 802-809and idem,"Ciceroand Pompeyin 75 and 70 B.C."
Latomus29 (1970) 58-71; E. Gruen,"Pompey,MetellusPius, and theTrialsof 70-69
B.C.: thePerilsofSchematism," A7P 92 (1971) 1-16 andidem,LGRR(above,n. 36) 268.
Ward makesa good case forPompey'sinterestin Fonteius'defense,but not,as Gruen
shows,fora Metellaninterestin the prosecution.It would appear that the Gauls,
encouraged bytherecentsuccessful prosecutionofVerres,managedto prevailuponsome
notverypowerful, but obliging,patronsto plead theircase.
39MRR2.124.For a discussionofthetrophy, itsHellenisticantecedents,
stressing see
G. C. Picard,Les Trophiesromains(Paris 1957) 181-189.
40J.Formig6,Le Trophledes Alpes (la Turbie)(Paris 1949); Picard (above, n. 39)
291-295.On theprobablelocationofthetribeslisted,see G. Barruol,Les Peuplespr6-
romainesdu sud-estde la Gaule(Paris 1969) 32-41.
"Rome could unilaterally imposeany settlement upon dediticiisince,usually as a
resultofwar,theyhad surrendered themselves to theprotection ofRome.The statusof
allies (socii), however,restedupon bilateralagreements if not alwaysformaltreaties.
See Badian FC 5-6, 84-85,and passim.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
368 PHOENIX

inventory of the conqueredpeoples.Othersimilarreferences in ancient

sourcesshowthat the figureis not out of line.42These oppidawere,of
course,merelynamedplacesand notrecognized politicalunits.Political
existence,as seen fromRome,wouldnormally be expressedby theterm
civitas.This is nottheplace to elaborateon theapparentinconsistencies
ofoursourcesin theuse of theseand relatedterms.43 They are,I think,
attributable to a realflexibility in application.In general,it can be said
thatseveraloppida(or vici,pagi,orsimilarsmallunits)wereattachedto,
orcombined tomakeup,a civitas(orgens,natio,orsomesuchlargerunit).
The taskofsettingout thepoliticalunitsthatwouldbe recognized, and
responsibleto Rome,was a largepartofprovincial organization.
Pompeyfollowedwhat was, by now, a well establishedpolicyof
organization, aimedat concentrating administrative responsibility in a
fewmajor centers.It was accomplishedby a procedureaptly called
"attribution."44 Usually,an important townwouldbe assignedadminis-
trativeresponsibility forthe smallertownsand tribalunitsin thesur-
roundingarea. If no substantialcenterexistedwhereone seemedwar-
ranted,strategicconsiderations woulddetermine whereto establishit,
e.g.,LugdunumConvenarum (see below,369).
There is anotherpointto be made by comparingPompey'strophy
withthetrophyof Augustus.The actualwording of thetwodedicatory
inscriptionsstrongly suggests their connection with provincialorganiza-
tion.The standardformulaforcreatinga provincewas redigere in pro-
vinciamor redigere in formamprovinciae.Variationson this formula
appearon boththePompeianand theAugustantrophies.On thePom-
peiantrophywe find:... oppida... in ditionem a se redacta.... On the
Augustantrophy is: . . . gentesAlpinae . . . sub imperium P. R. sunt
redactae.
A finalindicationof the organizational
functionof thesetrophiesis
theirlocationon theboundariesof administrativeunits,notin,or even
near,majorpopulation centerswhere theywould have had moreprop-
aganda value fortheconquering Fabius'
generals. trophywas setup near
the Isere,the riverwhichmarkedthe southernboundaryof the Allo-
broges.Augustus'trophyanchoredthe boundarybetweenTransalpina
and theAlpineprovinces.Pompey'sdid thesame betweenTransalpina

42Strabo(3.4.3) forinstance,citesbothPolybiusand Poseidoniuson thefigure of300

poleiswhichTiberiusGracchusclaimedto have destroyed in Celtiberia,and he goeson
to say thatsomeauthorsascribemorethan1000 to Iberia.
43Fora discussion,withrecentbibliography, see Barruol(above, n. 40) 119-135.
44E.Kornemann, "Attributio,"RE Supp.7 (1940)65-71; Brunt(above,n. 9) 170-171,
249-250.See also Badian FC 122-124on theorganization of Spain before133 and the
questionofsynoecismthere.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 369

and Nearer Spain-probably markinga clear administrativedivisionfor

the firsttime.45
Pompey took firmaction to strengthenthe boundarybetweenthe two
provinces.He foundedthe townof Pompaelo (Pompeiopolis,in imitation
of Alexander?), modern Pamplona, on the approach to an important
pass in the centralchain of the Pyrenees.46 Farthereast, this timeon the
northernslope of the Pyreneesnear the Garonne,he foundedLugdunum
Convenarum (Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges),which controlled the
approach to another importantpass. Here the confederatetribe of the
Garunni,perhapsnow freedfromthe dominationof the Tectosages, were
broughttogetherto start the town. Some of the Garunni,as in the case
of the Ruteni (near Rodez), were apparentlyleft outside the province.
Remnants of Sertorian irregularsfromSpain were also settled there.47
The Consoranni,to the east, may have been similarlyorganizedaround
the oppidum at Saint-Lizier.48Though this is not attested in literary
sources,similarepigraphicevidence and strategicconsiderationssupport
the conclusion. Both the Convenae and the Consoranni were later
attached to Aquitania by Augustus. Emporiae and Illiberis were in
position to guard the coastal road fromeither side of the Pyrenees.49
Thus reinforced,the Pyrenees became, for the firsttime, an effective
barrierbetweenGaul and Spain.
In the eastern half of the province,the well establishedpolicy was to
increasethe territoryand responsibilityof Massilia. Pompey followedit.
In a troublesomepassage Caesar (BCiv. 1.35.4) explains how both he
and Pompey became patrons of Massilia: . . . Cn. Pompeium et C.
Caesarem,patronoscivitatis[sc. Massiliae], quorumalteragros Volcarum

4"Pompey's trophy is recognized by later sources, notably Strabo (3.4.19 and else-
where), as a specificboundary markerbetween Transalpina and the Spanish provinces.
Strabo points out, however, that earlier authoritiesindicate other divisions of the coun-
try,explainingthat the Romans adjusted boundaries fromtime to time as it suited them.
Cf. Pliny (HN 3.18): CiteriorisHispaniae sicut compluriumprovinciarumaliquantum
vetusformamutataest. Polybius (3.39.4-5) refersto the Pyrenees only as a geographical
boundary between Iberia and Gaul. We cannot assume that they representeda political
boundary as well.
"4Strabo4.3.10; A. Schulten, "Pompaelo," RE 22.2 (1952) 1994.
47Strabo4.2.1; Pliny HN 4.108; Caesar BCiv. 3.19.2; JeromeAdv. Vigil. 4; Isodorus
9.2.108. The source of Jerome and Isodore may well be Sallust: Hirschfeld CIL 13.5.
For discussion,see R. Lizop, Les Convenaeet les Consoranni (Toulouse-Paris 1931) 3-24,
followed here. The only mention of the Garunni, along the upper Garonne, is Caesar
BG 3.27.
48Lizop (previous n.) 20-23. Geography and the frequencyof the nomenPompeius are
the best evidence.
49Emporiae,a colony of Massilia, was Rome's firmally fromthe time of the Second
Punic War: Livy 21.60 (in 218), 34.9 (in 195).

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
370 PHOENIX

Arecomicorumet Helviorumpublice concesserit,alter bello victasGallias

attribueritvectigaliaqueauxerit.Althoughthereis some doubt about the
natureof Caesar's benefactions(the texthas been questioned),thereis no
reason to doubt that the policy of attributingGallic lands to Massilia is
correctlystated.50Nor should we doubt the essential accuracy of the
reporton Pompey's dispositions.Cicero (Font. 14) seems to referto this
action of Pompey's when he lists among the witnessesagainst his client,
Fonteius,thoseGauls who wereforcedto leave theirlands ex. Cn. Pompei
decreto.
The Volcae Arecomicicontrolleda large territory fromthelowerRhone
west to the H6rault; theirprincipalcenterwas Nemausus (Nimes). The
Helvii were their neighborsto the north.How much of theirland was
turnedover to Massilia, and on what terms,is an open question.There is
some reason to believe, however, that all of it was. Archaeological
evidence reveals a strongMassiliot economic interestwhich mightwell
have been indulgedby Pompey.5' Massiliot coinage circulatedwidelyin
the regionand the monnaiesa' la croixof the Arecomicishow an obverse
type of Massiliot inspiration.52And with the Massiliot colony of Agathe
(Agde) situated at the mouth of the Herault, it must have seemed
reasonable to grant Massilia all of the interveningterritory.
In the pro Fonteio (12-14) Cicero reveals, rather circuitously,that
Pompey's settlementwas confirmedby the Senate and imposed,in large
part, by Fonteius. To dramatize his client's position, Cicero presents
three brief historical sketches of the Transalpine Gauls, Fonteius'
accusers, alternatedwith accountsof Fonteius and his supportersin the
province. The parallel descriptionsof the Gauls follow a fairlyclose
chronologicalscheme with interlockingvariationsin detail that can be
cross-referenced.Certain geographical distinctionscan also be made.
Parallel sectionsare numbered:
ProvinciaeGalliae M. Fonteiuspraefuit,quae constatex iis generibushominumetcivitatum,
qui, ut veteramittam,(1) partim nostra memoria bella cum populo Romano acerba ac
50It has been suggested that the actions attributedto Pompey and Caesar ought to be
reversed by postulating a chiasmus-a radical proposal which explains nothing. The
reading victasGallias has appeared too broad to some and the emendation victosSallyas
has been proposed. But thereis no record of Caesar's fightingthe Salluvii, a significant
omission in view of the documentationon the Gallic Wars. On the difficultiesof the text,
see Barruol (above, n. 40) 225; F. Pomponi, "Rome et les Volques: le territoiredes
Arecomiques au temps de Pompee et de C6sar," 38e CongrLsde la Fe'dration historiquedu
Languedoc-Roussillon(Nimes 1965) 109-116.
"5See F. Benoit, Recherchessur I'hellinisation du Midi de la Gaule (Gap 1965); J. de
Wever, "La Xc.pa massaliote d'aprbs les fouilles recentes," AntCl 25 (1966) 71-117;
J. Arnal et al., Le Port de Lattara (Bordighera-Montpellier1974).
52Allen(above, n. 17) 45-46. The westernfrontierof the Negroid head type (derived
fromthe Artemisof Massilia) of the Arecomici is the Orb or the H6rault. West of the
Herault, the dolphin type of the Tectosages (or Tolosates) predominates.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 371

diuturna gesserunt,(2) partim modo ab nostrisimperatoribussubacti, modo bello domiti,

modotriumphisac monumentisnotati,modo ab senatu agris urbibusquemultatisunt, (3)
partim qui cum ipso M. Fonteio ferrum ac manus contuleruntmultoqueeius sudore ac
laboresub populi Romani imperiumdicionemquecediderunt.

After a brief mention of the respectable elements in the province,

Cicero returnsagain to the Gauls (the chronologicalorderis reversed):
... M. Fonteius,ut dixi, praefuit; (3) qui eranthostes,subegit,(2) qui proximefuerant,eos
ex iis agris, quibus erantmultati,decederecoegit,(1) ceteris,qui idcircomagnissaepe erant
bellis superati,ut semperpopulo Romano parerent,magnosequitatusad ea bella quae tum
in totoorbeterraruma populo Romano gerebantur,magnaspecunias ad eorumstipendium,
maximumfrumentinumerumad Hispaniense bellumtolerandumimperavit.

In a final review, Cicero suggests to the jury the motivationof the

witnessesagainst Fonteius:
... (1) dicunt contra,quibus invitissimisimperatumest, (2) dicunt, qui ex agris ex Cn.
Pompei decretodecederesunt coacti, (3) dicunt, qui ex belli caede etfuga nunc primum
audent contraM. Fonteiumconsistere.

The firstcategory,dated by veteramittamand nostramemoria,refers

especially to the tribesdefeatedrepeatedlyby Roman generalsfrom125
to 121. The victoriesof C. Marius in 102, Coelius Caldus in 90, and
Valerius Flaccus might be included here, but the text should not be
forced.It is enoughto realize that the emphasisin the second categoryis
on Pompey's actions. At the time this speech was delivered in 69,53
Pompey's exploitsin Spain and Transalpina werestill freshin everyone's
mind. Aside fromhis actually being named, his recentrecordis alluded
to in detail: his recenttriumph(70), his trophy,the confiscationsassoci-
ated with his foundationof Lugdunum, and his award of lands to Mas-
silia. If Cicero's descriptiondoes not exclude others froma share in the
glory,that merelyreflectshis diplomaticskill. Pompey was the man fore-
most in the minds of his audience. The third categoryrefersto those
Gauls who opposed Fonteius himself.54 His actionsare distinguishedfrom
Pompey's. Cicero's purpose is to show that Fonteius was simply the
effectiveagent of Roman policy in Transalpina.
The divisionsof Cicero's textsuggestsome geographicaldistinctionsas
well. In the case of the firstcategory(campaigns of 125-121), wherethe
Gallic tribesinvolved are mentionedin the sourcesthey are located east
of the Rhone. The major tribes,"confederations"as Barruol describes

53Thedate is generallyaccepted; it could not be earlier: A. E. Ward, Latomus27 (1968)

802.
54F. Pomponi (above, n. 50) 113-115, questions all of the relevant textsin an effortto
deny that Pompey accomplished anything in Transalpina. Taking some of Cicero's
remarksout of context,he views the actions of Fonteius and Pompey as a unit-limited
to enforcingearlier senatorial decisions.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372 PHOENIX

them,are the Salluvii, the Vocontii,and the Allobroges.55The Arverni,

who figurein Domitius' triumph,were,ofcourse,stilloutsidetheprovince
duringCaesar's tenurein Gaul.56The Cavares, who occupied a sizeable
territoryalong the Rhone above the delta, do not figurein accounts of
Roman fightingin the area nor in the triumphalfasti.They may have
been allies, or subjects of Massilia by that time and thus not hostile to
Rome."7
What formalor informalrestraintswere placed upon these tribes to
ensure"that theywould be foreverobedientto the Roman people" is not
clear. The Salluvii are accounted for,at least in part, as assigned to
Massilia. The Vocontiiand theAllobrogesmay have been giventreaties.58
In any event, theywere all obliged to supportPompey's effortin Spain.
And it appears fromCicero's account that theydid, but apparentlywith
increasingresentmentas the war draggedon and the demandsupon them
began to be made more systematically(Cic. Font. 26: . . . qui optima in
causa sunt, equites,frumentum, pecuniam semel atque iterumac saepius
invitissimidare coacti sunt.). We know of at least one Vocontian who
foughtwith Pompey in Spain, the ancestor of the Augustan historian
Pompeius Trogus.59In the end, the Vocontiiseem to have offeredarmed
resistanceto the exactions of Fonteius. A mere mentionof a Vocontian
War is preserved in the incomplete text of the pro Fonteio; Cicero's
commentson the war have not survived.
The second category refersprimarilyto those tribes who opposed
Pompey's passage into Spain. Geographically,they should be located
west of the Rhone forthe most part. It is only natural to expect that the
Spanish revolution inspired greater enthusiasm in neighboringareas,
and that is wherePompey's new arrangementsare specificallyattested.
The Gauls of the westernhalfof the provinceofferedarmedresistanceto
Pompey and were eventually punished with the confiscationof their
lands.
The thirdcategory(Fonteius' tenure)is merelyan adjunct of the first
two in termsof affairsin Transalpina. It is clear, however,fromthis and
otherpassages of thepro Fonteio,that Fonteius was responsibleforboth
halves of the province.
The outline of a new arrangementforTransalpina was now in place.
Pompeywas its principalauthor.Perhaps feelingthe fullweightofRoman

15G. Barruol (above, n. 40) 187-307, discusses these peoples in detail.

5"Caesar BG 1.45.2-3.
51G. Barruol (above, n. 40) 233-234.
58PlinyHN 3.37: Vocontiorumcivitatisfoederatae.... The Allobroges had a roughly
similar history of relations with Rome, though perhaps displaying a more belligerent
attitude in the late Republic.
59Just.Epit. 43.5.11-12.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POMPEY'S ORGANIZATION OF TRANSALPINA 373

rule forthe firsttime, the Transalpine Gauls, especially the Allobroges,

continued to give troublein the sixties. It was to be expected. Similar
unresthad been generatedby provincialorganizationelsewhere(i.a., the
Spanish provinces after 197, Asia after 132). The level of resistance
mighteven be held a crude indicatorof the degree of change imposed.
The model of Fonteius' oppressive tenure was apparently followedby
his successors-as Cicero had argued that, forthe good of the state, it
should be.
L. Afraniuscelebrated a triumphin the early sixties,probably from
Transalpina (above, n. 36). C. Piso, one of the consulsof 67, was awarded
both Gallic provinces,whichhe held until65. He put down a revoltof the
Allobrogesin 66 (MRR 2.143, 154, 159). L. Murena probably held the
singleprovinceof Transalpina in 64 and 63, wherehe made a reputation
collectingdebts fromGauls.60In 63, the Allobrogeswere temptedto join
Catiline-apparently by theprospectof bettertreatment.61 C. Pomptinus
became governorin 62 and stayed on until Caesar's arrival in 59.62
Pomptinus foundit necessaryto campaign against the Allobrogesonce
again (MRR 2.176, 185). The provincewas generallyquiet duringCaesar's
long tenure.But he had large armieswithhim,and thefruitlesspolicyof
resistancewas perhaps by then discredited.63
CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,
MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN

60Badian, Notes 913-917; Brunt (above, n. 9) 466.

Cat.3.5; Flac. 94-95, 102; Sail. Cat. 45.
6LCicero
62The doubt expressed by Badian in FC 311 about which Gallic province Afranius
mighthave taken up afterhis consulship in 60 is resolved in favorof Cisalpina in Notes
917. The dedication to Afraniusby the colony of Valentia (ILS 878), whichrefersto him
as consul, is surely the Spanish Valencia, not Valence. Cf. Klebs, "Afranius," RE 1.1
(1893) 712.
6"I wish to thank the journal's anonymous referees,who read an earlier versionof this
article and made many helpfulsuggestionsforimprovingit; finalresponsibilityforwhat
appears here is, of course, my own.

This content downloaded from 192.122.237.11 on Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions