The Roman Republic 264-44BC

到公元前264年，罗马通过战争和外交手段成为意大利最强大的国家。那一年是她第一次海外军事冒险：在西西里的一次有争议的干预很快导致了与迦太基的全面战争，迦太基是地中海西部的主要力量，总部设在北非。在西西里的胜利，为建立一个帝国做好了准备，到公元前44年，这个帝国控制了地中海的大部分地区和欧洲大陆的大部分地区。这是一个熟悉的故事，也是另一面：在这个庞大帝国的舞台上获得的利润和权力侵蚀了罗马贵族限制其自然竞争冲动的共识精神。对政治职位和军事指挥权的竞争导致了政治腐败，针对的是一个城市的选民，他们现在无法有效地行使对庞大帝国的主权，而且越来越不代表罗马公民。农村和城市的民众承受着越来越大的社会经济压力，因为持续的战争招募和帝国税收造成的经济失衡侵蚀了传统的政治和社会结构。政治上的两极分化开始了，在现状的拥护者、民意的代表（有时是自封的）和过于强大的将军之间。共和国在内战中被推翻，恺撒自封为独裁者;几年后，他自己被暗杀。后来的内战最终因唯一的维克托的出现而结束，他成为了第一位皇帝。然而，这个项目试图讲述另一个故事。刚才讲的那个熟悉的故事，本质上是对希腊人和罗马人自己在事件发生期间和事件发生之后所写的历史的重述;自文艺复兴以来，情况一直如此。该项目旨在为其他两类证据提供声音：刻在石头上的罗马文献和考古调查的证据。有些材料是全新的;有些自文艺复兴以来就已为人所知。到目前为止，还没有一种历史叙事允许任何一种声音与主要主角一起占据中心舞台，传统上是古典主义者研究的文本材料，并因此在解释共和国晚期时发挥了主导作用。这种重点变化的一个后果是，在整个故事中，新的演员群体将得到更多的关注。这里有三个群体非常重要：农村和小城镇的居民，与罗马的城市贫民和贵族相对;意大利人，与罗马人相对（这是半岛人口的一半到三分之二，他们直到公元前90年左右才获得罗马公民身份）;以及帝国各地受罗马统治的其他民族的精英和民众。除了希腊人之外，他们明确的证词很少，我们经常依赖于对考古遗迹的解释来让他们说话。但这并不是不努力的理由。最终的结果应该是一种叙事，试图从意大利的角度解释罗马崛起的独特性，罗马人深深参与的一种观点，影响了他们自己对自己是谁的感觉，以及他们认为自己要去哪里。这部戏剧中的传统主角，基于文学来源的叙述，将不会被驱逐出舞台，但他的话现在将在一个真实的对话中听到：这个角色和以前的配角将不得不相互考虑;结果应该是一个更好的代表，罗马共和国的成长和失败是如何经历了更多的球员，在更多的地方，比以前实现的。

By 264 B.C. Rome had, by war and diplomacy, become the most powerful state in Italy. That year saw her first military adventure overseas: a controversial intervention in Sicily quickly led to full scale war with the Carthage, the major western Mediterranean power, based in north Africa. Victory in Sicily set in train the creation of an empire which by 44 B.C. controlled most of the Mediterranean and much of continental Europe. This is a familiar story, as is the flip-side: the profits and power to be gained on the stage of this vast empire corroded the consensual ethos by which the Roman aristocracy had limited its natural competitive urges. Competition for political office and military command led to political corruption aimed at a city populace of voters now unable effectively to exercise its sovereignty over the vast empire, and increasingly unrepresentative of the Roman citizen body. The populace, rural and urban, was subjected to increasing socio-economic stresses, as continual recruitment for war and the unbalancing of the economy through imperial revenues ate at the traditional fabric of politics and society. Political polarisation set in, between the champions of the status quo, the representatives (sometimes self-styled) of the popular will, and over-mighty generals. The Republic was overthrown in Civil war, and Caesar set himself up as dictator; within a few years he himself was assassinated. Further civil wars were eventually ended by the emergence of a sole victor, Augustus, who became the first emperor.This project seeks to tell another story, however. The familiar tale just told is essentially a retelling of the histories written by Greeks and Romans themselves, during and just after the events; and this has been the case since the Renaissance. This project seeks to give a voice to two other categories of evidence: Roman documents inscribed on stone, and the evidence from archaeological enquiry. Some of this material is brand new; some has been known since the Renaissance. Until now no historical narrative has allowed either voice to occupy centre-stage alongside the main protagonist, the textual material which has traditionally been the study of classicists, and has exercised a dominant role in interpretations of the late Republic for this reason. One consequence of this change of emphasis will be increased light shed on new groups of actors throughout the story. Three groups are very important here: the inhabitants of the countryside and the small towns, as opposed to the urban poor and nobility of Rome; Italians as opposed to Romans (that is the half to two-thirds of the the population of the peninsula who did not have the Roman citizenship until about 90 B.C.); and the elites and populations of other peoples subjected by Rome across the empire. With the exception of the Greeks, their explicit testimonies are few, and we are often reliant on interpretations of archaeological remains to allow them to speak. But that is not a reason for not making the effort. The end result ought to be a narrative which seeks to explain the uniqueness of the rise of Rome from an Italian viewpoint, a viewpoint with which the Romans were deeply engaged, and which influenced their own sense of who they were, and where they thought they were going. The traditional leading actor in this drama, the account based on literary sources, will not be banished from the stage, but his words will now be heard within a real dialogue: this role and those of the former supporting actors will have to take account of each other; the result ought to be a better representation, of how the growth and failure of the Roman Republic were experienced by a greater number of players, in more locations, than has previously been achieved.