Thread by @Peter_Nimitz

The dual triumphs of the Greeks at Himera in Sicily and Salamis in Greece in 480 BC checked Carthage & Persia. The rest of the century saw the Greeks of Syracuse breaking Etruscan sea power while the Etruscans lost land in tandem to their neighbors.

There was recently an ancient DNA paper which tested the remains of soldiers slain at the Battle of Himera:

https://twitter.com/Peter_Nimitz/status/1591272765671510016

Epirus & Sparta both intervened on behalf of Greeks of S Italy in 340s & 330s BC against their Samnite, Sabellian, & Messapian enemies. Tarentum’s Greeks, worried by Epirote successes, assassinated the Epirote ruler in 332 BC. With Greek unity in Italy broken, Rome’s power grew.

https://twitter.com/Peter_Nimitz/status/1426365066811559938

Pyrrhus, like Alexander the Molossian before him, found it difficult to unite Greeks of Italy behind him. His direct administration of land was unpopular, but perhaps national feeling played a role? Romans advanced where Italics lived, Greeks did not.

https://x.com/peter_nimitz/status/1391940876935434242?s=46&t=SvMvRJvZq5WAKRw63cx5GA

Sicels were possibly Italic speakers who overran the Mycenaean Greeks of Sicily during the Bronze Age Collapse, while Sicanians (who have been DNA tested) were at least Indo-European influenced and possibly from Iberia (though maybe speaking a non-IE language).

https://twitter.com/Peter_Nimitz/status/1457927097423257607

Mommsen, writing 1854-1856, anticipated DNA findings showing that Carthaginians had little-to-no Phoenician ancestry. “The Carthaginians were changed from Tyrians to Libyans”. He describes change in Carthage’s national spirit 500-450 BC from passive trade to aggressive expansion.

https://twitter.com/Peter_Nimitz/status/1520508093875953664

Greeks of Macedon, Syracuse, and S Italy supported Carthage in Second Punic War, but were incompetent fighters. Carthage & its Numidian & Celtic allies did most of the effective fighting against Rome.

Population of Italy was higher in 253 BC than 153 BC. Mommsen believes the combination of Hannibal’s devastating invasion 218-204, expansion of slavery, conversion of farmland to pasture or vineyards, & land speculation drove the population decline.

Cretan & Cilician corsairs raided Greek islands and coastal Syria for slaves, exporting them to Roman Republic in 2nd century BC. Sicily had the most developed plantations at the time, and saw years long revolts. Mommsen chalks the slavery system up to Carthaginian influence.

Breakdown of populist-democrat coalition in 100 BC led to senate, aristocrats, & democrat-freed prisoners fighting & crushing populist streetfighters. Mommsen earlier mentioned populists mobs included many Anatolians & non-Roman Italics, latter of whom were on path to equality.

Associations around democrat politician Drusus rose in rebellion in 91 BC, demanding citizenship. Aristocrats held with Rome, middle class with rebels. Rebels wanted to build new state, Italica, on Roman model, but with citizenship for all members of participating communities.

Interesting last two lines - larger states imagined even by revolutionaries were to be alliances of city-states led by a head city-state, with individuals seen as part of a specific community rather than a broader nation.

Sulla made all loyal members of Italian communities Roman citizens. The convoluted alliance & colony system that had evolved over centuries was replaced by a new system of municipalities modeled off of Rome, but with institutions subject to Roman supremacy.

Decrease in Italian population from Social & Mithridatic Wars was made up for by immigration of Greek-speakers from Asia. Mommsen saw 133-78 BC as decadent due to promiscuity, rising marriage age, high housing prices, love of pets, indulgence in entertainment, & foodies.

(He mentions on a previous page how the Romans destroyed Greek industry around Corinth, so not a comparable situation to what we are in. Using slaves rather than waterwheels perhaps doomed Rome to miss an industrial revolution)

Mommsen takes the view that Caesar was bad, but inevitable as the unrepresentative Senate and slavery had rotted the late Republic.

Caesar’s finance policy. The Romans passed sumptuary laws for moral & economic reasons several times, as did a number of states throughout history. Today, I think only Tajiks and Uzbeks have such laws, though specifically aimed at families overspending on weddings.