! Koutseridi, ! 1

Ostia, Rome, and the Tyrrhenian Coast: Reconsidering the Function of Coastal Colonies ! The expansion of early Rome and its power is an extremely important phenomena. The

comprehensive studies of many scholars have significantly improved our understanding of this

process such as Salmon, Sherwin-White, Forsythe, Cornell and Eckstein.  The analysis of this 1

complicated process of Roman expansion has been greatly broadened and enhanced by applying

methodologies from seemingly disparate fields of archaeology, social history, international

affairs and political science. Since the literary and archaeological evidence alone is too

fragmentary to reconstruct this complicated historical process the interdisciplinary nature of

scholarly collaboration allows for a fuller picture of early Rome’s expansion. The study of

Roman colonization has been a major part of explaining the gradual expansion of Roman control

over the Italian peninsula.  Early Roman colonization facilitated the enlargement of the periphery 2

of Rome’s territorial power and solidified them as borders of defense. The placement and the

actual location of Roman colonies is one of particular interest for this paper. The period of the

late 4th and 3rd centuries BCE was a time of extensive Roman colonization especially along the

Tyrrhenian coast. Ostia, a colony of particular interest due to its proximity to Rome and strategic

location, deserves to be reanalyzed within the larger Tyrrhenian world which Rome was

becoming an increasingly greater part of at this time. The purpose of this paper is to look at the

specific coastal locations of colonies such as Ostia, Cosa, Antium and others in order to expand

! Salmon 1970, Sherwin-White 1973, Forsythe 2005, Cornell 1995, and Eckstein 2006. 1

! The scholarly consensus is that Roman colonization takes off in 338 with the establishment of both coloniea 2

latinae and coloniae civium Romanorum. The coloniae latinae followed the tradition of colonization established under the Latin League which the citizen colonies were first introduces after the year 338BCE with the dissolution of the Latin League and Rome solidified control of Latium. For detailed distinctions in status and rights see Sherwin-White 1973. See Salmon 1955, 1970 for discussion on patterns of colonial settlements.

! Koutseridi, ! 2

our understanding of Roman sea power which contributed just as much as Roman land power (if

not more) to Rome’s dominance first of the Tyrrhenian and then of the Mediterranean world.

The role of Ostia within the larger Tyrrhenian world can only be achieved by securing the

proper historical context of its foundation and development. The debate about the date of Ostia’s

castrum among various scholars has yielded a vast array of results due to the inconclusive nature

of the evidence.  However the archaeological work of Archer Martin has finally provided a more 3

conclusive date for the castrum. A close analysis of pottery ranging from 300 to 275BCE was

discovered at the foundation level of the castrum walls, thus providing a stratigraphically safe

date for the foundation of the castrum.  As a result of the more confident date it is now possible 4

to place Ostia within its appropriate historical context, reexamine the motivations behind its

founding at the later date of 290BCE and most importantly to investigate the function it occupied

on the Tyrrhenian coast.  5

Before examining the historical events of the 3rd century BCE, it is important to examine

Rome’s social and political changes which took place as a result of Rome’s growth in the two

centuries preceeding. These changes had significant effects on later Roman colonization. The

one thing that is significantly deemphasized when looking at early Roman expansion is the role

! Carcopino 1911 and 1919 relies on historical connections between Actium and Ostia for the date sometime in 3

between 338BCE and 317BCE. Meiggs 1973 accepts 338BCE as the terminus ante quem but argues for an earlier date of somewhere around 350BCE as a result of Greek raids of 349BCE that called for coastal defense. Coarelli 1988, argues for 426BCE on the basis of construction material. Beazley, 1947 looks at fragments of “Genucilia” plates and compares them to Olynthus pottery, concluding that it should be dated to no later than 348BCE. Adembri, 1996 reconsiders the date of attic fragments placing them in somewhere in between 380/370 and 340/330BCE. Zevi 2001, associates the establishment of duumviri navales in 311BCE with the foundation of the castrum. ! See Martin 1996.4

! See Demetrius Waarsenburg 1998 for further suggestion of a date in between 292/1 and 275BCE. 5

! Koutseridi, ! 3

of Rome on water. This part of the paper will highlight the significance of Roman sea power that

was already emerging in the 5th and the 4th centuries BCE primarily in the realm of commerce.  6

Some of the most important pieces of evidence that represent the earliest existence of

Rome’s fleet within the commercial sphere can be found in the three peace treaties between

Rome and Carthage. The first Romano-Carthaginian treaty, according to Polybius, dates to the

very beginning of the Roman Republic in 509/507BCE under the consulship of L. Iunius Brutus

and M. Horatius.  The main reason to support the early date is due to the fitting historical 7

circumstances of the late sixth century BCE in which the Romans controlled the territory of

roughly 100km south of Rome presented in the first treaty. A later date does not fit the historical

circumstances since the Romans lose the territory mentioned in the first treaty to Volscians in the

5th century from whom they are not able to win back the land until the middle of the 4th century.

Mommsen suggested a much later date for the first treaty in the mid-forth century. This date has

been disproven on the basis of textual inconsistencies in Livy and the more established

uncertainty of Diodorus than previously assumed by Mommsen.  The first treaty also fits well 8

into the historical circumstances of the late 6h century BCE from the contemporary Carthaginian

interest in creating alliances not only with Rome but with Etruscans as demonstrated by the Pyrgi

inscriptions.  The inscriptions further demonstrates Carthaginian concerns in protecting its trade 9

within the Tyrrhenian sea. The earlier date is further supported by Polybius’ mention of an

! Maritime commerce will also be reflecting in the existence of coastal colonies that I argue were not simply 6

defensive but rather were protecting Rome’s trading routes and ships.

! Although the authenticity of the exact date of 509 BCE is questioned, there is no reason to complete dismiss the 7

existence of this very early treaty between two developing cities. For a full discussion of scholarly opinions on the exact date of the treaty see Cornell 1995 pg. 210-218. ! See Mommsen Die römische Chronologie 1859.8

! See Salmon 1982, Cornell 1995, and Forsythe 2005.9

! Koutseridi, ! 4

archaic form of language in which the first treaty was written, where as there is no mention of

having any language variation for the Second Punic Treaty. The stipulations of the treaty for

φιλία (friendship) are divided into two main categories for the Romans: the maritime limits and

the permitted limits of trade.  The first category clearly sets the Fair Promontory as the limit of 10

Roman maritime exploration.  The second category lists international places of Libya, Sardinia 11

and Sicily with whom Rome was allowed to do trade with under the condition of a herald being

present. The treaty clearly demonstrates some form of a commercial fleet that was necessary to

carry out international maritime travel from Rome to places like Libya. The size of the fleet was

most likely of modest proportions but there would be little reason for these stipulations if Rome

had no commercial fleet that indirectly threatened maritime interests of Carthage. This treaty is

also our earliest mention of Rome’s undeniable interest in sea exploration, navigation and

commerce.

The second treaty between Carthage and Rome dates to 348BCE.  The terms of the 12

friendship are divided into three major categories with a number of subsections for the Romans

and Carthaginians separately. Geographical limits were placed on Roman seafaring denying

them the ability to plunder, trade and colonize on the far side of the Fair Promontory with the

addition of Mastiam Tarseiom located securely in Spain.  Further restrictions were placed on the 13

previously accessible area of Sardinia and Libya with whom the Roman’s were no longer able to

carry out trade and with addition of a new clause putting constraints on colonization. The

! For the terms of the Carthaginians in the treaty see Scullard 1989.10

! For the discussion of the exact location of Fair Promontory see Scullard 1989 pg. 522-523. 11

! Although Polybius does not provide the exact date for the treaty the exclusion of Campania in the treaty puts the 12

treaty before 343BCE. See Forsythe 2005, Scullard 1969.

! For the location of Mastiam Tarseiom and textual modification see Scullard 1989 pg. 528-530. 13

! Koutseridi, ! 5

prohibition to colonize in those parts of the world would suggests that the Romans and their

Latium allies were spreading their influence on a more significant scale than before and were

maybe beginning to colonize outside of the Italian peninsula. Whether or not the Romans were

already colonizing, their maritime power appears more threatening to the Carthaginians in

control of those territories, who no longer felt safe with permitting Rome’s influence through

commercial interaction. The threat posed by the Romans could only have been expressed through

their increasing maritime activity along the Tyrrhenian coast, possibly hurting the Carthaginian

trading routes and their economic profits. The additional restrictions might have also been

influenced by the new scale of growth in Roman power that was not hidden from the

Carthaginians who wanted to maintain their domination of the trade routes in the Tyrrhenian

waters.  The modest Roman fleet of the late 6th century was gradually expanding with the 14

extension of Roman power on land which provided the necessary capital to reinvest in further

maritime commerce and exploration. The extent of Roman exploration as is seen from the

conditions of the second treaty has clearly reached all the way to Spain. In turn the profit

brought in from maritime commercial enterprise solidified further the expansion of Rome. The

one thing that can be definitively discerned from the second peace is the widening horizons of

Roman maritime influence.

Another piece of evidence that needs to be considered in relation to the importance of

early Roman sea power are the food shortages described by Livy. According to Livy in 411BCE,

Rome was struck with a food shortage. Grain had to be import from inland Etruria which was

! See Salmon 1982, Gruen 1984, Keaveney 1987, and Cornell 1995. 14

! Koutseridi, ! 6

brought down the Tiber and from coastal Sicily which was transported inward from the sea.  15

The food shortage implies that the city of Rome relied on maritime transportation of grain

already in the late 5th century BCE. Such transportation had to be supported not only with ships

but with some form of harbor facilities. Since we know that the castrum of Ostia can not be

earlier than 290BCE it is reasonable to postulate that a pre-castrum Ostia possessed small harbor

facilities that facilitated the transportation of goods into the city of Rome.  The unfortified 16

harbor facilities might have actually been one of the reasons to set up the fortified camp. Rome’s

interest in securing the mouth of the Tiber was driven by their growing interest in the Tyrrhenian

coast and its trading routes.

One of the most important dates of the second half of the 4th century is 338BCE. This

year signifies the solidification of Roman power over all of Latium through the dissolution of the

Latin League and the establishment of Rome as chief military power.  The Roman state 17

incorporated a number of Latin states after its victory including Lanuvium, Aricia, Pedum and

Nomentum.  The territory of Rome now held all of Latium Vetus under its control as well as 18

extending its control into Latium Adjectum. This included the area stretching approximately

from Circeii-Setia down to northern Campania with cities such as Capua, Casilinum, Atella,

Calatia, Cumae, Suessula, and Acerrae.  The settlement of these Campanian communities most 19

likely did not take place until 332.  These settlements were granted civitas sine suffragio 20

! Livy 4.52.5-8 15

! See Houston 1988. 16

! See Forsythe 2005, Slamon 1955, Perkins 1955. 17

! See Cornell, 1989. 18

! See Forsythe 2005, Salmon 1970, MacKendrick 1952.19

! Preserved in Livy and Vellius: Livy 8.14.10-11 and 8.17.12. 20

! Koutseridi, ! 7

(citizenship without vote) making them socii of Rome and creating a sort of allied buffer zone to

protect ager Romanus. The ager Romanus encompassed 5,525 square kilometers at the end of

the Latin Wars with an estimated population of 347,300.  The decade following 338BCE 21

clearly shows that the extent of Roman territory drastically increased after the Latin War. A large

majority of these settlements were located near or directly on the Tyrrhenian coast, which

demonstrates Rome’s interest in primarily securing its dominance over the coast of central

southern Italy. The already established harbor facilities at some of these conquered locations

would provide the necessary accommodations for transportation of goods from Sicily (where the

Romans were still allowed to do trade).  The middle of the 4th century was a time of Roman 22

control solidifying its grip over central coastal Italy that would bring more economic profit by

firmly securing its trade routes with Sicily and Ptolemaic Egypt.  23

The foundation of Antium, in 338BCE, is very important because it is Rome’s first citizen

coastal colony. The victory of C. Maenius over the Antiate ships was commemorated by

decorating the rostra at Rome with beaks and prows of the enemies ships which represented

Rome’s expansion southward along the Tyrrhenian coast.  The colony was established on a 24

preexisting city that was known for its maritime activity - particularly its piracy.  The 25

destruction of the Antiate pirates also relieved the Roman commercial fleet from unexpected

! Afzelius 1942, pg. 153. 21

� The second Punic-Romano treaty allowed Rome to continue trade with Sicily but not with Sardinia or Libya. See 22

Scullard 1989.

! For Roman interaction with Ptolemy Philadelphus see Thiel 1954 pg. 23-26, Grainger 2002. 23

! Livy 8.14.12. For the function of the beaks and other spolia as a sign of noble commemoration see Hölkeskamp 24

1993.

! See Attema and Alessandri 2011, Houston 1988. 25

! Koutseridi, ! 8

raids and achieved a greater sense of security for the Roman ships which were full of goods

when sailing back to Rome. The proximity of Antium to the mouth of the Tiber would have made

it a perfect location to intercept Roman ships for looting. The coastal colony at Antium shows

Rome’s undeniable interest in maritime power. Rome is clearly looking towards securing and

safeguarding its presence on the sea. Antium was already equipped with harbor facilities due to

its long standing maritime activity which the Romans could now put to its own use. The fleet of

Antium was surrendered to the Romans with only some of their ships destroyed.  There is little 26

doubt that the Romans used the ships for their own maritime activities, such as securing their

control of the coast one new colony at a time. We know from later sources that Rome kept a

permanent fleet at Antium. It is possible that a few ships under Roman control were stationed at

Antium to defend the new citizens from maritime raids and provide a naval base for the

protection of Roman maritime commerce.

Antium is the first in a series of many coastal colonies that will solidify Rome’s power

over the southern part of the Tyrrhenian coast. In 329BCE Tarracina, another citizen coastal

colony to the slight south of Cerceii, was established. The central coast of Italy south of Rome

had a system of interchanging colonies extending down the coast to Cumae.  This system of 27

citizen and Latin colonies clearly secured Rome’s authority of southern trade by seizing control

of strategic locations with preexisting harbor and port facilities that made valuable bases to

support the growing Roman naval fleet. The Romans also made Neapolis in 332 and later

! See Starr 1980, 1989. 26

! See Paget 1968. 27

! Koutseridi, ! 9

Tarrentum in 272 their socii navales.  The creation of socii navales broadened Rome’s control 28

over powerful maritime cities which could aid Rome in securing and expanding its maritime

power. A quick mention of the third Punic-Romano treaty, or the so-called “Philinus Treaty,” is

necessary since it further demonstrated the growth of Roman power at the end of the 4th

century.  The island of Corsica was established as an inner mediate buffer zone which represents 29

Roman sea power as a force worth compromising with.  The two previous treaties simply 30

represented Rome as “laying claim to Latium” where as in the third treaty, signed in 306BCE,

Carthage clearly recognizes Rome as the dominating force of the Italian peninsula.  31

After Rome was able to solidify its power along the coastline, it started to further expand

its power into the Tyrrhenian sea. In 312BCE the Romans established a Latin colony on a small

island of Pontinae.  The reason why this colony is particularly important is due to its location in 32

the open sea some distance away from the actual coast. If we are to assume, as some scholars

do, that Rome at this time had no access or need for a fleet, how would it be possible for a

“purely” land power to establish a colony overseas? Therefore the foundation of this colony can

further support that the Romans were not reluctant to holding a full time fleet but rather

employed it for a variety of reasons such as commerce, transportation, communication as well as

military defense against Greek and Etruscan pirates that were still a major hazard to coastal

� It has been long assumed that the socii navales were responsible for carrying out all of Roman maritime needs but 28

as the paper demonstrates Rome had its own extremely significant role in maritime commerce and military sea power which used the socii navales to further its own sea power. For the traditional view see Scullard 1989.

! See Scullard 1969 pg. 531-536. 29

! For the authenticity of the treaty see Scullard 1989 and Oakley 1998. Servius who was a late antique commentator 30

further supports the existence of the treaty.

! See Forsythe 2005 pg. 312. 31

! Livy 9.28.7. See Staveley 1989, Salmon 1970. 32

! Koutseridi, ! 10

settlements. Theophrastus, a 4th century Greek philosopher, also mentions an expedition of

twenty-five ships to Corsica which was aiming at surveying the area for colonization.  This 33

maritime expedition confirms the existence of an expanding Roman fleet that was able to provide

twenty-five ships with no effort for purely explorational purposes. The colony on Pontinae

provided further protection for Roman traders whose route was meant to go directly to Rome

without the need to offload at Naples or Cumae. It is reasonable to postulate that by this time the

market of Rome was the largest in central Italy which required a substantial amount of goods to

be delivered directly to Rome from international sources.  The efficiency of cost and speed of 34

sea transport would have been a preferred method of transportation for the practical-minded

Romans. The strength of Rome was being accumulated through its maritime activity that

perpetually stimulated the growth of the Roman market.

The final decades of the 4th century BCE were responsible for securing Roman control of

all of central Italy. The northern area of the Tiber valley came to be under direct Roman control

with the defeat of Etruscan and Umbrian cities of Perusia, Cortona and Arrentium in 311BCE as

well as Volsinii three years later in 308BCE.  In 311BCE the Romans created a new political 35

office that is representative of its expanding naval power. Two men under the title of duumviri

navales were elected for the maintenance of a permanent fleet of ships and the up keep of their

conditions.  A creation of such an office would not have been necessary without the existence of 36

a permanent Roman naval fleet. Therefore a permanent political office was a formal

! Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 5.8.2.33

! See Starr 1980, 1989, Salmon 1970, 1982 and Cornell 1989, 1995.34

! See Forsythe 2005, Keaveney 1987. 35

! Livy 7.5.9.36

! Koutseridi, ! 11

solidification of a Roman fleet which helped secure coastal territories and Roman trade routes.

Roman naval power was undergoing formalization at the same time as Rome was establishing its

Republican political practices and traditional offices.

The final steps in solidifying Roman control over its Italians neighbors were the

conclusive years of the Third Samnite War which lasted from 298 to 290BCE. In the battle of

Sentinum Rome was able to break a powerful coalition created between Etruscans, Samnites,

Umbrians and Gauls.  The consequences of the war resulted in a staggering amount of land 37

annexation as well as a large enslavement of people from native Italian communities that

continually fought against Roman control. The Sabines, upstream along the Tiber north of

Rome, were also incorporated under Roman power by the granting of civitas sine suffragia. The

year 290BCE marked the solidification of Roman power from the Tyrrhenian to the Adriatic

coast. Foundation of two more citizen colonies in 295BCE, Minturnae and Sinuessa, on the

Tyrrhenian coast completed the solidification of the southern trade route creating opportunity for

Rome to explore and seize different trade routes further south. Roman territory at that time

measured approximately 14,000 square kilometers.  The final solidification of central Italy and 38

the Tiber valley allowed and demanded for a permanent presence in strategic location such as the

mouth of the Tiber which will become known as Ostia.

The establishment of Roman control over the Tiber river played a significant factor in the

founding of Ostia. The city of Rome was now able to dictate the transportation and trade of

goods up and down the river which was the main sea access into central Italy. In order for Rome

! Livy 10.21.11-15. 37

! See Beloch 1926, Afzelius 1942, Brunt 1971.38

! Koutseridi, ! 12

to securely control the access into the Tiber as well as the exit into the Tyrrhenian sea, the mouth

of the river needed to have fortified facilities with its own troops instead of relying on protection

coming directly from the city of Rome. The permanent fortifications provided immediate

response to raids. The camp also controlled traffic of commerce into central Italy and along the

Tyrrhenian coast.

A demographically important consequence of Roman expansion was the increase in

Roman population from the 4th into the 3rd century BCE. The population of Rome was growing

steadily starting in 350BCE with the population of 30,000 people, by 300BCE it doubled to

60,000 and at the time of war with Pyrrhus 280BCE to 275BCE the number reached around

90,000.  These population estimates as any demographic studies need to be used with much 39

caution. A population of relatively this size would have to import grain to sustain itself estimated

to around 11,000 to 18,000 tones of wheat per year.  This quantity of grain would have to be 40

transported by the means of water which was shipped into Rome along the Tiber to the Portus

Tiberinus. Rome’s reliance on the Tiber and the Tyrrhenian sea was consequently increasing with

the city’s own expansion. The transportation of grain must have been a major priority for the

Roman state and its people. The safety of the grain was further secured through the permanent

fortification of Ostia since it could monitor and defend its transportation. Without a doubt the

growing population created a very significant incentive in expanding Rome’s maritime power.

The security of Roman sea commerce was now of higher stakes than ever before with Rome

! See Starr 1980, Staveley 1989, Cornell 1995. The total population of Roman citizens in Italy in 293BCE is 39

recorded at 260,000 see Scheidel 2008. ! See Cornell 1989, Cornell 1995. The equation that was used to reach 18,000 by Cornell was calculating at a 40

consumption rate of 200kg per person a year. The consumption rate of 120kg per person was used to achieve 11,000 tones of wheat.

! Koutseridi, ! 13

relying on it for its own survival. The growing quantity of goods had to be accommodated

through sea transport. A very indicative sign of the expansion of city of Rome is the construction

of fourteen known temples from 302BCE to 264BCE.  One other major building project that 41

clearly signifies the city’s growth is the erection of the first Roman aqueduct, the Aqua Appia in

312BCE.  42

The pacification of central Italy, Campania, and large parts of Lucania provided Rome

with the ability to established fortifications at Ostia. The permanent establishment at Ostia is

representative of Rome’s new interest in the northern coast of central Italy. The citizen colony of

Antium was the first in a series of many colonies in securing Rome’s control of southern trade

along the Tyrrhenian coast. Ostia on the other hand was playing a similar role in establishing

security over the new trading prospects of Rome along the northern coast of Italy. The

solidification of the trade route along the Tiber was the first step in expanding into the northern

sphere of Italy. Since the mouth of the Tiber was the main access into central Italy it played an

extremely important strategic role for the Romans. The narrow width of the river allowed for

easy defense with a relatively small fleet. The existence of harbor facilities at Ostia can be

postulated on the basis that all other coastal colonies had some form of harbors which provided

Romans with the necessary equipment to house and maintain its fleet as was mandated by the

office of the duumviri navales.

The expansion of Roman sea power can further be seen through the continuous

establishment of colonies along the northern coast of the Italian peninsula. The establishment of

! See Ziolkowski 1993. For a complete list of temples constructed fro 302-264BCE see Cornell 1995 and Wissowa 41

1912 for speculation of 18 other temples. The construction of temples requires large number of transported material, manpower and artisans which would all signify an increase in the overall population of the city.

! See Ashby 1935. 42

! Koutseridi, ! 14

a number of important colonies took place in 273BCE. After the defeat of Caere, it was granted

the status of citizenship sine suffragio following the foundation of a Latin coastal colony at

Cosa.  The growing reliance of Rome on the sea was not only the result of heavy importation of 43

goods but also due to exportation of Roman goods which has been given more considerable

weight in recent scholarship.  The early 3rd century was a time of heavy pottery manufacturing 44

in the city of Rome. A great variety of pottery such as the ‘Genucilia’ ware, poculum type and a

group known from a Roman workshop as ‘Atelier des petites estampilles’ were all mass

produced and were meant to be exported.  Pieces of ‘Genucilia’ ware were found at Ostia 45

which represent the early commercial importance of the settlement.  It served as a transitional 46

point of exporting goods from the city of Rome into the Tyrrhenian sea. Small river vessels could

have offloaded their goods on to larger sea-faring ships that were sailing out to different

international locations. Interestingly traces of the wares have been found in southern France,

particularly in Marseille, and also as far as eastern Spain.  This pottery dates to roughly 47

290BCE and suggests the existence of new trading routes that the Romans were forming along

the norther coast of Italy leading into France and continuing into Spain. The colony at Cosa had

known harbor facilities that could have provided Roman commerce ships with an opportunity to

dock incase of storms which could cause damage to the ships as well as allocating the necessary

protection they needed from piracy. Sometime in between 289 and 264BCE Castrum Novum, a

! See Forsythe 2005.43

! See Starr 1980, Cornell 1995. 44

! See Greene 1992.45

! Lauro 1979, Adembri 1996. 46

! Euzennat 1980. 47

! Koutseridi, ! 15

citizen colony, was established just north of Caere to further solidify control of the northern trade

route.  The chain of maritime colonies along the northern Tyrrhenian coast was not 48

unintentional but served a strategic role in securing Rome’s commercial sea routes to their new

destinations of southern France and Spain. Although it is impossible to reconstruct the scale and

profit of Rome’s exportation of goods it is still important to acknowledge its existence and the

connections that it shared with maritime colonies such as Ostia.  49

Rome’s focus on the Tyrrhenian coast through the expansion of an intricate system of

citizen and Latin colonies clearly represents the importance of Roman ship power. The scholarly

consensus seems to be that maritime colonies were meant to simply defend the coast line through

land garrisons that were established at these fortified camps.  It seems to me that it was just as 50

likely that the maritime colonies were equipped with ships or modest fleets since coastal colonies

and allied cities such as Ostia, Antium, Cosa, Caere, Cumae, Pontiae, Circeii, Minturnae,

Sinuessa and Tarracina all had some form of harbor or docking facilities.  The coastal colonies 51

provided security both with land forces and naval fleets. The poor preservation or the complete

lack of these early harbors is due to the perishable nature of the construction materials as well as

constant silting problems and natural erosion. The ships were most likely equipped with a

number of soldiers who would supplement the needed military force, sailing along the coast

protecting it and Roman commerce ships from unexpected raids. The duumviri navales also

! See Salmon 1955, 1982 and Cornell 1989, 1995. 48

! Further studies on the economic conditions of late 4th century and early 3rd century Rome are much needed.49

! Starr 1943, MacKendrick 1952, Salmon 1955, Keaveney 1987, Mason 1992, Cornell 1995, Forsythe 2005.50

! Paget 1968, Raban 1986. 51

! Koutseridi, ! 16

needed a permanent place to house and most importantly maintain and service Rome’s formal

naval fleet.

The first known demonstration of Roman warships is represented in the early conflict

between Rome and Tarentum. It is known that a peace treaty was signed between Rome and

Tarentum in 303/302BCE which clearly prohibits Rome from sailing past the Lacinian

Promontory south of Croton, thus denying Romans the access into the Gulf of Taranto.  This 52

treaty clearly shows Rome’s interest in maritime expeditions which had to be controlled by

external powers that must have felt threatened by the increasing presence of the Romans. It is

crucial to point out that the restrictions are not placed upon land territory but rather restrict

Rome’s power according to the sea. Therefore if all Roman power was comprised of land forces

there would be no need to restrict its maritime activity. This clearly indicates a strong Roman sea

power. However in 282BCE, a squadron of ten Roman warships appeared off the coast of

Tarentum beginning the hostilities which lead to the outbreak of the Pyrrhic War.  Rome’s 53

unquestionable breach of the treaty demonstrates the fact that the Romans felt extremely

confident in their sea power by directly challenging a city that was known for its maritime

power. Thus it is worth reconsidering, as first suggested by Starr, the traditional view of early

Roman sea power.  The codified tradition of Rome’s disinterest in maritime power was a result 54

of remarks of ancient figures such as Polybius who claims that “the Romans had never given

thought to the sea” and possessed no naval resources prior to 260BCE.  55

! See Thiel 1954, Franke 1989, Lomas 1993. 52

! See Starr 1982, Gruen 1984. 53

! See Starr 1980.54

! Polybius 1.20.12. See also Seneca de brev. vit. 13.4 in claiming that the first man to persuade the Romans to take 55

interest in the sea was the consul of 264BCE Appius Claudius Caudex.

! Koutseridi, ! 17

The scholarly reluctance towards Rome’s maritime power both in commercial and naval

fleet also stems from the long-established view of Roman economy in the begging of the 3rd

century as being nearly subsistence and with very small amount of trade.  As we saw previously, 56

Rome was becoming a manufacturing city with a variety of goods produced at surpassing

quantities to qualify for exportation. The existence of Roman pottery in foreign markets is an

even better indicator of Rome’s economic prospects. The transportation of goods along the

Tyrrhenian coast had to be secured and protected. Therefore it is reasonable to argue that the

primary role of maritime colonies was to facilitate and secure the transportation of Roman

trading goods and not to serve a purely defensive purpose against enemy attacks.  The creation 57

of colonies was a financial investment of Rome that was ultimately connected with its growing

economy fostered by maritime commerce. The security of Roman trading routes along the

Tyrrhenian coast was the main concern of coastal colonies that were looking towards sea power

and not at inland defense. The function of land defense was secured by larger Latin colonies

established in the norther frontiers of the Italian peninsula throughout the 3rd century BCE.  58

The militaristic nature of early Ostia is due to the vulnerability and importance of its

location. The mouth of the Tiber had to be extremely well secured to supply the necessary

protection for ships that were either coming in full of cargo, such as grain, or coming out of the

Tiber with goods from Rome and central Italy. It is obvious that citizen coastal colonies were

protecting something very valuable to the Romans along the Tyrrhenian coast. The location of

! For conventional views of Roman economy see Frank 1933, Rostovtzeff 1957, Wallace 1990.56

! For a purely defensive role of coastal colonies as supported by these scholars see Salmon 1955 and 1982, 57

MacKendrick 1952, Scullard 1959 and 1989, Perkins 1955, Sherwin-White 1970, Cornell 1995, Forsythe 2005. See Mason 1992 for the agrarian role of coastal citizen colonies. ! See Salmon, 1955 and Dyson 1985. 58

! Koutseridi, ! 18

maritime colonies were in parts of Italy that were firmly secured under Roman control and were

not established as military outposts for land defense; instead coastal colonies were looking

towards protecting Roman interests on the sea where piracy continued to be a threat until

60BCE.  The fortifications at Ostia were used to protect the access into the Tiber but more 59

importantly it was guarding the transportation of valuable goods which perpetuated the growth of

the Roman market. The location of maritime citizen colonies in between Latin coastal colonies

would suggest a planned system of securing the coast.  The ones that served and housed the 60

military forces and the others that provided docking and maintenance opportunities. The

utilitarian nature of Ostia should not be overshadowed by the militaristic role that it played but

rather should be viewed as compatible. The harbor provided the necessary facilities where one

of the duumviri navales were permanently stationed with ten of their ships monitoring traffic into

the river mouth and along the coast.

Sea power as much as land power was the key to Roman military success. Its land armies

were matched by Rome’s commercial and naval fleet, which transported a significant amount of

goods along the Tyrrhenian coast in between Sardinia, Carthage, Spain, France Syria and Sicily.

Rome’s naval fleet did not come about in one great overhaul in 261 with the construction of 100

quinqueremes and 20 triremes. There is enough evidence to support an existence of a Roman

naval fleet prior to the First Punic War.  In the words of Scullard to claim that “the Romans had 61

no tradition in sea-faring; rather, their roots were in the land” is a disregard to the multiple

! See Seager for 2002 for Pompey’s command granted to him by the lex Gabinia in which he was finally able to 59

eradicate the problem of piracy in the Tyrrhenian water. See Gruen 1984 for Illyrian pirates as a problem along the Adriatic coast from 229BCE until the end of the Third Illyrian War in 168BCE. ! See Salmon 1982.60

! Scullard 1989, pg. 549. 61

! Koutseridi, ! 19

sources of evidence that outweigh the legitimacy of this statement.  The aim of the paper was to 62

point out that the network of maritime colonies and coastal settlements were a system of naval

bases used to primarily secure the extremely important trading routes on which the Roman

economy heavily relied on in the begging of the 3rd century. The foundation of Ostia can be

explained in its proper historical context when the vulnerability of the mouth of Tiber became

too great an asset to risk. The newly established colonies along the northern coast of the

Tyrrhenian sea were initiated with the founding of Ostia that was beginning to look towards the

northern trade route leading into southern France and eastern Spain. The fortifications at Ostia

also secured the most important central location of exporting and importing goods from all over

the Tyrrhenian world into Rome and central Italy. New studies on the economic nature of Rome

in the 3rd century will allow for further exploration of economic motives behind the construction

of citizen colonies such as Ostia. With the information that we now have available, it is

reasonable to postulate that coastal colonies were just as much an economic investment as they

were military. The protection of the Tyrrhenian coast was inseparable from the Rome’s economic

prosperity.

!!!!! Scullard 1969 and 1989, pg. 548. The establishment of the duumviri navales is undermined by assuming that it 62

only provided ships when there was a ‘need’ instead of keeping a permanent fleet. This assumption has no founding in the actual evidence and is simply created to discredit what the evidence is actually implying due to conventional mindset that the Romans were opposed to keeping a permanent fleet. The Roman need for ships was constant due to its international commerce that required the necessary maritime protection by keeping a permanent naval fleet along the Tyrrhenian coast in coastal colonies which this paper was supporting by reading the evidence without holding traditional views about Roman sea power and economy.

! Koutseridi, ! 20

Bibliography

Adembri B. 1996. "Le ceramiche figurate piu antiche di Ostia," in ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited, (eds.) A. Gallina Zevi and A. Claridge, 39-67. Roma. Afzelius, A. 1942. Die römische Eroberung Italiens (340-264 v. Chr.). Copenhagen. Ashby, Thomas and I. A. Richmond. 1935. The aqueducts of ancient Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Attema, P. A. J., and Luca Alessandri. 2011. Between Satricum and Antium: settlement dynamics in a coastal landscape in Latium Vetus. Leuven: Peeters Beazley, J. D. 1947. Etruscan vase-painting. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Beloch, J.J. 1926. Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Kriege. Berlin. Brunt, P. A. 1971. Italian manpower, 225 B.C.-A.D. 14. Oxford. Carcopino J. 1911. "Ostiensia IV. Notes complementaires," MEFRA 31, 365-368. Carcopino J. 1919. Virgile et les origines d'Ostie. Paris. Casson, L. 1965. “Harbour and River Boats of Ancient Rome,” The Journal of Roman Studies 55, 31-39. Coarelli F. 1988. "I santuari, il fiume, gli empori," Storia di Roma 1, 127-151, Torino. Cornell, T. J. "The conquest of Italy." The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.. Eds. F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie and A. Drummond. Cambridge University Press, 1989. Cornell, Tim. 1995. The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC). London: Routledge.

David, Jean-Michel. 1997. The Roman conquest of Italy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Dommelen, Peter Alexander René van, Nicola Terrenato, and Benjamí Costa. 2007. Articulating local cultures: power and identity under the expanding Roman republic. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology De Ligt, L. and Simon Northwood. 2008. People, land, and politics: demographic developments and the transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC-AD 14. Leiden: Brill. Dyson, Stephen L. 1985. The creation of the Roman frontier. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Eckstein, Arthur M. 2006. Mediterranean anarchy, interstate war, and the rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. Euzennat, Maurice. 1980. “Ancient Marseille in the Light of Recent Excavations,” American Journal of Archaeology 84, 133-140.

Forsythe, Gary. 2005. A critical history of early Rome: from prehistory to the first Punic War. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Frank, T. 1933. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Vol. 1, Rome and Italy of the Republic. Baltimore.

Franke, P. R. "Pyrrhus." The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.. Eds. F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie and A. Drummond. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

! Koutseridi, ! 21

Heurgon, Jacques. 1973. The rise of Rome to 264 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 1993. “Conquest, Competition and Consensus: Roman Expansion in Italy and the Rise of the Nobilitas.” Historia 42, 12-39. Houston, G.W. 1988. “Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships and Ports,” American Journal of Archaeology 92, 553-564. Gallina Zevi, A. and A. Claridge, eds. 1996. ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited. Roma. Gessert, Genevieve Simandl. 2001. Urban spaces, public decoration, and civic identity in ancient Ostia. Thesis (Ph. D.) Yale University. Greene, Kevin. 1992. Roman pottery. London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Press Grainger, John D. 2002. The Roman war of Antiochos the Great. Leiden: Brill. Gruen, Erich S. 1984. The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. Keaveney, Arthur. 1987. Rome and the unification of Italy. London: Croom Helm. Lauro, M.G. 1979. “Una classe di ceramiche ad Ostia: il gruppo di Genucilia.” RStLig 45, 51-66. Lo Casio, E. and P. Malanima 2005. “Cycles and stability: Italian population before the Demograhic Transition (225 BC- AD 1900),” Rivista di Storia Economica 21, 197-232. Lomas, Kathryn. 1993. Rome and the Western Greeks, 350 BC-AD 200: conquest and acculturation in Southern Italy. London: Routledge. MacKendrick, P.L. 1952. “Roman Colonization,” Phoenix 6, 139-146. Martin A. 1996, "Un saggio sulle mura del castrum di Ostia (Reg. I, ins. x, 3)," in ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited, (eds.) A. Gallina Zevi and A. Claridge, 19-38. Roma. Martin, A. 1999, "The Rises in Level at Ostia, Regio I, insula x 3," Meded 58, 74-76. Martin, A. and Heinzelmann M. 2000, "The joint AAR-DAI research project at Ostia: 1998 and 1999 seasons," MAAR 45, 277-283. Martin, A., Heinzelmann M., De Sena E.C. and Granino Cerere M.G. 2002, "The Urbanistic Project on the Previously Unexcavated Areas of Ostia (DAI-AAR 1996-2001)", MAAR 47, 259-304. Mason, G.G. 1992. “The Agrarian Role of Coloniae Maritime:338-241B.C.” Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 41, 75-87. Meiggs, Russell. 1997. Roman Ostia. Oxford : Clarendon Press. Mommsen, T. 1859. Die römische Chronologie. 2nd edn, Berlin. Morley, N. 1996. Metropolis and Hinterland: The City of Rome and the Italian Economy. Cambridge.!Oakley, S. P. 1998. A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X. Vol. 2, Books VII-VIII. Oxford. Packer, J. E. 1967. “Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome,” The Journal of Roman Studies 57, 80-95. Paget, R. F. 1968. “The Ancient Ports of Cumae,” The Journal of Roman Studies 58, 152-169. Parker, A. J. 1992. Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman provinces. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Perkins, J.B. Ward. 1955. “Early Roman Towns in Italy,” The Town Planning Review 26, 126-154.

! Koutseridi, ! 22

Raban, Avner. 1988. Archaeology of coastal changes: proceedings of the First International Symposium "Cities on the Sea-Past and Present", Haifa, Israel, September 22-29, 1986. Oxford, England: B.A.R. Rostovtzeff, Michael Ivanovitch. 1957. The social and economic history of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Salmon, E. T. 1955. "Roman Expansion and Roman Colonization in Italy," The Phoenix 9, 63-75. Salmon, E.T. 1967. Samnium and the Samnites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Salmon, E. T. 1970. Roman colonization under the Republic. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Salmon, Edward Togo. 1982. The making of Roman Italy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Scheidel, W. 2001. Debating Roman Demography. Leiden. Scheidel, W. 2008. “Roman Population Size: The Logic of the Debate,” in De Ligt and S. Northwood (eds.) People, Land, and Politics 17-70. Scullard, H. H. 1969. A history of the Roman world from 753 to 146 B.C. London: Methuen. Scullard, H. H. "Carthage and Rome." The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.. Eds. F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie and A. Drummond. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Seager, R. 2002. Pompey the Great: a political biography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1973. The Roman citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press Starr, Ghester G. 1943. “Coastal Defense in the Roman World,” The American Journal of Philology 64, 56-70. Starr, Chester G. 1980. The beginnings of imperial Rome: Rome in the mid-Republic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Starr, Chester G. 1989. The influence of sea power on ancient history. New York: Oxford University Press. Staveley, E. S. "Rome and Italy in the early third century." The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.. Eds. F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie and A. Drummond. Cambridge University Press, 1989

Theil, J. H. 1954. A History of Roman Sea-Power before the Second Punic War. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. Waarsenburg D.J. 1998, "De oudste sporen van Ostia. Van de Bronstijd tot de stichting van het castrum," Hermeneus 70, 60-69. Walbank, F. W., A.E. Astin, M.W. Frederiksen, R.M. Ogilvie and A. Drummond. 1989. The Cambridge ancient history: Vol. 7, part 2. Cambridge: Univ. Press. Wallace, R.W. 1990. “Hellenization and Roman Society in the Late Fourth Century BC,” in W. Elder (ed.), Staat und Staatlichkeit, 278-92. Wissowa, G. 1912. Religion und Kultus der Römer, 2nd edn, Munich. Yeo, Cedric. 1959. “The Founding and Function of Roman Colonies,” The Classical World 52, 104-107. Zevi F. 1996, "Sulle fasi piu antiche di Ostia" in ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited, (eds.) A. Gallina Zevi and A. Claridge, 69-89. Roma.

! Koutseridi, ! 23

Zevi F. 2001, "Les debuts d'Ostie", Descoeudres J.-P. 2001, 3-9. Zevi F. 2001, "Ostie et son port: histoire d'un echec et de ses remedes", Descoeudres J.-P. 2001, 114-120. Zevi F. 2001, "Ostie sous la Republique", Descoeudres J.-P. 2001, 10-19. Ziolkowski, A. 1993. The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context. Rome. !!!!

!