stroyed by others directly opposite; and they can not but perceive that he who maintains the nega tive against them, overturns, by a single fact, all the probabilities which they can accumulate. They lay it down as a law of the triumph, that a general could not claim that honour, who had not in a pitched battle killed five thousand of the enemy; and suppose that he was entitled to demand it, upon fulfilling this single condition, as the due recompense of his merit. Yet it is not easy to believe that in appreciating military ser vices, the senate should have been guided by a circumstance so exceedingly uncertain as the number of the slain. On how many occasions might a general deserve the warmest gratitude of the republic, without contenting those nice arithmeticians who calculated the quantity of human blood with such scrupulous accuracy? If he carried on war against the effeminate nations of the East, whose cowardice was alarmed even by the war-shouts of the legions, a victory almost bloodless might put him in possession of a whole kingdom. A commander, sparing of the blood of his fellow-citizens, might think military talents more honourably displayed in the skill and success of a campaign, than in the blind fortune and havoc of a day of battle. His well-contrived and well-executed movements might deprive the enemy of every resource, without excepting that of an engagement; and compel them to surrender their arms and their persons, a prize undiminished by any loss in the field. Towns strongly fortified by art art or nature, and defended by garrisons more obstinate than numerous, might oppose obstacles worthy of exercising all the skill and perseverance of a general; who, by carrying such places, might often terminate wars as burdensome to the republic as pernicious to the provinces. I shall exemplify only the second of those cases; and my example shall be that of the younger Scipio, whose glory equalled that of his uncle, though he had never conquered an Hannibal; and who triumphed twice, without having ever fought a single pitched battle. By taking Carthage and Numantium, he obtained those triumphs, and two surnames, still more glorious. Yet, in the course of those sieges, it is impossible to find an action in which five thousand of the enemy perished; and there are authors who affirm, that those brave Numantines who resisted with such perseverance and success the forces of the republic, never exceeded four thousand men, whose numbers were multiplied only by their valour.* Another regulation is mentioned, not less wise, and just as well founded as that already stated. A triumph, it is said, could be obtained only by the conquerors of nations, who had never previously acknowledged the authority of the Romans; the reduction of a revolted province did not suffice; the senate made no account of victories which did not extend the frontiers of the empire. In this V. Flori Epitom. Orosius, T. Liv. lv. Auctor de Vir. illustriss. VOL. IV. BB sup supposed regulation, it seems to me as if the he roism of romance were substituted instead of the dictates of prudence and true honour. Was a province the less valuable to the Romans because it had been long in their possession, peopled by their numerous colonies, and enriched by their attention in improving its natural and artificial advantages? Was the honour of the republic more concerned in subduing free nations, who had scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome, than in suppressing the rebellion of a revolted province, which upbraided her injustice, defied her power, and seduced by a dangerous example the allegiance of her other subjects? Was a less obstinate resistance to be expected from a people who had no other choice than victory or death, whose generals and even soldiers had learned war under the Roman standard, than from those barbarous nations, whose slightest submissions were readily accepted by a senate, always content with merely imposing the yoke at first, that its weight might afterwards be more severely felt? In one word; were the wars against revolted provinces regarded as too unimportant to merit the only reward worthy of a victorious general? The existence of such a regulation could be proved only by the most decisive facts; but the facts on record are directly against it. I will not avail myself of the numerous triumphs over communities, an hundred times conquered, to which the Romans granted very unequal conditions of peace, and treated rather as subjects subjects than allies; but when Titus and his father triumphed over the Jews, and when the senate commemorated their victories by medals and that triumphal arch which has subsisted to the present day, they did nothing more than triumph over a revolted province, which had been subdued by the arms of Pompey, and governed by Roman magistrates for the space of fifty years. I agree with Onuphrius Panvinius, that Fulvius did not obtain a triumph for the important conquest of Capua. Of the reasons which made the senate refuse it to him, I am ignorant; it is uncertain whether justice or intrigue defeated the prospects of this of this proconsul; but I know that nearly about the same time, Fabius Maximus triumphed for the conquest of Tarentum,† a city which had acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome ever since the war against Pyrrhus. I go farther; and observe, that Rome more than once experienced those disasters, which made it her duty to bestow the highest marks of her gratitude on those generals who had saved their country, without adding a foot of ground to its territory. Neither Scipio nor Pompey, but Camillus and Marius, were associated with Romulus, in the honourable appellation of Founders of Rome. These great men repressed the inundations of the Barbarians, and destroyed their armies; but never thought of pursuing them into their own wilds, with the situation of which they were V. Joseph. Antiq. Judaic. et de Bell. Judaico. B B 2 scarcely scarcely acquainted. What must have been the absurdity of a law, which denied to such men the triumph, while it lavished that honour on proprætors, whose names are known only by the Capito line records? Hic tamen et Cimbros, et summa pericula rerum It may be asked with greater probability, whether the senate was satisfied with a single victory? or whether, to have a right to demand the triumph, it was not necessary to terminate the war by subduing the enemy, or at least by making a treaty advantageous to the republic. In such a regulation, I should perceive nothing but the wisdom of the senate, which was careful not to debase its honours by too lavish a prodigality; and which itself, always sovereign and free, knew how to refuse to a presumptuous general, who courted the triumph by inglorious conquests over unworthy enemies. But in deciding according to facts, and by facts we ought to decide, I perceive that the conduct of the senate varied in different ages of the republic; and that the cause of this variation depended on a circumstance altogether distinct from the merit of the general. It was customary that the brave citizens who had shared his dangers should also partake of the glory of his Juvenal Satyr. viii. 249, et seq. triumph. |