PETER KWAME WOMBER 9 APRIL 2015

HISTORICAL INCIDENTS IN CONFLICT AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

A CASE STUDY OF ROME: THE MARSIC WAR

1
This paper aims at looking into history to find out how some social wars come about and

the methods used to curb the situation. The weaknesses of the methods employed and how

it related to the causes of conflicts on the African continent and the mode of resolution. A

suggestion to the conflict resolutions on the African continent based on the Marsic war has

been highlighted in this paper.

2
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PHASE ONE: Rome and the Latin League

PHASE TWO: The rebirth of political and some socio-economic

inequalities

Some Contemporary African issues in relation to the Marsic war

Conclusion/Suggestion

References

3
INTRODUCTION

Since the time of Romulus, the said founding father of Rome, Rome had found itself in a series

of wars; both internal and external. From the First Republic to about the second century, Rome

had chalked successes by the help of its allies. But the refusal of the Senatorial government to

grant the allies some socio-economic and political rights always posed problems for Rome. The

desire of the Senate to keep everything to themselves during fifth and third centuries led to the

conflict or the orders. In the work of Scullar and Cary, A history of Rome, 1979, the Roman plebs

got recognition by the ruling class after a successive strikes and revolts. This attempt made by

the plebs to get their demands manifest in the war of the socii (the Marsic War), 91-87 B.C. The

social war between Rome and its allies became inevitable because of political and socio-

economic inequalities which went against the allies. When we infer from the work of Scullard

and Cary, 1979; Grant, 2005, Scullard, 1982; and Heitland, 1923, we will notice that the causes

of the social war (91/0 - 88/7 B.C.) between Rome and its allies were basically political (such as

the refusal of the Romans to grant Roman citizenship, civitas cum suffragio, to the allies) and

some socio-economic factors.

The main idea of this project work is to examine or discuss the causes or factors that led to the

social war that broke out between the Romans and its allies in the last century (91-87 B.C.). We

are basically looking at the causes of the social war (91-87 B.C) from political and socio-

economic perspectives. On political issues we are looking at: the demand of Roman citizenship

by the allies; the death of Flavius Flaccus, Livius Drussus, and Marcus Livius Drusus Jnr; the

inability of the Senate to grant the army of Marius citizenship; political positions and voting

rights; and the outrageous demand on Praeneste. In the socio-economic issues we are

considering: the festering sore of Romes relations with its allies inside Italy, the Outbreak at

4
Asculum, ager publicus populi Romani, fair share of war-booty, and the practice of Roman praefecti

(prefects). We will as well take a look at the course of the war. We will try to link it to some

issues in Africa, and the lessons that Africa can learn from the Marsic war (91-87 B.C.).

For us to understand the factors that led to the unavoidable social war between Rome and its

allies in the last century, we are going to group the work into two phases. Phase one will

constitute the long standing issue of Rome citizenship (from the fifth century Republic;

considering the formation of the Latin league, the Samnite Wars, and the contributions of the

Latin allies). Phase two will constitute the cause(s) of the Marsic war (91-87 B.C.).

PHASE ONE: Rome and the Latin League

One may attribute the truest cause of the social war (91-87 B. C.) to the refusal of the Romans to

grant the Roman citizenship to their Italian allies. But we realize that this issue had been raised

long ago by the allies since the formation of the Latin League. It may look as if the refusal of

Rome citizenship at this time, 91-87 B. C., constitutes the truest cause of the Marsic war. If we

really want to know the remote cause then we look back into history, the formation of the Latin

League and its aims and regulations. Whichever the remote cause may be, it was appropriate that

the allies resulted or decided on revolts to achieve their demands in 91-87 B. C. as our discussion

will show. When we examine the work of Okwudiba Nnoli, Ethnic conflict in Africa, 1998, we

will come to realize that contradictions are part of human societies, but if the contradictions are

not well handled they explode into violence. The Romans refusal to adhere to the concerns of its

allies and inability to curb the contradictions was as the result of armed-conflict.

We are told that the spirit of expansionism was the spirit injected into Romes veins by Romulus,

its founding father, through his asylum measure, the rape of the Sabine women, and wars on the

5
Veii and Fidenae. The Rome expansionism beyond the pomerium (ritual ring fence, ritual furrow

around city) began with annexation of Ostia. From there we become aware that Rome

proceeded innocently, in the form of alliances with the neighbouring cities of Latium. Ecetra

and Antium became its first allies. It was followed by the Volscian people under the kingship of

Tarquinius Superbus (543-510 B.Cs.). During the reign of Tarquinius the membership of the

Latin alliance reached 47 cities with Rome as the head (Ackaah-Ennin, Grant, and Otchere ,

2013: 61).

We learn that about 493 B.C., the Latin allies have accidentally submitted to Romes leadership

by way of alliance and Rome refused to fulfill their obligations. This resulted to the clash of

Rome with the allies in the battle of Lake Regillus. Rome managed to defeat the combined

armies of the Latins due to the superiority of the military system of the legions. A new league of

Rome and the Latins was formed after the war. The terms of this second Latin league were that

the alliance was to have a common army, each of the party was to have equal share of war spoils.

The party that summoned the allies to war took the command. Ackaah-Ennin et al, 2013, say that

this was a league with parity right for its members.

We are told that the Celtic capture of Rome disintegrated the Latin league. By 365 B.C. Felsina

was destroyed by the Senones (who were later named Gallia Cisalpina). The Etruscan League

was overpowered in about 391B.C. by the Celts. The Romans interceded on behalf of the Latins

but the refusal to grant the Celts a place for settlement resulted into a battle at Allia in 390 B.C.

we are told that at Allia the Romans were defeated and the Celts managed to settle in Northern

Italy (they were later to be called the Gauls) (Ackaah-Ennin, Grant, and Otchere, 2013: 61-63).

6
We realize that after the battle at Allia, the Latin league entered a third stage when the Celts

departed. The reason was that both the Rome and the cities of Latium realized a common danger

and the need to consolidate their alliance to withstand further invasions. Initially, the dictates of

Rome in the alliance was tolerated but discontent among the allies kept mounting not until 348

B.C. when several members defected including Praeneste, Tibur, Hernici and Antium. The

Romans realizing how cities were defecting imposed a new treaty on the Latin League. In the

treaty the Foedus Cassianum was retained, Praeneste was forced back into the Latin League, and

henceforth the Romans were to be in total control. We learn that this force treaty helped the

Romans in Subsequent wars increased its power (Ackaah-Ennin, Grant, and Otchere, 2013: 63).

In about 340 B.C, we will notice that Romes refusal to grant the previous parity rights to the

Latin allies resulted in mass revolt. Thus Latin wars ensued, in which Rome and the Samnite

allies met the Latins and their companions at the battle of Suessa Aurunca. Latin was defeated

and its companions defected to the Romans. But in 338 B.C., a new settlement was made. The

Latins were granted civitas sine suffragio, half citizenship of Rome while Tusculum, Aricia

and Lanuvium were given civitas cum suffragio, full citizenship of Rome. With this social

stratification, both had access to trade but the allies with full citizenship could inter-marry

(Ackaah-Ennin, Grant, and Otchere, 2013: 63-64).

We will realize that from the period that the Latins were granted half citizenship of Rome, issues

of discontent or social war, especially, between Rome and Latin was very minimal, if not totally

terminated. But these same issues we have highlighted above are going to manifest themselves in

the last century; which I consider to be the immediate cause(s) of the Marsic war. That is, if we

want to talk about the remote cause of the Marsic war then we should consider the issues in this

7
period. Some allied states are not going to be happy because they equally qualify to get full

citizenship right and access to inter-marry.

From 354 B.C, the Romans and the Samnites had formed a strong alliance. However, in 343

B.C., war broke out between the Samnites and Capua, an economically buoyant city. We are told

that the Romans were ready to defend Capua in order to win some economic benefits. Due to the

power of the Latin and the Roman forces, Samnite was brought down. The Samnites were to

abandon the idea of settling in Campania, thus, ending the first Samnite War. In the second and

third Samnite Wars, 326 and 297 B.Cs. respectively, the Romans suffered in the hands of the

Samnites. But the re-enforcement of the Roman forces delivered them. We should not forget that

during this time Latin was contributing immensely to the Romans in terms of forces. The

Samnites Wars came to a close in 290 B.C. with a peace treaty (Ackaah-Ennin, Grant, and

Otchere, 2013: 65-68).

The Latin and the Roman allies proved the strong tie that existed among them once more. During

264-241 B.Cs. (the so called First Punic War), the combined forces of Rome and Latin had

managed to relieved the Mamertines, beaten Carthage (modern day Tunisia) and Hiero of

Syracus in battle, and had forced King Hiero to ally himself to Rome. We are told that at this

period Rome was disadvantaged at sea until 260 B.C. where it adapted maritime skills. The

building of warship (quinquereme) and other fighting strategy helped them in winning a lot of

sea battles, although they had suffered in the hands of the Carthaginians. The 218-202 B.Cs.

witnessed the second Punic War. Again Romes ability to control the seas made it unchallenged.

We are told that without Roman control of the sea, Rome might have been compelled to come to

terms with Hannibal when he invaded Italy (Ackaah-Ennin, Grant, and Otchere, 2013: 70-94).

8
What we are bringing to notice is that, without the Latins allies, probably, Rome would have

been crashed down in Adam. All along, the allies will not forget or persist on gaining what they

want from the Senatorial government. The Romans thought that they have completely become

masters of their own. The contributions made by the allies to Rome in capturing states and the

refusal of the Romans to fulfill their promises are just suspended pain in the minds and hearts of

the allies. This relationship between Rome and the allies is where I see the remote cause of the

Marsic War from. Some of the factors that brought about the war of the socii are just rebirth of

the previous political and economic inequalities which embittered the allies. All that the allies

needed was a solid ground to make their course (a force demand).

Fortunately, the allies got a fine case to carry out their actions when some dedicated citizens,

who wanted to help the allies to get their demands; which they have been crying for in Adam

were assassinated (which I consider as the immediate cause). The allies could no longer hesitate

to wage war against the Romans. Okwudiba, 1998: 3, stated that for Marxism, to understand

society is to understand social conflict. And only conflict or war was the only thing that will

make the Romans give to the allies what they wanted. Because, it seems quite clear that war was

the only language the Romans understand.

9
PHASE TWO: The rebirth of political and some socio-economic inequalities

Political causes

Now that we have chronologically, if not exactly, examined the relationship that existed between

Rome and Latin allies from the fifth century (constituting the earliest agitations) we will zoom

into the issues of the last century of Rome which triggered the Marsic war. Our subsequent

paragraphs are going to discuss critically the causes of the social war that broke between the

Romans and its allies. We should not forget that in our previous discussions we realized that

some cities of Latium were just granted half citizenship of Rome; without voting right (civitas

sine suffragio). Now that Rome has become masters of their own, its allies would still wish and

insist for full Rome citizenship, and socio-economic rights.

The Social War, which is sometimes called Italic or Marsic War (91 87 B.C.), rebellion waged

by ancient Romes Italian allies (socii) who were denied the Roman franchise, fought for

independence. Grant, 2005, made mention that Appian traces one of the remote causes, probably,

to 125 B.C. during the consulship of Fulvius Flaccus. But with this I see it to be more of

immediate cause as Appian postulates, because, the allies had not gotten their demands since the

formation of the Latin League till this period of the Marsic war. The assassination of Flaccus

served a concrete ground for the allies to wage war against Rome. We learn that the Italians were

openly excited and desired for Roman citizenship, so as to be partners in the empire instead of

subjects (Grant, 2005: 11).The allies in central and southern Italy had fought side by side with

Rome in several wars and had grown restive under Roman autocratic rule, as we have discussed

in phase one, wanting instead Roman citizenship and the privileges it conferred.During the First

and Second Punic Wars, the Jugarthan campaign, and many other battles the Italian allies were

10
present and had contributed immensely to the fame of Rome (Ackaah-Ennin, Grant, and Otchere,

2013; Scullard and Cary, 1979; Scullard, 1982; Encyclopedia Britannica, 2015).

During the first century, Scullard and Cary, 1979, opine that the only notable reform of this

period was a resolution passed by the Senate in 97 B.C against human sacrifices, by which it

strengthened its hands against a recurrence of popular outcries. The Romans, according to

history, in this period had not paid any attention to the grievance or the demands of the Italian

allies. These demands were the same issues which called for several revolts by the allies in our

previous discussions (phase one). In the work of Scullard and Cary, A history of Rome, 1979,

the demand of the Italian allies for the Roman franchise, which the Senate had eluded but by

no means silenced in the days of Fulvius Flaccus and Gaius Gracchus, was raised again in a more

menacing tone. The two gentlemen, in an attempt to put proper measures that will benefit the

allies in place were eliminated by the Senate.

In 91 B. C. the Roman tribune Marcus Livius Drusus Jnr. tried to solve the problem by proposing

legislation that would have admitted all Italians to Roman citizenship, but his program aroused

heated opposition in the Senate, and Drusus was also soon afterward assassinated. The frustrated

Italian allies then rose in revolt for they felt that the Senate is sabotaging their rights. Sometimes

when diplomatic means fail there is the need to employ violence means to get what you want if

that is the only language your opponent understands. This issue of citizenship right had been in

the minds of the allies since the formation of the Latin League; and I cannot understand why the

Romans were hesitating to grant the allies citizenship right. One may also ask why the allies

wanted citizenship right. Of course, the allies would want their presence or representation in the

governing or the administration of the region (Latium) and to get equal access to socio-economic

benefits (Scullard and Cary, 1979: 222-223).

11
Scullard and Cary, 1979, state the attempt of the Equites to make party capital out of Drusus

downfall soon fell into abeyance, for all classes at Rome were now called upon to close the ranks

against a peril such as the republic had not faced since the Hannibalic War. We are told that

while the Varian commission carried on its vendetta (crusade) against the partisans of Drusus,

the Italian Committees of Action, abandoning the hope of amicable concessions, organized a

war-coalition to exert the franchise by force (Scullard and Cary, 1979: 223; Scullard, 1982).

We also learn from Heitland, The Roman Republic, 1923, that the social war was in no

circumstances avoidable due to the Senates inability to give to the army of Marius Romes

citizen. We are told that Marius and his army had marvelously won victory over Jugartha for

Rome. While Marius was away (in Numidia), Rome experience an external attack from the

Germanic tribes of Teutone and Cimbri, in about 113 B.C. it was a hard time for Rome because

the Germanic tribes seemed to have had much power or control over the legions. In 113 B.C, the

consul, Cn. Papirius Carbo, met the Germans at Noreia and Rome was defeated. In about 109

B.C., Maccus Iunius Silanus met with the Cimbri and again Rome was defeated. Also, in 107

B.C. the consul, Lucius Cassius Longinus, met the German tribes at Tolosa. Longinus was killed,

and Rome once again was defeated. We are also told that the Romans were heavily defeated by

the Germanic tribes in 105 B.C. at Arausio. We learn that as soon as Marius returned from

Numidia with his army, he was elected as consul by the people (probably both the masses and

the Senate) to drive the Germanic tribes away from Italy. We are told that some of his allies in

the army showed conspicuous bravery in the battle with the Cimbri. As a result, Marius

promised them the Roman citizenship as reward. But later along the line the Senate did not give

them (the soldiers of Marius) the citizenship right. The army became furious and would later

12
resort to the use of force to get their demand or of what they had been promised by leader

(Heitland, 1923: 393-395).

Still under politics, we are being told that the senate was a no go area even for the Italian

aristocracy. This is obvious since the allies did not have citizenship rights. The Italian allies

could not become or serve as consuls, praetors, and quaestors. The only position they could

aspire to was to serve as officers of the contingents they contributed to the Roman army.

Grant, 2005, states that the Italian allies also could not vote, since they did not have franchise.

The closest they could get to certain rights was to their cities given the status of civitas sine

suffragio, native or indigenous towns without voting rights. This was also another factor which

drew the attention of the Italian aristocracy to wage war against Rome. They have realized that

they can equally rule or occupy positions in Rome since they were the brain behind the glory of

Rome and without them Rome will be no Rome (Grant, 2005: 14; Scullard, 1982).

In the works of Scullard, 1982: 15, we also get to know more of the factors that accounted for the

War. We are being informed that during the rst half of the second century Romes relations

with her allies deteriorated. The Senate did not unkindly begin to intervene in their internal

aairs, but unless Rome adopted a totally new policy, her growing centralized power would

inevitably tilt the balance against them: Roman control (as exemplied in the suppression of the

Bacchic conspiracy) would gradually overshadow the local authorities until at length they

became part of the machinery worked by the central government.

Further, the degree of diplomacy shown by the Senate or individual Roman magistrates varied on

occasion: the way in which L. Postumius, consul in 173, abused his imperium by making

outrageous demands on Praeneste when he was visiting the town, became a notorious scandal.

13
With this unacceptable demand the indigenes of Preaneste will not hesitate to wage war against

Rome.

Socio-economic causes

In the socio-economic front, according to Scullard, 1982, a more pressing source of discontent

and danger nearer home was the festering sore of Romes relations with her allies inside Italy.

We learn that it became so inamed that it poisoned the whole political system and Romes

failure to tackle the problem nally threatened to split Italy into two in the Social War (90/1

B.C.). Romes allies consisted of two groups: the more privileged socii nominis Latini (allies

who had commercial rights) and the rest of the civitates foederatae (States allied to Rome by

treaty). The Latins comprised some original Latin towns as Tibur and Praeneste, whose status

was established when the Latin League was dissolved in 338 B.C.; some early Latin colonies

(such as Signia, Norba, Ardea) which were joint foundations of Rome and the Latin League

before 340; the much larger number of Latin colonies founded by Rome after the dissolution of

the Latin League. Most of the colonists were Romans who gave up their citizenship in return for

land in the colony. (Scullard, 1982: 13-14; Scullard and Cary, 1979).

Cary and Scullard, A History of Rome, 1979: 223; and Grant, 2005: 13, mention that the outbreak

at Asculum was another aspect of the causes of the war of the socii which indirectly or directly

affects the economy of Latium since destructions and the likes were caused. We are told that in

the Picenian city of Asculum a Roman agent, named C. Servilius, so provoked the townsmen

with his ill- timed threats and reproach that the townsmen replied with a massacre of all resident

Romans. This barbarity intoxicated in advance a final attempt by a deputation of allies to reach

14
an accommodation with the Senate. In the winter of 91-90 B. C. both sides made open

preparation for war.

From the work of Scullar, From Gracci to Nero, 1982: 17, we will notice that another aspect that

heated up the war has to do with ager publicus populi Romani; the Italian allies were at the

unfavourable side. Grant, 2005: 15, puts forward that, much of the public land of the Roman

people, ager publicus populi Romani, had been appropriated from the territories of the Italian

allies, and this proved to be a sore point for them, because, these public lands were commonly

used to resettle the Roman poor and returning veterans, who were Roman citizens. We learn that

the import of this was that Rome only cared very little about the poor Italian allies and the fate of

Italian veterans. We are also informed that occasionally colonies were established, which had for

colonists Romans, Latins, and Italian allies. But on further note, this was exception and not

norm; moreover, such colonists were to serve as the embankment of defense for Romes ever-

expanding spheres of interest and frontiers.

Again, in 177 B. C., the allies did not get their fair share of war-booty, which hitherto had been

divided equitably between Romans and Latins, while some harsh aspects of Roman military law

had been modied by some Leges Porciae (series of laws granting Roman citizens the right of

appeal in capital cases) in respect of Roman citizens only and not the Latins allies. Scullard

continues by saying that further economic conditions began to make life more dicult for many

of the allies. Thus, numbers of them began to desire Roman citizenship either for its positive

benets or for the protection against oppression that it would confer, while others later began to

consider the possibility of breaking away from Rome altogether (Scullard, 1982: 15).

15
More so, Grant,2005: 15, made mention of the issue of the practice of Roman praefecti, prefects,

in Italian cities and towns, to give judgment in favour of the Roman citizens when they had a

commercial dispute with Italians. We are told that this was simply done because Roman law

prevailed in such matters and citizens of Rome had rights of commercium that had to be

protected. But Rome has forgotten that the allies constituted the bulk of the Roman army and can

rise up against Rome if this was to continue. The Equestrian class in Rome also took undue

advantage of the death of Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. to deny Italians the right to compete for

privileges of tax farming that existed in the provinces. All these economic issues intensify the

pains of the allies and they will resort to violence to get what they want (Grant, 2005: 15;

Scullard and Cary, 1979; Scullard, 1982).

We have been able to examine the causes of the war of the socii from the works of scholars and

historians. The causes of the war were grouped into two: phase one, which can be considered as

the genesis cause of the war Roman franchise and the likes (about 5th to 3rd centuries); and

phase two, (about 2nd to the last century). We have realized that the causes of the socii war were

centered on political and socio-economic inequalities or disadvantages on the side of the allies.

Per our discussions, we can see that there was no evidence that the war of the socii could have

been avoided. The allies of Rome have contributed immensely to the glory of Rome. All that the

allies could get was promise and fail from the Romans. The Romans tried to sabotage the

opportunities the allies could have derived from Rome. All the leaders, including Drusus and

Flaccus, who sought to support the allies and to fight for them to gain some political recognition

(full Roman Citizenship), and socio-economic gains were brought down by the Roman Senate.

Since the Athenians could not, probably, survive without the support of the gods, so does Rome

without its allies. If the Romans had done things in the right time the war could have been

16
avoided. The Roman allies seem to have waited and exercise patience for so long and nothing

good was coming from Nazareth. The only thing they could do to liberate themselves from the

Romans was to resort to arms. It is said, Once bitten, twice shy; the allies could not wait for

any further promises and disappointments. We will now turn our attention to the course of the

war.

The course of the social war

During the war, we learn that the peoples of the hills of central Italy formed the heart of the

uprising, the Marsi in the north and the Samnites in the south. According to Scullard, 1982,

sometimes the war is reffered to as Marsic War, probably due to the role Marsi played or

otherwise. We are being informed that neither the Latin colonies nor Etruria and Umbria joined

in. In determination to get franchise by force, the Italians began organizing their own

confederacy; they established their headquarters at Corfinium, which they renamed Italia, created

a Senate and officers, and issued a special coinage (the coin issued by the Italian allies in the

War, showed their representatives swearing an oath of mutual loyalty round a standard; the coin

of the Italian Confederacy, showed the Italian bull goring the Roman wolf); soon they had

100,000 men in the field. We learn that in 90 B.C., Roman armies were defeated in the northern

sector, while in the south the Italians were equally successful and burst into southern Campania.

Only by political concession could Rome hope to check the revolt: the consul Lucius Julius

Caesar thus helped pass a law granting Roman citizenship to all Italians who had not participated

in the revolt and probably also to all who had but were ready to immediately lay down their

arms. This move pacified many of the Italians, who soon lost interest in further struggle against

Rome. Roman forces under Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo in the north and Lucius Cornelius Sulla in

17
the south soon inflicted decisive defeats on the remaining rebels and captured their strongholds.

On the side of the allies were the two commanders-in-chief, Quintus Poppaedius (in the North)

and Gaius Papius (in the South).

The back of the revolt was now broken, although some resistance continued among the Samnites

for a short time. Further legislation was soon passed that reinforced the allies newly won rights;

one law regulated the municipal organization of the communities that now entered the Roman

state; and another dealt with Cisalpine Gaul (probably granting citizenship to all Latin colonies).

Thus, the political unification of all Italy south of the Po River was achieved, and Romans and

Italians, hitherto linked by alliance, could now become a single nation (Scullard and Cary, 1979:

223-226, Grant, 2005: 11- 18; Scullard, 1982).

Some Contemporary African issues in relation to the Marsic war

At this point we should note that the Italians were in conflict with Rome (that is, the war was

between Rome and the Italian allies). This is not exactly as in contemporary Africa but the

factors that necessitated the war of the socii are not far different from what is happening in

Africa.

Relating the causes of the war of the socii to contemporary African issues, we can make mention

of the current civil war in Libya. The causes, we are told, were or are as the result of political,

economic, ethnic, and religion. But political factor seems to be the key issue that ignited the war.

We are saying that political issues take key role because, following the successful toppling of

leaders in Tunisia and Egypt via peaceful demonstrations in early 2011, Libyan protesters also

took to the streets in February 2011 demanding that Colonel Gaddafi step down from power. The

18
opposition felt that Qadhafi has made the state like his private property after he had over thrown

King Idris in 1969 (Toyin Falola, 2002: 333). We are told that the political unrest and armed

conflict that occurred in Libya in 2011, which resulted in the death of Muammar al-Qadhafi after

over 40 years in power, led to a dramatic regime change. The country shifted from being one of

the worlds harshest dictatorships to a post conflict aspiring democracy. As of May 2012, the

government of Libya was comprised of a National Transitional Council (NTC) formed during

the conflict and an appointed interim government mandated to steer the country towards

elections scheduled for July 2012, after which a new constitution will be drafted.

.Today, the country has a new, democratically elected government and a diverse political

landscape of parties and coalitions. Contemporary Libya is clearly a nation in the making, rather

than just a conglomeration of Ethnic groups ready to be at each other's throat. Libyans, however,

are still experiencing some conflicts. It is on records that local Salafist groups have been

attacking Sufi gathering places and teaching centers in different parts of the country. Libyan

politicians have repeatedly commented on these episodes of violence, but the number of attacks

seems to be increasing. An interior minister, Fawzi Abdellahi, resigned in protest at criticism

from others in government over his failed handling of the religious violence. Libya has not

collapsed into a constellation of ethnic groups, but the country does seem to be prone to the risk

of disintegration along religious lines.

The Warfalla, Libya's largest ethnic group, play a dominant role in Bani Walid. Along with the

Qadhadhfa, former ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi's ethnic group, the Warfalla used to be especially

powerful. By way of ethnic relations, Bani Walid is connected to the former Gaddafi stronghold

Sirte on the Mediterranean coast and to Sebha, capital of the country's southwest region. In all

three towns, the majority supported the regime in 2011. Destruction can be seen everywhere in

19
Bani Walid. In 2011, NATO troops bombed the town, and after a further state-ordered military

attack in October 2012, Bani Walid looks like a ruinous fort.

The conflict between Misrata and Bani Walid (as epitomized in the war of the socii, Rome and

its allies) is just one example of local rivalries all across the country. Most of them originate

where armed ethnic groups fight for influence, land and resources. The interim government is

mostly powerless to stop such disputes. One reason for that is the state's attempt to integrate

whole rebel groups into the army. Many of those groups prioritize the interests and commands

from their ethnic groups over the national good. Per this record, we can clearly see that political

and socio-economic issues play key role in the progress of any society, country or nation. The

political and some socio-economic issues that resulted the war of the socii were not far different

from what called for the Libyan crisis.

Grant, 2005, made mention of the Rwanda genocide. We become aware that the factors (political

and socio-economic) that led to the social war were not different from that of Rwanda Genocide

(1962-92). We learn from Nnoli, 1998, that the previous generation of Rwanda classified

themselves as one people. But during the Belgian administration, they divided the people into

two groups (the rich and the poor). Those who had at least ten heads of cattle were classified as

the Tutsi and those who did not meet the criteria were tagged Hutus. In 1930 and 1952 census

were conducted by placing these two groups under their respective class. In addition, identity

cards were issued to these two groups.

We also learn from Nnoli, 1998 that, the Belgians made sure that the Tutsis occupied

administration positions excluding the Hutus. Due to this the Tutsi brothers were going to enjoy

much economic benefits than their Hutu brothers. This system of the Belgians continued not

20
until the time of Colonel Logiest. The Hutu felt that they have been sidelined (in terms of

political and socio-economic) for a long time by their Tutsi brothers, who spoke the same

language.

When Colonel Logiest arrived in Rwanda on 5 November 1959, we are told that he managed to

change the colonial administration by removing the Tutsi brothers from power by placing them

with the Hutu brothers. Consequently, the Hutus being felt that they have been cheated or

sidelined by their Tutsi brothers for a longer period, decide to eliminate any single member of

the Tutsi from the country during the Post-Colonial Period, 1962-92. Almost ethnic conflict,

social conflict, national or international conflicts, that the world had witnessed and is

witnessing has their root causes from political, socio-economic, and socio-cultural perspectives.

(Grant, 2005: 19; Nnoli, 1998: 105-126).

Some of the factors that caused the social war are no different from the issue of Boko Haram in

Northern Nigeria and if diplomatic measures are not employed, the massacre would not stop.

Others may attribute the cause of the Nigerian war to the claim that Boko Haram despises

Western education and culture. But what is hovering on the media is that Boko Haram is also

massacring some people they share the same faith or religion with. This tells that there are more

to that. There may be economic reasons, political reasons, and the likes as happened during the

last century of the Roman republic.

Grant, 2005, relates the socio-economic and political inequalities of Rome and its allies to the

South Africa conflict (the period of apartheid). We become aware that South Africa was not like

the Roman allies who lived in their individual cities, but the factors that caused the social war are

no different from what South Africa experienced during the colonial era. Political inequality and

21
socio-economic exploitation brought conflict between the colonial masters, who constituted the

minority, and the locals.

It is reported in the New African Magazine, January 2015, that, the South African government

will have to decide whether or not to award parole to a handful of apartheid era murderers.

Among the murderers of the anti-apartheid activists were Magnus Malan, Minister of Defence

from 1980 to 1991, and Wouter Basson, the chemical weapons expert known as Dr. Death.

These two figures were acquitted after along trials. Perhaps the most notorious figure who has

been jailed for his crimes under apartheid till date is Eugene de Kock. De Kocks layer is now

seeking parole for his client. Clive Derby-Lewis, the former politician who was awarded a life

sentence for contributing to the murder of anti-apartheid hero and South African Communist

Party leader, Chris Hani, in 1993 is also to face the government of South Africa if he can be

granted parole. It is believed that these men had spearheaded the deprivation of the natives of

South Africa from their agricultural lands and administration, probably, due to colour, racism,

and the likes. This resulted into a mass revolt by the natives whereby a lot of South Africans

died. For foreigners to take total control of political offices and agricultural lands, as the Romans

did to their allies, made the indigenes to challenge the colonialist and at the end war broke out

(Grant, 2015: 18-19; New Africa, January 2015: 24-25).

22
Conclusion/Suggestion

In conclusion, we have seen how social wars come about. The war of the socii may have been

avoided if the Senate had listened and given to the allies their demands. The way by which the

Senate kept political and socio-economic advantages to themselves cost Rome heavily at this

time (91-87 B.C.). We learn from Okwudiba Nnoli, 1998, that to understand society is to

understand social conflict. We get to know that there can be no progress without conflict and its

resolution. Conflict is inescapable in human affairs. The only problem about conflict is its

explosion into violence (Okwudiba, 1998: 3).

To prevent conflicts from resulting to revolt, I suggest that the opposing sides (especially African

political activists) should try as much as possible to respect consensus building. It is about time

for African nationalists to learn from history as to how some of these types of social wars

emanated so that they can find appropriate measures in curbing the rampant conflicts and wars

Africa is always experiencing, especially the Nigerian crisis (the issues of Boko Haram). The

Roman Senates refusal and inability to learn from their own past records, thus, during the

conflict of the others and the first Italian war, the issues that brought about these wars made them

to suffer again in the last century (the war of the socii); and the causes of African civil wars are

not excluded from the factors that caused the inevitable social war that erupted between Rome

and its allies.

23
REFERENCES

Ackaah-Ennin, J. A., Grant P. K. T., and Otchere A. Jonathan. The rise of Rome from City-State

to Imperial State. Cape Coast, NYAKOD Printing Works. 2013

Grant, Peter Kojo Tsiwah. Nigeria and the Classics: Socio-Economic and Political factors in the

conflicts of Ancient Rome: Relevance to Contemporary Africa. 21. (2005): 10-21

Scullard, H. H., and Cary M. A history of Rome down to the reign of Constantine (3rd ed.). Hong

Kong, Macmillan Education Ltd. 1979

Scullard, H. H. From the Gracchi to Nero: A history of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68. New

York, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 1982

Heitland, E. W. The Roman Republic. Vol. 2. London, Cambridge University Press, 1923. 2 vols.

Okwudiba, Nnoli. Ethnic Conflicts in Africa. Dakar, Senegal, CODESRIA. 1998

Pusch, Commey. New African: Jailed apartheid killers seek parole. Jan. 2015: 24-25

Falola, Toyin. Africa: The end of colonial rule; Nationalism and decolonization. Vol. 4. Durham,

North Carolina, Carolina Academic Press. 2002

Social War. 2015. Encyclopdia Britannica Online. Retrieved 26 February, 2015, from

http://www.britannica.com/

http://www.conflictinlibya.com. Retrieved 26 February, 2015

24
25