ローマ共和政中期における市民と軍務

Abstract

第2次ポエニ戦争終結からグラックス兄弟の改革に至る共和政中期は, 共和政のシステムがよく機能した時代であるといわれている。その共和政の実態はクリエンテラ関係に基づくノビレス支配であったとする説が長らく支配的であったが, 近年これにたいする批判として, 一般市民の持つ制度的権利の再評価の傾向が顕著である。これをうけて, 本稿は市民の制度的権利の社会的前提として, 軍務の果たしていた役割について考察することをその目的としている。まず, 本稿は徴兵の現場に焦点を合わせ, 徴兵をおこなう側の政治指導者層と徴兵される側の一般市民の関係を考察した。その結果, 軍務を中心的に担うのは一般市民であるという共通認識のもと, 一般市民は自律的に行動し, 政治指導者層も彼らを強権的に徴兵するのではなく, ある程度丁寧な対応をしている状況が明らかになった。次に, 本稿はこの両者の関係をフォルムにおける政治の場に敷衍することを試みた。そして, 最終的に筆者は, 一般市民が民会や法廷で制度的権利を行使する際, 彼らの果たしていた軍務は権利の実効性を高める社会的前提として機能し, それゆえに政治指導者層も彼らの重要性を認識して呼びかけや弁論をおこなう必要があったと結論付けている。

Most historians studying the Roman Republic argue that from the end of the Second Punic War to the Gracchi, the system of the Republic worked smoothly. However, there are two theories to understand when studying the politics and society of the Republic. One is the traditional interpretation that the Nobiles, monopolizing the posts of magistrates, had ruled the politics of the Republic exclusively. The other is the new interpretation originally proposed by F. Millar that the ordinary citizens in Rome had an important role in the system of the Republic, participating in the election and the court. When we take account of the ordinary citizens' political right, how can we consider the basis of their right? In this paper, the author attempts to consider their military service as the origin of their political significance. From the middle of the third century B. C. the Roman army became composed of poorer citizens. Many scholars call it the proletarianization of the Roman army. Ancient sources like Dionysius Halicarnasseus, from the point of the timocratical view, indicate that the richer a citizen was, the greater his military obligation and the wider his political right. According to this view we have to understand that poorer soldiers couldn't have had an important political role as citizens. However, as long as citizens were soldiers and they sustained the vast expansion of Rome in the second century B. C., we should suppose that the burden which they shouldered gave them political significance. To reveal this relationship between military service and political power, the author surveys the affairs of the system of conscription. The magistrates sometimes felt difficulties in conscripting because the ordinary citizens, who were liable for military service, acted against the intention of the magistrates. The magistrates had to appeal to the citizens for military service or change the method of conscription. So we should consider that there existed a sort of political communication between the ordinary citizens and the magistrates and it came from the fact that the ordinary citizens bore the burden of military service and they were indispensable for the Republic.