Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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
2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
inequalities
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
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.).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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;
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.
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)
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
23
REFERENCES
Ackaah-Ennin, J. A., Grant P. K. T., and Otchere A. Jonathan. The rise of Rome from City-State
Grant, Peter Kojo Tsiwah. Nigeria and the Classics: Socio-Economic and Political factors in the
Scullard, H. H., and Cary M. A history of Rome down to the reign of Constantine (3rd ed.). Hong
Scullard, H. H. From the Gracchi to Nero: A history of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68. New
Heitland, E. W. The Roman Republic. Vol. 2. London, Cambridge University Press, 1923. 2 vols.
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,
Social War. 2015. Encyclopdia Britannica Online. Retrieved 26 February, 2015, from
http://www.britannica.com/
24
25