Massilia as an Ally of Rome

[Araujo]

Hey guys, I was wondering, I have a doubt in concern for Massilia, the noble city in the extreme South of Gaul (France). It was founded by greek colonists and it grew up to be one of the greatest cities in the Western Mediterranean, or at least that's what I think of it. But how long did it stay as an ally to the Roman Republic? I just don't know when did the romans truly conquest Massilia, and I was wondering if any of you could help with this, please.

[Epictetus]

I think a precise date may be a little difficult to pin down. (Although someone may come along and correct me. :wink: ) Rome's relationship with many 'independent' states was quite complex. Rome had been friendly with Massilia since probably the 5th century B.C. (see Strabo 5.1.4 and Justin 43.5). In 389 a treaty was made between the two that resulted in a formal alliance. Visitors from Massilia to Rome were granted certain privileges, such as the right of public hospitality (see Justin 43.5.10). In later times it was indebted to both Caesar and Pompey during the civil war and seemed to consider both men as patrons of their city (see Caesar's Civil War 1.34+).

So during a very long period it was probably nominally independent although under the protection of Rome. So perhaps one could argue that it was a formal ally (to some degree) from about 389 to 49 B.C., after which it was subdued in the civil war.

[Trojan_horse]

The name Massilia is said to have had a Phoenician origin. ‘Massa’ meaning harbour or a place to moor boats, the first eastern colonists were actually from Phocaea, a mixture of Ionian Greeks and Phoenicians.

Apparently Massilia were militarily superior to the Carthaginians, who they twice defeated in the late 6th and early 4th century BC. So, I think the main factors for Rome’s friendly relations were Trade and military might, both of which the Massiliotes were probably superior.
The Romans couldn’t have matched them in terms of Trade in her early years and probable not in military might either.
I think it was purely a trade relationship.
you can only trade with friends and not enemies.

[Araujo]

wow, I didn't know that Massilia defeated the carthaginians, thanks for the information. but now that you talk about their military system, how was their army? The Phoenicians, even as powerful as they were along the Mediterranean, hadn't a great military system, prefering to a naval, trading business along the Mediterranean coasts. The Greeks were later defeated by the romans, apparently weaker than the Massilian soldiers. As a multicultural city, Massilia should have greeks, phoenicians, etruscans, iberians or gauls, but none of these people defeated the romans. So can someone explain this to me guys?

[Gluteus Maximus]

wow, I didn't know that Massilia defeated the carthaginians, thanks for the information. but now that you talk about their military system, how was their army? The Phoenicians, even as powerful as they were along the Mediterranean, hadn't a great military system, prefering to a naval, trading business along the Mediterranean coasts. The Greeks were later defeated by the romans, apparently weaker than the Massilian soldiers. As a multicultural city, Massilia should have greeks, phoenicians, etruscans, iberians or gauls, but none of these people defeated the romans. So can someone explain this to me guys?

The explanation is easier to understand if one dispenses with the idea that all Greek colonies had armies in the same format as the Spartans and Thebans. Massilia maintained its independence because Rome benefited from this, and was nothing to do with having superior soldiers - which it did not have. The lack of battles involving Massiliots and Romans illustrates this. Had Carthage not been a threat, and Massilia more belligerent, the Romans would have dispatched them pretty quickly. I believe the Massiliots were primarily naval. Any soldiers they had were probably no weaker or stronger than any others in the Greek sphere of influence (and they probably used Gauls as mercenaries), but Rome defeated the greeks proper because they caused problems which the Massiliots didnt. In addition, Massilia was separated by distance from the bulk of the Greek meditteranean communities, was very multi - cultural and their armies probably evolved on different lines from the city states of Sicily, Southern Italy and Greece itself. It may have started as a Greek colony, and its administrative language was probably Greek, but it is shown in historical atlases as 'Greek' because its very diverse citizens used Greek as its parent culture and language, and it is difficult to figure out what else to call it. Their anti Carthage stance gained the friendship of Rome pretty early on, and Colin McEvedy's 'Atlas of Ancient History' has Massilia as a semi - independent client state from about 250BC. It is still shown thus on his map of 74BC; I expect this privilege ended when the city refused to open its gates to Caesar in the Civil War. Its distant cousin at the other end of the Meditteranean litoral, the Bosporan Kingdom on the Sea of Azov, fared rather better and survived until the Huns torched it in about 370.