Gaius Flaminius (c. 275 BC24 June 217 BC) was a leading Roman politician in the third century BC. Flaminius served as consul twice, in 223 and 217. He is notable for being the first Roman governor of Sicily, the Lex Flaminia, a land reform bill passed in 232, the construction of the Circus Flaminius in 221, the construction of the Via Flaminia, and his death at the hands of Hannibal's army at the Battle of Lake Trasimene in 217, during the Second Punic War. Flaminius is celebrated by ancient sources as being a skilled orator and a man possessed of great piety, strength, and determination.Cicero, Brutus, 57 ; Valerius Maximus, 5.4.5; Livy, 22.5-6. He is, however, simultaneously criticised by ancient writers such as Cicero and Livy for his popular policies and disregard of Roman traditions, particularly during the terms of his tribunate and second consulship.Cicero, De Inventione, 2.52; Livy, 21.63.

Tribunate and the Lex Flaminia, 232 BC Flaminius was elected as tribune of the plebs in 232 BC. Cicero writes that Flaminius was an accomplished orator before the people, a skill that likely helped him achieve the tribunate.Cicero, Brutus, 57 . During his term, Flaminius proposed the Lex Flaminia de Agro Gallico et Piceno viritim dividundo, a controversial agrarian law proposing the settlement of Roman citizens in the Ager Gallicus Picenus lands around Picenum and Ariminum, made available by Rome's defeat of their previous occupants, the Senones, in 283.Polybius, 2.21.7-8; Cicero De Senectute, 11; Cicero, Academica Priora, 2.13; Valerius Maximus, 5.4.5. It is unclear from the ancient sources why the Ager Gallicus Picenus was chosen for the project.Feig Vishnia, R. (1996), State, society and popular leaders in mid-Republican Rome, 241–167 B.C, New York; London: Routledge, p. 31.

Polybius suggests that the law caused problems with the Boii as the Romans began settling near their territory, eventually leading to the Gallic rebellion in 225.Polybius, 2.21.7-8; Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 18. Approximately 2,580 square kilometres had been made ager publicus following the Roman victory, although not all the available territory was distributed under this law. Some was in fact privatised prior to Flaminius' reform.Roselaar, S.T. (2010), Public land in the Roman republic: a social and economic history of ager publicus in Italy, 396–89 BC, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 314–315. The land was reasonably valuable as it could produce large quantities of wine.Cato, fr. 43 Peter (Varro De Re Rustustica 1.2.7) An non M. Cato scribit in libro originum sic? "Ager Gallicus Romanus uocatur, qui uiritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra agrum Picentium. in eo agro aliquodfariam in singula iugera dena cullea uini fiunt" (Or does not Marcus Cato use this language in his Origines? "The land lying this side of Ariminum and beyond the district of Picenum, which was allotted to colonists, is called Gallo-Roman. In that district ten cullei of wine are produced to the iugerum"). It is not clear from the ancient sources how many people were settled there, although estimates suggest approximately 19,000 citizens, not including their families.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 20. It would have been problematic to transport and settle this many people to a relatively distant area from Rome so scholars have argued that transportation must have been made by sea, as it would have been difficult to do so by land.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 20. This transportation has been linked to the Roman conflict with Illyrian pirates as raids now directly affected Roman citizens.Polybius, 2.11.1; Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 21.

Ancient sources describe resistance from the senate to these measures including opposition from Quintus Fabius Maximus, a rival of Flaminius, although Cicero notes that Spurius Carvilius, Fabius Maximus' colleague for his second consulship, did not join the opposition.Polybius, 2.21.7-8; Cicero, De Senectute, 11; Cicero, Academica Priora, 2.13; Valerius Maximus, 5.4.5. Valerius Maximus writes that Flaminius persisted in pushing it through despite threats and pleas from the senate, and against the possibility of an army being levied against him if he continued.Valerius Maximus, 5.4.5. Later Roman historians use the opposition to the law from the senate to portray Flaminius as a populares style leader, alienated from the senate in the tradition of the Gracchi, although this narrative is challenged by modern historians.Polybius, 2.21.7-8; Cicero, Academica Priora, 2.13; Livy, 21.63; Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 34.

Controversy in passing the Lex Flaminia One tradition suggests that as Flaminius was proposing his agrarian law he was dragged from the rostra by his father.Cicero, De Inventione, 2.52; Valerius Maximus, 5.4.5. Cicero writes that Flaminius' father was subsequently tried for maiestas (diminishing the majesty of the Roman people) for this action, but argued that he was exerting his authority as a father over a son rather than a citizen acting against an elected tribune of the plebs.Cicero, De Inventione, 2.52. Valerius Maximus follows this tradition, listing Flaminius as an example of male piety for respecting his father's private authority over him as he allowed his father to remove him from the rostra when nothing else would sway him.Valerius Maximus, 5.4.5. Valerius Maximus claims the crowd respected Flaminius' pietas in this event and does not mention the subsequent maiestas trial described by Cicero.Valerius Maximus, 5.4.5. This has led some modern scholars to argue that the law was never passed, although contemporary sources indicate that it did.Cicero, Brutus, 57 ; Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 28.

Scholarly explanations for senatorial opposition to the Lex Flaminia Early scholarly thinking compared Flaminius with Tiberius Gracchus as they both pushed through land laws against the wishes of the senate. This led to the view that the senatorial opposition stemmed from an economic motivation to keep this land solely for the nobiles who had been exploiting it since its capture, and the portrayal of Flaminius as a democratic leader campaigning for the common people against the greedy nobiles.Feig Vishnia 1996, pp. 25-6; Develin, R. (1979), "The Political Position Of C. Flaminius", Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 122 (3/4), pp. 269. Fraccaro rejected this explanation and began looking for a political motivation instead, arguing that there was senatorial opposition as the law proposed a new style of settlement. Previously colonists kept their Roman citizenship if the land was connected to the ager Romanus, as otherwise Rome founded a Latin colony and colonists lost Roman citizenship, while through this law colonists kept their citizenship despite the distance from Rome.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 26. Meyer argues against this, citing citizenship given to other peoples including the Sabines and Picentes despite their distance from Rome.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 27.

Corbett proposes instead that Rome had a manpower problem, and the senate was therefore unwilling to distribute citizens so far away to a place already sufficiently guarded. Feig Vishnia argues against this idea as the people settled had lost land and therefore were ineligible for the army, and so by giving them land Rome would increase its manpower possibilities and protect the border with the Boii, an idea supported by the fact that the area became a key source of manpower in the Second Punic War.Feig Vishnia 1996, pp. 27-8.

Develin claims that the law never passed due to the intervention of Flaminius' father, and that the senate settled Latin colonies there to prevent complaints from the potential settlers, but no names of these colonies are found in the ancient evidence and his argument is not supported by the ancient evidence on the law.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 28. He also argues that it impossible to reconstruct factional support within the senate for the law.Develin 1979, p. 269.

Kramer however suggests that Flaminius was manipulating factional rivalries by aligning with the Aemilii to gain an advantage for the plebs he hoped to settle. He views choice of territory as part of an aggressive policy against Gallic threat advocated by the Aemilii who saw the Gauls as potential allies for Hannibal, and opposed by the Fabii.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 28.

Cassola argues that the law was opposed for multiple reasons, first because both senators and publicans would lose economically if land was distributed and also because there was conflict in the senate between a liberal faction supporting southern expansion, facilitating economic and cultural relations with Greek territories, and a conservative faction in favour of maintaining the agrarian nature of Rome.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 28. He sees Flaminius as champion of the rural plebs against the urban plebs, opposed to expansion beyond Italy.Develin 1979, p. 269. Yavetz similarly asserts that Flaminius is a man with his own faction, opposed to the senatorial aristocracy, and in 232 he may have been supported by the Aemilii-Scipiones on political grounds.Develin 1979, p. 269.

Scholars have argued that opposition from the senate was due to the possibility of war with the Gauls since a settlement near Gallic territory may have seemed aggressive. This is what Polybius argues caused war with the Gauls seven years later. Roselaar also suggests that the Senones had not been completely eradicated and still occupied the land.Feig Vishnia 1996, pp. 29-30; Roselaar 2010, p. 57. Rome was already at war in several places and the senate may not have wanted to provoke another immediate conflict. Feig Vishnia also argues that this explains the conflict between Fabius and Flaminius as Fabius was cautious and did not want to give the Gauls an excuse for more conflict.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 30.

Roselaar argued that the senate was afraid that Flaminius would gain too much influence over the people for distributing the land to them, although Feig Vishnia points out that they were too far away to easily vote and settlers were only incorporated into two tribes which limited their political usefulness.Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 32; Roselaar 2010, p. 57.

Support for the Lex Flaminia Feig Vishnia argues that since the law was passed it must have had more support than indicated by the sources as no tribunician veto was used against it. The law was passed in the consulship of M. Aemilius Lepidus and he may have been a supporter as Flaminius had connections with the Aemilii.Feig Vishnia 1996, pp. 32-3. Spurius Carvilius Ruga's silence, mentioned by Cicero, is also significant in showing support among the senate for the law.Cicero, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cicero/cato_maior_de_senectute/text*.html De Senectute, . L. Caecilius Metellus may have been another supporter as his eulogy describes him taking part in a commission appointed for land distribution and the only possible distribution in this period was Flaminius'. Flaminius' law may not have been as controversial as represented in later sources, as he was able to go on to hold the highest offices of the state and giving land to soldier veterans was simply a continuation of normal Roman policy.Feig Vishnia 1996, pp. 33-4.

Dating issues