Rome’s policy towards its conquered territories was quite varied. The introduction of Roman administration in territories under Rome’s control was frequently much delayed, even by as much as a few decades after they were conquered. Numerous factors played a part in this, including e.g. the political situation in Rome itself, where competing factions in the Senate were involved in many arguments in such circumstances, as well as a lack of developed administrative machinery in the Republic, which further postponed the introduction of Roman administration in its conquered territories. Rome’s lack of interest in a given territory at a certain point in time could also have been due to chaos caused by its internal situation or the Senate’s different idea for governing a given conquered territory (handing over the administration of a specific area to a client state or to Roman officials as provincia). However, all these factors did not mean that territories captured by force or otherwise dependent on the Republic were left to their own devices. Rome bound the conquered territories and their inhabitants by treaties, which resulted in political and military links between these areas and their citizens and Rome (foedus). The situation was similar in northern Italy from the time it was conquered at the turn of the third century to the outbreak of the bellum sociale in 90-88 BC. The legal and administrative situation in northern Italy was further complicated by the fact that so-called Cisalpine Gaul, unlike other subordinate territories outside Italy, was a territory intensely colonised by the Republic. Rome became the most significant political player in northern Italy. The defeated Celtic Boii and Insubres were forced to accept the conditions imposed by the Republic; among other things, they relinquished some parts of their territories and agreed to allow Roman garrisons in Mediolanum, Mutina, Bononia, Clastidium and Tannetum. They pledged to provide military assistance to the Republic. As we can see, the conditions for the defeated Boii and Insubres were more rigorous than the foedus binding Rome with the Cenomani and the Veneti. It seems that the alliance tying Rome to the Veneti (symmachia) and the Cenomani may be regarded as foedus aequum, while the treaties entered into with the Boii and the Insubres may be considered to be foedus iniquum. Therefore it is likely that they had to accept stricter terms of the treaty; however, we know little about the details of these pacts. We understand from Cicero’s a for ementioned quotation that the Cenomani and the Insubres were forced to accept a clause that did not allow them to obtain civitas optimo iure. It is difficult to say what the reasons for this provision might have been.
Subordinating new territories did not mean imposing the Republic’s own administration. The city-state, in this case Rome, did not have the appropriate administrative structures which could be used for governing new acquisitions. The Roman administrative system was, however, flexible enough to assign new territories to already existing structures, expanding their jurisdiction or adding new powers.
Rome entrusted military and administrative operations to annually appointed officials - mainly consuls but also praetors - who, as a result of the imperium they had, could carry out war operations using their subordinate Roman and allied military units without consultation, following their own tactical plans. It should be added that the consul’s unlimited power (imperium) applied not only to his subordinate military units but also to territories where he carried out military operations and to all matters related to such operations. The consul, representing the interests of the Republic, could conduct negotiations with the enemy and propose terms of truce, which were usually approved by the Senate, where he directed the legates of the opposing side. The Senate, in turn, could send a special commission (usually decemvires), which supervised the implementation of the truce. With time, the Senate started making decisions related to sending reinforcements and provisions to generals performing their duties in the field (provincia). The subjugated territory could be handed over (by the assembly of the people or the Senate) into the administration of a consul appointed for the next year or to a consul who had governed there on the basis of prorogatio imperii for another year; in such a case he would be a proconsul in the territory (provincia) under his administration. Authority could also be prorogued in the case of a praetor, who became a propraetor for another year, which was a frequent practice in northern Italy in a later period, i.e. in the 2nd-1st centuries B.C.
From the 3rd to the 1st century B.C. northern Italy differed from other territories under Rome’s rule (outside Italy) in that the Republic carried out an intense process of individual settlement (viritim) and colonisation on its territory. The territory of the future province of Gallia Cisalpina, mostly south of the Padus River, saw the establishment of many colonies, both of Roman citizens and Latin ones, and smaller settlements such as fora, conciliabula, vici and pagi. This complicated the legal and administrative status of those territories, since apart from the aforementioned legal relations between Roman allies in Cisalpine Gaul and the Republic there were also equally important relations between Rome and its colonies. Northern Italy had as many as three kinds of colonies: coloniae maritimae, coloniae civium Romanorum and Latin colonies. Their population was diverse – both in ethnical (derived from various parts of Italy), social, and legal terms (Roman citizens, Latini, socii, natives).
