Chapter 18: The
Pax
Romana: Life in the
Roman Empire
SIDEBAR:
EARLY ROMAN DYNASTIES
Julio-Claudian Dynasty 27 BC - 68 AD
Augustus 27 BC - 14 AD
Tiberius 14 AD - 37 AD
Caligula 37-41
Claudius 41-54
Nero 54-68
Year of Four Emperors 69-70
AD
Flavian Dynasty 70-96 AD
Vespasian 70-79
Titus 79-81
Domitian 81-96
The Antonines 96-180 AD
(the Five Good Emperors)
Nerva 96-98
Trajan 98-117
Hadrian 117-138
Antoninus Pius 138-161
Marcus Aurelius 161-180
The
Augustan Settlement proved to be a workable solution to the problem of imperial
rule in the Mediterranean. Utilizing a minimal central
bureaucracy and rely at the local level on leadership in city councils,
Augustus was able to enact legislation and to maintain order for a broad and
diverse population. He channeled the aggressive energy of the Roman oligarchy
to useful pursuits. He ended the abuse of corrupt governors and kept the armies
under control. In addition, he reduced the tax burden on the Roman provincials.
Through wise use of tax revenues he was able to intervene at the local level
throughout the Mediterranean world to assist with calamities such as
earthquakes in the Aegean
and the
lack of food in the burgeoning city of Rome. He established the precedent of doing
"more with less" that became the model for his successors. The one
problem that he failed to resolve was a suitable means of succession. Instead
of constructing some constitutional process for succession he fell back on more
traditional practices of Roman patronage (i.e., the Roman family structure) and
selected and groomed members of his immediate family to assume his place. This
led to inevitable jockeying for position within the imperial family, known
today as the Julio-Claudian
dynasty, as well as to reports of
conspiracies, intrigues, and assassinations. Roman sources paint his wife,
Livia.
in a
very poor light for attempting to secure the throne for her son by a previous
marriage, Tiberius Claudius Nero, allegedly by poisoning family members more
directly in line for the throne.
In
any event, Tiberius succeeded Augustus in 14 AD and proved by and large to be
an effective administrator, however unpleasant and morose he was as an
individual. He was succeeded in turn by a madman, his grand
nephew Gaius or Caligula. Caligula attempted to humiliate
whole segments of the Roman leadership cadres, the Senate, the Knights, the
army, in a deranged effort to assert his notion of personal divinity. After his
assassination, he was followed by his uncle, Claudius. This older man was
entirely untrained for imperial rule because he suffered from birth from severe
physical disabilities and had been kept out of the public eye. However, even
this scholarly emperor proved to be a highly effective, if quirky,
administrator. He was followed in turn by his step-son and grand
nephew Nero. Having received the best possible education from the
celebrated Roman philosopher, Seneca, it was hoped by all that this young
emperor would emerge as the greatest ruler of the dynasty. However, he proved
to be disinterested in the business of government. Left to his own devices by Seneca and his mother,
Nero developed interests in theater, music, dance, and the arts. He saw himself
as the world's greatest performance artist and began to put on shows not only
in Rome but in
Olympia
in
Greece.
Like Caligula, his extravagances and atrocities made him unpopular and his
eventual purges of provincial military commanders incited rebellions. With his
death in 68 AD the first Roman imperial dynasty came to an end. A civil war
determined imperial succession and reminded the Roman world once again of the
"bad old days" of the Late Republic.
The
remarkable thing about these developments was that the solution became once
again to restore Augustus' "power-sharing" relationship between the
Princeps, the Senate, and the Military Commanders on the frontiers. In short,
the constitutional architecture of Augustus survived both madmen at the helm
and internal civil war to provide a lasting model for organizing the resources
and human power of the Mediterranean world. In many respects, the complaints of
Roman sources against the Julio-Claudians
ring
hollow. Effective administrators such as Tiberius and Claudius appear to have
been disliked primarily because they made the aristocracy pay its fair share of
taxes and because they treated the lower orders of Roman society with greater
equity. Even the least effective emperors, Caligula and Nero, were wildly
popular with the Roman people and the provincials. This suggests that the Roman
aristocracy alone suffered as a direct result of its close proximity to the
seat of power. The further removed one was from the power struggles of the
imperial dynasty, the better life became. This development stands in the
inverse proportion to that of the Late Republic. One could even argue that the Roman
aristocracy was merely receiving its just dessert
after years of abuse and the misuse of power.
The
Augustan Settlement proved successful in a number of other ways. It stabilized
the military situation and brought accountability and order in the provinces.
Roman army generals were selected for command directly by the emperor and
worked on his behalf. Increasingly, the Roman legions became based on the
borders of Roman territory, far removed from the urban populations, in order to
confront neighboring barbarian peoples such as Germanic tribes north of the
Rhine
and
Danube.
Eventually, the legions became settled into permanent army camps along the
limes
-- a
line of natural and man-made barriers that defined the boundaries of the
Roman
Empire. These included the entire length of the
Rhine
and
Danube
Rivers
in the
north. Augustus likewise curbed the abuses of Roman provincial governors and
Roman tax collectors in pacified regions. An end to the constant demands for
excessive taxes and military requisitions meant that the provincials were able
to keep more of their earnings for themselves. One theory holds that despite
the imposition of the Roman tithe (approximately 10%), productivity in the
Roman Mediterranean actually expanded at this time. Wealthy provincials
expanded production in order to reap higher profits over and above the outlay
of tithe. With peace and stability guaranteed, people began to invest more
extensively in artisan and agricultural production, such as wine and oil for
export purposes. The results can be seen in the material record: whereas, in
the Late Republican Era (133-27 BC) some
8 to 10
internationally traded transport amphoras circulated throughout the Mediterranean, by
the first century AD that number jumped to more than 40. So many amphora types
were produced during the Roman Empire, in fact, that archaeologists
have still not identified the points of origin for all of them.
Since
transport amphoras were fashioned almost exclusively
for shipment by sea they raise important questions about the scale of ancient
Mediterranean shipping. To some degree this question can be addressed by the
remains of ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks. By 1992 some 1189 ancient
shipwrecks were recorded and published for the Mediterranean region. By and
large, shipwrecks dated to the four centuries between 200 BC and 200 AD vastly
predominate the available data of the Mediterranean and suggest in a negative
manner that this period marked a peak era with respect to the relative volume
of Mediterranean maritime trade. Most ships were relatively small, under 75
metric tons or 1500 amphoras capacity. The largest
class of wrecks possessed dead load tonnage in excess of 250 tons or 6000 amphoras. These date mostly to the second and first
centuries BC with a few additional wrecks recorded during the early Empire
(first to second centuries AD). The data suggests that small cargo ships
furnished the mainstay of Mediterranean trade, but that during period of the
Roman Republic and Early Empire larger and larger cargo ships plied the waters
of the Mediterranean and probably those of the Indian Ocean as well. Most of
the shipwrecks of this period (78 of 98 or 81% of the total sampled) carried
two or less categories of goods, mainly amphoras. Not
only does this data stress the relative importance of transport amphoras as evidence of Mediterranean maritime commerce but
it also suggests, however crudely, that commodities conveyed in amphoras formed the bulk of Roman commerce. Equally
importantly, the existence of so many large "bulk" cargoes of one or
two categories of goods indicates that at least during the period in question
prearranged shipment of goods on consignment prevailed over "cabotage" or small-scale itinerant
"peddling" of merchandise from port to port.
As
the shipwreck data indicates, the greater portion of Mediterranean shipping is
presumed to have transpired in relatively small vessels of 300 tons capacity or
less. The maritime topography of the Mediterranean all but required this, since
harbors with deep draft capacity were relatively few. The smaller carrying
capacity of most Mediterranean cargo ships likely means that the number of
vessels at sea at any one time was probably quite large. A recent estimate of
Mediterranean shipping during the early medieval era posits that something in
excess of 5000 cargo ships sailed the eastern Mediterranean waters during the
sixth century AD. The combined shipwreck and literary data for the Roman
Mediterranean era suggests that a considerably greater number would have been
active during the early empire. In fact, the available evidence indicates that
the volume of trade that occurred in the Mediterranean during the Roman era was
the largest ever experienced in the ancient world. Converging forms of evidence
indicates that this trade trended eastward across the Mediterranean to the
Indian Ocean, raising important questions about the extent to which macroregional trade stimulated rising productivity in the
Mediterranean basin.
The
hypothesized result of so much economic activity was a gradually rising curve
in material production throughout the Mediterranean
at this
time. Some scholars argue that productivity attained its peak during the second
century AD, and that it stood at a level unmatched anywhere in the globe until
the rise of nation states in Early Modern Europe (c. 1600 AD). Why the ancient
Mediterranean economy failed to attain the "technological leap"
beyond "human and animal power" to an "industrial revolution"
remains an important question. This seems particularly so when it is clear that
Hellenistic scientists such as Archimedes understood the principle of steam
power and the Romans utilized principles of gravity to drive their aqueducts.
The answer would appear to lie with the limited dissemination of recursive
institutions in Roman Mediterranean society and the unwillingness of the
aristocratic elite to engage in pursuits beyond, "religion, politics, and
war." During antiquity the most educated elements viewed anything associated
with physical labor as beneath their station in life; hence, they did not apply
their energies to the development of labor saving devices. Moreover, the
inherent constituency of modern "research and development" was
nonexistent in the ancient world. A broad-based educated public capable of
absorbing new ideas or devising suitable applications for them was simply non existent. With so few educated people in antiquity even
interested in “engineering” the likelihood of technological innovations
remained remote.
Nevertheless,
the order achieved by the Augustan Settlement brought the greatest period of
peace and prosperity to the broadest possible population base found anywhere in
ancient times. Some 50 to 100 million people existed under the
Pax
Romana, "the Roman Peace." For nearly 200
years there was but one brief civil war, no piracy, no slave revolts. People
and goods could travel safely from one end of the
Mediterranean
to the
other. Cities such as Rome and Alexandria
burgeoned
to more than 1 million residents. A score of lesser cities, including
refounded colonies at
Carthage
and
Corinth,
blossomed to become important nodes of provincial hierarchy and trade.
Rome
itself
became an open city inundated by upwardly mobile foreigners. Roman critiques
complained that the "slime of the Orontes
River
in
Syria
was now
oozing up the Tiber
River
to
Rome."
This served as a pointed observation of the natural success of outsiders in
such fields as philosophy, medicine, law, finance, accounting, and trade.
Moreover,
these same sources criticize the growing autonomy of Roman women. With the
armies enlisted from volunteers, carefully supervised, and kept at considerable
distance from peaceful centers of urban population, the dominant political and
social status of the male warrior element of the Mediterranean declined. In
many instances one can detect a growing disinterest on the part of wealthy
males to bear the burden of local authority and serve on their city councils,
or to assume costly priesthoods, or other forms of public philanthropy
(Athenian liturgies, known in Latin
as munera). Increasingly, these obligations were assumed
by female members of elite provincial families. Many surviving examples of
urban infrastructure, such as the monumental gate and mile-long "water
trough" of the Perge
in
Pamphylia,
were paid for and constructed by women such as Plancia
Magna of Perge. In
Rome
proper,
not only did imperial consorts such as Livia, Agrippina, and Messalina, obtain
unprecedented authority by virtue of their proximity to the seat of imperial
power, but women on the streets appear to have obtained greater autonomy as
well. In their misogynistic attacks on women, Roman male sources list the
reasons for their complaints. Roman women were experiencing greater personal and
sexual autonomy; they were working publicly as lawyers, doctors, philosophers,
rhetoricians, and teachers. They engaged in marriages of convenience to better
control their personal assets and social freedom. To what degree this growing
female autonomy extended beyond Rome remains difficult to determine, but evidence
such as that provided by the example of
Plancia Magna of
Perge suggests that it was potentially widespread
throughout urban Mediterranean society.
Most
of all Roman rule enabled the assimilation of common or “mainstream” cultural
values that had been assembled from the various constituent populations of the
Mediterranean. The fusion of Greco-Roman culture across the Mediterranean world
resulted in the development of a visible homogeneity of life. One could travel
from Antioch in Syria
to New
Carthage in Spain and expect to see the same social and
political institutions, not to mention, the same monumental infrastructure.
The invention of concrete mortar around 100 BC reduced the labor required in
building enterprises and greatly expanded the built environment of the Roman
Mediterranean. Every major town boasted its temples, its council house, its basilica,
its theater, its gymnasium, its stadium, its aqueduct, its bath complex, its porticoed thoroughfares, and in many places its
amphitheater. Red-slipped Early Roman finewares such as Arretine ware, Gallic ware, and Eastern Sigillata
wares, furnish similarly evidence of Mediterranean-wide uniformity in creature
comfort. Like Roman era transport amphoras, these
hard, glossy, well turned bowls, plates, and cups
were produced in nearly every corner of the Mediterranean and shipped widely
throughout the seas. They appear in large quantities in nearly every Roman era
archaeological context (including trading ports in East Africa and southern
India), causing archaeologists to marvel at the amount of “stuff” possessed by
ordinary inhabitants of the Roman Mediterranean world. Ceramic production
expanded equally in other directions that survive on the landscape, such as
ceramic water pipes that fed quantities of fresh water in and waste water out
of most Roman urban communities, and most particularly ceramic roof tiles that
furnished a level of permanence to Mediterranean built environments.
Archaeologists who encounter ceramic roof tiles in the remains of installations
as menial and remote as livestock stables and remote mountain huts that could
be occupied only part of the year (due to snowfall), come away from the field
with a heightened appreciation for the scale and breadth of Roman
infrastructure at all levels of society and the extent to which firing
technology and ceramic production were employed in Roman society. Remains such
as transport amphoras, red-slipped Roman fineware, water pipes, and roof tiles represent the
surviving material remains of a productive economy and fail to account for the
volume of trade in other commodities such as foodstuffs, textiles, or timber
that were shipped around the Mediterranean at this time.
This
is not to say that the Roman world was some ideal place to live. Slavery
remained a crucial component of society. Increasingly, peace and stability
caused Roman society to evolve into a two class society, with the wealthy and
socially superior honestiores
enjoying
greater rights and privileges than the masses of humiliores.
The prosperity of the imperial order remained relatively superficial in that
any major calamity such as a massive earthquake or a civil war could convert
imperial surpluses into deficits. Not all peoples found a home in the Roman
order, as the repeated Jewish revolts of the first and second centuries AD make
clear. Policing society in the northwestern provinces of Gaul
and
Britain
imposed
a significant drain on the Roman treasury, and the inhabitants there were far
less inclined to assimilate mainstream Greco-Roman culture. Overall, it needs
to be borne in mind that the Mediterranean
offers
one of the easiest climates of the globe for human habitation. The mild climate
minimized need for heat and clothing, the non-clay, highly volcanic soils were
easiest to cultivate, and the interior lake of the
Mediterranean,
with its land-locked waters and countervailing winds and currents,
facilitated
trade in ways inconceivable for land-based societies such as Han China. Given
its minimal technological advantages, however, there is no denying the
remarkably accomplished impact Greco-Roman society had on its environment.
Roman practicality and its engineering feats brought a consistently high
standard of life to the Mediterranean world.
The Later Roman Empire,
Crisis and Collapse (234-476 AD)
SIDEBAR: Significant Dates
of the Later Roman Empire
The Severan
Dynasty 193-211
The Era of the Barracks Emperors
235-284 AD:
Diocletian, 284-305
Constantine 306-337
Theodosius I 378-395
Romulus Augustulus
(last Roman Emperor in the West) 475-476
Justinian I 527-565
As
prosperous as conditions appeared in 180 AD, conditions in the Roman Empire
turned decidedly
chaotic within
fifty years. Some would point to slightly earlier indicators such as the plague
which accompanied the return of Marcus Aurelius and his troops from his
campaigns against the Parthians in Mesopotamia in ca. 166 AD. The plague
(possibly small pox) appears to have wreaked a catastrophic effect on regional
populations, possibly eliminating 25% of the Mediterranean work force. This was
followed on quickly by Germanic invasions that pushed all the way to Aquileia
on the Adriatic coast in 169 AD. The grasp of the imperial bureaucracy in Rome
on the wider situation began to slip, particularly when directed by ineffective
rulers such as M. Aurelius’ son, Commodus (180-192), who like Caligula and Nero
in an earlier era, suffered from delusions of grandeur and proved unfit to
rule. After his assassination civil wars erupted across the empire. By this
time the armies based in separate, remote corners of the empire increasingly
identified themselves with the provincial commanders they directly served, as opposed
to the anonymous, distant hierarchy at Rome. Supported by their armies along
the frontiers, several ambitious military commanders claimed the throne,
setting in motion a violent struggle for succession. The eventual victor was a
military strongman, L. Septimius Severus (193-211
AD). Starting from his command in Pannonia on the Danube frontier, Severus
exhausted nearly four years combating rivals from Britain to Asia Minor. He
then marched into northern Mesopotamia to suppress further uprisings. His long
brutal march to imperial authority in Rome (culminating in purges of the
senatorial aristocracy) furnished a hint of what was to come. Severus had
little patience with the politics of the urban aristocracy at Rome and treated
the Senate with a soldier’s mixture of disdain and intimidation. He also worked
to solidify his support throughout the military by raising pay levels for the
rank and file and by setting in motion a reorganization of the army as well as
of the provincial structure. These measures served as a blueprint for later
reformers. To make the Roman army more mobile, he adapted the army to cavalry
formations and reduced the size of legions to 1000 men, while expanding the
number of legions from 25 to 60. This made the army more responsive to the
asymmetrical character of warfare on the perimeter, for example, the swift
cavalry assaults of the Persians or the constant leakage of small bands of
Germanic warriors across the frontier. By the end of his dynasty the Severans (Septimius and his sons
Caracalla and Geta) had doubled the size of the army
(from ca. 150,000 to 300,000).
Obviously, this raised the cost of military maintenance that had to be
borne by tax-paying citizens and provincials. In a “sleight of hand” maneuver,
Caracalla heightened the potential for tax revenues by extending Roman
citizenship to all freeborn inhabitants of the empire (212 AD). This had the
effect of making all inhabitants liable for the 10% manumission tax and 5%
inheritance tax, including Roman citizens previously exempt because they lived
in the provinces. Romans and provincials alike fell into the same tax burden
with the imperial bureaucracy focusing particularly on the members of the city
councils (the decuriones,
or ten-man boards of local tax collectors) to make up shortfalls from their own
assets if need be.
Septimius eradicated senators altogether from the provincial administration by
replacing officers of senatorial rank with Knights (equites). By this era the equites
were professional soldiers risen from ranks as low as centurions. To secure
command and control of the provincial administration he inserted these
replacements at the lowest possible level of the administration, namely, the diocese (in Latin, the conventus, or assize district). Not only did this
insure that military officers loyal to himself controlled the provinces (and
thus prevented further likelihood of rebellion) but it also meant that his
newly organized military establishment could monitor and control production at
the local level by imposing an aura of military efficiency. Resistance either
from above or below would henceforth be difficult. Even the titles assigned to
these commanders, praefectus legati agens vices legati for the
military positions (“prefects acting as legates in place of legates”) and procuratores agens vices vicarii for the civil posts (“procurators acting
temporarily in place of the previously temporary officials”), demonstrate the
evolving character of a government in transition. The traditional provincial
system yielded way to a network of 120 dioceses. Temporary titles such as praefecust, praeses, and
vicarius,
came to assume permanent significance.
Although
Severus momentarily put the lid on crises, imperial stability quickly came
unhinged following the death of the Emperor Severus Alexander (222-235 AD).
During the fifty year interval between 235 and 284 AD
some 24 emperors – known as the “Barracks Emperors” - ascended the Roman imperial throne. The
longest reigns were of seven and eight years respectively and all but two of
these emperors died violent deaths. The emperor Decius was killed in 251 AD by
the Goths on the Dacian frontier; the emperor Valerian, who posted the longest
reign of eight years, was defeated and captured by the Sassanid King Shapur I in Mesopotamia (260 AD). Most of the others were
assassinated. Civil wars, Germanic invasions along the northern limes, the
secession of border provinces (Palmyra during 270s AD), and mounting pressure
by the Sassanids in the East (260-651 AD) threatened
the security and stability of the empire. To meet the challenges military men
typically rising from humble origins in barracks communities along the frontier
assumed the throne. Valerian (253-260 AD), Diocletian (284-305), and Justin
(518-527), for example, all emerged from the Danube frontier where the Germanic
threat was the greatest. Experiencing first hand the
effectiveness of the Germans as warriors, these and generals like them began to
recruit Germans openly into the ranks. By the late third century AD the army on
the Rhine River was prevailingly Germanic in origin. In other words, an army
that had already grown remote from and indifferent to the concerns of the
inhabitants of the empire now increasingly replenished its ranks with
foreigners who viewed Roman inhabitants as aliens.
After
an orgy of violence and confusion, order was restored temporarily by Diocletian
(284-305 AD). By this time the face of the imperial bureaucracy had assumed a
decidedly military complexion. Imperial authority amounted to dictatorship with
a bureaucracy geared toward administering a perpetual military emergency.
Diocletian’s Price Edict attempted to dictate the fair value of goods and
services. By this point the size of the army had possibly surpassed 500,000,
imposing an impossible burden on the tax-paying citizens. To insure the
necessary production to maintain the military establishment, all members of
society were essentially locked into their stations in life, including members
of the city councils. The son of a Decurion had to assume his father’s position
in the council, just as the son of a tradesman or farmer had to assume their resprective places in the economic order. Some trades such
as merchants were declared exempt from imperial obligations, but the
designation of such exemptions carried with it the implication that they could
also be taken away. The only way to escape the burdensome demands and
requisitions of the new era was to be a member of the imperial bureaucracy
itself. This led to a flight of elite elements from the provincial city
councils, leaving the burden even heavier for those who remained. Imperial
officials stationed at the local level were better positioned to collect tax
revenues in kind and to see that they be shipped to nearby military forces. The
subtle transition from a market-based to command economy is visible in the
evolving form of transport amphoras. The amphoras of the Late Roman era lose their careful stylistic
details to become nondescript, ruggedized jars and bottles, equally capable of
being piled as much as stacked in the holds of cargo ships. They indicate a
declining interest in the semiotic messages of consumerism (uniform,
recognizable forms capable of advertising their contents) in favor of jars that
are merely countable (and could thus verify that the tithe was being met) and
capable of resisting the jostling of movement from place to place. This detail
and others like it should not obscure the essential fact, however, that the
military administration of the Late Roman Empire proved highly effective.
Particularly in the eastern provinces amphora production in the newly organized
diocesan system kept pace with the previous era, as did the production of
red-slipped finewares, however ungainly both
artifacts appear to the modern eye. Fineware
production continued apace in red slip wares both in the east and in North
Africa until the seventh century AD. The circulation of African Red Slipped
wares produced along the Libyan coast show minimal decline even following the
Vandal conquest of the region in 430 AD.
Building construction likewise kept pace in this era. All these details
indicate that the population levels remained large particularly in the eastern
provinces and that the military government made an essential effort to maintain
the resources and stability of the empire.
Based on material remains, in other words, some archaeologists have
characterized the decline in most regions of the Roman empire as a “slow burn.”
The
external threats confronting Diocletian were real nonetheless, and Rome as a
capital was too far removed from the areas of military concern. The emperor and
his field army needed to be closer to the frontiers because it took too long to
reach a crisis from the capital. Milan in northern Italy increasingly became
the chief staging ground of imperial response to Germanic threats, but with the
renewed vigor of the Sassanid threat in the East, even this position was
untenable. Diocletian accordingly moved his palace first to Split in Dalmatia
and then to Nicomedia in Bythinia. To stem the tide
of the seemingly relentless civil wars among military commanders and to deal
with the external threats on all quarters, Diocletian divided the empire into
four prefectures, the Oriens, Illyricum, Italia, Galliae (all the Gauls). A Tetrarchy of four emperors, two ranked
at the top as Augusti, two waiting in succession as
Caesars, would command the regions and regularize the succession process (or so
it was hoped). In 305AD after a 20 year reign, Diocletian insisted on a
simultaneous abdication of himself and his Augustan colleague, Maximian. Almost instantaneously the move created a
succession crisis, when the sons of the two Caesars, Constantine in Britain and
Maxentius in Rome were passed over in favor of
appointees by Diocletian. Haled by their troops as emperors, the two generals
mutinied and fought a civil war that was resolved in Constantine’s favor in 312
AD at the Battle of the Mulvian Bridge in Rome.
Although it required another twelve years to secure his place, Constantine
(306-337 AD) eventually succeeded at making himself sole emperor of the Roman
world.
Constantine
is mainly known for his promotion and guidance of Christianity, which until now
was a banned religious cult that had endured repeated waves of persecution
including a recent, extremely violent purge by the Emperor Galerius (293-311
AD). Through his various edicts (Edict of Toleration, Edict of Milan, both in
313 AD), Constantine allowed Christians to practice their faith publicly and
the church itself to acquire property. Christian clergy also became exempt from
taxation. Having survived in hidden enclaves for centuries this sudden
spotlight revealed the extent to which the faith had traveled in different
directions around the empire. At the urging of bishops, Constantine convened
several church councils (for example, the Council of Nicea
327 AD) to establish Christian dogma and a church hierarchy. These were
dramatic steps taken on behalf of a religious population that is estimated at a
relatively low 10% of the Mediterranean population at this time. The popularity
of Christianity had spread to important places, however, such as the army, the
provincial hierarchy, and even to the imperial household, where the wife of the
Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) and many of her servants were rumored to have been
Christians. The religion remained far
from popular at Rome, the great capital and center of Roman state religion,
where numerous temples dedicated to deified Roman emperors formed the backdrop
to public affairs. Constantine completed the creeping movement of the hierarchy
toward the frontier by relocating his imperial headquarters to the Greek harbor
town of Byzantium on the Bosporus, thereby founding the new Christian capital
of Constantinople. Closer in proximity to the threatened limes on the Danube
and by road to the Sassanid frontier in Syria, this relocation of the capital
prepared the ground not only for the creation of a built environment that
featured Christian monuments, but also for the eventual bifurcation of the
empire into East and West. It was not simply the distance of Constantinople
from the West that brought this about but the disproportionate levels of
manpower, resources, and attitudes that existed East and West. The eastern
provinces were heavily populated, most productive, and more highly cultured.
Surrounded by mountains, deserts, and seas, the eastern end of the empire was
in many ways more compact and defensible. Extending across the Alps to the
wintery landscapes of Gaul and Britain, the western provinces were more rural,
less populated, and less inclined to absorb mainstream Greco-Roman culture. For
centuries the revenues raised in the East had helped to sustain the cost of the
military establishment defending the limes
in the west. By moving the capital to Byzantium, therefore, even though this
placed the imperial field army closer to the threats in the east (the Goths and
the Sassanids), it essentially put the western
provinces on notice. Incapable of resisting the threat of Germanic invasions,
and with a defense comprised of a significant Germanic element itself, the
western provinces yielded to renewed German invasions in less than a century
following Constantine’s death. Already by the reign of Theodosius I (378-395 AD)
it became customary to recognize a second emperor in the West and to leave him
to his own devices, assuming the two leaders were even cooperating, a rarity in
any event.
By
the 370s AD a Hunnic faction that had split off from the Hsuing
Nu in China began to intrude beyond the Caspian into the steppes of the
Ukraine, ravaging Germanic tribes lying in its path such as the Alans. By 376
AD the Visigoths residing on the Danube border requested sanctuary from the
Huns inside the Roman frontier and were allowed in. They were settled on land
taken from Roman inhabitants as “submissive allies” (dediticii) and were expected to
help buttress Roman defenses. Treated poorly by their hosts, however, they rose
in rebellion and defeated the Roman army at the Battle of Adrianople (378 AD)
and rampaged unopposed throughout the Balkans.
Led by their king, Alaric, they eventually migrated through Italy, where
they shocked the Roman world by sacking the city of Rome in 410 AD. Few events
could point more clearly to the collapse of the West than this. The Visigoths
eventually settled in southern Gaul and Spain, but other invasions were already
occurring. On Dec. 31, 406 AD, during a particularly cold winter the Rhine
River froze over enabling some 50,000 Vandals to scamper across the ice.
Dispersed in small warrior bands they successfully evaded Roman apprehension
and migrated across Gaul and Spain to the edge of the Mediterranean Sea. By
this point Roman authorities were so alarmed by the infiltration of German
elements that the emperors issued orders not to allow the Germans to gain
access to shipping. It was hoped that they could thus be contained at the
northern end of the seas. But a general fighting a civil war in North Africa
and in need of forces unwisely recruited the Vandals and transported them
across the Strait of Gibraltar. Overwhelming their host they marched across
North Africa and seized the city of Carthage in 430 AD. As it happened a Roman
fleet lay at harbor and fell into their hands. They soon began to raid and
plunder by sea, sacking Rome a second and far more devastating time in 455 AD.
They got away with this partly because attention was directed elsewhere against
the Huns, who invaded the Danube provinces around 440 AD and attempted
unsuccessfully to besiege Constantinople. Attila then crossed the Rhine into
Gaul. Defeated at the Battle of Chalons in 451 AD the
Hunnic menace gradually declined, but the defeat would not have been possible
without the assistance of Germanic tribes such as the Franks and the
Burgundians, who now exploited the opportunity to settle in Gaul. By 476 AD,
the Ostrogoths invaded Italy, forcing the German
praetorian prefect, Odoacer, to depose the Romulus Augustulus,
the last Roman emperor in the west. When the Ostrogothic
King Theodoric (493-526) sought recognition as Roman authority in the West by
the Roman emperor at Constantinople, his request was granted, thus officially
sanctioning Germanic rule. The eastern empire remained resilient, however.
Under the energetic emperor Justinian I (527-565 AD) Roman forces neutralized
the Persian threat sufficiently to envision reconquering the West. Led by the
impressive general Belisarius, Justinian’s forces retook Carthage, parts of
Italy, Sicily, and coastal Spain. After a terribly costly siege they reentered
the city of Rome itself. Known equally as much for his buildings (the Church of
Haghia Sophia in Constantinople), his formulation of
the Roman law code (the Corpus Iuris Civilis), and his
marriage to his queen Theodora, Justinian’s ambitions overreached the eastern
empire’s real capacities. At the slightest sign of difficulties with the Sassanids in the East, Justinian’s reconquest
began to unravel. Troops being transferred from the Sassanid frontier to Italy
brought with them the plague with devastating effect. Most of the reconquered
territory was lost again to Germanic tribes such as the newly arriving Lombards in northern Italy. Within decades of Justinian’s reconquest, the eastern empire itself came under attack by Mohammaden Arabs in the East, and Slavic Avars and Bulgars on the Danube.
Constantinople became a city under siege intermittently for decades at a time
in the following century. Its imposing defenses and admirable water system
(with urban cisterns the size of lakes) enabled it to outlast a succession of
adversaries. Unlike the confident overwhelming force displayed by the armies of
the Roman Republic when they conquered the Mediterranean world, the conquest of
Justinian amounted to something of a gamble that ended disastrously and brought
to an end all notions of a unified Roman Mediterranean world.
The
archaeological evidence indicates significant material decline throughout the
eastern Mediterranean in the seventh century AD. It is fair to ask why
conditions declined so quickly. We will address these matters more
theoretically in the following chapter; for now it is
best to put forward traditional explanations for why the Roman world collapsed.
FOUR REASONS FOR THE FALL OF
ROMAN EMPIRE:
1. Inadequate Means of Succession. Roman
historians traditionally point to the inadequate means of imperial succession
as the first step in the crisis. Not only did Augustus fail to invent a
“mechanical” means for succession, but it was probably inconceivable for the
Roman aristocracy to conceive of succession by any other means than those
dynastic. Family remained the basic building block of Roman society and even
during the Era of Five Good Emperors, that was initiated by the “election” of Nerva with the consent of the Senate and the provincial
governors, succession between Trajan and Hadrian, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, was
ultimately dynastic. Constantine and Maxentius as the
sons of Diocletian’s appointed “Caesars” fully expected to rise to their
father’s positions dynastically and made trouble when their expectations were
bypassed by Diocletian. The problems with dynastic succession are manifold, but
the main one, what to do when the line dies out, inevitably provoked
competition for the throne.
2 The
second cause was the Accelerating Pattern
of Civil Wars that erupted at moments of imperial succession. Roman on
Roman warfare ultimately was far more costly and burdensome than the external
threats of the Germans and the Persians. Could the imperial hierarchy have
found smoother means of transition and avoided the endless internal conflicts
that racked the empire the external threats could possibly have been contained.
The internal conflicts ultimately led to a doubling and then a second doubling
in the size of the military establishment as well as to the recruitment of
barbarian Germanic troops. The Augustan ideal of removing the armies to the
limes had the advantage of eliminating violence in the “pacified” regions of
the Mediterranean Sea, but it also led to a dislocation between the military,
that identified with barracks communities along the frontier and gradually
merged with the native populations, and the civilian inhabitants of the empire.
Civilians and frequently even emperors such as Nero proved indifferent to the
hardships faced by soldiers situated along the harsh frontiers of the empire.
This provoked members of the military establishment to view themselves as a
separate culture, and a highly resentful one at that. Already by the Year of
the Four Emperors (79-80 AD), it became evident that ill will existed between
armies based in different regions of the empire. In addition, rebellions led by
Gallic auxiliary officers during that year of crisis demonstrated that the
native populations in the West were neither as “pacified” nor as “assimilated”
to Roman ways as people might have hoped. Command and control in the western
provinces remained one situated in garrison towns with the constant threat of
rebellion. Once civil war became an
option to enrichment, the armies, resenting each other, were very much on board
with the new more violent program.
3 The
third reason often raised by historians for the fall of Rome was the Mounting Pressure of Barbarian Populations
on the frontiers. In this respect, climate may have played a factor.
Current climate models indicate that the Roman world was slightly warmer and
wetter than it is today, making larger populations conceivable. It is possible
that some fluctuation in temperature caused food shortages in the far north and
set migrating peoples such as the Goths, the Vandals, the Franks, the
Burgundians, and the Huns in motion. In addition, historical evidence of
barbarian migrations of previous eras clearly demonstrate that the arc of these
migrations frequently reached the shores of the Mediterranean (the
Indo-European migrations in 2200-2000 BC; the Celtic migrations of the fourth
century BC; the Germanic invasion of Italy in the late second century BC). By
creating an impenetrable barrier (the limes)
along the Rhine-Danube frontier the Romans attempted to interrupt what may have
been a natural flow of migrating peoples and perhaps inadvertently heightened
pressure along the frontiers than could only be stayed by building more
defenses and larger armies until the dam finally burst in the fourth century
AD.
4 The
need for greater military vigilance led to the fourth generally accepted
argument, namely, that the Inordinate
Cost of Maintaining So Large a Military Establishment proved too costly for
what was essentially and agricultural society to bear. The burden of the
rising military establishment is demonstrated economically in a number of ways:
Ø the price Edict of
Diocletian demonstrated the likely impact of devalued currency on the economy;
Ø adaptations in amphora
morphology appear to demonstrate a transition from commercial forms to those of
a command economy
Ø the need to lock all
producers into their stations, from the decurial
class to ordinary farmers and artisans, indicates that if left unattended these
roles would be abandoned
Ø various reports of flight by
farmers abandoning land and city councilors fleeing their responsibilities are
on record
People
fled to areas of asylum such as those provided by members of the military elite
who enjoyed exemptions from taxation. This led to the emergence of vast private
domains that embraced whole districts and numerous village settlements. People
increasingly left their property to the Christian church which because of the
exemptions awarded by Constantine could afford to rearrange agricultural
production and landholdings on a more philanthropic order and ultimately
emerged as the largest landowning institution in the Mediterranean. Regardless
of the sequence in events the fact remains that the Roman Empire, like the Han
Dynasty in China and the Guptas in India, proved
unsustainable. The fact that all three civilizations hit a major snag at the
end of the second century AD and ultimately collapsed by the sixth century has
not gone unnoticed by world historians, who seek to identify some determining
connection to chronology. We will address this matter in the following chapter.