The Beginnings

Three major invasion waves had taken Indo-European war chariots far from the Eurasian plain and by 2500 âñ all of central and Eastern Europe, including the Balkans and parts of Asia Minor, were occupied.

Another and somewhat different civilization sprang up in Italy, the Roman state which would become a vast system oc­cupying much of today s Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. It became the longest lasting empire in history, providing the spring-board for most of European countries today.² Of all the Indo-European tribes which invaded Italy about 1500 âñ one would stand out in subsequent history, the Latini people from a settlement called Rome, founded by the legendary Ro­mulus and his brother Remus.³ They came from central Europe, probably through the low-lying passage between the Alps and the Adriatic Sea, which leads past what is today Trieste and Venice in north-eastern Italy.

The Roman conquests grew out of a military-based society rather than from innovative engineering or intellectual achieve­ment, for which they depended mainly on OtherMediterranean civilizations such as the Greeks and to a lesser extent the Car­thaginians. No doubt they owed their agricultural beginnings to the Etruscans, who by this time were accomplished farmers and were coming under the influence of the Greek colonies in Italy. Roman society, above all, was geared for warfare and one cannot readily understand Roman history (and the history of Europe which followed) without taking this crucial fact into account. Warfare dominated its development as well as the per­sonal value system, which consisted of endurance, courage, self­sacrifice and a bloodthirsty cruelty.

To be sure, warfare was common at the time amongst all Indo-European cultures—witness Alexander the Great s spec­tacular conquest of the Persian Empire, and beyond. With the Romans, however, the role of the military would become a lead­ing and a constant characteristic. Roman society and the nature of its state would evolve, as new territory and different people were incorporated into it, but the dominant role of the military would persist until the end of its might. Political careers came to depend on prestige won through successful wars, which brought great wealth to all victorious participants, especially the magistrates and other Senate members who were in charge of the battles, and thus in control of the trophies of war.⁵ Al­though at times defeated in battle, Roman leaders were quick to learn new strategies and tactics.

towns and other communities were left with a degree of self- government to encourage loyalty. Full citizenship, however, was not available until virtually the whole of Italy rose in revolt de­manding the same rights as citizens. This was granted after a bloody three-year civil war which lasted from 91 âñ to 88 âñ and doubled the citizen male population from about 463,000 in 86 âñ to 910,000 by 70 âñ.⁶

By 148 âñ Rome had embarked on a policy of imperial ex­pansion based on conquest, in a single century bringing Gaul, eastern North Africa, Spain, Greece and large parts of today’s Turkey under its rule. This had a tremendous influence on the evolution of the Roman state and society as a whole. A great amount of wealth from war booty, tribute, levies, and taxation had been injected into the economy, increasing social and re­gional inequalities and creating social tensions. An accompa­nying feature was the development of a trade economy, with grain grown in the newly acquired territories beginning to out- compete local cereals. Paradoxically, the conquests would begin a process which would eventually destroy the very class which had supplied the victorious legions with manpower—the citizen farmer. The poorest amongst them were unable to com­pete with the new trade, and were forced to sell their land. Large estates began to be formed, which further increased the pressure on the remaining small holders. Society at the time was largely agricultural, and land ownership provided the only reliable long­term investment opportunity. Much of the wealth acquired dur­ing the wars therefore went to buying land, which was now worked by a plentiful supply of enslaved war captives. A wealthy class composed of a select group of families/clans began to form an oligarchic ruling class, with most of the remaining population being driven into poverty.⁷ Large commercial activities also be­came common, and to prevent conflicts of interest a law was passed in 218 âñ prohibiting Senators from engaging in trade.

The gaping economic and social disparities began to in­tensify class tensions and conflict between the wealthy oligarchs and the have-nots—the impoverished plebs and slaves working the mines, the construction of roads and buildings, and the plantations of the ^uIatifundia,” the great land owners. The rapid elimination of the farmer-citizen was also beginning to undercut the number of recruits available for the army, and one Tiberius Gracchus decided to do something about the plight of the land­less. The grandson of the famous victor over Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Tiberius was elected as tribune of the people for the year 133 âñ, and proposed to redistribute public land.⁸ A law was passed that no individual could own more than 500 “jugeras” (just over 300 acres) of land, and no household over 1000. A commission of three men was to be set up to begin ex­propriating the excess land, but when Tiberius sought re­election he was attacked by a mob of senators and Otherwealthy members of the oligarchy and killed, together with hundreds of his followers. When his brother Gaius was elected tribune and attempted to carry out Tiberius’ policies he was also killed, and some 3,000 of his followers were executed without trial. Tiberius’ murder introduced violence and bloodshed into public life, something that was new to Roman politics. Hence­forth the Roman Republic became divided into two political orientations; the “populares” who represented the people, and the “optimates” who consisted of the wealthy and their followers.⁹ The failed land reforms would have an effect on Italy and other parts of the future empire for centuries to come.

A great number of slaves, initially acquired as prisoners during the wars began to form a third to a half of the entire pop­ulation, with as much as 70 percent in some regions. Generally speaking there were two different types—household slaves, and those employed in mining, industrial activities and agri­culture. Household slaves, many of whom were Greek teachers of the young, scribes, medical healers, culinary chefs, architects and skilled craftsmen were Usuallywell treated, but others em­ployed in manual work suffered a worse fate. Those working in construction were especially exploited in a cruel manner. Often living on a bare subsistence diet, they were worked until too weak or too old, and then abandoned to their own fate. Allwere mere possessions of their owners, and could be bought or sold at anytime. Slave gladiators, of course, rarely survived to a ripe old age. The harsh exploitation of slave labor gave rise to another form of social warfare—slave revolts. The situation be­came so extreme that beginning in 143 âñ slave uprisings began to break out on a regular basis, with impoverished landless free men joining. The most serious revolts broke out in Sicily during 135 âñ and lasted for three years, with armed slaves occupying and looting whole towns and wealthy estates. The most well known slave revolt was led by a Thracian gladiator known as Spartacus. Commanding an army which at its peak grew to some 70,000 slaves and free men, he defeated entire Roman le­gions which were sent against him, terrifying the wealthy classes of Italy for about three years.¹⁰ Apparently his force broke up due to individual internal conflicts and was defeated in 71 âñ Some 6,000 captured slaves were crucified along the 130-mile road from Rome to Capua as a warning against future uprisings. A law was also passed allowing the collective execution of all the slaves—no matter how many—if even one of them killed the owner.

Much of Roman expansion, and their ability to maintain the imperial system was greatly aided by Greek technology, mathematics, philosophy/science and the general artistic cul­ture.

The Greek cultural conquest of Rome was, however, su­perficial at best. Greek pursuits of knowledge and speculative intellectual thought had little influence on the psyche of a well­born Roman, who retained most of the conservatism and tra­ditions of the past. Although theoretically all citizens were equal before the law, Roman society was Sharplystratified into social classes. On top was an Oligarchy, consisting of the Patricians and Otherhereditary aristocrats (the “nobiles”) who tended to occupy most government posts, followed by the Equestrians who specialized in trade and commerce. Both classes provided men for the officer corps and thus controlled the army. Noble Roman gentlemen actually had few choices of professions, those being restricted to politics, law, army, or farming which were the “honorable” professions. The pursuit of learning and knowl­edge was left to the Greeks, who continued to provide the em­pire with educated men. The wealthy and powerful Romans who ruled the empire looked down on them who in their eyes lacked the proper manly virtues. Not for them Greeklearning, medicine, architecture or music—activities which were largely carried out by slaves.

At the bottom of the social order were the tradesmen and shopkeepers, followed by the numerous plebs, especially in Rome itself. As Cicero wrote:

Public opinion divides the trades and professions into the liberal and the vulgar (the common). We condemn the odious occupa­tion of the collector of customs and the usurer, and the base and menial work of unskilled laborers; for the very wages the laborer receives are a badge of slavery. Equally contemptible is the busi­ness of the retail dealer, for he cannot succeed unless he is dis­honest.... The work of the mechanic is also degrading.... The least respectable of all trades are those which minister to pleas­ure, as Terence tells us, “fishmongers, butchers, cooks, sausage­makers.” Add to these if you like, perfumers, dancers, and the ac­tors of the gaming-house. But the learned professions, such as medicine, architecture and the higher education, from which so­ciety derives the greatest benefit, are considered honorable occu- pations/or those to whose social position they are appropriate (em­phasis mine). Business on a small scale is despicable, but if it is extensive and imports commodities in large quantities from all over the world and distributes them honestly, it is not so very discreditable.... But of all the sources of wealth farming is the best, the most able, the most profitable, the most noble.^u

Roman power did not depend only on its military might but also lay in the Iegitimacybestowed by the judicial system. As in many Greek city-states, the Roman “constitution” con­sisted ofwritten laws to which everyone was subject, with the possible exception of an emperor. If a situation was not covered by a written statute it would be governed by past practice. By 462 âñ a tribune by the name OfTerentilius Harsa had forced a limitation of consular power held by the patricians.¹² Fol­lowing a reactionary clampdown by the patricians and the fur­ther social conflict which followed, by the middle of the 5th century âñ the plebs had gained the upper hand. Ten extraor­dinary magistrates (known as Decemvirs) were appointed in order to draw up a written legal code, to be applicable to all cit­izens. Twelve bronze tablets of private and public laws were drawn up, which remained the legal code of Rome for centuries to come. Here we see the Greek influence on Roman society, since by the 5th century âñ many Greek city-states had devel­oped what they called “democratia,” or “power of the people,” with written laws and a humanist outlook on life. The playwright Sophocles expressed the sentiment in the 5th century âñ: “The world is full of wonders, but nothing is more wonderful than man.”

Women played a subordinate role in Greek society, and slaves were excluded from the law altogether. Nevertheless, we have Pericles’ remarkable oration in the winter of431-430 âñ during the Peloponnesian War with the Persian Empire, when he reminded the citizens of Athens that

Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes everyone is equal before the law. When it is a question of putting one person before another in position ofpublic responsibility what counts is not member­ship of a particular class but the actual ability which the man pos­sesses.... We are free and tolerant in our private lives but in pub­lic affairs we keep to the law.... We give our obedience to those whom we put in positions of authority.

Although Rome taxed the conquered territories their in­habitants drew benefit from the peace enforced by the Roman legions, the “Pax Romana.” The entire empire became a single trading block, with goods flowing along the shipping lanes of the Mediterranean and the extensive road systems which fol­lowed the conquering legions. This was particularly true of the western part where many paved roads had not existed before. Following the assassination of Julius Caesar by the Senate, the Roman world was plunged into civil war, with Caesar’s great­nephew and adopted son, Caius Octavius, emerging as victor. He is better known as Augustus or the Majestic, a name-title he received after 17 years in power. One of his grandfathers had come from the commercial class and ofplebian Stockwith his father becoming the governor of Macedonia after the Roman conquest. Under Caesar’s supervision, however, he was edu­cated in Greek and Roman philosophy and literature and raised in Spartan simplicity, as befitted an aristocrat destined for mil­itary service.

Augustus instituted a new order in Rome, ending the Re­public and giving birth to what became known as the Roman Empire. The form of government he chose relied not only on the army and the hereditary aristocracy but also on the com­mercial business class, and their wealth. It became known as the Principate lasting from 30 âñ to 192 ad, since Augustus flatly refused to Ofliciallybecome a monarch but had proclaimed himself as “principe” or “first citizen” and thus preserving some semblance of a republican order. With his long rule (27 âñ-14 ad) came a period of peace, prosperity and the rule of law, no doubt helped by the large Egyptian treasury which he brought to Rome following Cleopatras death. Italy, with Rome at its centerwas also maintained in a position of privilege which guar­anteed loyal recruits for the legions, the land tax for example, did not have to be paid, unlike in the rest of the empire.

During the next two centuries the Roman world solidified as an imperial system, providing a common political basis and continuing to develop and evolve, always responding to foreign wars and domestic conflict. The central role of the army as the guarantor of Roman civilization was now paramount, especially in the face ofbarbarian attacks and incursions which were be­coming more common. For what was acquired by the sword could only be maintained by the sword. The concentration of both military and civilian power in the hands of a single person introduced instability into the system, which would prosper under able leadership such as Augustus but could slip into crisis under irresponsible and self-indulgent emperors. A Roman of ordinary birth could become the commander-in-chief of the army and hence the Emperor, since heredity was never acknowl­edged as a source of imperial power. Emperors could emerge with a strong sense of service who would defeat major invasions and introduce reforms needed to stabilize the system but the competence of emperors such as Trajan (98-117), Hadrianus “The Builder” (117-138) or Marcus Aurelius “The Philoso­pher” (160-180), however, would be undone in large part by a Commodus (180-192) or Aurelius Antoninus “Caracalla” (211- 217).

During the reign OfMarcusAurelius a major crisis struck the Roman territories, one which threatened to destroy the Em­pire. The Philosopher Emperor, as he was known, had no mil­itary training when with his adoptive brother, Lucius Verus, he was sworn in by the Senate in 161. Although lacking in military experience, he would prove to be one of the ablest and effective military commanders and rulers of the Empire. On Octavius Augustus’ death the Empire had grown to an immense size of some 34 million square miles, stretching from the Atlantic to the Middle East.¹³ Marcus Aurelius’ predecessor and adoptive father, Antonius “The Pious,” had enjoyed a reign of almost un­broken peace and Stabilitybut the tranquility would soon come to an end. Shortly after Aurelius’ inauguration the Empire was Struckbythe bubonic plague in 166-167 and famine followed, resulting in a depleted population and few hands to work the land. Seeing their opportunity the Persians struck in the east, followed by barbarian Germanic and Sarmatian attacks along the Danube in the north-east. In 167 the Germanic Chatti, Quadi and Marcomanni tribes, together with the Sarmatian

Iazyges cavalry, crossed the Danube and overwhelmed a 20,000 man Roman garrison. Theyproceeded to Pannonia and Dacia (today’s Hungary and the Balkans), passed through the Alps, defeated the Roman forces sent against them and besieged the town of Aquileia in northern Italy. Others headed south into Greece and attacked the outskirts of Athens.

Unable to increase taxes due to the plague and the famine, Marcus Aurelius began to raise funds by auctioning off wealth of the imperial palaces. Faced with a severe shortage of man­power he began to build up the legions by recruiting town gar­risons, gladiators, brigands, foreign mercenaries and even slaves, paying off other barbarian tribes to attack and harass the enemy. After six years of warfare the invasions were beaten back but fighting continued on the Danube until with Marcus Aurelius’ death in 180, in a camp at Vindobona, today’s Vienna. The Ger­manic wars, however, would continue. This was not the first time that Roman legions faced Germanic tribesmen. The first known contact of the Romans with Germanic tribes occurred some two centuries before, when the Cimbri and Teutones began to migrate south from the shores of the North Sea. The reason for the move is again not known, but probably a colder climate and population increases made life in north-western Europe difficult. They soon came to the attention of the Ro­mans, and in 113 âñ Consul Gnaeus Carba moved out from Macedonia and launched an apparently unprovoked attack on them. The two forces met at Noreia (today’s Slovenia) with the Romans suffering a major defeat. Instead of invading Italy, how­ever, the Cimbri and Teutones moved west into Gaul where they were joined by Celtic tribes. Their request to settle along the border in Gaul was rejected by the Roman Senate, which sent another army against them led by consul Silanus. The en­suing battle in the Rhone Valley again witnessed a catastrophic defeat of the Roman legions. Still another force was raised under consul Longinus which won some minor victories, but in 107 âñ the Romans were ambushed in the Garonne valley and an­nihilated, with Longinus killed in battle. The ineptitude of the Roman Oligarchic leadership would continue with the final dis­aster at the battle of Arausio (Orange, France) along the Rhone River, where a divided Roman army was crushed with a loss of some 80,000 men. Following changes in organization and tactics instituted by an able officer by the name of Gaius Marius, the Germanic tribes were finally defeated in Aix-en-Provence in 102 âñ, and again at Vercellae in the following year.

The second major encounter of the Romans and the Ger­manic barbarians occurred during Augustus’ reign. Led by his stepson Drusus in 12 âñ the Romans had crossed the Rhine and attacked the Germanic tribes, conquering all territories in northern Germany up to the river Elbe. The Roman success did not last long. The governor Quinctilius Varus soon provoked a revolt, and led by one Arminius the Germanic tribesmen ambushed the exposed Roman legions as they were proceeding in a strung-out line to their winter quarters. The result was another catastrophe for the Romans. Three legions, together with 9 auxiliary corps were massacred—about 10 per­cent of the entire Imperial Roman forces.

This was the background which Marcus Aurelius was fac­ing when confronting the Marcomanni and their allies, and fol­lowing his death the fortunes of the Empire began to worsen. He was succeeded by his son Commodus in 180, who proved to be very different from his father.¹⁴ Given to debauchery he became “a greater curse to the Romans than any pestilence or crime/ according to the historian and Senator Cassius Dio. Commodus had developed a liking for fighting gladiators and wild animals in the area and having survived the combats he began to imagine himself as the god Hercules. But he was only degrading himself in the eyes of the Romans since only slaves and criminals fought in the arena. In a conspiracy involving his favorite concubine he was given poison in 192 and then stran­gled by a champion athlete. After some turmoil and conflict one Severus became Emperor, appointing his two sons Anton­inus Aurelius and Geta to succeed him. On Severus’ death An­toninus had his younger brother murdered, becoming the sole emperor in 211 known as Caracalla. He too turned out to be unbalanced, killing wild animals in the arena and imagining himself to be Alexander the Great. He was assassinated in 217 by a disgruntled soldier, no doubt hired for the purpose. In 212, however, he had passed an edict, which would put the Roman Empire on a different course and change its very nature. The edict, known as the Antonine Constitution, stated simply that “I give all foreigners on earth [i.e., the Empire] the right of Roman citizenship at the same time safeguarding that of their own cities, except for the dediticii.”

It is not clear who the “dediticii” were, but the edict seemed to have made all free men Roman citizens with the right to be called “Romans.” It introduced a double and parallel sense of identity—a local one as well as the universal sense of being Roman. No longer did one have to be Italian and the term “Roman” should now be replaced by “Romanian” when describ­ing inhabitants of the Empire.

During the next century the destabilizing rule of Com- modus was followed by a military crisis. Augustus’ defensive military strategy had consisted of stationing all the legions on the frontiers, in sufficient strength to block any invasion. With­out a reserve of manpower in the interior the Romans were gambling on a complete victory in order to stop an invader. For once an enemy had broken through he could advance very rap­idly along the excellent Roman road system which connected all major towns and cities. By the beginning of the 3rd century this is exactly what began to happen, introducing a long-lasting crisis from which the empire would not emerge unchanged. First the Persians struck in the east followed by the Sarmatian Roxolani and Germanic tribes along the Danube with the Roman legions suffering two major defeats in 250. To make matters worse the plague had broken out again in 249 and lasted for two years, and poverty and famine grew. Again, could the climate have been responsible for the large-scale barbarian in­vasions which saw entire tribes—with women and children— trying to force their way into the southern lands? Perhaps, for as a contemporary writer Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, wrote: “You must know that the world has grown old and does not remain in its former vigor. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun’s warmth are both diminishing; the metals are nearly exhausted; the husbandman is failing in the fields.”¹⁵ Cyprian was answering the charges that the Chris­tians were responsible for the misfortunes by angering the Roman Gods.

Civil wars, and wars against the barbarians continued with Roman legions hard pressed in the field. The territory north of the Danube (Dacia) had to be evacuated, and order broke down in many parts of the empire—particularly Gaul. Between 235 and 285 some twenty emperors succeeded each other in rapid succession, many being murdered by rivals or by their own men. In the cities the poor began to seek personal solace and salvation in Christianity, expecting the end of the world and Christ’s sec­ond coming to rid them of the power and corruption of the wealthy. It seemed as if the Empire would collapse and break up into separate parts. Yet, surprisingly, recovery did take place, ushering in major and far-reaching reforms that would trans­form the Roman Empire in a fundamental way.¹⁶ The salvation of the Empire came again in the form of a talented and devoted emperor, Caius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus or simply Dio­cletian.

Diocletian was born in the Roman province of Dalmatia (today’s Croatia) in about 243 as Diodes, apparently the son of a free man employed as a scribe by a Roman Senator.¹⁷ Con­quered by Augustus this region of the Balkans had become a regular recruiting ground for the Roman armies, and tended to attract many young Illyrians seeking the high social prestige of a legionary soldier. Since all were now Roman citizens a career in the legions was open to everyone, offering upward mobility based on merit as opposed to education or birth. Other Illyrians who had a vested interest in the Empire had become emperors before him, and Diocletian saw no reason why he could not fol­low in their footsteps.

Many Illyrians had become members of the “Protectores,” an elite corps of higher officers with proven battle performance, formed by Emperor Gallenius (253-268), which began to re­place the traditional nobiles and equestrians. With the break­down in Augustus’ defensive frontier system, Gallenius began to change Roman defensive strategy. An expanded army with cavalry and mobile infantry was now stationed at strategic lo­cations in the interior, to react and block any major incursion of the borders. Defense in depth proved highly effective and was continued by future emperors. Gallenius was the last em­peror to come from the traditional and wealthy Roman aristoc­racy. He was murdered in 268 by a group of Danubian generals, who ironically had risen under his leadership, and who would provide the Empire with the next three emperors. The change in ethnic and regional origin of Roman emperors reflected the fact that the majority of Roman citizens no longer were from the Italian Peninsula. They had very little loyalty to Rome itself, since “Roman citizen” no longer meant “Roman” or even “Ital­ian.” The change in the orientation of the majority of citizens was also beginning to have an effect on the political and military institutions of the Empire and the old Roman order was van­ishing not to return again. The “Fall” of the Roman Empire oc­curred in stages, and would continue for the next thousand years. A careful and thoughtful strategist, Diocletian rose through the ranks becoming the Dux (commander) of Moesia, today’s Bulgaria. He took part in the battles with the Germanic tribes which the Romanian legions were beginning to win, and by 282 he was one of the topmost military leaders. Diocletian was elected Consul the following year, and when Emperor Carus was killed in a power struggle during a Persian campaign, a counsel of officers elected him as Emperor. Not content with the election he went and obtained a general acclamation by the entire army, which was drawn up before him for the occasion. The unusual move would become common practice with future emperors, this also being the first time a military counsel of senior officers would meet to elect an emperor.