7 the Roman Empire
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Eli J. S. Weaverdyck 7 The Roman Empire I Introduction The Roman Empire was one of the largest and longest lasting of all the empires in the ancient world.1 At its height, it controlled the entire coast of the Mediterranean and vast continental hinterlands, including most of western Europe and Great Brit- ain, the Balkans, all of Asia Minor, the Near East as far as the Euphrates (and be- yond, briefly), and northern Africa as far south as the Sahara. The Mediterranean, known to the Romans as mare nostrum(‘our sea’), formed the core. The Mediterranean basin is characterized by extreme variability across both space and time. Geologically, the area is a large subduction zone between the African and European tectonic plates. This not only produces volcanic and seismic activity, it also means that the most commonly encountered bedrock is uplifted limestone, which is easily eroded by water. Much of the coastline is mountainous with deep river valleys. This rugged topography means that even broadly similar climatic conditions can pro- duce drastically dissimilar microclimates within very short distances. In addition, strong interannual variability in precipitation means that local food shortages were an endemic feature of Mediterranean agriculture. In combination, this temporal and spatial variability meant that risk-buffering mechanisms including diversification, storage, and distribution of goods played an important role in ancient Mediterranean survival strategies. Connectivity has always characterized the Mediterranean.2 While geography encouraged mobility, the empire accelerated that tendency, inducing the transfer of people, goods, and ideas on a scale never seen before.3 This mobility, combined with increased demand and the efforts of the imperial govern- ment to mobilize specific products, led to the rise of broad regional specializations, particularly in staple foods and precious metals.4 The results of this increased con- It has also been the subject of more scholarship than any other empire treated in this volume. The modern study of the Roman Empire is generally thought to have begun in the eighteenth centu- ry with works by the French political philosopher Montesquieu (1734) and the English historian Edward Gibbon (1776–1789). For an overview of the study of the Roman Empire in the twentieth century, see Potter 2006. Horden and Purcell 2000, particularly 175–230. The environmental history of the ancient Mediter- ranean is entering new territory as more and better data and models become available. See Harris 2013; McCormick et al. 2012 for introductions. For the mobility of people in the Roman empire, see the essays in de Ligt and Tacoma 2016. Recent overviews of the mobility of goods include Wilson and Bowman 2018; Morley 2007. For example, Sicily, Egypt, and North Africa exported grain on a large scale (Erdkamp 2005, 206– 257; Kessler and Temin 2007). Olive oil for export was produced in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula (Marzano 2013; Mattingly 1988). Gold and Silver mines were concentrated in the Iberian Peninsula and in the Balkan and Carpathian Mountains (Wilson 2007). Open Access. © 2020 Eli J. S. Weaverdyck, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110607741-009 242 Eli J. S. Weaverdyck The Mediterranean world prior to Roman conquest. © Peter Palm. Map 1: The Roman Empire 243 sumption and connectivity are most visible today in the ruins of ancient cities, where certain forms of monumental architecture, built in Roman concrete, are re- peated again and again across Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia.5 These far-flung remains are the result of a long history of imperial development. Roman history can be divided into several major epochs, only two of which fall within the chronological limits of this handbook: the Republic and the Principate. The city of Rome was ruled according to an oligarchic system of government from the late sixth to the late first century (the Republican period), at which point it became a monarchy (the Principate). Within these epochs a period of social restruc- turing in the fourth century inaugurated the Middle Republic, an era of stability that lasted until the late second century , at which point further social upheaval took hold and lasted for about a century. This period is known as the Late Republic. In the last third of the first century , one man, Augustus (63 –14 ), success- fully consolidated supreme power in his own person and passed it on to his chosen heir, establishing the rule of Roman emperors. Traditionally, the first three centuries of the Common Era are known as the Principate. The word emphasizes the emper- or’s status as merely the preeminent citizen, first among equals, princeps.6 After a long crisis of government in the third century , the empire was refashioned along more authoritarian lines. The period from 300 to 300 , then, roughly coin- cides with the Middle Republic, the Late Republic, and the Principate. Rome acquired its massive empire over centuries of more or less continuous warfare. After a brief discussion of the reasons why Romans were so often willing to go to war, their long-term military success, and the consequences of conquest for the Roman state in section two, section three describes the structures through which the empire was ruled and how these changed over time, particularly between the Republic and the Principate. It begins with the military apparatus that provided the means of physical coercion, then describes the political structures that administered the empire, and finally the infrastructure, both physical and institutional, that sup- ported imperial governance. In addition to the strategies and goals of the central state, the participation of other agents and the impacts of empire are highlighted throughout. The fourth section explores two aspects of society in the ancient Medi- terranean that were affected by the Roman Empire and that contributed to its inte- gration. First, it describes long-distance social networks, particularly those based on patronage, those based on Italian origin, and those based on familial ties. Then it discusses the identities through which people understood themselves and related to each other within an imperial context. See Woolf 1998, 112–126 for Roman Gaul; Woolf 2012, 288–300 more generally. The term ‘principate’ is found in ancient literature. The Roman historian Tacitus makes a point of saying that principatus and libertas (freedom) were irreconcilable until the rise of the good em- peror Nerva (Tacitus Agricola [Tac. Agr.] 3. 1). 244 Eli J. S. Weaverdyck II Achieving Supremacy: City, State, and Empire Roman power was established and, in large part, sustained through military su- premacy.7 During the Middle Republic, when the Romans defeated the other hege- monic powers in the Mediterranean, they were in the habit of sending out armies every year. At the end of the Late Republic– when powerful generals conquered vast swaths of territory in Europe and the Near East, and when the entire Mediterra- nean was convulsed by Roman civil wars– the portion of Italian young men serving under arms reached as high as 25 percent.8 Under the Principate, the Roman ap- proach to war changed, and the pace of expansion slowed drastically. Nevertheless, the army remained the single largest item of state expenditure, and some emperors still launched campaigns of conquest. The fact that Rome was a city-state when it acquired its empire sets it apart from the other polities discussed in this volume. Rome’s oligarchic internal socio- political structure incentivized persistent military aggression. An expansive ap- proach to citizenship and a tolerance for the partial continuation of others’ civic structures allowed for the political integration of new territory and provided access to vast reserves of manpower for further wars. Rome’s civic ideology, centered on the flexible idea of the res publica, provided the thread of continuity that allowed the empire to survive a traumatic period of civil war and a shift to a monarchic form of government. Roman expansion can be explained in large part as a consequence of the partic- ular nature of aristocratic competition within the Roman Republic.9 Since the mid- dle of the fourth century , the ruling class in Rome was defined primarily by election to office, an honor bestowed by the Roman people on those who had served the state that provided further opportunities to serve and accumulate glory.10 The most important form of service was military achievement. Distinction in battle was a valuable asset for candidates and those who held the highest offices achieved further glory by successfully commanding Rome’s armies. This encouraged Roman The sources of Roman power have intrigued scholars since the days of Machiavelli in the six- teenth century, and the Roman example has been influential in broader sociological works (e.g., Doyle 1986; M. Mann 1986). Recent overviews of Roman power by Roman historians include Harris 2016; Morley 2010; Woolf 2012, which build on numerous narrower, more detailed investigations. See, for example, influential discussions on the cultivation of loyalty to Rome in the provinces (Ando 2000); the role of honor in binding elites to the imperial system (Lendon 1997); and the position of the emperor (Millar 1977). Brunt 1987, 509–512. Modern debate on Roman imperialism is focused on the extent to which Rome’s military aggres- siveness during the Republic was unusual and driven by internal factors (Harris 1979) or typical of contemporary Mediterranean city-states in the context of inter-state anarchy (Eckstein 2006). For overviews, see Morley 2010; Hoyos 2013. For the origins of this ethos, see Hölkeskamp 1993; Raaflaub 1996; cf. Eckstein 2006, 229–237. The Roman Empire 245 commanders to be aggressive during their time in office. Even in defeat, a com- mander could win glory by living up to the aristocratic ideal of virtus: manly, stead- fast courage.11 This drove individual generals and the aristocracy as a whole to per- sist in fighting after losses that might have been war ending for other polities.