The Founding of Rome

The Founding of Rome is very much embroiled in myth.

Traces found by archaeologists of early settlements of the Palatine Hill date back to ca 750 BC.
This ties in very closely to the established legend that Rome was founded on 21 April 753 BC,
which was traditionally celebrated in Rome with the festival of Parilia.
Two founding legends exist - Romulus and Remus and Aeneas.
Rather than contradict each other, the tale of Aeneas adds to that of Romulus and Remus.
Romulus and Remus
King Numitor of Alba Longa was ejected by his younger brother Amulius. To do away with any
further possible pretenders to his usurped throne, Amulius murdered Numitor's sons and forced
Numitor's daughter, Rhea Silvia, to become a vestal virgin. (Vestal virgins were priestesses to
the goddess Vesta and were expected to guard their virginity in the goddess' honour on pain of
death.)
However Mars, the god of war became enchanted by her beauty and had his way with Rhea
Silvia while she slept. As a result of this Rhea Silvia bore twins, Romulus and Remus.
An enraged Amulius had Rhea Silvia thrown into the river Tiber where she was caught beneath
the waves by the river god who married her.
For large image click on picture
The twins were set adrift on the river in a reed basket. They
floated downstream until the basket was caught in the branches
of a fig tree.
This was where they were found by a she-wolf who suckled
them (wolves are sacred to Mars) until a shepherd found them.
Another version of the same story tells of the shepherd finding
them and taking them to his wife, who had just lost a stillborn
child and who breast fed them. The tale says the shepherd's wife
was a former prostitute.
Which one of the two versions is the original is hard to tell. In The she-wolf suckling Romulus and
Remus
Latin lupa means both 'she-wolf' and 'prostitute'.
Capitoline Museum, Rome
As the two boys had grown to men in the care of the couple, they were told of their true origins.
True to their heroic status they raised an armed and marched on Alba Longa. Amulius was slain
in battle and Numitor was restored to his throne.
The twins decided to found a new city close to where they had been washed ashore, caught by
the fig tree. The twins disputed which hill their city should be built on, Romulus favouring the
Palatine, Remus choosing another (possibly the Aventine).
Taking the auspices to read the will of the gods, Remus on his hill saw six birds, Romulus saw
twelve. So it was decided that Romulus’ choice was the right one and he and his followers took
to building their city on Palatine Hill.
Romulus took to marking the city's sacred boundary with a plough drawn by a white bull and a
white cow. Remus however leapt over the furrow, either in jest or derision. This was an ill omen
suggesting the city’s defences could easily be overcome. Remus was slain, either by Romulus
himself or by one of his chief followers.
Aeneas

1
 For large image click on picture

If the tale of Romulus and Remus appears the more popular Roman
founding tale today, then the tale of Aeneas, harking back to yet
earlier times, was perhaps the more popular in the days of the Roman
Empire. In fact through Virgil the Aeneid became the national epic
of the Roman empire and the most famous poem of the Roman era.
Aeneas was to have been a hero fighting the Greeks in the Trojan
wars. The son of Venus and a mortal father, he escaped as the great
city of Troy was sacked. After quite an odyssey he landed in Latium
through which the river Tiber flows. Aeneas married the daughter of
King Latinus, only to aggrieve King Turnus of Rutuli who himself
had his eye on her. As usual in ancient tales, there ensued a war for
the princess between Turnus and Aeneas, who was by then supported Aeneas having his wounds
by King Tarchon of the Etruscans. dressed in the presence of
Naturally Aeneas, son of Venus, was triumphant. Venus. From a wall painting in
Pompeii.
Museo della Civilta, Rome
The sack of Troy is dated to around 1220 BC. To fill the years from Aeneas to Romulus the
Romans therefore were required to produce a string of fictional Kings to make the tale work.
This was done across all the generations with some ease from Ascanius, son of Aeneas to
Numitor, grandfather of Romulus and Remus.

Historical Background
For large image click on picture

As such the Latins settled in the wider area of Rome around

1000 BC. Though those early settlements were not to be
mistaken for anything like a city. They kept pigs, herded sheep,
goats, cattle and lived in primitive, round huts.
So how could such archaic beginnings ever lead to a city of
power which would rule the world? The rise of Rome was
certainly not inevitable, but it had many advantages right from
the start. Rome lies only a few miles from the sea with all its
Model of archaic Roman possibilities of trade. It lies central to the Italian peninsula,
round hut. The left side which in turn lies central to the entire Mediterranean Sea. Italy
displays the simple
framework.
is guarded by the Alps to the North and by the sea all around.
Museo della Civilta, Rome
Add to this the influence of the Greeks who were settling southern Italy, founding cities like
Cumea and Tarentum, bringing advanced civilization to the country, and you have a place with
lots of potential. From the Greeks the Romans learnt fundamental skills such as reading and
writing, even their religion is almost entirely derived from Greek mythology. i.e. for Jupiter write
Zeus, Mars is Ares, Venus is Aphrodite, etc... If the Greeks settled to the south of them, then the
Roman had the Etruscans to the north. Etruria was predominantly an urban society, drawing its
considerable wealth from seaborne trade. The extravagant Etruscans were generally seen by the
more hardy Romans to be decadent and weak. While being distinctly unique in their own right,
the Etruscans too owed much of their culture to the Greeks. At around 650 to 600 BC the
Etruscans crossed the Tiber and occupied Latium. It is through this, so one believes, that the
settlement on the Palatine Hill was brought together with the settlements on surrounding hills,

2
either in an attempt to fend off the invaders, or, once conquered, by the Etruscan master who
sought to rule their kingdom via a structure of city states. It is at this point that the first known,
rather than mythical, kings emerge.

The Roman Kings

Historical details are still too obscure for any definite records of Rome under the kings, All
remains half mythical.
But it was under the Roman Kings that the Roman ability to create an empire of sorts first came
to the fore, even though any original intentions will hardly have been of an imperial nature.
In all there was said to have been seven kings of Rome covering a period of over two hundred
years.
For large image click on picture

Romulus
The first recognized king of Rome was its mythical founder, Romulus.
To him is attributed the foundation of the senate.
He is also said to have ruthlessly pursued a policy of expanding the
population, granting refuge and acceptance to criminals on the run at the
asylum on the Capitoline Hill. He expanded the city’s boundaries to
encompass four hills; Capitoline, Aventine, Caelian and Quirinal.
If Romulus’ reign was infamous, this impression is only further
reinforced with an episode widely known as the ‘Rape of the Sabine
women’.
Italian warrior of the late
8th, early 7th century BC
Museo della Civilta,
Rome
With Rome’s populace enlarged with runaway slaves and criminals, king Romulus found himself
ruling a nation with too few women. The story goes that he staged extravagant celebrations for
the festival of Consus (the god of the granary and the storehouse), inviting the neighbouring
tribes to attend. Many of the neighbouring Sabines were invited. But in mid-celebration the
festival was brought to a sudden end, when Romulus and his Romans revealed their true
intentions, taking possession of the unmarried Sabine women by force and claiming them as
brides. Romulus himself came by his wife Hersilia by this very method.
The Sabine town of Cures, ruled by king Titus Tatius, quite understandably declared war.
In the resulting fight the Sabines managed to capture the Capitoline Hill, due to the treachery of
Tarpeia who opened a gate (and who gave name to the Tarpeian Rock on the Capitoline). Further
legend has it that it was the Sabine women who intervened to stop the fighting between their
Sabine relatives and their new found Roman husbands.
A peace was agreed and the Sabines of Cures and the Romans united and henceforth became one
people. The two kings thereafter ruled jointly, Titus Tatius from the Capitoline and Romulus
from the Palatine. Once the Sabine king died, sole rule fell to Romulus until his death at the age
of 54.
If all this sounds very much like a string of fairy tales and legends, there are hints to underlying
truths. For example, Quirinus was the Sabine equivalent of the Roman god Mars and we found

3
his name reflected in the Quirinal Hill. So too in the rarely used alternative name the Romans
would use for themselves, the quirites.
Naturally Romulus death is also wrapped up in legend. While he was performing a ritual
sacrifice to the gods at the river a thunderstorm struck. The people ran for cover from the rain,
leaving Romulus and the senators behind. When they returned Romulus had vanished. If the
official version suggested he had been swept up to the heavens by his father Mars in a chariot,
this sounded just a little too far fetched, even to the Romans. Especially as in his later life
Romulus was said to have grown unpopular. So it was indeed suspected that the senators had
ceased him and stabbed the tyrant to death.
Given later Roman history the legend of Romulus proved indeed ominously prophetic.
Numa Pompilius
Numa Pompilius came to power following the controversy surrounding the death of Romulus.
Immediately after Romulus’ death the leading senator Julius Proculus then claimed that Romulus
had appeared to him in a vision and was now the god Quirinus. This elegantly absolved the
senators of any suspected wrongdoing and cleared the way for Julius Proculus to become the
next king, no doubt with Romulus’ supposed blessing.
The Roman people, however, were not willing to accept this seamless transition to one of their
king’s possible murderers. Clearly it was not going to be the wily Julius Proculus.
Instead the Sabines in Rome demanded that, since the death of Titus Tatius had seen them ruled
by a Roman without complaint, it was now for one of their number to become ruler. The Romans
agreed, as long as it would be for them to choose who among the Sabines should be king.
The choice fell upon Numa Pompilius, a man who apparently didn’t even want the job. Unlike
Romulus, Numa was not a warrior king, but a religious, cultural figure.
Traditionally, Numa is seen as the man who moved the order of the Vestal Virgins from Alba
Longa to Rome, founded the temple of Janus, established the various priestly colleges, including
the order of the fetiales who held the power to declare war and make peace. In order to allow for
all the religious rites to be performed at the appropriate time, Numa is said to have reformed the
calendar, adding the months January and February and bringing the days to a total of 360 for
each year.

During the 43 years of Numa’s reign Rome enjoyed uninterrupted peace.

Much of his wisdom was said to be due to his receiving divine guidance from the gods.
He was said to have received their advice from the nymph and prophetess Egeria who became
his lover after the death of his wife.
To the Romans King Numa Pompilius was the father of their culture; the man who turned the
semi-barbarian peasants, criminals and bride-robbers of Romulus into something resembling a
civilization.
Modern historians are not sure what to make of this figure. Some priesthoods he is said to have
created are believed to predate his reign. Meanwhile his supposed reform of the calendar was
possibly the achievement of a later generation.
Nonetheless, the high esteem in which the Romans held this figure, suggests that he was of great
significance in the creation of their identity as a people.
For large image click on picture
Tullus Hostilius
With the death of the peaceable Numa Pompilius rule next fell to the
warlike Tullus Hostilius. In these primitive days of early Roman history

4
 many of the disputes arose from mundane issues such as cattle rustling
along territorial borders.
Numa Pompilius had been a diplomatic man who would seek to achieve
reconciliation. However, his successor Tullus Hostilius was a man who
would seek to solve problems by the sword.
When another such dispute arose between Rome and its neighbour Alba
Longa, Tullus Hostilius declared war. Given the very close ties between
the two cities, this was a virtual civil war. Therefore, in order to avoid
slaughter between armies related to each other, the two leaders Tullus
Italian warrior of the late Hostilius and Mettius Fufetius agreed instead on a contest of champions.
8th, early 7th century Three brothers from each side would fight in place of the armies.
BC
Museo della Civilta,
Rome
For the Romans the brothers Horatius took the field and for the Albans the brothers Curiatius.
The fight ended with all Curiatii dead and only one of the Horatians alive.
The Roman victory meant that Alba Longa conceded defeat and swore allegiance to Rome.
King Mettius however had no intention of accepting Roman supremacy and succeeded in
provoking another Roman neighour, the Fidenates, into war.
When the Romans met the Fidenates in battle their supposed Alban allies abandoned them.
Mettius Fufenius’ though proved plans were in vain. Rome defeated the Fidenates on her own.
The Albans were soon crushed, their leader torn apart by two chariots and the city of Alba Longa
was destroyed. The Albans were thereafter moved to Rome where they were given the Caelian
Hill to settle on.
This increase in population made the senate’s meeting place too small to contain the enlarged
senate. Tullus Hostilius therefore decided a new senate house was needed. It was constructed at
the western end of the Forum at the foot of the Capitoline Hill. It remained there throughout
Roman history and continued to bear its builder’s name, the Curia Hostilia.
Tullus Hostilius is said to have thereafter campaigned successfully against the neighbouring
Sabine tribes, until a plague befell him as well as the people of Rome, forcing them to make
peace.
In seeking to avert the wrath of the gods, Hostilius now sought to emulate his predecessor and
took greater interest in his religious duties.
Yet his new found religious devotion fell well short of having the desired effect. King Tullus
Hostilius was struck lighting and died.
As with other kings of Rome we are not sure if Tullus Hostilius ever existed at all. The family of
the Hostilii did however appear in the records some one or two centuries later. So it is well
possible that their half-mythical ancestor existed.
As the destroyer of Alba Longa it may indeed have been Hostilius, not Numa Pompilius, who
brought the religious orders, including the Vestal Virgins, to Rome. Either way, the fall of Alba
Longa and Rome’s assumption of all her religious festivals greatly increased the victorious city’s
prestige throughout the region.
Ancus Marcius

5
Rome’s fourth king was Numa Pompilius’grandson and therefore another Sabine. Ancus Marcius
was chosen as a ruler to restore the peace and quite the Romans had enjoyed under the rule of his
grandfather.
This in turn gave Rome’s neighbours the impression that the city’s new leader was a pushover,
eager for peace at any price and therefore unlikely to retaliate.
The first to test this premise were the so-called Old Latins (prisci latini), an ancient tribe who
even predated Aeneas.
Yet king Ancus Marcius, perhaps to everyone’s surprise, proved to be as much of a warrior as he
was an administrator, priest and diplomat.
The prisci latini were defeated, their city destroyed and their people absorbed into Rome.
Ancus Marcius is also said to have settled the Aventine Hill. Given this new influx of people,
this may indeed
Tradition has it that Ancus Marcius founded the city of Ostia. Archaeology appears to say
otherwise, suggesting the founding of Ostia to be of a later era.
Rome’s interest in the mouth of the river Tiber will most likely have been due to the presence of
salt-pan. Occupying the later site of Ostia granted Rome control over the pans on the southern
bank of the river Tiber. Those to the north remained in Etruscan hands.
Building the first bridge over the Tiber, the wooden Sublician Bridge, Ancus established a
bridgehead to the Janiculan Hill, which he fortified, though most likely did not as part of the city.
This may well have been to help protect the salt route from Ostia and to deny the growing threat
of Etruscans the strategic strongpoint on the western side of the river.
Ancus Marcius died widely respected and was deemed a truly good king by later Roman
historians.
As with Tullus Hostilius, King Ancus Marcius does have much later descendants make an
entrance into the Roman records. By 357 BC the Marcii reached the consulship.
Again this suggests the existence of this ruler of Rome’s semi-mythical history may indeed have
existed.
Tarquinius Priscus
Tarquin the Elder
The fifth king of Rome was one Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (Priscus in this case simply signifies
him as Tarquin ‘the Elder’ and it was a title attributed to him much later by Roman historians).
The stories surrounding this monarch show us that we are still deeply reliant on legend and myth
to paint any sort of picture of his rule. Tarquin the Elder, as Tarquinius is generally called,
moved to Rome from the Etruscan town of Tarquinii. His father, Demaratus, was a nobleman
from Corinth who was forced to leave his city (655 BC) when the tyrant Cypselus assumed
power there.
The link to Greece is indeed possible as there is evidence of Greek traders in Tarquinii. But it
nonetheless sounds like a somewhat strained effort by later Romans to avoid admitting that
Rome had in fact been ruled by Etruscans.
Legend has it that on his entering the city of Rome an eagle swooped down and snatched
Tarquin’s cap with his talons, only to place on his head again before flying away. Evidently
Tarquin was a man favoured by fate.
Nontheless he deemed it wise to change his forename from the Etruscan Lucumo to the Latin
Lucius in order to smooth his transition from Etruscan to Roman nobility. Tarquin’s wife
Tanaquil was of aristocratic Etruscan blood.
If by his own right, or by that of his wife’s connections, Tarquin soon rose to be a figure of

6
significant influence in Rome.
He further assumed an influential position with the reigning king, Ancus Marcius. So much so in
fact, he was made guardian of King Ancus’ two sons.
This proved a position of vital importance when Ancus Marcius died. Tarquin persuaded the two
sons to go hunting while he made arrangements for their father’s funeral ceremony. When they
returned it was to find Tarquin on the throne. He’d used their absence to win over the Romans to
grant him their votes. The Roman monarchy was not hereditary. Ancus Marcius’ sons had been
in a prime position to win the favour of the Roman people, but Tarquin had outmanoeuvered
them.
Tarquin’s means of accession to the throne may have been underhand, but his record as monarch
seems to have been impressive.
First he was to see off the military challenges by neighbouring tribes which seemed always to
flare up at the accession of anew monarch.
Though in battle Tarquin seems to have achieved much more than merely holding his ground.
Tarquin’s many campaigns led to victories over the Sabines, Latins and Etruscans. According to
Dionysius, it was a deputation of Etruscan cities defeated in battle which brought him the
symbols of sovereignty: A gold crown, an ivory chain, an eagle headed scepter, a purple tunic
and robe and twelve fasces (axes enclosed in bundles of rods).
Tarquin the Elder may have begun the construction of the great Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus,
but this is uncertain. The introduction of the Circus Games to Rome is ascribed King Tarquin the
Elder. He is traditionally believed to have been the ruler who laid out the Circus Maximus.
Tarquin is also credited with the initial drainage of the forum and the creation of the Cloaca
Maxima. Though it must be added that what was eventually to become the main sewer of Rome,
was at this early stage merely a large drainage ditch to make usable the marshy ground in the
shallow between the hills of Rome. Later further drainage was added by his successors.
He also added 100 members of the lesser nobility (minores gentes) to the senate. These were
most likely lesser Etruscan nobles whom he’d encouraged to settled in the city. Their promotion
will no doubt have helped to strengthen his grip on power.
Tarquin’s end, when it came, was a violent one. The scorned sons of King Ancus finally sought
revenge and hired two assassins. As one approached from the front posing as a party in a legal
dispute, the other came up behind and struck at his head with an axe. Tarquin died instantly. Yet
that was not what the Romans were told. Tarquin’s wife Tanaquil informed the people that she
was tending to his wounds and that the king meanwhile wished to see the little known Servius
Tullius, a protégé of Tanaquil’s and Tarquin's son-in-law, act on his behalf until he had
recovered.
Naturally Tarquin the Elder never recovered. But by the time the Romans became aware of their
king’s demise, the new man was already firmly on the throne.
Servius Tullius
The sixth king, Servius Tullius, was a monarch celebrated for particularly high achievement by
the Romans. Yet to modern eyes, it appears as though several achievements of early Roman
history have somehow been attributed to him as a means of attributing them to someone. For it
seems doubtful that Servius was really responsible for all ascribed to him.
Servius Tullius’ origins are uncertain. His name may in fact be a corruption of the word servus
(slave). The name itself was later only used by plebeians.
One story tells of him being the son of a household slave. (Though Livy writes he was a prince
from the Sabine city of Corniculum held captive by the Romans.)

7
Interestingly, there was also an Etruscan tradition, which claimed that Servius was in fact an
Etruscan named Mastarna.
Legend also states that, when Servius was still a boy, his parents discovered him asleep in bed
with his head covered by flames. Yet the sleeping child suffered no harm. Word of this
momentous portent eventually reached Tanaquil, the wife of King Tarquin the Elder, who
deemed it a sign that the boy was marked out for great things. Thenceforth Servius was a protégé
of Rome’s powerful queen.
At the death of King Tarquin the Elder it was Tanaquil who assured Servius’ ascent to the
throne. The sons of Ancus Marcius being implicated in Tarquin’s murder made it impossible for
them to now contest the throne. They retired into exile.
Tarquin the Elder however had three sons; Tarquin, Lucius and Arruns. To win their support,
Servius shrewdly married them to his own daughters.
His position though was soon secured, when a war against the Etruscan city of Veii proved him
to be an able military commander. In fact so impressive was his victory that in his 44 years in
power he had no need to take to the field again.
The Romans believed Servius’ reign to have seen the first use of coinage in the city.
Unlike the Greeks, early Roman society did not use money. Far more they bartered - salt for
pottery, grain for wood, etc...
Where the system proved inadequate the Romans expressed value in for of 'heads of cattle'. One
such head of cattle was worth ten sheep.
The head of cattle (pecus) became the first Roman monetary unit. From this came the first Latin
word for money - pecunia. A primitive monetary system evolved based on ingots of raw copper
of the Roman pound (libra) of 327 g.

Such an ingot could then be broken up into yet different sizes and values.
King Servius was the first to have a stamp put onto the copper, until then it was just the raw
metal. The design to have been used supposedly was either an ox or sheep.
King Servius Tullius is said to have enlarged the city. Romans also attributed the ‘Servian Wall’
to him, though it is most likely that he was this city wall was a product of the 4th century BC.
It is widely believed though that the agger, a set of defensive earthworks on the Quirinal,
Viminal and Esquiline Hills were a legacy of his. It is therefore possible that, although not the
Servian Wall, some lesser defensive cordon may have been set up around the city by King
Servius Tullius. After all, archaic Rome is believed to have possessed defences, albeit that we
know very little about them. A major achievement of his reign appears to have been the transfer
of the regional festival of Diana from Aricia to the Aventine Hill of Rome. A temple was
dedicated to the goddess on the Aventine Hill, not merely by the Romans but by the people of
Latium. Archaeology seems to grant this story some support. The moving of a regional festival
and the prestigious Temple of Diana to Rome seems to show that the city was of rising
importance to the wider region.
Perhaps the most impressive idea ascribed to Servius Tullius is the census, which counted the
people and ranked them in five classes, according to wealth.
(This division of the people by wealth is often referred to as a ‘timocratic’ system, after the
Greek timo (worth) and kratia (rule); so literally ‘rule by worth’.)
The classes were divisions created to decide the voting rights of the people (with the rich
enjoying most votes) and to help administer the levying of troops, as the higher a citizen’s class,
the better armour and weaponry he was able to afford.

8
Servius is further said to have made the division of the people into three tribes for tax purposes:
the ramnes, the luceres and the tities. (Hence the relation of the words ‘tribe’ and ‘tribute’.)
These tribal divisions may have been ethnic in nature, though very little is known about them.
A further change of constitutional importance credited to Servius Tullius is his reform of the
army, in particular his granting the army a political assembly in its own right, the comitia
centuriata.

For large image click on picture

His reign is also closely associated with the construction of the

great Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (185 ft wide and 65 ft high).
If it is believed that Tarquin the Elder begun the temple, most of
its construction must have been completed under Servius
Tullius. Especially bearing in mind the length of Servius’ reign,
it is perhaps doubtful that Tarquin the Proud was the king to
complete this great work, as tradition holds.
Legend tells of an outrageous coup that overthrew King Servius
Tullius in old age. Model of the archaic Temple of
Jupiter Capitolinus
Museo della Civilta, Rome
It was the ambitions of Servius’ daughter Tullia and her husband Lucius Tarquin which should
prove disastrous to the old king.
Servius Tullius’ policies had made him unpopular with the senators and Lucius Tarquin was
quick to exploit that. If the tale of the king’s slave origins is true, this also will not have helped.
At some point a conspiracy was hatched to overthrow the king.
One day Tarquin simply arrived at the senate in royal robes and summoned the senators to
acknowledge him in his position. Servius rushed to the senate, but was bodily thrown from the
hall. In the chaos that followed King Servius was stabbed to death by hired assassins. Roman
legend adds a gruesome note, describing how Tullia later returned from the senate, where she
had seen her husband confirmed as the new ruler. When her carriage drove down the street in
which her father Servius had fallen it ran across his dead body.
The street in which King Servius Tullius was assassinated and run over was henceforth known as
the vicus sceleratus, the ‘street of guilt’.
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus
Tarquin the Proud
The seventh and final king of Rome was one Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (Superbus in this case
simply signifies him as Tarquin ‘the Proud’ and it was a title attributed to him much later by
Roman historians).
Tradition holds that Tarquin ‘the Proud’ was the son of Tarquin ‘the Elder’, though logic
suggests that he more likely was a grandson. (Tarquin the Elder died in old age, his successor,
Servius Tullius ruled for 44 years and Tarquin himself ruled for another 24/25 years.)
Having come to power by means of a violent conspiracy, Tarquin the Proud lacked any kind of
legitimacy. He therefore governed Rome by much the same methods than those he’d used to win

9
the throne. Tarquin was a tyrant similar to those which had seized power in many other
Hellenistic kingdoms. His only means of sustaining his position were violence and oppression.
He pronounced himself the supreme judge of Rome, granting himself complete authority over
capital cases without the accused having any recourse of appeal.
This privilege Tarquin now exploited to rid himself of any potential rivals. More so, the
possessions of the convicted were then seized by the monarch.
One of the victims of these seizures was the father of one Lucius Iunius Brutus, the very man
who should come to eventually overthrow him.
If Tarquin governed Rome as a petty, sometimes vindictive tyrant, his performance as a military
commander and diplomat was more impressive.
He harassed and cajoled the Latin League into accepting Rome as its official head (the so-called
‘Treaty of Ferentia’), thereby tying the Latins into the Roman military machine, effectively
doubling Rome’s military power in a single stroke.
This new military power was then put to use against the neighbouring tribe of the Volcians. Two
cities were conquered; one by storm, the other, the city of Gabii, by deceit.
The spoils of this successful campaign were put to use in public works. Roman tradition ascribes
the completion of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus to Tarquin ‘the Proud’, although today it is
widely believed to have been completed by Servius Tullius.
But Tarquin is further thought to have continued the process of draining the forum, built and
improved roads and strengthened the city’s defences.
Such public construction was, however, also the product of Tarquin’s oppression. Much of the
labour was forcibly obtained from the plebeians.
A legend of considerable importance which attached itself to Tarquin was that of the Sibylline
Books. The story goes that the famous Sibyl, a mythical prophetess known throughout the
Hellenistic world, appeared before King Tarquin and offered him nine books, containing great
wisdom. The price she demanded was astronomical. Tarquin declined. Unflustered, the Sibyl
then threw three of the book sin the fire, only to demand the same price for the remaining six
books. Unnerved, Tarquin though again declined only to see another three of the books tossed
into the flames. Once more the Sibyl demanded the price. Tarquin relented, if only to save what
knowledge was left.
If the Sibyl was legend, the Sibylline Books are indeed thought to have existed, though their
origin is unknown. The books were repeatedly consulted for divine guidance in the republican
era during times of crisis and were eventually destroyed when fire consumed the Temple of
Jupiter Capitolinus in 83 BC.
With the wealthy living in fear of prosecution, should Tarquin deem them a threat or take a fancy
to their possessions, and the poor being used to labour in public construction, all Rome have
been seething with resentment towards her ruler.
When finally revolution occurred, Tarquin was not in the city, but engaged in another military
campaign.
The final straw had been the rape of the noblewoman Lucretia by Tarquin’s son Sextus set the
city alight. The nobles made their move, led by Lucius Iunius Brutus, declared themselves
against Tarquin and instead announced Rome to be a republic (510/509 BC).
The army quickly came over to the rebels and Tarquin the Proud was forced into exile.
The early days of the Roman republic saw a bitter struggle for independence against Tarquin’s
attempts to regain his throne. Nonetheless Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the tyrant of Rome,
would never achieve control again. The Roman monarchy had fallen.

10
 Epilogue
It goes without saying that we have to take much of the history of the Roman kings with a pinch
of salt. Much of this is mere myth and legend, though it evidently contains kernels of truth.
Some of the myths, may indeed be of considerable significance to the very nature of Rome and
its future achievement.
The very seed that created the Roman mentality which was to create the republic may indeed
have lain in that heartfelt belief that they were a breed of refugees, criminals and runaway slaves
who sought shelter at the asylum on the Capitoline Hill under king Romulus. Such an identity
may have fostered the communal feeling of equality which we find reflected again and again in
Roman history. Rome was divided by wealth and privilege, yet she believed in the essential
equality of men. Albeit that some later claimed nobility or divine descent, the Romans were not
pretentious about their origins. The ambiguities surrounding the she-wolf who suckled Romulus
and Remus, the refuge on the Capitoline Hill and the legend regarding the ‘Rape of the Sabine
Women’ demonstrate that very aptly.
Believing themselves at least spiritual descendents of the uprooted, the fleeing and criminals in
search of a second chance, it is perhaps not surprising that they should form a society which
should eventually rid itself of its king and forge ahead with a government by the people for the
people.
As with so much of Roman history changes to the constitution tended to be gradual. We find
aspects republican constitution emerged under the kings.
Not least the fact that monarchy was never deemed to be hereditary in Rome most have had a
important part to play in the development of republican ideals.
Far more the king was elected by the people, formerly appointed by the senate, an advisory body
of patricians.
However, the Roman monarch's rule was a total one. He possessed the right of capital
punishment, was responsibility for foreign relations and war, for public security, public works,
justice and proper maintenance of religion.
The very symbol of this total power were the fasces; the rods to scourge and the axe with which
to behead the condemned.
But this royal power was tempered by the principle of consultation with the senate. This was the
tradition that Tarquin the Proud ignored to his peril. Early Rome would simply not bear the
arbitrary use of power by a tyrant.
Nonetheless it remains questionable how much longer a monarchy could have lasted were
Tarquin to have been a wise and benign ruler. Most likely its time was up. Rome had evolved.
Rome’s growing power and influence meant that her elite were growing richer and more
powerful. The total rule of one could simply no longer be sustained with the patricians
demanding a role for themselves in the running of affairs.
In all this we should perhaps also not underestimate the influence of the Greeks. Greek traders
living in Rome may have introduced democratic ideas which the Romans, ever pragmatic,
shaped into something of their own.
Perhaps the very notion of Rome’s growth to a substantial town of rising regional power and
prestige meant that it became subject to the influence of ‘dangerous foreign ideas’, such as
democracy. These would weaken the monarchy, sapping its support from the nobles and the
people alike. So with a egalitarian spirit at the heart of Roman mentality, an ever more confident
and ambitious elite seeking to have a share of power and Greek ideas undermining its standing
among the people, the Roman monarchy may indeed have been doomed at the end of the sixth
century. Rome’s future was to be a republic.

11
 The Revolt against King Tarquin
In 510 BC Rome witnessed a revolt against the rule of the Etruscan kings.
The traditional story goes as follows;
Sextus, the son of king Tarquinius Superbus raped the wife of a nobleman, Tarquinius
Collatinus. King Tarquinius' rule was already deeply unpopular with the people. This rape was
too great an offence to be tolerated by the Roman nobles.
For large image click on
Lead by Lucius Iunius Brutus, they rose in revolt against the king. picture
Brutus was the nephew of King Tarquin by marriage. Related he may have
been to the king, but he had no reason to love him. Brutus was the son of
Marcus, whose substantial wealth had been illegaly seized by King Tarquin
at his death. Not only had Tarquin abused his power to steal Brutus'
inheritence. Brutus' older brother had been murdered as part of the plot.
Believed somewhat of a harmless fool, he had been ridiculed by Tarquin by
being made second in command (Tribunus Celerum). There seems little
doubt that Brutus' elevation to this position was not meant as a promotion,
but a humiliation. His inheritence stole and his brother murdered, Brutus
was being mocked by a tyrant.
Now Lucius Iunius Brutus took revenge and led the city's nobility in revolt.
Prince Sextus fled to Gabii but was killed. Meanwhile the King with his Lucius Iunius Brutus
Capitoline Museum,
family escaped to Caere. His palace was demolished. Rome
The rebellion against Tarquinius failed to achieve final independence for Rome, but it should be
the birth of the Roman republic. It was after this revolt, that the senate handed power to two
consuls, although at first they were called praetors (a title which later should come to be the
name of a different office of the republic). These consuls each held power for one year, in which
they ruled much like joint kings of Rome.
What also needs to be kept in mind is that this rebellion was indeed a revolt by the aristocracy of
Rome. Rome was never a democracy as we would understand it today, nor as the Greeks
understood it. In the early days of the Roman republic all power would reside in the hands of the
Roman aristocracy, the so-called patricians ( patricii).
The first ever two elected leaders of Rome were Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. But
the people soon turned against Brutus' colleague who was a Tarquin and hence directly related to
the despised king. It wasn't long before he left for exile, being replaced by one Publius Valerius
Publicola. Soon after a substantial plot was discovered, the aim of which was to place King
Tarquin back on his throne. The conspirators were sentenced to death. Among them were Brutus'
own two sons.
It is no surprise that after his ridicule, the theft of his inheritence, his brother's murder and the
execution of his sons Brutus was filled with hatred toward King Tarquin.
Aided by the city of Veii, King Tarquinius in 509 BC sought to win back his city in battle, but
failed. The battle saw the death Brutus, the founder of the Republic. With Brutus dead, it fell to
his co-consul Publius Valerius Publicola to lead the Romans to victory. It was therefore he, who
was the first ever Roman commander to lead his troops in triumph through Rome.
Lars Porsenna
But king Tarquinius, though defeated, was not yet dead. And so he called upon the help of the
fellow Etruscan king of Clusium, Lars Porsenna. Porsenna duly besieged Rome. Legend tells us
of the one-eyed hero Horatius Cocles fending off the Etruscan hordes at the Sublician bridge

12
over the Tiber which he asked to be destroyed behind him as he fought.
Other legend tells of Porsenna eventually calling off the siege. A Roman hero, Mucius Scaevola,
terrified Porsenna with a demonstration of how determined the Romans were to defeat him, by
holding his hand over a naked flame and not removing it until it had burned away.
Consul Publius Valerius Publicola thereafter sought to win over Porsenna arguing it was for him
to judge if Tarquin had not been a terrible tyrant whom the Romans were right to depose.
Porsenna should decide if Tarquin or the Romans should rule Rome. Tarquin angrily refused the
suggestion that Porsenna should be a judge over him. Offended, Porsenna lifted the siege and
left. So much to legend.
In reality, the opposite seems to have been the case. Porsenna captured Rome. He didn't place
Tarquinius back on the throne, which seems to indicate that he instead planned on ruling the city
himself. But Rome, though occupied, must have remained defiant. In an attempt to quell any
future revolts Porsenna banned anyone from owning iron weapons.
But this tyranny wasn't to last. Under Roman encouragement other cities in Latium revolted
against Etruscan domination. Finally, in 506 BC things came to a head. The allied Latin forces,
led by Aristhodemus, met at Aricia with an army which Porsenna had sent against them under
the command of his son Arruns.
The Latins won the battle. This was a decisive blow against the Etruscans and now, at last, Rome
had won its independence.
War with the Sabines
Consul Publius Valerius was now at the height of his powers. It was at this point people began
calling him 'Publicola' ('people's friend'). A war with the Sabines granted him the opportunity to
accompany his brother, who had been voted consul after his own term was up, in leading the
army to war. The brothers fought a succesful campaign, winning several victories (505 BC).
More so, Publicola managed to befriend some of the Sabine nobility. One of their foremost
leaders in fact decided to become Roman, bringing with him his entire tribe comprising five
thousand warriors. This leader was Attius Clausus. He was granted patrician rank, land beyond
the river Anio and adopted the name Appius Claudius Sabinus. He was the original ancestor of
the Claudius clan. Publius Valerius Publicola was not finished yet. The Sabines launched another
attack and And Publicola was at hand to reorganise the campaign. A crushing blow to the
Sabines was finally delivered at their capital Cures by the commander Spurius Cassius (504 BC).
The Sabines sued for peace.
Soon later Publicola died. The people of Rome granted him a state funeral within the city walls.
War with the Latin League
Rome was evidently the largest city within Latium. And the confidence it gained from this
knowledge made it lay claim to speak on behalf of Latium itself. And so in its treaty with
Carthage (510 BC) the Roman republic claimed control over considerable parts of the
countryside around it.
Though such claims the Latin League (the alliance of Latin cities) would not recognize. And so a
war arose about the very matter. Rome, having won independence from the Etruscans already
faced its next crisis. The very Latin force which had defeated the Porsenna's army at Aricia now
was used against Rome.
On the other hand, the man leading the Latin league against the Romans was Octavius Mamilius,
the son-in-law of King Tarquin.
There may therefore have been other reasons than merely the question of supremacy within the
league. In 496 BC the Roman forces met those of the Latin League at Lake Regillus. (Legend

13
has it that the divine twins Castor and Pollux, the Gemini, appeared to senator Domitius before
this battle, foretelling the Roman victory.)
Very tellingly King Tarquin was present at the battle, fighting the side of the Latin League.
The leader of the Latins, Octavius Mamilius, was killed in battle. King Tarquin was wounded.
Rome claimed victory. But if this was really so, is unclear. The battle may well have been an
indecisive draw. In either case, Rome's ability to withstand the combined might of Latium, which
had earlier defeated the Etruscans, must have been an astonishing fete of military prowess.
In about 493 BC a treaty between Rome and the Latin League was signed (the foedus
Cassianum). This might have been due to the Latin League admitting to Roman superiority on
the battle field at Lake Regillus. But more likely it was because the Latins sought a powerful ally
against the Italian hill tribes who were harassing them. Either way, the war with the Latin League
was over. The Roman republic now firmly established, King Tarquin retired to exile in
Tusculum, not to be heard of again.
The Early Conflict of the Orders
The revolt against King Tarquin and Porsenna was led entirely by the Roman nobility, so it was
essentially only the Roman aristocrats (the patricii) who held any power. All decisions of note
were taken in their assembly, the senate. Real power rested perhaps with little more or less than
fifty men. Within the nobility of Rome itself power centred around a few select families. For
large part of the fifth century BC names such as Aemilius, Claudius, Cornelius and Fabius would
dominate politics.
There was indeed an assembly for the people, the comitia centuriata, but its decisions all needed
the approval of the patrician nobles.
The economic situation of early Rome was dire. Many poor peasant fell into ruin and was taken
into slavery for non-payment of debt by the privileged classes.
Against such a background of hardship and helplessness at the hands of the nobles, the
commoners (called the 'plebeians ' (plebeii) organized themselves against the patricians. And so
arose what is traditionally called 'the Conflict of the Orders'.
One believes that the plebeians were partly inspired by Greek merchants, who most likely had
brought with them tales of the overthrow of the aristocracy in some Greek cities and the creation
of Greek democracy.
If inspiration came from Greek traders within Rome's walls, then the power the plebeians
possessed stemmed from Rome's need for soldiers. The patricians alone could not fight all the
wars which Rome was almost constantly involved in. This power was indeed demonstrated in the
'First Secession', when the plebeians withdrew to a hill three miles north east of Rome, the Mons
Sacer (or possibly to the Aventine).
Several such secessions are recorded (five in total, between 494 and 287 BC, although each one
is disputed).
Leadership of the plebeians was largely provided by those among them, perhaps wealthy
landowners with no noble blood, who served as tribunes in the military. Accustomed to leading
the men in war, they now did the same in politics.
It was most likely after the First Secession in 494 BC that the patricians recognized the plebeians
rights to hold meetings and to elect their officers, the 'tribunes of the people' (tribuni plebis).
Such 'tribunes of the people' were to represent the grievances of ordinary people to the consuls
and the senate. But apart from such a diplomatic role, he also possessed extraordinary powers.
He possessed the power of veto over any new law the consuls wanted to introduce. His duty was
to be on call day and night to any citizen who required his help.

14
The fact that plebeian demands didn't seem to go further than adequate protection from the
excesses of patrician power, seems to suggest that the people were largely satisfied with the
leadership which the nobility provided. And it should be reasonable to suppose that, despite the
differences voiced in the 'Conflict of the Orders', Rome's patricians and plebeians stood united
when facing any outside influence.
Coriolanus and the War with the Volscians
Caius Marcius Coriolanus is a figure of whom we are today not sure if he ever existed. He may
indeed be a myth, yet one can never be certain. The story goes that Coriolanus was defeated in
his bid to get elected consul. This was largely so because he had vehemently opposed the
creation of the office of Tribune of the People after the 'Conflict of the Orders'. Coriolanus,
however, was a man to bear grudges. When during a famine grain was shipped from Sicily, he
proposed that it only be distributed to the plebeians once they had forfeited their right of
representation by the Tribunes.
The suggestion outraged Rome. His fellow senators would not agree to starve their own people
for political gain.
Instead the grain was distributed without condition and Coriolanus was charged with treason by
the Tribunes. It was his record as a war hero in the war with the Volscians which saved
Coriolanus from death, though he was exiled from Rome (491 BC).
Coriolanus' skills as a military commander now attracted the attention of his old enemy, the
Volscians. Their leader Attius Tullius now offered him command of their forces.
The talented Coriolanus soon defeated the Roman army, driving them before him, until he and
his Volscian army besieged Rome itself. The Romans sent delegations, including his wife and
mother to beseeching him to lift the siege.
Finally, Coriolanus did retire his army, though it is unclear why. Possibly, the Romans ceded
them control of cities they had conquered from them, yet this is little more than guesswork.
Coriolanus never returned again. But the war with the Volscians was to was to continue on and
off for decades.
Rome as a regional Power
Rome had rid herself of Etruscan despots and achieved supremacy within the Latin League. Now
she stood at the head of Latium. But enemies still loomed all around; the Etruscans were still a
potent force and hill tribes such as the Volscians and Aequians threatened the plain of Latium.
Rome was therefore always at war, attacked or attacking her Etruscan neighbour Veii, or the
Volscians or Aequians, or an occasional Latin foe.
Meanwhile the Hernicians (Hernici), who were a Latin tribe wedged between the Aequians and
the Volscians, were won over as allies by Rome (486 BC). It was a typical example of the
Roman motto 'divide and conquer'.
When the Etruscan sea power was shattered by Hieron of Syracuse at Cumae in 474 BC, the
menace from Etruria was so much weakened that for nearly forty years there was no war with
Veii.
Capitolinus and Unrest in Rome
Back in Rome itself the Conflict of the Orders remained an ongoing problem. In 471 BC the
consulship was shared between Appius Claudius (we are not sure if this was in fact the original
Attus Clausus, or his son) and the impressive Titus Quinctius Capitolinus Barbatus. The former
carried on in much the same vein as Coriolanus and many proud and arrogant patricians, whereas
the latter tried to steady the ship of state at a tumultuous time. When Claudius was provoking the

15
crowds in the forum with an arrogant speech, it fell to his consular colleague Capitolinus to order
him removed from the forum by force before a riot ensued. Capitolinus was widely trusted and
respected. This popularity showed at the ballot box. He was already re-elected consul by 468 BC.
Rome desperately needed the steady, calm nerve of Capitolinus. The war with the Volscians and
Aequians continued and Rome was in ferment. The city was growing at a startling rate. The men
of voting age now numbered no fewer than 104,000. These were volatile, unpredictable times.
One day a wild rumour circulated that a Volscian army had evaded the legions and was marching
on the undefended capital. Panic gripped the city. Once more it was Capitolinus who calmed the
people, urging them to wait until it could be confirmed if the story were true or not. It wasn’t.
In 460 BC such was the chaos in the city that a Sabine called Herdonius, leading a party of slaves
and exiles captured and occupied the Capitol. Consul Valerius lost his life retaking the Rome’s
most prestigious hill. His replacement was one Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, whose name
should come to be the embodiment of republican virtues to all Romans (and not merely to
Romans, as the US city of Cincinnati illustrates). Cincinnatus was a patrician and opposed to
greater rights for the plebs. He used his consular office to block legislation put forward by the
tribunes of the people in favour of the plebeians. However, for the next year his political
opponents proposed the very same tribunes as candidates for office to see the legislation forced
through regardless. The senate, outraged at such selfish behaviour immediately nominated
Cincinnatus to take the office of consul again, in order to maintain the stalemate. Cincinnatus
refused the honour. He made it quite clear that he had no intention of breaking the rules of office
and standing in successive years, albeit that his opponents were cheating. May they be disgraced,
but no he. All Rome was impressed.
When an army under the command of Furius became trapped in Aequian territory Capitolinus,
no sooner had the news reached him, gathered up what soldiers he could, called upon the allied
Hernicians for support and marched on the Aequians and drove them off, allowing Furius and his
men to withdraw safely.
Cincinnatus
If Rome was straining in her war with the Aequians and Volscians, the situation became yet
more serious when the fierce tribe of the Sabines now also joined the fray. With one consular
army fully deployed, the other, under the command of consul Lucius Minucius, advanced to
attack the Sabine enemy garrison on Mt Algidus and found itself cut off and besieged. The
situation was dire and the Romans elected to appoint a dictator. This man, freed from the usual
restraints of office, should tackle the crisis. To grant such limitless powers was of course a great
risk. The appointment of a dictator always begged the question if the chosen man would readily
hand back power when his task was fulfilled. The choice fell upon Cincinnatus. No doubt all
Rome still remembered him as the man who rejected the opportunity of being made consul for a
successive year. The delegation of senators sent to bring him the message needed to travel to his
farm. The story goes that Cincinnatus had fallen on hard times. Paying the bail for his son Caeso
who, accused of murder, had fled into exile, had cost Cincinnatus his entire fortune. He’d retired
to a small holding outside Rome and living as a humble peasant farmer.
Now, one suspects that there was an element of political theatre involved here. Cincinnatus was
from an extremely rich family which owned vast swathes of land. Nevertheless the delegation
found him ploughing his fields (or digging a ditch) when they brought him the news of his
election to the office of dictator. What followed was remarkable. Cincinnatus left his farm,
levied an army in Rome, marched on the Sabines defeat them in battle and enabled Minucius’
army to retreat safely. On his return Cincinnatus celebrated a triumph and resigned his powers.

16
He had been dictator, - the supreme commander of Rome, - for only 15 days. Only one
extravagance had he allowed himself. He saw to it that the witness who had testified against his
son Caeso was expelled from Rome. He otherwise did not abuse his power in any way, did not
seek to extend it for a day longer than necessary. He merely did his duty and then returned to his
farm. In 439 BC Capitolinus was elected consul for sixth time. He and his colleague, Menenius
Agrippa, soon learned of a plot led by Spurius Maelius to seize power. At once they proposed
that Cincinnatus be made dictator for a second time to prevent this outrage. Cincinnatus, by now
in his eighties, soon dealt with the matter and Maelius came to a bloody end. Once more he
resigned his commission immediately. Within his lifetime Cincinnatus became a legend to the
Romans. Twice granted supreme power, he held onto it not for a day longer than absolutely
necessary. The high esteem in which Cincinnatus was held by his compatriots is best illustrated
with an anecdote towards the very end of his life. One of Cincinnatus’ sons was tried for military
incompetence. He was defended by none other than the great Capitolinus, who simply asked, if
the accused was convicted, who would go to tell the aged Cincinnatus the news. The son was
acquitted. The jury couldn’t bring itself to break the old man’s heart.
The Decemviri
One demand voiced by the plebeians as part of the Conflict of the Orders was that of written law.
For as long as there was no simply code of written rules, the plebeians remained virtually at the
mercy of the patrician consuls who decided what the law was.
So three eminent Romans were sent to Athens in 454BC to study the code of laws created by the
great Solon. The fact that they were sent to Athens once again suggests there being a strong
Greek influence upon the demands made by the plebeians. In 451 BC the delegation returned.
Their proposal was that for one year not two consuls but a group of ten men should run the
affairs of state and prepare the new code of laws. In practice this meant they would act as
supreme judges and their collected judgments would be used to build the code of laws over the
twelve months they were in office.
So in 451 BC a commission was set up. It consisted of ten patricians. They were called the
decemviri ('the ten men') and were charged with creating a simple code of laws within a year.
The man who should emerge as their leader was Appius Claudius Inregellensis Sabinus Crassus.
If his full name seems a bit of a mouthful it is no great surprise that today he is generally referred
to as Appius Claudius ‘the Decemvir’.
He was possibly the son or the grandson of the first Appius Claudius who came to Rome from
the Sabines. The two great men of Rome, Capitolinus and Cincinnatus, were excluded from the
decemviri, most likely due to their involvement with the expulsion of the witness in the trial of
Cincinnatus’ son Caeso.
After the year had passed, the decemviri had produced ten tables, listing the laws which should
govern Rome.
The plebeians were delighted. But it was judged by all that the work was unfinished and so
another ten men should be appointed, this time consisting of five patricians and five plebeians, to
complete the work.
The immense popularity of the Tables meant that now political heavyweights were keen to
become decemviri. Capitolinus and Cincinnatus were now also running.
Appius Claudius was the only of the previous decemvir to seek re-election. This was frowned
upon as an ominous thirst for power, contrary to the traditions of the republic. Capitolinus and
Cincinnatus instead proposed for him to preside over the election. If they assumed this would
stop him from standing as a candidate they were wrong.
Appius Claudius manipulated the rules so that the only major candidate in the election was he

17
himself. This was a frightful sign of what was to come. No sooner were the ten new decemviri
elected, then Rome awoke to a tyranny.
During the time in which the decemviri were in office the Roman constitution was no longer in
place, for they ruled in place of the consuls. The first year had seen the ten dutifully performing
their office as intended. However, the second year saw blatant injustice and their judgments
being made in favour of friends and cronies. The rich and powerful could leave for their villas in
the countryside and wait for the inevitable end to come. But the plebeians had no means of
escaping the tyranny.
The work to codify the laws of Rome was completed. The year passed. Yet the decemviri did not
stand down.
Some patricians such as the Horatii and Valerii, tried their best to oppose the tyrants, yet with
little success.
But with the plebeians being tyrannized, the army quickly was virtually refusing to fight.
Meanwhile the Aequians and Sabines were pressing hard. Disaster was looming.
Finally, Appius Claudius ‘the Decemvir’ utterly over-reached himself. Smitten with a girl called
Verginia who was engaged to another man, he fabricated a story by which a Marcus Claudius
claimed she was his slave. Appius Claudius presided over the trial himself and of course
proclaimed Verginia was indeed the slave of Marcus Claudius. No doubt this meant her betrothal
was invalid – and he therefore would be able to make his own move on Verginia.
Entire Rome was outraged. The girl’s father, a centurion called Verginius, killed her on hearing
the verdict rather than allowing her to be enslaved. The deed done he then fought his way out of
the city. It appears a large part of the city’s plebeians joined him. They took to the Janiculum Hill
on the far side of the Tiber and refused to return unless the decemviri resigned. So began the
Second Secession (449 BC).
With the Aequians and Sabines bearing down on Rome the surrender of the decemviri was
inevitable. Rome needed her army and for this she urgently needed the plebeians. The decemviri
resigned on one single condition; that they not be turned over to the plebeians who would have
torn them to pieces. If the other nine escaped punishment, the despised Appius Claudius now got
his just desserts. Verginius accused him of breaching one of the very laws laid down in the
Twelve Tables; that no-one should be permitted to falsely enslave a free person. He was thrown
into prison where he took his own life.
Although it is also possible that the Tribunes of the People killed him.
It is worth mentioning that, apart from the above version of the tale, some historians believe that
the same ten patrician devemviri ruled for two years, preparing the Twelve Tables. But when the
plebeians deemed the laws not far-reaching enough, they forced them to resign and instead
brought about the appointment of two more radically-minded consuls. In that case the tale of the
outrages of Appius Claudius would be mere fabrication.
In any event the creation of the Twelve Tables was a milestone in Roman history. Rome
henceforth should be a society ruled by law rather than by men.
The Twelve Tables
So came about the famous written Roman law, the Twelve Tables. The laws were engraved in
copper and permanently displayed to public view. The twelve copper tables were a simple set of
rules governing the public, private and political behaviour of every Roman.
War with Etruria, the Volscians, Aequians and Falerians
The power of the Aequian, Sabine and Volscian hill tribes was eventually – and inevitably -
broken. The Aequians were defeated on their stronghold on Mt Algidus in 431 BC. In all wars of

18
the fifth century BC the balance of victory lay with Rome and her allies.
Usually this involved a gain of territory by the victors, the lion's share going to Rome whose
strength therefore constantly increased.
By the end of the fifth century BC Rome had in fact become all but the mistress of Latium. The
Latin cities, known as the Latin League, might have still been independent, but they were
increasingly subject to Roman power and influence.
A final war with the Etruscans of Veii led to the great city’s fall in 396 BC when Marcus Furius
Camillus and his second-in-command Cornelius Scipio besieged it and successfully undermined
the walls. Veii was so important and beautiful a city, it’s conquest was a substantial victory for
Rome and marks a significant step in her ascent to power. Famously, the great statue of Juno,
queen of the gods, was taken from Veii, moved to Rome and placed in a temple specially built
for her.
The decisive victory over Veii, which added a great area on the west of the Tiber to Roman
territory, was in part due to pressure on Etruria by a new enemy, the Gauls, who by this time had
completely overrun the basin of the Po and from there were crossing the Apennines into Etruria
itself.
The Etruscans had also been driven out of their possessions in Campania, south-east of Latium,
by the Samnites, descending from the hills.
Rome virtually remained at a constant state of war. In 394 BC it was the turn of the Falerii.
When Camillus arrived to lay siege, a teacher kidnapped several noble children in his charge and
delivered them to the Romans, promising that with these hostages in Roman hands, the Falerians
were bound to surrender.
Camillus would have none of it. He freed the children and returned them to the Falerii, with the
treacherous teacher as their captive. The result was startling. So struck were the Falerians by the
honourable act of their enemy, they surrendered to him at once.
The surrender of the Falerii proved bad news for Camillus, for his army had hoped for plunder.
The division of the spoils from Veii had already disappointed many, now the failure to win any
loot from a foe that turned friend erupted in anger. His celebrations in Rome when on his
triumph having his chariot pulled by four white horses (deemed sacrilegious at the time) also had
done little for his popularity.
As was so often the case in the history of the republic, it ended in the courts. Camillus was
charged with stealing loot (from Veii) that belonged to the state.
He was sent into exile. Legend has it that Camillus in outrage at such injustice and ingratitude
prayed to the gods to make it so that Rome should be in need of his return.
Invasion by the Gauls
Camillus soon got his wish. The Gauls were coming. The invasion by the Gauls from the north
may have weakened Etruria so much that Rome had at last succeeded in conquering its old
enemy Veii, but it wasn’t long before the flood of Celtic barbarians should be heading for Rome
itself. There was no stopping this ferocious barbarian onslaught.
The Gauls rolled through Etruria and headed towards Rome. In 386 BC they met the Roman
army at Allia (11 miles outside Rome). The Roman allies broke and fled. The legionaries were
outflanked and crushed. It was a massive defeat.
Legends afterwards tell us of the invasion of the city. Barbarians are said to have broken into the
senate house and been awestricken by the dignity of the silent, seated senators, before
massacring them all. The attempt of a surprise attack on the besieged Capitol was frustrated by
the cackling of sacred geese of Juno which warned the Roman guards.

19
Rome’s desperate plight called for the exiled Camillus. Appointed dictator, he raced to gather
what forces he could. Shattered Roman contingents were drawn together and allies summoned.
As Rome bled the man she had so ungratefully thrown out was now was her only hope for
rescue.
Romans and Gauls, after months of occupation, sought to reach a settlement. The Gauls (from
the powerful tribe of the Senones) were falling prey to disease and had also received news that
their own territory was invaded by the Veneti in their absence. Food was also in short supply and
any sorties into the countryside to loot foodstuffs were met by Camillus and his forces. A famine
was threatening. No doubt the Gauls were keen to turn home, though no more than the Romans
wished them to leave. So it was agreed that a ransom was to be paid. The sum was colossal: one
thousand pounds of gold.
Legend gave us the famous scene of the huge ransom being weighed out on scales fixed by the
Gauls. When Quintus Sulpicius complained at such cheating, the Gallic chief Brennus added his
sword to the counterweight with the words 'Vae victis' ('Woe to the vanquished').
Before the ransom was ever paid, Camillus and his army arrived. Brennus was told by his new
adversary that Rome would pay not in gold, but in steel.
This story of Camillus and his ramshackle forces defeating the Gallic horde has a hint of
propaganda about it, invented to disguise a defeat and – worse - Rome being at the mercy of
barbarians and needing to buy her freedom. Yet we cannot discount entirely that the story may
be true. The recurring theme of Roman history is the strength of her resources. When defeated
she always regrouped and fought back again and again. Also, there may have been allies willing
to support Camillus, if only to prevent the Gallic rampage from heading their way from Rome.
So the tale of Camillus' victory over the Gauls may possibly be true.
The definite fact which survives is that the Gauls, having swept devastatingly over Etruria,
poured into Rome, sacked it, and then rolled back to the north.
Etruria never recovered from the blow, whilst Rome reeled under it.
Rome rebuilt
The city of Rome had been ravaged by war. The Gauls may have not been able to take the
Capitol, yes, much of the remaining city had been laid waste.
So badly mauled had the city been by the barbarian sacking, it was even considered to abandon
Rome and to move the population to the beautiful city of Veii instead. Of course this never
happened. Instead building materials were provided at public expense, that every citizen should
rebuild his home, as long as he gave an undertaking to do so within the year.
It was often said that Rome’s ramshackle layout and its chaotic city streets were direct result of
this rushed reconstruction. So too it appears that the Romans, as part of this rebuild, now finally
decided on a proper city wall.
What is called the Servian Wall, as Romans attributed it to King Servius Tullius (who much
more likely only built the agger earthworks on the Quirinal, Viminal and Esquiline Hills), is
generally believed to have been built after the retreat by the Gauls.
The wall spanned five miles in circumference with nineteen gates, embracing all seven hills of
Rome. This new impenetrability only further re-enforced roman claims to dominance over the
wider region. Hence she could wage war in the region with no fear for her own safety, as the
tribes had not the means of breaching such defences.
The Later Conflict of the Orders
The Gauls having withdrawn and Rome being the confirmed leader of Latium, the old struggle
between the patricians and the plebeians renewed in intensity again.

20
Naturally, it had in effect never gone away but had continued on as a process which now came to
a head.
The small plebeian landowners ached under the strain of military service and the terrible losses
they had suffered during the invasion of the Gauls.
They looked with resentment upon the patricians who still commanded the consulship and so had
access to decisions regarding what should happen to conquered land. Land no doubt many
plebeians hoped for receiving a share of to alleviate their hardships.
One major effect the wars had had on Roman society was to reduce the number of patricians
significantly. Having a share of the army beyond their proportion of the populace, the patricians
had had to suffer terrible losses during the wars.
Apart from this, several patrician families saw political advantages in championing the cause of
the plebeians, so gaining vast popularity, but serving to further undermine the status of the
patrician class. Largely these will have been the families of those who had intermarried between
the classes, ever since it had been allowed in 445 BC.
Aside from this, the wealthier plebeians now had their eyes on power, seeking to hold office
themselves rather than merely attending the senate.
With the patricians weakened and the aspirations of the plebeians on the rise, the erosion of the
constitutional differences between the two classes was inevitable.
The 'Licinian Rogations'
It fell to two tribunes of the people, Caius Licinius Stolo and Lucius Sextius to propose a great
reform bill. The bill dealt with matters of debt and land reform, but most significantly it proposed
admission of plebeians to the office of consul. Naturally, the patricians rejected the proposal out
of hand, for it seemed to undermine their wealth, their land holdings and their privileges of office
in equal measure. But Licinius and Sextius were made of stern stuff. They now followed a policy
of vetoing any election, making state business impossible. This period in Roman history is at
times referred to as ‘the anarchy’, as Rome possessed no government to speak of. The only
elections which the two permitted were those for the tribunes of the people. The people again
and again saw to it that Licinius and Sextius were re-elected and could continue to block any
government matters, until the patricians gave way.
The patricians put up a brave struggle to defend their privileges. But the writing was on the wall.
In fact it was the very hero of the patrician faction, Camillus, who in his final dictatorship,
granted him to fight off the second invasion of the Gauls, forced the senate to accept the 'Licinian
Rogations' (367 BC). With a stroke, the consuls were now to be one patrician and one plebeian.
The principle was now established that plebeians could indeed rule. The deadlock was broken.
The rich and powerful soon found ways around those parts of the Licinian Rogations which dealt
with debt and land distribution.
But the requirement that one of the consuls must be a plebeian was the death-blow to the
privileges of the old aristocracy.
The Conflict of the Orders should last for several decades thereafter, but the winners were
inevitably going to be the plebeians. If the patrician struggle for their exclusive right to various
offices continued, the law of 367 BC was the beginning of the end. In 356 BC Rome saw the first
plebeian dictator take office. By 351 BC the first plebeian took the office of censor. By 342 BC
both consuls could be plebeian. By 300 the praetorship was open to plebeians.
Rome rising power within Italy
In 367 BC the Gauls came south anew, but Camillus now had the measure of them. They were
unceremoniously defeated and driven back north. That same year, 367 BC, the great tyrant

21
Dionysius of Syracuse died, leaving to his son an empire which at that moment seemed destined
to dominate Italy, a more mighty power than the expanding republic on the Tiber. Syracuse stood
supreme as the most powerful Greek city state. Yet it soon crumbled, having been held together
largely by Dionysius’ personal genius, rather than being a coherent empire. So, as Syracuse
waned its dominions in southern Italy represented tempting prizes to whomsoever could muster
the strength to conquer them.
Of course the lack of a strong, well established imperial power on Italian soil proved of immense
benefit to the expansion of the Roman state. Though initially it only benefited the wild Italian
hill tribes who now began to harass the rich Greek merchant cities of the Magna Graecia
(southern Italy).
Rome may have been a significant power in Italy, but the area of her supremacy was still limited
to Latium and a portion of Etruria.
Now she was to be faced with a new and formidable foe, the Samnite confederacy.
A major part in Rome’s continual ascent was played by the series of Samnite wars beginning in
363 BC and ending in 290 BC.
But even before the struggle with the Samnites opened, Rome’s ascendancy after the Gallic
invasion was seriously threatened. It was perhaps only because the neighbours who feared her
dreaded still more the Gallic menace from which they had already suffered so severely, that
Rome was able to do more than merely hold her own. There were, moreover, Latin cities which
even allied with the Gauls against her, thereby forcing the rest of the Latins, however reluctantly,
to throw themselves under the protection of Rome. The Latin League was renewed on terms
more definitely emphasizing the superior status of Rome (358 BC), and the third Gallic tide was
rolled back in 358 BC (or possibly 360BC). But not without Rome heaving to retire behind her
new walls and await the Gallic retreat.
Etruscan cities seized the opportunity to attack Rome in the hour of her embarrassment. She
suffered some defeats, but by 351 BC the Etruscans were forced to accept a peace for forty years.
After this Gallic invasion the Romans decided it wise to set up an emergency fund (the aerarium
sanctius) that was to be used in the event of another invasion. This special reserve was kept in
the state treasury at the temple of Saturn at the Roman Forum.
In that year and the next the Gauls renewed hostilities yet again, only to be driven off by the son
of the great Camillus who had beaten them forty years before.
The Latins were held well in hand, and Etruria was bound to peace for many years to come.
Rome now stood virtually unchallenged in her immediate region. At this stage, Carthage
recognized Rome as the coming great power, and agreed with her the momentous treaty of 348
BC - in the view of some authorities, the first between the two states, while others regard it as a
simple renewal of a treaty supposedly made in 509 BC, the very first year of the republic.
If the Gallic menace persisted it was diminishing. By 331 BC the fierce Gallic tribe of the
Senones finally sued for peace.
Roman Treaty with Carthage
In the treaty of 348 BC Carthage undertook to respect all Latin territory and coast towns as a
Roman sphere of influence.
Carthage was barred from possession of territory, but not from action.
In particular, if the Carthaginians should sack a town in Latium which was not under Roman
protection, captives and loot may be taken away, though the site was thereafter to become a
Roman possession. The treaty seems to have made a significant distinction between areas under
direct Roman protection and cities who were mere allies of Rome. Cities under Roman rule were
to be immune from Carthaginian attack altogether, whereas allies were not.

22
Roman traders and merchants were granted admission to the ports of Africa, Sardinia and Sicily,
as well as to Carthage itself.
Roman ships of war were to enjoy access to these ports in wars against third parties.
Carthaginian merchants were granted access to Rome.
The Romans in turn were excluded from settling in Sardinia and Africa and accepted limits on
Roman seafaring. Importantly, Carthage was granted freedom of military action in Italy.
It seems to have been a major Carthaginian concern to prevent Rome interfering in any of its
attacks on Greek cities in the south. Evidently Carthage was aware of Rome’s growing military
prowess.
First Samnite War
Five years after the conclusion of the treaty with Carthage, Rome was at war with the Samnites.
For centuries the hill tribes of the Appennines had sought to conquer the plains below. In Latium
such tribes as the Aequians, Volsquians and Sabines had come up against the Romans.
Yet further south, in the Campania the Samnite confederacy was now surging into the plain of
Campania. The Samnites had a reputation as fearsome, only half-civilised mountain warriors.
Ironically the vanquished Campanians largely proved to be descendants of previous Samnite
invaders who had settled down to less warlike living.
Rome had wisely chosen to ally with the Samnites. It may in fact have been the case that some
previous campaigns against the Gauls had seen Samnite allies fighting alongside Roman
legionaries.
Yet now a great price beckoned that would divide them. Capua, one of the richest cities of Italy.
As the hill tribes in the south of Italy were battering Greek cities no longer protected by the great
naval power of Syracuse, these appealed to Greece for help.
However, Capua and the Campanians turned to Rome. The city itself has seen its army defeated
and driven behind its walls, with the Samnites not camped out on Mount Tifata just outside the
city.
Rome renounced her treaty with the Samnites and marched her armies south to Campania. The
Roman hero Marcus Valerius Corvus headed one consular army. He defeated the Samnites at
Mount Gaurus and again at Suessula. The other army, commanded by Cornelius, was first
trapped in the Samnite valleys. But once extracated by the intervention of a third Roman force
commanded by Publius Decius Mus, Cornelius went on to add yet another decisive victory to the
Roman campaign.
The Samnites were roundly defeated and driven out of the plain of Campania.
The victory was impressive. Italian hill tribes were usually not that easily dealt with. In two
years, 343 and 342 BC, Rome had extended her sphere of influence with consummate ease. So
striking was this success that Carthage sent an embassy to congratulate Rome on her triumph.
Mutiny of the Army
Yet Rome was not to have it all her way. Far from it. In 342 BC she was struck by the mutiny of
some of her own troops in Campania. Rome had never stationed garrisons such a distance from
the city itself and the men proved unwilling to protect Capuans from Samnites indefinitely. Yet
there were also problems within the structure of the army itself as some of the privileged abused
their positions to bestow favours and the equestrian horsemen were paid three times the rate of
ordinary infantry. If the mutiny started in Campania it soon spread and a rebellious army was
eventually camped only eight miles from Rome. Meanwhile there was the war with the Samnites
to consider. It was clear one could not continue a war with a mutinous army camped outside
one’s own gates.

23
Somehow at the moment of victory against the Samnites, where foreign powers acknowledged
Rome’s prowess, the Roman mutiny had managed to turn a triumph into an utter fiasco.
Marcus Valerius Corvus was appointed dictator to deal with this debacle. Rather than seek a
fight he chose to negotiate a settlement and address the concerns of the soldiery. Rules were
introduced to discourage abuse of privilege and promises were made to address matters of unfair
pay. Also Valerius had the wisdom not to seek punishment of any ringleaders. He had realized
that initial promises of negotiation that disguised a desire to separate, arrest and punish the
leaders of the mutiny had only further inflamed feelings among the ranks.
Rome’s temporary weakness forced her to settle the war with the Samnites who luckily were also
being challenged on another frontier at the time and hence sued for peace (341 BC). The treaty
provided not only for peace between the two sides, but renewed their old alliance.
The Great Latin War
Yet a much greater crisis loomed as a consequence of the Roman mutiny.
When the mutiny forced Rome to make peace with the Samnites, the Campanians, depending on
their ally, found themselves suddenly abandoned. More so, the Latins who had been forced into a
war with the Samnites they had never asked for, suddenly felt themselves still at war with the
fierce hill tribe, while the Romans who had dragged them into it had bailed out and come to
terms.
Worse, Rome was now allied with the Samnite enemy!
It was therefore perfectly understandable that the Latins and the Campanians felt betrayed. They
now formed an alliance of their own, which the Volscians also joined).
Further, the Latins demanded of Rome that the treaty of the Latin League be re-negotiated
allowing the Latins equal say in matters, that they never be drawn into a war against their own
will again.
This may indeed have been a challenge to Roman dominance but, given the recent fiasco, it
sounded perfectly justifiable. Had it remained at that Rome may well have come to terms with
her neighbours. Fatally, the Latins went further. They demanded that the Roman constitution be
amended, whereby one of the consuls and a significant proportion of seats in the Roman senate
be set aside for Latins.
For large image click on
picture

This Rome could never accept. The Latins had been foolish enough to
provide the Romans with a cause for war.
Marcus Valerius Corvus had very quickly succeeded in quashing the
mutiny, mainly by reconciliation. His forces were ready the moment
war was declared (340 BC). While the Latins were still gathering their
forces, Valerius marched his troops south, united with an army of
Samnite allies and then, at Suessa Aurunca, descended upon a Latin-
Campanian army which was utterly defeated.
Rome now offered the Campanians a favourable peace. Of course they
accepted. It was a classic example of the motto: ‘divide and conquer.’
This left the Latins to face the Roman-Samnite war machine with only
the Volscians as allies. The outcome was inevitable. In two years of
campaigning Rome thoroughly defeated the Latins and conquered the Latin warrior of the
city of Antium. 4th century BC
Museo della Civilta,
Rome

24
The effect of the 'Great Latin War' was to tighten Rome's grip upon Latium and to provide her
with more lands upon which to settle her ever-increasing agricultural population. The Latin
League was finally dissolved (338 BC). Some of the cities were granted full Roman rights,
others were admitted to civil but not to political rights of Roman citizenship. All were debarred
from forming separate alliances with each other or any external power.
Rome no longer dominated a Latin alliance. Rome now ruled Latium.
Alexander 'the Molossian'
The south of Italy with its Greek colonies had fallen under Syracusan dominance during the
reign of Dionysius. However, with his death in 367 BC and the subsequent demise of Syracusan
power, this area, known as Magna Graecia, had become disputed territory.
If Dionysius had used the fierce Italian hill tribes against the Greek cities in order to bring them
under his sway, then now these same hill tribes formed the Bruttian League and set out to
conquer these dominions for themselves.
In 343 BC the city of Tarentum finally appealed for help to the mighty city state of Sparta.
In response, the Spartan King Archidamus headed an expedition. Yet it failed disastrously and
the king was killed in battle with the Lucanians in 338 BC.
Next in 334 BC, when Alexander the Great was starting on the great eastern venture, his uncle
Alexander 'the Molossian' of Epirus answered the call of the Tarentines, very likely with imperial
dreams of his own.
Alexander of Epirus proved himself an able general and Rome soon saw it wise to form a treaty
with him promising not to intervene in favour of the Samnites (334BC). Given that the Samnites
were allies of Rome at the time this was a clear breach of faith.
Yet Rome was most likely concerned about the strength and quality of Greek military power
being deployed and hence sought to remain neutral.
The Molossian’s success was rapid, as he defeated the Samnites and Lucanians in battle and
conquered town after town.
So startling were these successes, Tarentum now grew worried about the ambitions of the man
whose help she had sought.
Yet Alexander’s career was to be cut short. In 330 BC a Lucanian assassin stabbed him before he
could consolidate his power in Italy. He left no successor to carry on his project in Magna
Graecia.
The Second Samnite War
The period between the Great Latin War and the Second Samnite War saw the two main military
powers jostling for position on the Italian mainland. The Romans gradually increased their
influence in Campania, founding colonies in strategic places, helping to secure Capua against
any threat from the Samnites. Meanwhile the Samnite confederacy continued to make war upon
Tarentum to the south.
So far, the supposed allies could continue their uneasy peace.
But when in 334 BC the Romans agreed a treaty with Alexander ‘the Molossian’ not to aid the
Samnites any illusions of their being allies were dispelled.
For several years the anxious piece held. Finally, in 327 BC a local dispute in the city of
Neapolis saw the Samnites establish a garrison there. Capua inevitably complained to Rome. The
Romans sought to negotiate with the Samnites but were rebuffed.
What had seemed inevitable all along had now come to pass. The two chief military powers were
going to fight it out for predominance on the Italian peninsula.
The Romans laid siege to Neapolis and the Second Samnite War began (326 BC).

25
This war posed a new challenge altogether to the Romans. Had the first war against the Samnites
proven that the legions could deal with the hill men in the plains of Campania yet taking them on
in their mountain strongholds was an entirely different matter.
So at first a stalemate ensued, whereby the Samnites could not venture into the plains, yet the
Romans could not ascend into the mountains.
In 325 BC Rome began to venture further afield, for the first time having an army cross to the
Adriatic coast. Minor victories were won and valuable allies gained.
The war moved slowly, yet the initiative seemed to lie with the Romans.
Then in 321 BC disaster struck.
The Caudine Forks
As Rome attempted a frontal assault on the Samnite heartland an army of 20,000 Romans and
allies, led by the republic’s two consuls, was trapped by the Samnite general Caius Pontius in a
mountain pass between Capua and Beneventum known as the Caudine Forks, where it could
neither advance nor retreat. The Roman army faced certain annihilation and was forced to
surrender.
The terms imposed were one of the gravest humiliations Rome suffered in all her history. One
had lost without a fight.
The troops were disarmed and compelled to undergo an ancient ritual of subjugation. Man by
man, as a foe vanquished and disgraced, they were made to pass ‘under the yoke’. In this case it
was a yoke made from Roman spears, as it was understood to be a greate indignity to the Roman
soldier to lose his spear.
Meanwhile the captive consuls agreed to a peace treaty by which Rome would surrender several
of her Campanian towns and hand over no less than six hundred equestrians as hostages.
The army returned home in disgrace. The consuls resigned. Rome was humiliated.
The senate refused to accept the treaty. It argued that the two consuls had not possessed the
authority to accept such conditions without prior sanction by the senate of Rome. (Technically,
power over declarations of war and peace lay with the comitia centuriata and foreign policy with
the senate.)
Of course this was pure semantics. Rome would use any excuse to allow her to fight on and
expunge the humiliation she had just suffered.
Cruelly the two consuls were delivered to the Samnites as that the enemy may do to them as they
wished, as punishment for their agreeing to a treaty without proper authorization. The only to
emerge from this affair with honour was Caius Pontius. For when the Samnite general was
presented with the two Romans he simply rejected any idea of punishing them and sent them
back to Rome as free men. Pontius knew that his rejection of savagery added only further to
Rome’s shame.
The war now returned to the slow pace it had taken prior to the rash attack that had led to the
Caudine catastrophe.
At first the Samnites held the upper hand. Rome was forced out of some strongholds and in 315
BC Roman strategy to push onward toward the Adriatic suffered a crushing blow at the Battle of
Lautulae.
Rome reeled. Campania was on the verge of deserting. Capua briefly even switched sides and
allied with the Samnites.
But Rome, as was her strength through out the ages, redoubled her efforts. Her infantry levy was
increased from two to four legions.
The war began to turn in Rome’s favour. In 314 BC the Samnite stronghold of Luceria was
conquered and made a Roman colony. Importantly, the 600 equestrians held as hostages ever

26
since the Caudine Forks were freed with the conquest of Luceria.
The Samnite confederacy found itself invariably pushed back on every front.
Capua hastily surrendered and became a Roman ally yet again (314 BC).
In 312 BC by order of censor Appius Claudius Caecus, Rome began construction of the Via
Appia, the first of her famous military highways. It was to connect Rome with Capua, allowing
her to move troops and supplies to her ally with much greater ease.
In 311 BC a new challenge arose. The Samnite managed to rouse several allies to revolt against
Roman overlordship. After fourty years of peace the Tarquinians and Falerians led the Etruscan
revolt. So to the old enemies, the Aequians, rose up. In the central mountains the Marsi and
Paeligni also changed sides. Even Rome’s old allies, the Hernicians, rebelled.
Serious as all these revolts sound, they could only have helped tip the balance if the Samnites
still were equal to Roman power. Yet clearly they were so no longer. Rome was now capable of
fighting on two fronts at once, holding and defeating the Etruscans whilst continuing their
advance against the Samnite mountain strongholds. In 304 BC the Samnites sued for peace.
Treaties were concluded all round with the Samnites, the Etruscans, and the minor hill tribes who
had risen.
Rome could afford to be generous, having established her military supremacy over all parties
involved.
The Third Samnite War
After the end of the Second Samnite War Rome was at liberty to take her time and tie up any
loose ends left by the war.
It seemed obvious that the contest with the Samnites was not yet over and so Rome sought to set
her affairs in order in expectation of the inevitable contest.
Having gained peace with the Etruscans and the Samnites Rome sought to settle the smaller
tribes.
The Hernicians were granted citizenship. The Aequians were crushed and had their mountain
strongholds dismantled. The Via Valeria was then begun to connect Roman with the Aequian
territory. Once no longer of any military threat, the Aequians too were granted citizenship.
A brief war with the mountain tribe of the Marsi in central Italy saw them defeated and thereafter
granted a renewed alliance.
The war with the Etruscans had brought their northern neighbours, the Umbrians, into the Roman
sphere of influence. In a brief war the Umbrian city of Narnia was conquered and saw a Roman
colony established in its place. The Via Flaminia was begun to allow easy Roman access to her
new colony. Alliances with several Umbrian cities were entered into.
After this brief period of consolidation, Rome dominated a wide area of central Italy, was the
senior power in a great many alliances and possessed crucial military roads leading north, south
and west.
In 298 BC the Lucanians in the south of Italy approached Rome for help against the Samnites
who were invading their territory. No doubt Rome, now truly the major power in Italy, must
have been eager to settle this old rivalry once and for all.
For the sake of formality the senate demanded the Samnites withdraw from Lucania. As
expected, the Samnites rejected this demand and war as declared.

27
 For large image click on
picture

Lucius Scipio Barbatus marched his army south of Campania into

Lucania where he swiftly drove the Samnites out of the region.
Yet Rome’s forces were now stretched. Never before had she operated
with her troops so far south. In 296 BC the Samnites attacked with two
separate forces. The lesser army moved into Campania, the major
force, commanded by one Gellius Egnatius, moved north through
Sabine territory and Umbria until it reached the boarder with the Gallic
tribe of the Senones.
All along its march it had gathered further forces. Now it was joined by
the fierce Senones and many Etruscans. This vast host now met the
army of Scipio Barbatus who had been following Egnatius ever since
he broke out of Samnite territory. The Romans under Scipio Barbatus
Samnite warrior of the
3rd century BC suffered a crushing defeat at Camerinum (295 BC).
Museo della Civilta,
Rome
The Samnites, conscious of the enormous power their enemy was becoming, had raised the
stakes to heights never yet seen in Italy. Having been made aware of the tremendous danger by
the defeat of Camerinum, Rome levied an unprecedented force in response and put 40,000 men
into the field under the command of Fabius Rullianus and Publius Decius Mus.
It must have been apparent to all that the contest of these two great forces would decide the fate
of Italy.The armies met at Sentinum in 295BC. Fabius commanded the left and calmly held the
Samnite force in check, gradually gaining the advantage. Decius saw his right wing gruesomely
mauled by the fierce Gauls and their terrifying chariots. The Roman right held, though only just.
Decius lost his life stemming the Gallic charge. It was enough. With the right wing holding, the
gradual advance of the left against the Samnites decided the battle. The Samnite leader Egnatius
died in the slaughter and his coalition lost a very great number of men.
Within the year (295 BC) Fabius received the surrender of the Umbrian rebels and the Gauls
sued for peace. By 294 BC the Etruscan cities who had joined in revolt also had made their peace
with Rome.The crushing defeat of the Samnites and her allies in the north, now left Rome to deal
with Samnite territory.Lucius Papirius Cursor invaded Samnium and at Aquilonia in 293 BC
achieved a crushing victory over the enemy, not merely defeating their main host but crushing
the infamous ‘Linen Legion’ which represented the elite fighting force of the Samnites. The
battle of Aquilonia also saw Lucius Scipio Barbatus redeemed from his defeat at Camerinum.
Commanding the left wing, he rushed the gates of the city which had been opened to allow the
defeated army to retreat to safety.
The Battle of Aquilonia therefore saw the Samnites lose their elite fighting corps, the city of
Aquilonia, suffer the death of 20,000 men and the capture of 3,500 more.
Rightly famed for their courage and tenacity the Samnites fought on, yet their case was hopeless.
Consul Manius Curius Dentatus defeated them a last time in 290 BC and thereafter the Samnites
simply could fight no more.
In 290 BC peace was agreed, perhaps on more favourable terms for the Samnites than Rome
would have granted any less dogged foe.They lost territory and were forced to become allies.
Virtually all around the Samnites their neighbours now were allied with Rome, so making any

28
further, independent Samnite actions impossible.Roman military colonies were settled in
Campania as well as on the eastern outskirts of Samnium.
The 'Hortensian Law'
The year 287 BC saw the final episode of the Conflict of the Orders. The Licinian Rogations in
367 BC had primarily dealt with the right of plebeians to stand for election to the consulship.
However it also dealt with land reform and debt.
Yet, the latter two points had easily been circumvented by the rich and powerful. But after the
end of the Third Samnite War the issue of debt boiled over yet again. The last secession saw the
plebeians yet again abandon Rome and take to the Janiculum Hill across the Tiber.
Q. Hortensius was elected dictator to resolve the crisis.
He set in place several laws to satisfy plebeian demands. The laws provided for the distribution
of public land to the citizens and the cancellation of debts.One suspects that, as usual, such
legislation will have met with only limited success.
Most significantly though, the Hortensian Law also granted the plebeian assembly (concilium
plebis) the right to pass laws which would be binding for all Romans, be they plebeians or
patricians.In this last leap, power had finally been established in the hands of the ordinary people
of Rome. The privilege of the aristocracy had been broken.
Yet one needs to be cautious not to overstate this change. The Hortensian Law was a momentous
step, no doubt. It brought to an end the gradual erosion of the power of those whose sole
qualification was aristocratic birth. The patrician cause was lost.
Yet power and privilege remained entirely with the rich. Sure, it no longer matter if an
individual’s wealth had descended from patrician or plebeian ancestry. Nonetheless, wealth
remained the main requirement to achieving any position of power.
Even if the concilium plebis had gained the right to pass laws, the ordinary citizens had no voice
in those meetings. The speakers in both law-giving chambers, the concilium plebis and the
comitia tributa, were always the privileged rich. So if it was the poor who dominated those
councils by vote, it was the privileged who decided on what they would be voting.
War with the Etruscans and Gauls
The unrest stirred up by Egnatius and his northern campaign in the Third Samnite War
reverberated from some time in the north of Italy.
In 284 BC an army of Etruscans and Gauls from the Senones tribe laid siege to Arretium. The
Roman force sent to relieve the city suffered a crushing defeat, losing 13,000 men.
Several Etruscans cities now joined the revolt. Pockets of unrest ranged as far as Samnium and
Lucania. The war was brief, yet fought with startling intensity. Rome, her troops not tied down
by any other conflict, was at liberty to commit as many troops as necessary to root out the
problem once and for all. She did so harshly.
The Etruscan uprising was crushed. Manius Curius Dentatus led a powerful force into the
territory of the Senones.
The Gallic army was wiped out and the wider area was put to the torch. The tribe of the Senones
was driven out altogether from the lands lying between the rivers Rubicon and Aesis. Into this
devastated region the Romans then planted the colony of Sena to dominate it henceforth.
So brutal had the campaign been, the territory around Sena was laid waste for fifty years.
The Gallic neighours of the Senones, the Boii, now feared similar fate and invaded Etruria in
great numbers. The Etruscans saw this once more as an opportunity to join the fight against
Roman rule.
In 283 BC P. Cornelius Dolabella met their joint forces near Lake Vadimo and defeated them.

29
In 282 BC the Boii attempted yet another invasion, yet were again severely defeated.
They sued for peace and gained a treaty on fairly easy terms, most likely as by now Rome’s
attention was drawn to the south of Italy where trouble was stirring with Tarentum and King
Pyrrhus. So heavily had the Gauls been defeated, the peace should hold for another fifty years.
The Etruscan rebels would fight on for some time longer yet eventually capitulated in the face of
inevitable defeat. They two were granted easy terms, at a time when Rome urgently required
peace in its northern territories.
Pyrrhus of Epirus (318-272 BC)
Since the death of Alexander ‘the Molossian’ in 330 BC, the contest between the hill tribes of
southern Italy and the Greek cities had continued unabated.
The city of Tarentum had continually sought help from Greek powers but had achieved little.
Neither the intervention of Cleonymus of Sparta in 303 BC nor Agathocles of Syracuse in 298
BC had led to any improvement.
More so, had some of these interventions seen Tarentum act in selfish disregard for the interests
of other Greek cities in Magna Graecia, then these cities had come to view Tarentum with
suspicion. In 282 BC the Greek city of Thurii on the Gulf of Otranto at the very heel of Italy
asked Rome for help against persistent attacks from Lucanians and Bruttians.
When Rome intervened, sending a consul C.Fabricius with a force and a small fleet, Tarentum
protested. The Tarentines saw it as a breach of their treaty of 302 BC, which barred Roman
vessels from entering the Bay of Tarentum. Rome argued that treaty was obsolete given that the
political situation had since substantially changed, not least with the destruction of Samnite
power. Also, they argued, they were merely there to help defend a fellow Greek neighbour of the
Tarentines.
Meanwhile, the Tarentines still harboured resentment for the perceived insult they had suffered
when Rome had rebuffed any of their efforts to mediate between the warring factions in the
Third Samnite War. Now this intervention into their sphere of influence was seen as further
provocation. Yet still the uneasy peace held.
Fabricius’ campaign was swift and successful. Having expelled the Lucanian and Bruttian
invaders he returned to Rome with his main force, leaving behind a protective garrison and some
of the patrol vessels.
It was then the Tarentines lashed out. They mobilised their forces and attacked the Roman
garrison in Thurii and sank or captured several Roman ships in the bay. This extreme reaction
may be explained by volatile factors in interior Tarentine politics at the time. It is also likely that
Tarentum was willing to grudgingly tolerate Roman intervention at Thurii, yet saw a Roman
garrison remaining behind as a step too far.
The Romans reacted surprisingly peaceably. Possibly because they were still engaged with
settling the short and sharp war with the Gauls of the Boii and Senones tribes and some Etruscan
cities. They may have had no appetite for a major engagement in the very south of the peninsula
and hence sought to come to a peace agreement.
All that was asked of the Tarentines was to provide compensation for the sunken ships.
Tarentum however felt buoyed by the news that yet another foreign ruler had committed himself
to fight for their cause and rejected the Roman demand.
The man who had pledged his assistance was no lesser than King Pyrrhus of Epirus.
For large image click on
picture
Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was nephew and successor of Alexander 'the
Molossian' who had brought help before. He was married to a daughter
of Agathocles of Syracuse which thereby may have given him hope of

30
 succeeding to that throne in time. Sicily may therefore have been his
real objective, southern Italy merely being a stepping stone to that end.
Pyrrhus may well have seen this as his opportunity to do in the west,
what Alexander the Great had achieved so famously in the east. This
may not have been a vain hope. King Pyrrhus possessed a reputation as
the greatest military leader since Alexander the Great.
King Pyrrhus of
Epirus
Museo della Civilta,
Rome
As befitting his reputation, Pyrrhus arrived with an army of 25,000 men, drawn from various
quarters of the ‘successor states’ to Alexander’s empire. He was also to introduce the war
elephant onto the western battle field, bringing with him twenty of these fearsome animals.
The Tarentines quickly realized that they had got more than they had bargained for when they
were placed under martial law (281 BC). The other Greek cities remained at a distance, not
having asked for the famous general’s services in the first place.
Rome naturally was worried. She faced a challenge as never before. The very finest in Greek
arms was assembled against her.
A very large force was raised, down to the lowest class of citizens, who were least likely ever to
be called up.
One consular army was dispatched north to put down yet another rising by the Etruscans. The
other, commanded by Publius Valerius Laevinus, was sent south to meet Pyrrhus. Laevinus
marched through Lucania where he needed to garrison some of his forces to secure his retreat.
With a force of 20,000 men Laevinus then met with Pyrrhus at Heraclea (280 BC).
The battle was ferocious. The Roman legions proved a match for Pyrrhus highly trained phalanx.
Even the notoriously unreliable Roman cavalry gained some success. At one point Pyrrhus had
his horse killed from under him and needed to be saved.
Yet the Romans had never yet seen, no matter fought, an elephant. The war elephants threw the
Roman cavalry into disarray and the horsemen were driven off.
This left the Roman legions’ flanks exposed. They were outflanked and put to rout. The Roman
losses are reported to have been 15’000 men. Given their initial total of 20,000, that was a
crushing defeat.
Yet Pyrrhus army itself had not fared much better. So severe had his own losses been, he
famously commented that one more such victory would lose him the war. It is therefore to King
Pyrrhus that we owe the expression of a ‘Pyrrhic victory’, defining a victory won at too great a
cost.)
Had Pyrrhus suffered heavy losses on the battlefield, his overall position improved dramatically.
News of his victory at Heraclea brought the Lucanians, Samnites and Greek cities onto his side.
Rome was in headlong retreat.
At Rhegium the Roman legion which garrisoned the city mutinied.
It was in the light of such crisis that Pyrrhus chief advisor, Cineas, was sent to Rome to offer
peace. Cineas addressed the senate, proposing that if Rome would forfeit all her territories won
from the Lucanians, Bruttians and Samnites and guarantee to leave the Greek cities in peace,

31
Pyrrhus would offer an alliance.
The senate indeed wavered in. To concede the Samnite territories after the terrible wars Rome
had undergone to win them would be extremely harsh. Yet could Rome another test of strength
against Pyrrhus now that he enjoyed the alliance of all of southern Italy? It fell to Appius
Claudius Caecus, a former censor now aged, infirm and struck blind, who had to be carried to the
senate, to address his fellow senators, urging them not to give in and to hold firm against the
invader. Appius Claudius won the day and Cineas’ peace proposal was rejected.
Pyrrhus’ force now marched on Rome. Through Campania, they pushed into Latium and reached
as far as Anagnia, or possibly even Praeneste.
Though unexpectedly for Pyrrhus, as he marched into these areas no new allies joined his camp.
Campania and Latium, so it seemed, preferred Roman rule to his.
Finding himself far from his base of power, with no local support, news now reached him that
the consular army under Coruncianus which had been sent north to deal with the Etruscans was
now returning to reinforce the forces of Laevinus. Meanwhile in Rome new levies were being
raised.
Faced with such a show of strength, Pyrrhus deemed it wise to retire to winter quarters at
Tarentum.

The year after Pyrrhus was on the advance again and took to
besieging the city of Asculum. Rome came to meet his army with a
force of 40,000 men, led by both consuls. Pyrrhus’s forces were
equal in number.
The battle of Asculum (279 BC) ended in stalemate, the Roman
forces after a long, hard battle not able to make any further
impression on the Macedonian phalanx, retired back to their camp.
On balance victory was granted to Pyrrhus, yet no significant
advantage was gained.
So hard had the fighting been that either side retired seeking no
further contest that year. Yet diplomatic developments were to
provide a new twist.
Map: Pyrrhic War
If it is suspected that King Pyrrhus’ aim was always to seek to dominate Sicily then the appeal
for help by the city Syracuse must have been a dream come true. At last he was provided with an
excuse to campaign in Sicily. The city of Syracuse was blockaded by Carthage so it was in need
of urgent help. Many Greek cities upon the island had fallen to the Carthaginians in recent years.
Carthage itself approached Rome, offering financial and naval aid. No doubt it was the hope of
the Carthaginians that Rome might keep the adventurer from Epirus busy in Italy, leaving them
free to conquer all of Sicily.
If at first this was rejected, Rome did eventually agree to such an alliance, recognising that
whatever Pyrrhus’ plans, he was their joint enemy.
Had Carthage hoped to keep the Greek general lodged in Italy, her plan failed. Leaving a
garrison behind to secure Tarentum, he sailed for Sicily in 278 BC.
With Pyrrhus gone, Rome found the hill tribes of southern Italy easy prey. The Samnites,
Lucanians and Bruttians were swept off the field and their lands ravaged.
For three years Pyrrhus fought in Sicily, at first with great success, yet finally reaching a
stalemate at the impregnable Carthaginian fortress of Lilybaeum.
Final victory in Sicily eluding him he abandoned this venture and returned to Italy, responding to
the desperate calls for his return by the hill tribes and the Greek cities (276 BC).

32
The decisive battle was fought at Beneventum in 275 BC. Pyrrhus sought to achieve a surprise
attack on the army of Curius Dentatus but was repelled, not least as the Romans had learned how
to deal with his phalanx and elephants. With the second consular army under Cornelius closing
to join Dentatus, Pyrrhus had to give way and retreat. Following his Sicilian adventure he no
longer commanded the manpower that could match two Roman consular armies in the field.
King Pyrrhus was severely defeated.
Recognising that the tide had turned against him, Pyrrhus returned home to Epirus.
His parting words were memorable,
'What a battlefield I am leaving for Carthage and Rome !'
The tale goes that Pyrrhus later died during an assault on Argos, where an old woman seeing him
fighting her son sword to sword in the street below supposedly threw a roof tile on his head.
Although other sources read that he was assassinated by a servant.
The victory over Pyrrhus was a significant one as it was the defeat of an experienced Greek army
which fought in the tradition of Alexander the Great and was commanded by the most able
commander of the time.
Rome dominant power of Italy
After her defeat of Pyrrhus Rome was recognized as a major power in the Mediterranean.
Nothing makes this clearer than the opening of a permanent embassy of amity by the
Macedonian king of Egypt, Ptolemy II, in Rome in 273 BC. In 272 BC, the very year of Pyrrhus'
death, the powerful Greek city of Tarentum in the south of Italy fell to Rome. Phyrrus’ general
Milo, realizing the situation untenable once his master was dead, simply negotiated his
withdrawal and surrendered the city to the Romans
With no major force to oppose them the Romans ruthlessly cleared any last resistance to their
supremacy from southern Italy. They stormed the town of Rhegium which was held by
Mamertine rebels (271/270 BC), forced the Bruttian tribes to surrender, crushed the last
remnants of Samnite resistance and brought Picenum under Roman rule.
Finally, in 267 BC a campaign against the tribe of the Sallentines in the very heel of Italy handed
Rome the important harbour of Brundisium brought her conquest of southern Italy to an end.
In gaining control of the south Rome possessed valuable forest-country of the tribes and wealthy
Greek cities which undertook to supply Rome with ships and crews in future. If Rome now
controlled the Italian peninsula, essentially there was three different categories of territory within
her realm. The first was the ager romanus (‘Roman land’). The inhabitants of these old, settled
areas held full Roman citizenship.
The second were new Latin colonies (or in some cases Roman colonies), which were founded to
help secure strategically important areas and which dominated the outlying land around them. A
additional benefit to the foundation of these colonial territories was that they provided an outlet
for the demand for land by the Latin peasantry.
It appears that the colonist forfeited some of their privileges as full Roman citizens in exchange
for land in these colonies. The colony therefore seemed to have held an intermediary status
between the ager romanus and the allied Italian territories.
The third type of territory was made up of the civitates sociae (allied territories). Theirs covered
the majority of the Italian mainland.
The status of these communities was that they remained fairly independent of Rome. Rome
didn’t interfere in their local government and demanded no taxes of her allies.
In fact so free from direct Roman domination were the allies that they could accept citizens

33
exiled from Rome. (Therefore some citizens forced into exile, could simply settle in towns as
near to Rome as Tibur and Praeneste.)
But the allies had to submit to Roman foreign policy (They could not entertain any diplomatic
relations with any foreign powers.) and they had to provide military service.
The details of the arrangement with the Italian allies varied from the town to town, as Rome
made individual agreements with each one of them separately.
(So if allies generally did not have to pay taxes, this was not universal. For example: as
punishment for her collusion with Phyrrus the city of Tarentum was required to pay an annual
tribute.)
Be it as an ally, a colony or as a territory under direct rule, in effect all Italy now, from the Straits
of Messina to the Apennine frontier with the Gauls, recognized the supremacy of one singular
power, - Rome.
The conquest of Italy provided political stability and the opportunities for trade such stability
invariably brings. Yet the brutal warfare which had been necessary for this to be achieved had
laid waste large tracts of land. Areas which had once supported large populations now merely
hosted a few herdsmen who tended the flocks of their wealthy masters. More so, with Rome’s
acquisition of the mountain forests, she soon began the irresponsible logging of these important
woodlands. This in turn led to floods in many low lying areas, rendering rich agricultural lands
useless. Already at this early stage the decline of the Italian countryside began.

The Mamertines
At this stage in history things might have rested for some while in Italy, if it had not been for the
legacy of Agathocles of Syracuse. During his reign Agathocles had made great use of free
companies of tribal highland mercenaries from the mainland in his various military schemes.
At Agathocles’ death the town of Messana at the northeastern tip of Sicily had fallen into the
hands of one of these free companies (ca. 288 BC) – who called themselves the Mamertini ('sons
of Mars') - and made themselves a nuisance to their neighbours on both coasts, and to all who
used the Strait of Messina, where they operated as pirates.
The Mamertini had recently been allied to the rebel force of their Campanian countrymen, who
had mutinied, seized Reghium, and held it against the Romans for a decade.
Rhegium had finally been stormed by the Romans in 270 BC with the aid of the commander of
the Syracusan forces, who bore the name Hieron (or Hiero as the Romans called him), who
immediately after seized the throne of Syracuse for himself (270-216 BC).
By 264 BC Hiero deemed it time to make an end of the Mamertine pirates. Given their conduct,
no one was likely to be aggrieved.But to seize this strategic town would mean to change the
balance of power for the Sicily and the Straits of Messana.
If Hiero’s motives were entirely understandable, his decision bore consequences far beyond
anything he possibly could have intended. Hiero placed Messana under siege. In the face of so
powerful an enemy the Mamertines stood little chance on their own.
Yet, not being Greeks, they had little qualms about asking Carthage for help against their
besieger. The Carthaginians obliged by dispatching a flotilla which in turn soon persuaded Hiero
to call off his siege. Meanwhile, the Mamertines now sought a mans by which to rid themselves
of their Carthaginian guests. They were of Italian origin and Rome now stood as the champion of
all Italians. Invariably it was to Rome that they sent for help.

34
Rome unwittingly found herself at the cross-roads of destiny.
For the first time her gaze was drawn beyond the immediate confines of the Italian peninsula.
Was the city of Messana any of her concern? What possible obligation was there to protect a
bunch of renegade mercenaries? Yet to allow Carthage to seize the town might damage the
mercantile interests of the wealthy Greek cities Rome had recently acquired. Clearly the port was
of strategic importance. Could it be left to Carthage?
Would not a successful military expedition into Sicily promise glory for the commanders and
plenty of booty for the soldiers? Rome was utterly divided. The senate simply couldn’t make up
its mind. Instead the matter was referred to the popular assembly, the comitia tributa.
The assembly was also unsure of what action to take. Had not Rome suffered a bitter war against
King Pyrrhus? But it was the consuls who spoke to the gathered populace and swayed them
towards action, with the prospect of booty for the troops.
Yet the assembly did not choose to declare a war. Instead it decided to send an expeditionary
force to Messana which should try to restore the town to the Mamertines.
Diplomatically, the Romans worded their plans to be an action against Syracuse, as it was this
city who had initially attacked. No mention at all was made of Carthage. As things turned out,
Rome scored a very easy victory. A relatively small detachment was sent to relieve Messana.
When the Carthaginian commander learned of their approach he withdrew without a fight.
Keeping up appearances, Rome remained officially at war with Syracuse.
This again could have been the end of it all. Rome had not harmed a single Carthaginian and had
actually taken up arms against Carthage’s old rivals, the Greeks of Syracuse. But Carthage was
not going to suffer what it saw as a humiliation, executed the commander who had withdrawn
from Messana without a fight and at once dispatched a force of her own to recover the town.
Remarkably, Carthage managed to ally herself with Hiero against Rome.
Rome at once responded by sending an entire consular army to reinforce their small garrison.
What had begun as a scuffle between three parties over a small town, now had become scale war
between the great powers of the western Mediterranean.
In spite of how bizarrely this war appears to have begun, it is hard not to see some sort of Roman
design in starting this conflict. Her conquest of Italy had brought her vast new manpower and
wealth, but also shipwright and navigational skills. Rome now possessed real power and was
seeking to use it. Being now the protector of Greek trading bases such as Capua and Tarentum,
Rome no doubt inherited the Hellenistic role of rival to Carthage. Sicily represented the focal
point of conflicting interests between Greek and Punic power in the Mediterranean. To the east
of Sicily lay the realm of Greek domination, the west of it, that sphere of Carthage.Yet no
treaties between the various sides had ever stipulated the spheres of influence upon this
important island.With Rome’s conquest of southern Italy, or Magna Graecia as it was known,
she now invariably entered the contest of commercial interests on the side of the Greeks.
The First Punic War (264-241 BC)
The Punic Wars is the generally used term for the lengthy conflict between the two main centres
of power in the western Mediterranean, Rome and Carthage. Carthage was originally a
Phoenician colony. The Latin name for a Phoenician is 'Poenus' which leads to our English
adjective 'Punic'.

35
 The period in which the three Punic Wars were set spans over a
century. Once the wars were at an end, mighty Carthage which
held sway, according to the Greek geographer Strabo, over 300
cities in Libya alone and 700'000 people within its own walls,
was annihilated.

Map: First Punic War

Was the first act of the war the siege of Messana, by the joint forces of Carthage and Syracuse,
the arrival of the Roman consular army under Appius Claudius made an end of it. (264 BC)
At once it was clear that the two old enemies of Syracuse and Carthage were not capable of
operating as effective allies.
The siege of Messana lifted, in 263 BC Manius Valerius led an army into the territory of
Syracuse and laid siege to the city itself. The ill-judged attack on a city so marvelously as
Syracuse fortified led to an inevitable failure. Yet Valerius more than made up for this with a
diplomatic success. After negotiations, Hiero switched sides and joined with the Romans in
opposing Carthage.
Evidently Hiero saw the writing on the wall. The days of Syracusan power were numbered. The
sheer scale of the armies committed by Rome and Carthage must have made that abundantly
clear to him. Syracuse could simply no longer compete. Sicily would henceforth be dominated
by either Carthage or Rome. Faced with that choice it was little wonder Hiero chose the Romans
rather than Greece’s ancient Phoenician enemy.
In the deal Hiero ceded to Rome the town of Messana and the greater part of his Sicilian domain.
He also promised payment of one hundred talents annually for fifteen years. In return Rome
confirmed him as King of Syracuse. (263 BC) Rome’s foray into Sicily, despite its initial setback
at the siege of Syracuse, began well. Driving the Carthaginians from Messana and establishing
an alliance with Hiero, mean that Carthage enjoyed no access to the straits.
If anything, this means that Rome’s primary war aim was achieved within a single year.
The war however was far from over. Carthage responded to Roman successes by landing an
army of no less than 50,000 men in Sicily under the command of a general called Hannibal (it
was a fairly common Punic name), establishing its headquarters at the fortress of Acragas (later
called Agrigentum), the second city after Syracuse on the island of Sicily.
The Roman army under the command of the consuls Lucius Postumius and Quintus Mamiluius,
reinforced by Syracusan forces, marched across the island and placed Acragas under siege (262
BC). The campaign proved very hard.
Not least for the arrival of powerful Carthaginian reinforcements under a commander called
Hanno. Rome managed to defeat Hanno’s forces in battle, nonetheless they couldn’t prevent
Hannibal’s forces from extricating themselves from the siege and withdrawing.
Even though their victory had failed to result in the destruction of the enemy’s army, Rome had
triumphed, taking and sacking the city of Acragas, renaming it Agrigentum.

36
The taking of Agrigentum marked a vital step in the war. Were the Roman war aims unclear,
now they had established that they could overcome Carthaginian arms, no matter what the scale
of Punic resistance. It seems clear that it was at this point in time that Rome undertook to
conquer all of Sicily.
The Carthaginians in turn were forced to realize that, whatever their supremacy might have been
at sea, on land they were no match to the Roman legions.
For the remainder of the war they would not seek to enter into any pitched battles with Roman
forces anymore.
Meanwhile Carthaginian supremacy at sea remained untouchable. Carthage had some 120
quinqueremes, whereas Rome possessed at best a few cruisers furnished by her Greek ports in
southern Italy. But initial Roman confidence after the clash at Agrigentum would prove ill-
founded. 261 BC proved a year of indecisive campaigns which led to no tangible advances.
However, in 260 BC Rome was ready to challenge the Carthaginian domination of the sea. She
was completing the construction of a battle fleet of 140 ships of war, which was to set out to do
battle with the famous Punic navy.
Roman shipwrights had learnt much regarding the construction of a quinquereme (something of
which previously they knew nothing at all) from a Carthaginian vessel which had been captured
early in the war.
The command of the Roman forces was now split between Consul Gaius Duilius, who
commanded the forces on land and his consular colleague Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio who
commanded the fleet.
Scipio set out to Sicily with the first 17 vessels to be completed to organize for the arrival of the
whole fleet, once it was completed. However, Scipio got distracted by the promise of a quick,
easy victory and managed to get himself captured in a foolish escapade over the island of Lipara,
where he steered his flotilla of 17 vessels right into a Carthaginian trap. It earned him the eternal
sobriquet ‘Asina’ (the ass) after his name. Meanwhile Scipio’s capture left command of all of
Rome’s forces to Gaius Duilius.
The first ever proper Roman naval engagement happened at an unspecified stretch of the Italian
coast, when the completed Roman battle fleet sailed toward Sicily to meet its commander-in-
waiting, Duilius. The very same Carthaginian commander, again a man called Hannibal, who
had earlier captured Scipio Asina now commanded a flotilla of 50 ships to investigate the new
Roman fleet. Somehow he was foolish enough to get drawn into a fight with the much larger
force, whereby he lost most of his ships. Nonetheless he managed to slip away with the
remainder of his force.
The Battle of Mylae
Soon after being united with its new commander at Messana, the Roman fleet set out to
challenge the main Carthaginian war fleet in the area, which was based at Panormus, along the
north coast of Sicily. The Punic fleet some 140 or 150 vessels strong, expecting an easy victory,
accepted the challenge and put out to sea to meet in battle.
Carthaginian confidence was justified. Carthage had a great naval tradition, whereas Rome had
virtually no experience at sea at all.
The two great fleets met off the coast of Mylae. (260 BC) Duilius achieved a complete victory.
(260 BC) The Carthaginians suffered the loss of 50 ships before they fled.
Much is made of the Roman invention of the corvus, a barbed drawbridge attached to the ships
mainmast, which can be let fall into the enemy’s deck and so acts as a walk way across for the

37
Romans to deploy their superior soldiers.
The invention of the corvus is traditionally credited to Gaius Duilius, the new commander of the
fleet. Ancient naval warfare relied heavily on the use of ramming. One can but speculate if the
superior skill and maneouvrability of the Carthaginian fleet allowed them to ram their foes
successfully, yet the deployment of the corvus did not allow them to withdraw, holding the ships
locked in place. The victorious Romans would then abandon their sinking vessel for the intact
Carthaginian warship. That said, it is all speculation. Nothing is really known about the nature of
this first Roman victory at sea other than that the corvus played a part.
Gaius Duilius was awarded a triumph through the streets of Rome for this victory over the
Carthaginian fleet. A commemorative column was erected in the Roman forum celebrating his
great victory at Mylae.
The Roman victory at Mylae was not followed up by any significant advances. Achieving a
satisfactory end to the war seemed elusive. Instead Rome wasted much of the advantage gained
at Mylae in naval operations in Corsica and Sardinia (BC 259), which proved of no lasting
benefit. Meanwhile the Roman army on land gradually edged Carthaginian forces out of the
centre of the isle of Sicily in hard, increasingly bitter fighting.
Carthage remained unchallenged in her three main strongholds on the island: Panormus
(Palermo), Drepanum (Trapani) and Lilybaeum (Marsala) The war dragged on and on without
either side making any significant inroads. Hamilcar was leading an effective defensive
campaign against superior Roman forces.
The Battle of Ecnomus
Rome now looked to history for an example of how to deal with their hardy opponent. Some fifty
years earlier the powerful Syracusan King Agathocles had broken through the crushing naval
blockade of his city and landed troops in Africa, causing havoc in the Punic heartland and all but
conquering Carthage itself.
Now Rome sought to emulate Agathocles’ achievement. A fleet of 330 ships under the command
of the consuls Manlius Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso anchored off Ecnomus along
the southern coast of Sicily. The Roman army of 40,000 men embarked and prepared to do battle
with the Carthaginian fleet commanded by Hamilcar, which approached from the direction of
Lilybaeum. Carthage, aware of Roman intentions to land in Africa, desperately sought to engage
its enemy at sea to prevent an invasion.
The Battle of Ecnomus (256 BC) was the greatest sea battle in history at the time. Many of the
Roman war ships were encumbered by having transport ships in tow. Yet it seems that the
Carthaginian captains in turn were greatly worried by the use of the corvus. Had the
Carthaginians the superior naval skills and greater maneouvrability in their superior vessels, it
appeared the sheer number and the quality of Roman soldiers among the Roman fleet which
made any Carthaginian victory impossible. At the end Rome had lost 24 ships. Yet the Roman
fleet had sunk 30 Carthaginian warships and captured 64 complete with their crews.
With the Punic fleet driven off at Ecnomus the way was now clear for a crossing of the
Mediterranean and the invasion of Africa.
Regulus campaign in Africa
The Roman army landed at Clupea (Kelibia). The fleet then returned home under the command
of consul Manlius, whilst Regulus stayed behind leading a force of 15,000 men.
Regulus’ army advanced with ease and laid siege to the town of Adys. A Carthaginian army,

38
hastily flung together and placed under the joint command of Hamilcar and a general called
Hasdrubal hastened to relieve the town. Regulus enjoyed a total victory over his Carthaginian
foes, not least because the terrain upon which the battle was fought did not favour the cavalry
and the elephants of the Punic army. Knowing of the Roman prowess on the battle field, the
Carthaginians sought to avoid meeting them in open terrain.
The Carthaginian opposition crushed at Adys, the Roman army could now Rome the countryside
at will, destroying and plundering as it went.
To make matters worse for Carthage, many native peoples now rebelled, seeing a chance to free
themselves from their Punic rulers. Regulus now lodged himself one day’s march away from
Carthage. The city of Carthage was filled to bursting with fugitives. A famine threatened. Much
of the countryside was in open revolt.
Rome finally gained what it sought to achieve. Carthage offered to negotiate. But at this very
critical moment, Regulus was simply the wrong man for the job. His demands upon them were
so exorbitant, that the Carthaginians thought it wiser to go on fighting, whatever the cost.
Shortly after the negotiations with Regulus had broken down a contingent of Greek mercenaries
arrived led by a Spartan called Xanthippus.
Xanthippus was an outstanding soldier, who had already made a name for himself in the defence
of Sparta against King Pyrrhus. He quickly rose to be granted overall command of the
Carthaginian forces and oversaw the training of the troops according to Spartan traditions.
Morale soared. Xanthippus and his Greek lieutenants quickly established that the main error the
Carthaginians were making was to avoid meeting in open terrain, where their chief weapons of
war elephants and cavalry could be brought to bear.
He eventually marched his newly trained rag tag army of raw levies and mercenaries out into the
open plain of Bagradas (Medjerda) where he offered battle.
The Carthaginian army consisted of 12,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry and 100 elephants. Regulus,
keen to crush this last Punic resistance, was no doubt confident that his superior infantry could
destroy the Carthaginians in open battle.
Roman reinforcements were already on their way to Africa in the returning Roman fleet. Regulus
must have been aware of this, but chose not to wait.
As battle commenced the elephants charged and caused havoc among the Roman infantry.
Enough to allow for the militia and ramshackle mercenaries to hold their own against the legions.
Meanwhile, the superior Punic cavalry drove off the Roman horsemen. When the cavalry
returned, the Roman legions charged from behind, by cavalry, crushed by stampeding elephants
and forced back by the Carthaginian phalanx, was cut to pieces. Five hundred were captured,
including consul Regulus. Of the Roman army, once 15,000 strong, only 2,000 managed to
escape. All others perished at Bagradas. (255 BC)
The survivors were picked up, besieged at Clupea, by the Roman fleet. So ended the Roman
African expedition in the First Punic War.Yet disaster followed disaster. On its way back, the
Roman fleet under the command of Marcus Aemilius Paullus, against the advice of local pilots,
stayed in too close to the southern coast of Sicily.
It was caught in a sudden storm off Camarina and smashed to pieces against the rocky shore. 250
ships were lost, only eighty vessels survived. (255 BC)
By the end of 255 BC Rome seemed no closer to bringing the war to a conclusion than she had
been after her victory at Mylae.
This said, the gradual territorial gain across Sicily was ever more tipping the balance in Rome’s
favour. Having lost their fleet at the return from Africa, the Romans now set about building yet

39
another. Rome was now fully ceased of the idea, that to defeat Carthage she needed a powerful
navy.
Now though the tactic changed. The navy was to operate in support of the armies on Sicily.
The first success came in 254 BC when the Punic stronghold of Panormus fell to a joint assault
from land and sea. It was no lesser than Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina who held command of
the attack on Panormus. The very man who’d been easily trapped by the Carthaginians, captured
and later set free in a prisoner exchange, had recovered his position, been re-elected consul and
now achieved a great military victory. It certainly was a comeback. He never though rid himself
of the cognomen Asina (the ass).
The legend of Regulus
The loss of Panormus caused dismay in Carthage. The Carthaginians sought to negotiate. Rome
too was weary of war. The legend goes that among the Carthaginian ambassadors was Regulus.
Carthage assumed that he, as a fellow Roman could help sway his countrymen toward peace. He
had been forced to swear a solemn oath to return to captivity Carthage if the peace mission
failed.
Regulus however successfully harangued the Roman senators to continue the fight against her
enemy at all cost. Thereafter, true to his oath, he returned to Carthage where he was cruelly
tortured to death. So goes the patriotic legend. The story may however be a fabrication to excuse
the vicious torture two Punic noblemen underwent in captivity of Regulus’ family, especially by
the hands of his wife.
So vicious was the torture said to have been that it caused a public scandal, which was only
ended when Roman magistrates finally intervened and put a stop to it.
This barbarity was generally explained as a reaction by his family to the cruel death of Regulus,
but it may have been the underlying cause for the creation of a legend to justify a particularly
savage Roman episode.
The war dragged on with neither side managing to achieve any significant advance.
For several years, the two warring parties remained at stalemate, unable to land a decisive blow.
Though evidently Rome continued to inch Carthage out of territory as time went on, albeit
against fierce opposition. However, if Rome at times set out on naval raiding expeditions, it more
often than not resulted in further loss of ships by storm, rather than enemy action. Evidently,
Romans still were no sailors.
In 250 BC the Carthaginian commander Hasdrubal sought to achieve a breakthrough, marched
his army out of Lilybaeum and launching an attack on Panormus.
In the battle that ensued, the Romans achieved complete victory over the Carthaginian elephant
corps, putting to rest the great fear of elephants they felt ever since the disastrous defeat at of
Regulus at Bagradas. In all 120 elephants were captured and the Carthaginian army was driven
off in full flight.
Romans dominance on land now lay beyond doubt. On the island of Sicily she dominated all
territory, but for the Punic strongholds of Drepanum and Lilybaeum.
Buoyed by their victory at Panormus, the Romans laid siege of Lilybaeum in the following year
(249 BC). It was their first attempt of note at scientific siege craft and King Hiero’s Syracusan
military engineers no doubt will have played a major part in it.
The Romans spared at nothing. The besieging Roman force outnumbered the Punic defenders by
ten to one. Both Roman consuls were present, commanding the blockade and battery of the Punic
fortress, the defence of which was organized by the Carthaginian general Himilco.

40
Achieving little progress against Lilybaeum, whilst suffering many setbacks and great loss of
men, the Romans grew frustrated. One sortie by the Carthaginians under Himilco even saw all
the Roman siege engines set alight.
Food shortages for the besiegers could only be overcome by Hiero of Syracuse sending grain.
Heavy Roman losses at sea
The siege of Lilybaeum (or at least that conducted by the navy) was commanded by Publius
Appius Claudius Pulcher. Seeing a new Carthaginian naval contingent gathering at the port of
Drepanum, Pulcher decided to act, before this fleet would come to challenge the Roman sea
blockade of Lilybaeum.
The sea battle of Drepanum is also well remembered also for the anecdote regarding the sacred
chickens. Prior to any great battle Romans would seek to take the omens and establish if the gods
favoured their enterprise. For this they carried on the flagship a small group of hens in cages. If
they ate heartily of the crumbs of sacred cake they were offered it was understood that the omens
were good. If, however, they refused to eat, the omens were deemed bad.
Prior to the Battle of Drepanum the consul was informed that the chickens were not eating and
that therefore the omens were bad. Unwilling to heed the advice of his augurs, Pulcher seized the
cage holding the chickens and threw it over board, announcing,
‘If they will not eat, they shall drink!’
As it proved the chickens were right all along.
Pulcher’s attack on the port of Drepanum was an utter disaster, brought about to no small extent
by his incompetence as a naval commander.
He had not fitted his ships with the corvus which had served the Roman fleet so well in previous
encounters and during the attack he chose to command from his flagship at the very rear of the
Roman fleet. Only 30 ships escaped, with 93 Roman vessels captured by the Carthaginians. (249
BC)
Only days after this defeat, another great Roman fleet, commanded by consul Iunius Pullus and
bringing supplies and reinforcements for the siege at Lilybaeum, found itself manoeuvred
towards the coast by an opposing Carthaginian fleet prior to the arrival of a tempest. Knowing
the damage done, the Carthaginians withdrew, leaving the fleet to be dashed to pieces by the
storm. Not a single ship is said to have remained. (249 BC)
However, Iunius Pullus, gathered the survivors of this disaster, reformed them into some sort of
army, and marched and succeeding in taking the mountain stronghold of Mount Eryx (Erice),
with its famous temple to Aphrodite.
Rome now was exhausted. The war had lasted for 15 years. The manpower lost at sea was
staggering. For all her efforts there remained almost nothing of her navy.
Drepanum and Lilybaeum remained under siege, though little result was produced, as both
Carthaginian strongholds continued to be supplied by sea. Once more the two weary opponents
opened negotiations. Yet they come to nothing.
Hamilcar Barca
With Rome’s power depleted for the moment, the initiative fell to Carthage.In 247 BC Hamilcar
Barca was granted overall command of the operations in Sicily. He led several daring raids on
the coast of Italy, took the stronghold at Mount Hercte (near Panormus, today Monte Pellegrino)
from which he led guerilla style operations against the Romans and, after three years of further

41
fighting, Hamilcar reconquered Mount Eryx. Yet for all his ability, Hamilcar never had enough
troops under his command to do anything more than to harass and stifle Roman efforts.
Battle of the Aegates Islands
In turn Rome recovered. With forced loans upon members of the senate, Rome raised yet another
fleet of 200 galleys, which was sent forth to enforce a complete blockade on Lilybaeum, where
the siege continued unabated and Drepanum, which now was also besieged.
It was indeed one last desperate throw of the dice by Rome, seeking to bring a near endless
struggle to a conclusion.
The Carthaginians had meanwhile led their fleet fall into disrepair and had laid up many of their
ships. Most likely they too were now at the brink of financial exhaustion and could simply no
longer maintain a fleet of such proportions. Also prior to this sudden decision to take to yet sea
again, Rome had seemed thoroughly dispirited by her losses at any idea of fitting out another
fleet. Carthaginian supremacy at sea had seemed assured.
Hearing of the Roman efforts the Carthaginians scratched together what fleet they could, hastily
crewed the ships with raw recruits and sent this desperate relief force to the aid of their Sicilian
strongholds.
Consul Gaius Lutatius Catulus heard of their coming and sought them out before they could
reach the safety of the harbour of Drepanum. Is chief fear seems to have been that the
Carthaginian reinforcements could unite with Hamilcar Barca and cause untold carnage in the
hands of such an able commander.
The two fleets met at the Aegates Islands (Egadi) in summer of 241 BC.
Both sides were fighting were hampered by various disadvantages. Rome’s commander Catulus
was still severely injured from a wound to the thigh he’d received when preparing the siege at
Drepanum. At the meeting of the fleets Rome had to advance toward the enemy into a gale in
rough seas. Meanwhile, the Punic ships were burdened down with cargo for the besieged forces
on Sicily. The fleet’s commander had hoped in vain to reach landfall to unload the vessels prior
to meeting the Roman fleet.
Yet Rome’s secret advantage lay in the fact that their new ships were all built to a model of a
particularly fast, captured Carthaginian vessel which had repeatedly managed to run the blockade
at Lilybaeum. Compare this with the rather ramshackle nature of the hastily assembled Punic
relief force.
When the ships met the outcome became clear almost instantaneously. Rome’s better trained and
equipped fighting men, combined with her superior vessels left Hanno no chance of success.
50 Carthaginian ships were sunk. 70 were captured with their crews. Rome took 10,000 prisoners
that day. Meanwhile the Roman fleet suffered the loss of 30 ships and saw a further 50 badly
damaged.
Hamilcar Barca now was cut off from any possible Carthaginian reinforcements or supplies. The
cities of Lilybaeum or Drepanum were under siege without any hope of aid. The Carthaginian
situation was hopeless.
Hamilcar Barca, though willing to fight on, was instructed to seek to come to terms with Rome.
Catulus led the negotiations for Rome. Unlike Regulus years earlier, he was not going to let the
opportunity go by to bring this war to a close. The First Punic War was finally at an end. (241
BC)
Settlement of the War

42
The First Punic War was an epic contest in which either side readily put armies of 50,000 men
into the field and sent fleets of 70,000 into battle.
Yet so too were both parties taken to the brink of their financial capacity by these exertions.
In fact, Carthage sought very much to draw out the war into a battle of exhaustion, whereas
Rome tried to force the issue.In the end Rome achieved victory, as she could rely on her near
limitless resources in manpower, whereas Carthage largely conducted the war by use of
mercenaries. The sheer incompetence of Rome’s efforts at sea, saw her lose over 600 ships; a
figure larger than that suffered by the war’s losers.
The losses Rome has suffered were terrible.
The Roman terms for peace were severe.
Carthage was to evacuate Sicily and the Liparean Islands, hand over all prisoners and deserters
and to pay a vast compensation of 3200 talents over ten years.
She was also to promise not to make war with Syracuse or any of her allies.
Hiero’s territory of Syracuse was enlarged and his independent status as an ally of Rome was
guaranteed.
Messana and a handful of other cities received the status of allies. The rest of Sicily however fell
to Rome as conquered territory. It was to be overseen by a Roman governor and to be taxed on
all imports, exports and produce. (241 BC)
Roman Annexation of Sardinia and Corsica
The peace settlement of 241 BC had left the islands of Corsica and Sardinia within the sphere of
Carthage. However, in 240 BC Carthage suffered a major revolt of its mercenaries. Part of this
revolt saw the garrison of Sardinia rebel against its Punic masters. (Only Sardinia was really
occupied. Corsica was seen as a minor, dependent neighbour.) Rome at first resisted any appeals
for help by the mercenary renegades, staying true to her obligations under the peace treaty.
The situation remained unchanged for some time, with the garrison getting itself into increasing
trouble with the native tribes (possibly even being driven out).
The status of the islands remained in limbo, for as long as Carthage struggled for her survival,
desperately seeking to reestablish control over her African territories.
At last Hamilcar Barca reestablished order. No doubt Rome despaired at seeing the power of a
resurgent Carthage fall to the very man who hated her most. 238 BC then brought news that
Hamilcar was about to set sail for Sardinia. The sheer power of his name most likely provoked
panic in Rome. The senate chose to declare this action a breach of the treaty and immediately
dispatched a force to occupy Sardinia. When Carthage protested, Rome declared war.
Of course Carthage was in no position to fight. She’d lost the First Punic War and had spent the
past three years fighting off rebellion. She could do little but accept defeat and cede control of
Sardinia and Corsica to the Romans. Technically, being at war again, Rome could stipulate new
conditions. Not merely was she demanding control of the islands but a further 1700 talents in
compensation.
Understandable as the fright might have been that the sheer thought of the deadly Hamilcar at sea
might have caused in Rome, it is self-evident that this episode must have given rise to bad blood
in Carthage. Not merely had Rome helped herself to Carthaginian territory without due cause,
but she had then also extorted a further vast some of money in reparations.
It is little wonder that there was thirst for revenge in Carthage thereafter.

43
Sardinia was mainly of strategic importance. It’s grain harvest no doubt proved useful, but else
the island was of little value to Rome. Corsica meanwhile was merely a derelict territory with
some timber and limited mineral wealth. In 231 BC the two islands were formally made a
province of Rome, following the example of Sicily.
First Illyrian War

The trade routes of the Adriatic Sea had, prior to Roman dominance
in Italy, been subject to the Tarentine fleet. But with the loss of
independence of Tarentum, responsibility for securing the sea ways
of the Adriatic now fell to Rome. The coast of Illyria was rife with
pirates under the rule of King Agron, who had just died from the
excesses of celebrating yet another successful raid. The rule over the
pirates had now fallen to his widow Teuta. Under Agron the
Illyrians had enjoyed an alliance with Macedon and had shown care
to just whose ships they attacked. Their activities had hitherto
concentrated on the southern waters of Epirus and the coast of
western Greece. However, under Teuta they now attacked any
vessel at sea.
Map: Illyrian Wars
Rome sent emissaries were sent to Queen Teuta, urging her to cease any attacks on Roman
shipping. But the queen haughtily rejected any such attempts at diplomacy. Worse still, she
arranged for the assassination of Coruncianus, the chief Roman envoy, escalated her people’s
piracy to unprecedented levels and began raiding the eastern coast of Italy. (230 BC)
After an unsuccessful raid on Epidamnus (later Dyrrachium, today Durres, Albania) the Illyrians
even conquered Corcyra (Corfu) and installed a garrison commanded by a Greek adventurer
called Demetrius of Pharos.
It is hard to see how Teuta, having seen Rome’s power demonstrated in the defeat of Carthage,
ever hoped to avoid any consequences to these actions. Perhaps the belief was that the alliance
with Macedon would deter the Romans from any action against Illyria.
Rome however showed no such scruples. In 229 BC both consuls were dispatched, leading an
army of 20,000 men and the entire Roman war fleet of 200 quinqueremes to deal with the
Illyrian menace. The Illyrians stood no chance. Their ramshackle fleet was swept from the sea
and the Roman army drove into the interior, subjugating town after town.
The cities of Epidamnus and Apollonia, glad to see an end to the pirate menace, opened their
gates to the Romans. Demetrius, having fallen out with Teuta, surrendered Corcyra to Rome.
By early 228 BC Teuta, besieged in her last remaining stronghold, made piece with Rome,
agreeing to give up most of her territory, disband the remainder of her fleet and pay tribute.
Rome now established a protectorate over various Greek towns along the eastern Adriatic,
declaring them amici (friends): Corcyra, Apollonia, Epidamnus/Dyrrachium and Issa.
These towns were left completely free and independent, but enjoyed a guarantee of Roman
protection. Only one condition was placed upon them; that they showed Rome ‘gratitude’. In
essence Rome created a moral compact between herself and these towns, whereby she acted as a
protective patron and they acted as her clients.
Thus the Roman ‘client state’ was born.
The last Gallic Invasion

44
The boundary between the territories dominated by Rome and the Gauls was effectively marked
by the rivers Arno and Rubicon. The Gallic tribes remained quiet throughout the lengthy period
of the First Punic War. No doubt the memories of the heavy defeats the Gauls had suffered in the
past still remained, counseling them against any further action against Rome.
But more so, the lengthy Punic war and Carthage’s heavy reliance on mercenaries and granted
them plentiful opportunity to make a living out of warfare under a foreign banner.
In 225 BC a great coalition of Gallic tribes, consisting of 50,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry,
broke across the border into Etruria. Previously this would have been cause for panic in Rome.
Yet now things had changed. The Gauls faced the combined might of all of Italy. More so, Rome
had her hands free, not being called to contest any other conflict.
It was in fact one of those very rare times when the doors to the Temple of Janus were closed.
Something only permitted in times of complete peace. Challenged by the Gauls, Rome now
easily mobilized a force of 130,000 men. In fact Rome possessed several times that number of
men of fighting age. Roman records of the day suggested the total manpower among Romans
and Italian allies to be a possible seven hundred thousand infantry and seventy thousand cavalry!
That is not to say that Rome responded without a lapse into panic, superstition and viciousness,
despite her obvious supremacy. A rumour of a dire portent made the rounds in the city which
predicted that Gauls and Greeks would set up their abode in the Forum. In a cruel turn the
Romans took to satisfying the prophecy by burying alive two Greeks and two Gauls, a man and a
woman in both cases, in the cattle market. Therefore the will of the gods was to be met whereby
Greeks and Gauls had an abode in the Forum, albeit a subterranean one.
Meanwhile in the field two converging armies, under the overall command of consul Lucius
Aemilius Papus, sought to force the Gallic invaders towards the coast. At Clusium the Romans
suffered an ambush where they lost 6,000 men. Yet so vast were their resources that they could
advance against the enemy virtually undaunted. Meanwhile a third Roman force, commanded by
consul Gaius Atilius Regularis, recalled from Sardinia, landed near Pisae. The Gallic army now
found its retreat cut off. They were trapped. Close to the coastal town of Telamon the Gauls
made their last stand. (225 BC) Caught between two consular Roman armies simultaneously the
Gallic invaders were crushed. It proved an epic struggle. Roman losses are not known but the
sheer scale of the contests suggests they will have lost a large number of men. Not least, as they
suffered the death of consul Gaius Atilius Regularis early on in the fight. In the chaos of battle
the bulk of the Gallic cavalry managed to extricate itself and flee. But the infantry was cut to
pieces. 40,000 Gauls died. 10,000 were taken prisoner. One Gallic king was captured and
another committed suicide rather than be taken.
The last Gallic invasion was at an end.
Rome, however, with such vast numbers of men under arms, was not to let the matter rest there.
It was resolved that the troublesome Gauls of the Po valley, most of all the Boii and Insubres
who had been chiefly responsible for the invasion, were to be brought to heel. The Romans
achieved this in three successive campaigns.
In 224 BC they subdued Cispadane Gaul, the Gallic territory south of the Po (then, Padus). This
saw the Boii subjugated. Next in 223 BC Gaius Flaminius and his consular colleague Furius
crossed the river and defeated the Insubres in battle. By 222 BC the Gauls sued for peace, but
Rome was not yet willing to listen.The consuls Marcus Claudius Marcellus and Gnaeus
Cornelius drove onward into Gallic territory, until Cornelius succeeded in conquering the
Insubres capital of Mediolanum (Milan). The Insubres surrendered and were granted peace.

45
It is noteworthy that during this campaign, consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus gained the spolia
opima, a nigh on legendary award, granted to a Roman leader who slew an enemy king in battle
by his own hand. Marcellus was the last of three reported occurrences of such an outrageous
achievement in Roman history (the first: King Romulus who killed King Acron in 750 BC, the
second: Cornelius Cossus who killed Lars Tolumnius in 437 BC).
By 220 BC almost all the Gallic tribes had submitted to Roman rule. The same year saw the
foundation of Roman colonies at Placentia and Cremona in order to further cement Rome’s hold
over the newly won territory. Also in 220 BC Gaius Flaminius, no censor, saw to the building of
the Via Flaminia. The famous road ran north from Rome as far as Ariminium (Rimini). Around
the same time the Via Aurelia extended from Rome along the Etruscan coast to Pisae.
Thereafter, Rome’s rule over this conquered territory was beyond doubt. Small conflicts, little of
which is known, brought Rome control over the territories of Liguria and Istria, thus completing
the conquest of the north, but for the Alps.The conquest of some of Liguria brought also the
establishment of an important naval base at Genua (Genoa), which further consolidated Roman
hold over the area.
Second Illyrian War
The Second Illyrian War was the briefest of contests between the most unequal of foes. Clearly it
barely deserves the term ‘war’ to describe it.Yet it deserves a mention, not merely for its
imposing name, but as it acted as a distraction to Rome while crisis loomed in Spain between
Rome and Carthage.
The First Illyrian War had seen the Greek adventurer Demetrius of Pharos surrender the island of
Corcyra (Corfu) to the Romans. In turn, he was rewarded with being confirmed the ruler of
Corcyra and being granted the status of amicus (friend) of Rome.But now he broke the peace
with Rome by returning to his old pirateering ways. Worse still, he began to sack towns in Illyria
which were subject to Roman rule. Possibly Demetrius foresaw the crisis with Hannibal in Spain
which was all but obvious by that time and thought he would go ignored whilst Rome dealt with
Carthage and the menace of Hannibal Barca. In any case, he clearly miscalculated.
Rome, determined to make an example of these pirates, at once sent both consuls with a force to
deal with the matter. (219 BC)Within a week the fortress of Dimale (Krotine, Albania) had been
captured. Next consul Lucius Aemilius set sail for Demetrius’ headquarters on the island of
Pharos (Hvar, Croatia) which he took by the ruse of disembarking some of his troops at night
and launching his assault the next day. While the defenders dealt with the apparent main attack.
The hidden troops who’d landed during the night took the fortress almost unnoticed. The Illyrian
garrison took flight. Demetrius fled to the court of Philip of Macedon. So ended the Second
Illyrian War, barely one week in length.
Carthaginian Expansion into Spain
While Rome had been dealing with piracy in Illyria, repelling Gallic invaders and extending her
territory to the north, Carthage had not been idle.Hamilcar Barca had led Punic forces into Spain
(238 BC) and had established a thriving Carthaginian province there. Carthage experienced
startling success on the Iberian peninsula, playing one tribe against the other and quickly gaining
control over a vast territory. At the death of Hamilcar his son-in-law Hasdrubal the Elder
continued his work, founding the great city of Carthago Nova (Cartagena), which soon became a
prosperous trading port.
This new Spanish province, which was run as the private domain of the Barca clan, provided not
merely the wealth but so too the manpower for a new Carthaginian army. Carthage rose phoenix-

46
like from the ashes of defeat in the First Punic War to pose yet again as the great rival to Roman
ambitions.
It was due to a protest from the Greek city of Massilia (Marseilles) that Rome first sent envoys to
Spain, seeking assurances that Carthage intended no aggression. (231 BC)Hamilcar at the time
successfully argued that, if Carthage was to pay the reparations to Rome, demanded of her in the
terms of peace, she would have to be free to find new income, such as the rich mines of Spain.
In 226 BC Roman envoys were sent to meet Hasdrubal who agreed to limit Carthaginian
expansion to the river Iberus (Ebro). Although Rome herself seems not to have been bound
specifically to any details in this treaty, it does suggest itself that the river was to mark the
boundary between the two spheres of influence.
However, in 223 BC the town of Saguntum, possibly of Greek origin, secured herself an alliance
with Rome. The last remaining independent town south of the Iberus, it was perhaps not
remarkable that Saguntum sought protection from the overwhelming new arrival on the
peninsula.However, it is hard to see why Rome had entered into an obligation with such an
obscure town set within Punic territory.Whichever way one views it, the alliance with Saguntum
was a disaster waiting to happen.
Prelude to war
In 221 BC Hasdrubal the Elder was assassinated by a man whose chieftain he’d had executed.
Hannibal Barca was 26 years old when he succeeded to supreme command in Spain. Some
among the Carthaginian aristocracy had sought to prevent him achieving this position as they
saw him as dire threat to peace.They had good reason to fear he would provoke war with Rome.
Legend tells of his having been sworn to hatred of all Romans as a boy by his father Hamilcar.
His hatred for Rome is beyond doubt.
It is very likely that Hannibal set out to plan war with Rome from the very moment he ascended
to power.
Yet the cause for war is such one wonders if anything could have prevented a contest of arms,
once Rome had allied herself with the town of Saguntum.
Small scale warfare arose between the town of Saguntum, no doubt emboldened by her alliance
with Rome, against the neighbouring tribe of the Turboletae.
Overlordship over the Spanish tribes obliged Hannibal to intervene on behalf of the Turboletae.
Meanwhile Rome was obliged by her alliance. Saguntum applied to Rome for arbitration
(probably 221 BC) who rather unsurprisingly favoured the Saguntine position. Rome intervened
to enforce her judgment which led to some losses among the Turboletae. Blood had been spilt.
Hannibal knew well what weakness had cost Carthage in her dealings with Messana. Once again
Rome was meddling in an area not within her sphere of influence.He was now not going to flinch
now in the face of adversity. Whatever Hannibal’s intentions were at the time, Saguntum felt
threatened and appealed to Rome.
Rome sent envoys to Hannibal at his winter headquarters in Carthago Nova, but he insisted
Rome had no authority in this matter. The Turboletae had been aggrieved and they were
Carthage’s allies in an area of direct Carthaginian control.Meanwhile the Roman envoys made it
quite clear that an attack on Saguntum would be cause for war.
Rome next appealed to Carthage but little will existed in the Punic capital to oppose the Barcas
after their staggering success in the conquest of Spain. Seeing he enjoyed support in the capital
and knowing that both Rome’s consuls and her entire fleet were currently tied up in fighting

47
Illyrian pirates, Hannibal took action and in the spring of 219 BC laid siege to Saguntum. Rome
never came to the aid of her ally. Saguntum fell after a heroic struggle against impossible odds
after an eight month siege. This might have been the end of the matter. But Rome was now freed
from her engagement in Illyria and reports on the sheer scale of Hannibal’s army suggested that
his ambitions went well beyond the conquest of an obscure port on the Spanish coastline.
Rome’s emissaries to Carthage demanded the surrender of Hannibal.
The Carthaginians however sought to debate the issue of the treaty of 226 BC regarding the
Iberus denoting the demarcation line between the two powers and how the Roman alliance with
Saguntum stood in obvious conflict with this.The chief envoy of the Roman delegation was
Quintus Fabius Maximus. He was not here to split hairs over treaties. Clutching his toga he
addressed the Carthaginian senate (the ‘council of 104’), ‘I have two folds in my toga. Which
shall I let drop? That holding peace, or that holding war?’ The Carthaginians told him to release
whichever he wished. Fabius let fall that holding war. (219 BC)
The Second Punic War
The Romans began the war with a giant miscalculation. Having seen the Carthaginians driven
from Syracuse and have achieved supremacy at sea, they saw the Carthaginian territories as
being far afield and their enemy as incapable of taking any initiative against them. They believed
it was theirs to fight a war in a manner of their choosing. Two armies were consular prepared.
One under the command of Publius Cornelius Scipio, together with his brother Gnaeus Cornelius
Scipios, was sent to Spain to confront Hannibal.
The second force was dispatched to Sicily to repel any possible incursions onto the island and to
prepare an invasion of Africa. It was all to be straightforward. Predictable.Manageable.

Map: Second Punic

War
However, Rome’s mistake was to believe that her chief enemy was an ordinary man. Whereas
the young Punic champion facing her was one of the greatest military leaders in history.One
thing was clear. Hannibal was not going to fight a war against Rome in a manner of Rome’s
choosing.
In spring 218 BC Hannibal crossed the river Iberus into Gaul at the head of an army numbering
some 9,000 cavalry, 50,000 infantry and 37 elephants.He now set about fighting his way through
hostile Gallic tribal territory toward the Alps. Coincidence had it that a reconnaissance cavalry
48
detachment of Scipio’s, scouring the coastal area as his fleet carried the army to Spain, met with
some of Hannibal’s Numidian horsemen at the river Rhodanus (Rhône), shortly after Hannibal
had crossed it.
Publius Scipio did follow up on this matter, establishing that Hannibal was indeed ascending into
the Alps evidently seeking to cross this natural barrier.Yet Roman military discipline triumphed
over common sense. Would the best thing have been to abandon the attack on Spain and to
hasten to the southern foothill of the Alps in expectation of the enemy, Publius Scipio merely
sent message to Rome, informing them of these developments. Then, as he had been ordered to
do, he took his army onwards to Spain.There are few examples that set the brilliance of Hannibal
in such stark contrast against the unimaginative, stubborn approach of his Roman adversaries as
does this moment. Given the good chance of an opportunity to forestall Hannibal’s plans, the
Roman general instead boards his ship and takes his troops to Spain, following his orders to the
very letter.
Hannibal crosses the Alps
Hannibal meanwhile crossed the Alps. Freezing weather and fierce mountain tribes made this a
harrowing ordeal. His losses were very heavy. Yet as an example of logistics the crossing of the
Alps in two weeks by an army, cut off from any means of support, stands as a staggering
achievement. When descending from the mountain passes, Hannibal’s force had shrunk to
26,000 men in total. But Hannibal was now descending into northern Italy, a territory only
recently won by Rome in crushing and oppressive military campaigns against local Gallic tribes.
Should Hannibal be granted to opportunity to recruit among the Gauls, resentful and angry at
their recent subjugation, thousands would flock to his banner.
Had now Publius Scipio’s consular army been waiting, history would most likely have been
changed. But that army was in Spain.Publius Scipio, by now having landed his army in Spain,
returned to northern Italy with a small force. There he mustered the garrison forces of the Po
valley into an army and marched them north to meet the exhausted invaders descending from the
mountains.
Battle of river Ticinus
The forces gathered by Scipio numbered some 40,000. However, they were simply no match for
the hardened Punic enemy which descended on them at the Ticinus River in 218 BC. The
Carthaginian cavalry utterly dominated the field, inflicting heavy losses. So ferocious was the
Punic assault, the Roman skirmishers never even got to throw their javelins before they turned
and ran to take cover behind the ranks of heavy infantry.Albeit that the stalwart heavy Roman
infantry succeeded in fighting its way right through the center of the enemy line, the rest of the
Roman army were swept from the field. (218 BC)
Publius Scipio himself was severely wounded in a cavalry encounter and was only rescued to
heroic intervention by his son (the later Scipio Africanus).Only the successful crossing of the
river Ticinus and the subsequent destruction of the bridge saved the Roman army from complete
catastrophe.True, Roman losses had not been severe at Ticinus. Many describe this encounter as
a mere cavalry skirmish. Though this may belie the impact this initial meeting with Hannibal had
on the Romans. It now seemed clear that they faced a very dangerous enemy.
Publius Scipio was forced to abandon the territory north of the river Padus (Po) and fell back to
the northern foothills of the Appenines near Placentia (Piacenza).News of Hannibal’s victory at
the river Ticinus had spread like wildfire among the Gallic tribes. With Rome withdrawing from
the territory north of the Padanus (Po) there was nothing to stop thousands joining his depleted
ranks.

49
Worse still for Rome, some Gauls serving in her army mutinied and joined with Hannibal. So
treacherous was the situation, Scipio needed to move camp to the river Trebia (Trebbia) where
loyal tribes were to be found. Hannibal soon arrived and pitched his camp on the opposite,
eastern bank of the river.
Publius Scipio’s imperiled force was now joined by the army of his consular colleague, Titus
Sempronius Longus, which had been recalled from Sicily. - Evidently any thoughts of invading
Africa had now been abandoned.

Battle of river Trebia

With Public Scipio badly wounded from the battle of river Ticinus, Sempronius Longus now
took sole command of the Roman forces. He was eager for battle. Hannibal in turn was keen to
seek a decision before any further Roman enforcements arrived and while the army from Sicily
had recovered from its long march of 40 days.
At first light his Numidian cavalry crossed the river and provoked Sempronius Longus into
fighting. The Roman forces waded through the freezing cold river in pursuit of their foe. They
began the battle hungry, wet and half frozen.
Better yet, the Roman army had already spent the greater part of its javelins when chasing the
enemy cavalry. Hannibal commanded 20,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry and the elephants.
Titus Sempronius Longus had 16,000 Roman infantry, 20,000 allied infantry and 4,000 cavalry
under arms. From the outset Hannibal’s forces seemed to hold the advantage. But the Romans
met with disaster when suddenly in the rear 1,000 Carthaginian infantry men emerged under
command of Hannibal’s brother Mago. They had been hidden in bush work in a bend of the river
overnight. The Roman ranks collapsed and the army soon found itself encircled. Once more the
heavy Roman infantry managed to break out and get to safety at Placentia. But again Rome had
met with disaster in the field against Hannibal. Only 10,000 had survived the onslaught
(December 218 BC).
The year 218 BC did not an entire success for Carthage. She suffered setbacks at sea off Sicily
(Lilybaeum) and on land in Spain against Gnaeus Scipio (Cissis). But the losses suffered by the
Romans at Ticinus and Trebia made such minor victories pale to insignificance. In two battles
Rome had lost over 30,000 men. Meanwhile Hannibal was at large in northern Italy and growing
in strength, as many Gauls joined up with him hoping to throw off Roman rule.
In spring 217 BC Hannibal began moving south again. Again he surprised his foes by taking an
utterly unexpected route. The north of Etruria then consisted of marshes fed by the waters of the
river Arno and other tributaries. Crossing these foul swamps was a tremendous ordeal. But again
Hannibal caused chaos by traversing what was believed to be an impossible natural boundary.
The four days it took to achieve this took the army to the limits of its endurance. Hannibal too
paid a terrible price by suffering an agonizing eye infection which led to the loss of an eye.
The crossing of the Etrurian marshes now had gained Hannibal a vital head start on consul
Gnaeus Servilius Geminus who was based at Ariminium (Rimini). Instead his path took him
close by consul Gaius Flaminius who was encamped at Arretium (Arezzo) with his army. Having
noted Hannibal’s march south, Servilius was already on the march, heading toward his consular
colleague. Flaminius did not take the bait of heading out to meet Hannibal on his own, much as
the Carthaginian would have hoped.

50
But as Hannibal’s forces passed him on their way south, Flaminius deemed he had little choice
but to give chase. The Carthaginians were plundering and burning as they went. It was important
Italy be spared such fate.But as Flaminius rushed after Hannibal he failed to send out proper
scouting parties to provide reconnaissance of the way ahead. Invariably, Hannibal set Flaminius
a trap.
Battle of Lake Trasimene
North of Lake Trasimene he hid his army in the bushes and woodwork of the steep slopes.
These concealed troops then sprung upon the marching Roman army as passed the next day.
Trapped between the enemy and the lake, taken utterly by surprise, the Roman soldiers didn’t
stand a chance. Flaminius perished along with much of his army at Lake Trasimene (21 June 217
BC). It was a sad end to a man who gave his name to the great Via Flaminia and to the Circus
Flaminius in Rome.
The scale of losses at Trasimene was vast. 15,000 were killed in battle. Another 15,000 were
taken prisoner at the end of the battle. 6’000 who had managed to fight their way out were
rounded up the next day.Hannibal decided to deal with the prisoners according to their status.
Whereas the Romans were abused and kept it harsh conditions, their Italian allies were treated
well and released without ransom. Hannibal was at pains to show that he meant no harm for the
Italians and that his quarrel was solely with Rome.The mention of ransom suggests that possibly
some Romans were set free against payment. But overall there are said to have been no more
than 10,000 survivors. This suggests a gruesome fate for most of the prisoners taken at
Trasimene.
Rome itself was gripped by panic.The praetor’s famous words to the gathered multitude, ‘We
have been defeated in a great battle’ scarcely convey the feeling of deep despair that overcame
the capital.Hannibal, it seemed, was not to be defeated.
Worse, not enough that Hannibal had just destroyed a consular army at Lake Trasimene. Only a
few days later news arrived that one of Hannibal’s chief officers, Maharbal, had wiped out a
detachment of cavalry 4,000 strong which had rushed ahead of Servilius’ army coming from
Ariminium (Rimini). (217 BC)
Rome in her despair now turned to Quintus Fabius Maximus. This was the very man who had
been the chief Roman negotiator at Carthage; he who had let fall the fold in his toga that held
war.His mild manner and calm temper had so far earned him the cognomen Ovuncula ('the
lamb'). One doubts it was a term of endearment.Yet it explains why he would be chosen as
Rome’s chief diplomat in times of crisis. Now however, Fabius was elevated to sole dictator of
Rome with the sole duty of saving her from Hannibal.
His election to this post is unusual, insofar that he wasn’t appointed in the regular constitutional
manner. One of the consuls, Flaminius, was dead. The other, Servilius, was far afield, with
Hannibal’s army between him and the capital.So instead his name was put to the public assembly
of the comitia centuriata where he was duly elected dictator.As his second-in-command, - a
position known as Master of Horse, the people appointed the very popular Marcus Minucius
Rufus. It can not have been a happy partnership as the two were political enemies and utterly
opposite personalities.Whereas Fabius was calm and apt to delay and defer, Minucius was
impulsive and hungry for action.
Fabius first act was religious. He offered the gods a ‘Sacred Spring’ (ver sacrum). If they would
see Rome through the next five years unharmed, then Rome would offer the first born of all her

51
flocks and herds on a date set by the senate.The anger of the gods allayed, Fabius now prepared
to deal with Hannibal.
Yet if many expected Fabius to raised another great army and seek to destroy the Carthaginian in
the field, that was not what Fabius intended. First he secured Rome. The cities defences were
repaired where their upkeep had been neglected. The bridges of the Tiber were broken.
Servilius was ordered to hand over his troops to Fabius and was instead assigned command of
the Roman fleet. Meanwhile, two new legions were enrolled. Soon Fabius had command of no
fewer than 60,000 men. All the while Hannibal was at large in the Italian countryside.The sheer
destruction wrought by his army was tremendous.
Very tellingly though, an attempt to storm the town of Spoletium (Spoleto) failed.It is much
doubted that Hannibal ever had any intention to make an attempt on Rome. But his inability to
carry a fairly small Italian town, albeit a very well fortified one, in spite of his possessing
overwhelming force, shows that his army would not have possessed the capacity to threaten the
Roman capital itself.
Instead Hannibal marched his army south-eastwards, staying close to the Adriatic coast, pillaging
as he went. He took care to move at a slow pace, allowing his men to recover from their great
exertions, his force’s strength thereby increasing with every passing day. As it moved the vast
army despoiled the countryside and put any Roman they found to the sword.
Not one single Italian city opened its gates to Hannibal. While his army could live off the land,
the seat of true power lay in the towns and cities. For any prolonged campaign against Rome,
Hannibal required a powerful base in central Italy. None was forthcoming.
Fabian Tactics
It was in this setting that Fabius should rise to fame.He marched his vast army to meet with
Hannibal’s, but never committed to a fight. Numerous were the times when Hannibal should
march his army from its encampment on a slope to meet with Fabius’ men, if only they would
descend from theirs.But Fabius knew that he was no match for the Carthaginian general. He also
knew that his soldiers feared their opposition and that his Italian cavalry was inferior to the
African and Spanish horsemen of Hannibal.But Fabius also understood that Hannibal was not at
liberty to freely roam the Italian countryside with an army of 60,000 men shadowing him at
every turn. He could never think of laying siege to a city with such a vast enemy looming up
behind him.And so it went. Wherever Hannibal ventured, so did Fabius follow.It was a
stalemate.This strategy of simply shadowing his opponents every move, over being an ever
present, though never attacking enemy, has been immortalized by the term ‘Fabian tactics’.
Fabius himself, previously deemed ‘the lamb’ (Ovuncula), now acquired the nickname by which
his is known in the annals of history; cunctator, the delayer.
Unpopular these tactics may have been with his subordinates. Minucius openly accused Fabius
of cowardice. But his approach earned Fabius the grudging respect of the man best able to judge
its wisdom: Hannibal.
Hannibal in Campania
Hannibal now sought to force Fabius into a fight.He marched his army into Campania. This
stretch of land was the garden of Italy, the most fertile and wealthy of all the peninsula.
As Hannibal moved through it he put it to the torch. How long could Fabius bear to stand by and
watch the destruction of finest piece of land in all Italy?Fabius endured. Though his men
demanded to be lead into battle.Though Minucius grew ever more scathing in his criticism of his

52
superior. Fabius watched on.But he did not content himself with doing nothing. As Hannibal
rampaged through the countryside, Fabius set about closing off all the passes out of Campania.
It wasn’t long before Hannibal was trapped.Once more, however, the genius of the man proved
too much for the Romans.He rounded up 2,000 oxen and drove them up a hillside one night, each
beast with a lighted torch tied to its horns.Thinking Hannibal’s army was launching a nocturnal
attack on a neighbouring position, a garrison of 4,000 men stationed at a the pass by a mountain
called Erubianus (by Polybius) or Callicula (by Livy) rushed to reinforce their comrades.
Once these guards had abandoned their position, Hannibal simply marched his army across the
pass they were supposed to guard. (217 BC)
Fabius though now stood accused of letting his enemy escape. Also his standing idly by, while
Hannibal lay waste to Campania, had rendered him deeply unpopular in Rome.
More so, the senate feared for the unity of the Roman domain. How much more pain could their
allies bear before they would break away? Hannibal’s actions in Campania and in much of the
Italian countryside had all but ruined Rome’s loyal allies.Evidently, Hannibal was getting close
to his objective of breaking the Italians away from their allegiance to Rome.
The Romans responded by appointing Minucius co-dictator. This marks the only time in Roman
history that two dictators should hold office simultaneously.The army subsequently was split in
two, each dictator commanding a separate force. This played right into Hannibal’s hands, who
immediately set about to set a trap outside a palce called Gerunium to ambush the overzealous
Minucius.
Taking the bait, Minucius soon found his entire force enveloped by Hannibal’s army.Had not
Fabius intervened with his own force at the last moment, Minucius would have been hopelessly
trapped and his army wiped out.By a hair’s breadth Rome had escaped yet another disaster.
Though there was significant loss of life, albeit that we don’t know the numbers lost. (winter
217/216 BC)Finally even Minucius accepted that Fabius’ method was the only way of dealing
with Hannibal. He resigned his powers and accepted the position of second-in-command.
In spring 216 BC the term of the two dictators was at an end. The elections saw two new consuls
take office. Lucius Aemilius Paulus was aristocratic, conservative and of the belief that Fabius’
tactics had been a wise policy.Gaius Terentius Varro meanwhile had enjoyed a meteoric political
career, having started as a butcher’s apprentice and now being sworn in as consul.
Varro, like Minucius had done before him, disagreed violently with anything but a policy of
attack.
At first Paulus succeeded in enforcing a cautious approach.When Hannibal stormed the town of
Cannae (Canne) to gain possession of its important military stores, the Roman army closed in,
trapping Hannibal in a very disadvantageous position.
To his rear were marshes, to his left unsuitable, hilly terrain that restricted his cavalry.
Had Paulus had his way, Hannibal would have been kept penned in for some time, his position
becoming more precarious with every day.But tradition dictated that the consuls should hold
supreme command on alternate days.
The Battle of Cannae
On 2 August 216 BC it was Varro’s turn to hold command.Befitting his temperament, he chose
to attack. The battle of Cannae stands as one of the greatest contests in military history. The
Roman force was all but annihilated. The losses range between 50,000 and 70,000 men. Varro
survived the onslaught. More than likely the consul and his staff were driven back at the initial
charge of the Numidian cavalry.The other consul, Paulus, died in battle.
The Aftermath of Cannae

53
The impact of the defeat at Cannae can hardly be imagined. Considering the relative scarcity of
ancient population when compared to modern Italy, the loss of 50,000 to 70,000 men must have
proved an equivalent to the dropping of a nuclear bomb on a modern capital.If we consider that
Rome had already sustained atrocious losses at Trebia and Trasimene it was indeed conceivable
that now the Roman sphere of influence would collapse.
Indeed the foundations of Roman power were crumbling.Capua, the second city of Italy and
centre of Italian industry, opened its gates to Hannibal. The town of Arpi in Apulia fell to him
immediately after the battle.The Samnites, except for their main tribe, the Pentrians, all defected
to Hannibal. So too did the Bruttians. In the north the praetor Postumius was trapped with his
army by the Gauls.Sardinia was asking for help, as the tribes were open revolt.
In Sicily Rome’s loyal ally King Hiero of Syracuse had died and was succeeded by his grandson
Hieronymus and was in talks with the Carthaginians.
Yet all was not lost. Who can forget that less than ten years earlier (ca. 225 BC) Roman records
showed their resources of manpower to stand at a near limitless seven hundred thousand infantry
and seventy thousand cavalry?Rome had lost over 100,000 men to Hannibal so far. Yet she could
replenish them at will.The great Carthaginian controlled much of southern Italy, but dotted
throughout this territory were Roman fortresses, prepared to hold out and hindering his ability to
manoeuvre. Some tribes may have broken away, but the Sabellian tribes of central Italy remained
resolutely loyal. Meanwhile, Hannibal was not being reinforced. Carthage was obstinately
refusing to send men. To the west Gnaeus and Publius Scipio were keeping the Carthaginian
armies tied up in knots, making it impossible for them to follow across the Alps and reinforce the
invasion.
Hannibal could not react immediately after Cannae. True his army had lost only 6,000 men. But
this does not account for the wounded and the sheer exhaustion his troops must have suffered
from such a gargantuan fete. The city of Rome itself still remained safe. The example of
Hannibal’s failure to take Spoletium still bore witness to that. Also the corn lands and pastures of
Italy needed to feed Hannibal’s army and horses lay in southern Italy, no closer to Rome than
Campania at the most. In effect Hannibal was tied to the land that could sustain him.
The lessons of Cannae however were thus. The senate under the guidance of Fabius largely took
control of matters. The petty political rivalries between the aristocratic and the people’s faction
had to be set aside.More so, the armies were to be entrusted only to able, responsible
commanders for a period of years if their task demanded it.No more alternate dates of command,
no consular commands by political careerists.The price of failure had simply proved too high.
Hannibal’s war thereby influenced future Roman history more deeply than anyone at the time
could have foreseen. Rome’s decision to entrust its forces to the generals for prolonged times
heralded a new era. The times of political amateurs commanding the Roman war machine were
at an end. This decision may at first have brought the Scipii to fame, but it inevitably led to the
later careers of Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Caesar and to the eventual destruction of the republic
itself.
The immediate reaction to the disaster among Romans was one of steely determination and
unity. Young Scipio (later Africanus), who is believed to have been at the battle of Cannae, is
said to have drawn his sword at hearing young Roman nobles among the survivors who were
debating if to flee the country. At pain of death he made them swear an oath to stay and fight on.
In the same spirit of dogged unity, Varro was welcomed back to Rome at the gate of the city by
the senate and thousands of people in gratitude for not having despaired and fled, but instead
having gathered what survivors of the battle he could find at the town of Canusium (Canosa di

54
Puglia). Every single Roman now counted. There was to be no recriminations. Rome stood as
one.
A new dictator was appointed, Iunius Pera with Sempronius Gracchus as his Master of Horse
(second-in-command).The senate refused to pay any ransom for captives Hannibal had taken.
Instead eight thousand slaves were bought by the state and enrolled in the army. They formed a
part of four new legions that were raised, which were then united with the ten thousand or so
survivors of Cannae gathered at Canusium.
After Cannae Hannibal almost reigned supreme in southern Italy. Yet to topple Rome more
would be necessary. He would need to encroach further on the Rome’s territory, to diminish her
power yet further, while she lay bleeding from the dreadful wound he had inflicted. Having
gained Capua he now determined on securing his grasp on Campania yet further. The fortress
town of Nola (Nola) lay in central Campania, some nine miles north of Mount Vesuvius, was a
strategic stronghold of the region.
However, Marcus Claudius Marcellus who had been on his way with an army to deal with the
troubles in Sicily, was diverted as news reached him of the disaster at Cannae. This was the same
Marcellus who had already achieved the spolia opima when campaigning against the Gauls.
As the general closest to the disaster at Cannae Marcellus was now ordered to lend support and
help maintain order in the area where necessary.He disembarked his troops in Campania and set
up camp in the fortress town of Nola.
With Marcellus at Nola and the victor of Cannae now heading towards it another great contest
was set to take place.The outcome will have surprised many.When the town was being attacked
by Hannibal’s troops, a sudden sally from within the city picked Roman troops rushed the Punic
besiegers who were no doubt hampered by ladders and the various paraphernalia required to
storm the walls. The Carthaginians fell into confusion and were driven off. (216 BC)
The detail we have of this encounter is vague and unsatisfactory. But that Hannibal could be
halted from gaining ground at the very height of his powers, shows that he was critically
hamstrung. His ramshackle army didn’t possess the necessary expertise for effective siege craft
and clearly lacked the organization as well as the overwhelming force to take a city by storm. If
Cannae was a great advance for Hannibal, Nola proved that he could only achieve further gains
by victories in the open field. The essential stalemate remained. Hannibal could defeat, yet he
could not conquer. So the fateful year of 216 BC came to an end. Rome had suffered a
tremendous disaster, Hannibal had gained much ground. Yet still there was stalemate.
215 BC proved another eventful year.Having received some reinforcements from Carthage
(thought most had had to be said to Spain, due to the brothers Scipio) Hannibal made another
attempt on Nola. The record of this second attempt is more confused, but again Hannibal was
repulsed. In Sardinia the battle of Titus Manlius Torquatus, won a victory against a much
superior force of Carthaginian troops and Sardinian tribesmen at the battle of Carales (Cagliari).
In Spain the Scipios won victories at Ibera, Illiturgi and Intibili. In avoiding a further clash with
the deadly Hannibal, instead taking on other Carthaginian commanders abroad, Rome was
beginning to tilt the balance of the war.
In Sicily Hiero’s successor Hieronymus, who had begun to side with the Carthaginian cause, was
assassinated and a faction friendly to Rome gained control amid much bloodshed. Yet still the
Roman praetor of the province, Appius Claudius, was urgently requesting help to quell the
rebellious sentiment in ferment all over the island. Most worryingly, news should come from the
east. Hannibal achieved an alliance with Phillip V of Macedon.

55
 Capture of Syracuse
As already mentioned above, Hiero of Syracuse had died in 216 BC. His successor Hieronymus
had at once begun plotting with the Carthaginians, but had (no doubt with some encouragement
from Rome) been assassinated and a political faction friendly to Roman interest had taken
control of the city in 215 BC. However, the rest of Sicily was in a state of turmoil and the
supremacy of Roman allies in Syracuse proved short-lived. A rebellion led by Hippocrates and
Epicydes soon followed in Syracuse. The two were agents of Hannibal who had already been his
representatives in negotiations with the slain King Hieronymus. Now they seized control of the
city for Carthage. Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who had already been posted to Sicily with an
army in 216 BC, but had been recalled before he ever reached the island to sure up defences after
the defeat at Cannae, finally arrived in Sicily in 214 BC.
Marcellus was a brilliant military commander, but a stern disciplinarian and ill-suited to winning
over hearts and minds. On arriving in Sicily he captured Leontini, one of the centres of
resistance. Marcellus sacked the place and butchered 2,000 deserters he found there. (214 BC)
No doubt he had thought to make an example of the place to instill fear, instead he provoked an
open rebellion of much of Sicily.
Uniting his troops with those of Appius Claudius, Marcellus first tried to take the city of
Syracuse by storm. It proved impossible. Not only was Syracuse one of the best fortified cities in
the Mediterranean, but its defence was considerably strengthened by the sheer genius of the
famous mathematician Archimedes. His unflinching application of scientific principles to
engineering provided the Syracusan defenders with vastly superior catapults and cranes which
could grapple and tip over any ships which sought to attack the harbour.
Repulsed by the towering walls and Archimedes’ unique war-engines, Marcellus could do little
other than lay siege. (214 BC) The Carthaginians meanwhile did not remain idle, landed an army
of some 30,000 men and captured the city of Agrigentum. To make matters worse one of
Marcellus officers massacred the inhabitants of the town of Enna. Following that, one Sicilian
town after another begun to go over to Carthage. In time Marcellus found himself as much
besieged as he was besieging. But he remained unflinching in pursuit of victory whatever the
time and cost involved. After two years, Marcellus troops managed to cross the first set of walls.
Carthage immediately dispatched a relief force, seeking to rescue their ally. But the Punic army
was gripped by disease and rendered ineffectual.
The remainder of Syracuse was eventually taken by treachery (a Spanish mercenary officer
helped the Roman from within) and by storm (the final holdout of Ortygia).
Marcellus let loose his troops on Syracuse as was the fashion of the times and so the ancient
stronghold of Greek power was ravaged in an orgy of violence. (212 BC)
Archimedes was killed in the onslaught. The historical sources, in this case more legend than
fact, tell of Archimedes being so absorbed in a problem of geometry that the didn’t even notice
the fall of his city. When finally a Roman soldier barged in on him, Archimedes told him to be
gone. The soldier, be it through insult or sheer blood lust, cut him down on the spot.
Marcellus is said to have been much aggrieved at the death of the brilliant man, who to is
believed he had given expressed orders not to be harmed. He saw to it that Archimedes was
properly buried. (The tomb of Archimedes was later famously restored by Cicero, when quaestor
in Sicily.) With the fall of Syracuse the war for Sicily was now decided in Rome’s favour. Yet
still hard fighting lay ahead, the last Carthaginians being expelled only in 210 BC.
’First Macedonian War’

56
As we have seen above in the eventful year of 215 BC, Philip V of Macedon allied himself with
Hannibal against Rome. Given the sheer power the Kingdom of Macedon represented this
alliance must at first have seemed a disaster to Rome. Yet the First Macedonian War proved a
conflict without battles for the Romans.
Inspired by the fugitive Demetrius, who had sought refuge at his court at the end of Rome’s
Illyrian wars, King Philip readied a small fleet of fairly light craft in the Adriatic. Most likely his
naval ambitions centered on Illyria where his ally Demetrius might be installed and an Adriatic
port might be gained for Macedon. If Philip V ever intended any attempt on the Italian coast
itself is at best speculation. For his naval preparations came to a sudden when news of a powerful
Roman fleet sailing into the Adriatic to repel him reached his court.

Through skillful diplomacy Rome built a coalition which

leveled the Aetolian League, the Illyrians, Elis, Sparta,
Messene and Pergamum against Macedon.
With such enemies arrayed against him, Philip V of
Macedon was kept sufficiently busy in Greece, never to
trouble the Romans at all for the length of the so-called First
Macedonian War.
It was the Aetolian League who bore the brunt of the war.
As they gave ground, Epirus, no doubt concerned at being
dragged into the conflict herself, negotiated a peace between
Map: First the various parties. (205 BC)
Macedonian War
Meanwhile in Italy the stand off between Hannibal and the Romans continued, both sides
struggling to tilt the precarious balance their way. The population of Tarentum, outraged by the
vicious treatment of hostages from Brundisium (they were flung from the Tarpeian rock in
Rome) applied for help to Hannibal. He was happy to oblige, withdrew from Campania and
marched on Tarentum, one of Italy’s richest ports. The Punic army arrived at night, while the
city’s governor, Marcus Livius, was feasting at a banquet. The gates were opened from within
and Hannibal’s men took the city. Marcus Livius fled just in time to the city’s citadel, which
enjoyed such a geographical advantage, it could not be taken. (212 BC)
All of southern Italy, save the town of Rhegium, now was in Hannibal’s hands. No doubt he
prized the city of Tarentum above all for its possible importance in the alliance with Macedon.
Should Philip V of Macedon ever send troops, there was now a ready gateway into Italy at which
he could disembark.
Though the moment Hannibal had left Campania, the Romans had begun preparations to lay
siege to Capua. Yet when Hannibal arrived back from his successfully foray to Tarentum, having
received the call for help by the Capuans, the Roman army at once abandoned their operations
and fell back. So powerful was still the name Hannibal, that no general wanted to be measured in
open battle with him.
That said, 212 BC came to an end with a series of battles, all of which confirmed Hannibal’s
supremacy. First the proconsul Gracchus was successfully lured into an ambush which resulted
in almost complete rout of his army. Next an improvised force of some 16,000 men organized by
a centurion, Centenius, was utterly annihilated. Finally, praetor Gnaeus Fulvius saw his force of
some 18,000 cut to ribbons at the battle of Herdonea. Only 2,000 are said to have escaped with
their lives. (212 BC) Fabius’ advice not to meet Hannibal in the field was still not being heeded,
it seems. At last, winter called an end to the year’s warfare.

57
In 211 BC Hannibal returned to Tarentum, seeking to finally conquer the citadel of the city.
Meanwhile the Romans returned to Capua and renewed their attempt at siege.
Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius Flaccus brought no less than 60,000 men to bear on the
city. Two great defence works were drawn around the city. One to prevent the Capuans from
breaking out, the second to defend against any attack from Hannibal. (211 BC)
When Hannibal eventually came rushing to Capua’s aid he was met by a system of trenches and
wooden palisades that made any relief impossible. He attempted an assault on the great siege
works, but was easily repulsed. Instead Hannibal now once again undertook a bold move. He
disappeared into the mountainous terrain of Samnium and then, marching only through hill
country, drove northward, finally appearing before Rome.
‘Hannibal ad portas!’ went the famous cry. (‘Hannibal is at the gates!’) (211 BC)
No doubt there was a fair share of panic at the news that Rome’s most terrible enemy was before
the very walls of the city. The campfires of the Punic army could be seen at night from the
Capitoline hill. Hannibal’s gamble had obviously been that Rome would recall its armies from
Capua at the news of his arrival. But old Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator was still alive and
at the head of the senate.He urged calm and advised that the siege of Capua should continue
unabated. Rome was not at all defenceless. She had three legions which were sent out,
commanded by the consuls, to shadow Hannibal’s army, making any assault impossible.
There was a brief cavalry skirmish at the Colline Gate, when Hannibal and his horsemen
ventured too close. (211 BC) Apart from that no contest of arms took place.
As quickly as he had appeared, Hannibal disappeared again, realizing his attempt at drawing off
the siege from Capua had failed. It is not sure, if all the troops remained in place at Capua. The
historian Polybius tells us that all troops remained at the siege. While Livy suggests that Appius
Claudius remained with his forces, while Quintus Fulvius Flaccus was recalled to drive off
Hannibal. Either way, the siege of Capua remained unbroken.
Capua was eventually starved into surrender that same year. (211 BC) The severity with which
the Romans dealt with the city which had betrayed them. Proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus
watched 53 nobles scourged and beheaded in one single day, despite objections from his
proconsular colleague Appius Claudius. The whole citizenry of Capua was deported elsewhere,
leaving only a remnant of artisans and tradesmen behind. The city’s lands were impounded by
the Roman state.Capua may have been Italy’s second city and chief industrial hub at the
beginning of the conflict. At the wars end however, Capua would be a shadow of its former self.
Its nobles dead, its population departed, its lands confiscated.
Capua and Syracuse fallen, the Sardinian rebellion at an end, Macedon embroiled in petty
warfare with its Greek neighbours and the war in Spain ever more perilous, five years on from
Cannae, the war was going badly for Carthage.
The War in Spain
The war in Spain waged to and fro. Rome may have seen a series of victories under Gnaeus and
Publius Scipio, but never managed to land a decisive blow. Their main achievement seemed to
be to stop any reinforcements from Spain ever reaching Hannibal. When in North Africa the
Numidian King Syphax led a rebellion again Carthage and Hasdrubal was recalled to deal with
it, it looked as though the brothers Scipio might indeed overrun Spain altogether, as they drove
ever further south. In 213 BC they achieved triple victory, defeating the Carthaginians at Iliturgi,
Munda and Aurinx, the enemy losing over 30,000 men in total.
But once Hasdrubal returned, Roman fortunes changed.Perhaps the brothers' principle mistake
was to have split their forces in two, one commanded by Gnaeus Scipio, the other by Publius

58
Scipio. Perhaps they were simply outgeneraled.Publius found himself crushed at the river Baetis
(211 BC) and Gnaeus in the same year, abandoned by his Spanish mercenaries whom he heavily
depended on, was crushed by three converging Carthaginian armies at Ilorici (Lorca).
Both brothers Scipio died in their respective encounters. The Romans had at last been routed in
Spain. But the successful end to the siege of Capua in the same year (211 BC) meant that Rome
now had vast manpower available.
For large image click on
picture
Rome sent two legions to Spain under the command of Claudius Nero. But
Nero, an arrogant and harsh individual, made little impression on the
Spanish tribes he needed to win over if ever Rome was to succeed in Spain.
Hence it was decided to replace him. The choice fell upon Publius
Cornelius Scipio, the very son of the man who had been slain in battle at the
Baetis river the year before.
What made the decision exceptional was that Scipio was only 25 years old.
More so he was granted proconsular powers, something hitherto only given
to consuls after their term in office. But the Romans no doubt speculated on
Scipio wishing to revenge his slain father and uncle. Also, the heroism he
showed on Ticinus where he saved his fathers life and his patriotic stance
among the survivors in the aftermath of Cannae may have marked him out Publius Cornelius
Scipio Africanus
as a man to rely on in a crisis.
Capitoline Museum,
Rome
Another reason for this surprising choice of commander may have been that few others wanted
the job. Spain was far away. It was always least likely to receive reinforcements and any
victories gained would scarce get a mention in Rome, as long as Hannibal was in Italy. In short,
the command offered little chance of political advancement or glory, so nobody wanted it.
Yet Scipio made an almost immediate impact on arrival. His name alone swayed some Spanish
tribes to renew their loyalties. Then, in 209 BC, he made his first, bold move. Realising the
Carthaginian armies too far away to intervene he struck out along the eastern coast for Carthago
Nova (Cartagena), the very capital of Punic power in Spain.
Once there, he took the city in a stroke of brilliance. Having made detailed inquiries he learned
from the local fisherman that the lagoon was shallow enough to wade through at low tide. To his
soldiers however he declared that the god of the sea, Neptune, had appeared to him in a dream
and promised to support a Roman assault. At low tide, while his army assaulted the walls Scipio
lead 500 of his men across the lagoon. The city’s defenders, assaulted from without and within
simultaneously stood little chance. Scipio had taken Carthago Nova by storm. (209 BC) It was a
stroke of genius.
With Carthago Nova also a vast amount of treasure fell into Roman hands. Better yet, within the
walls of the city were 300 Spanish hostages who assured the allegiance of various Spanish tribes
to Carthage. Scipio freed them and dismissed them to their homes with utmost courtesy, so
winning the sympathies of many o the noble families of Spain.
Having secured an important base, Scipio did not seek to engage the enemy any more that year,
but instead concentrated on drilling his army to perform tactical manoeuvres drawn from the
examples of Hannibal. He was steeling his troops for a fight.
By 208 BC Hasdrubal was becoming aware of more and more Spanish tribes going over to the
new Roman general and sough to put an end to it. Scipio too was eager to fight before the three

59
Punic armies could unite. Scipio set out of New Carthage to Baecula (Bailen) where he emerged
victorious in a hard fought battle against Hasdrubal. (208 BC)
Hasdrubal though managed to withdraw unharmed, with his treasure and most of his troops,
including his war elephants. Once aware of the challenge an encounter with Scipio represented,
he had no intention of repeating the fete. He had much more pressing priorities, chiefest of which
was to march on Italy and reinforce his brother in the struggle for Italy.
He hence marched his army northwards and crossed into Gaul. As the east coast of Spain was
entirely under control of Scipio’s forces, Hasdrubal instead slipped into Gaul at the west coast of
the peninsula. Scipio made no attempt to hinder him at such endeavour. For this he was severely
criticized by his political enemies, - not least by Fabius. Gnaeus and Publius Scipio had known it
their primary duty to safeguard Italy from any further invasion. For all his achievements, Scipio
had failed in said duty once Hasdrubal succeeded in leaving Spain.
In Gaul Hasdrubal began recruiting, building up an army in preparation for a second invasion of
Italy. So thorough were his preparations, he remained an entire year in Gaul, before, like his
brother before him, he crossed the Alps and descended into northern Italy.
Rome dispatched its consuls. Marcus Livius Salinator headed north to face the new invader.
Meanwhile Gaius Claudius Nero headed south to check Hannibal. As in the north Hasdrubal was
driving southwards, Hannibal manoeuvred restlessly, trying to shake loose Nero’s army in order
to move north and join with his brother. Rome was in dire danger, as any union of the two
Carthaginian armies would have meant a catastrophe. At the brink of financial ruin by now,
Rome was straining under the weight of war. She had 150,000 men under arms, two devastating
armies in Italy and her Italian allies were growing restless.
Battle of the river Metaurus
The Romans met with some luck as they managed to intercept the Punic messengers who were
carrying news of Hasdrubal’s planned route to his brother. None of the messengers ever
succeeded in reaching Hannibal, leaving him unable to act decisively as he remained clueless as
to his brother’s intentions.
It was at this point that consul Nero, whose job it was to keep Hannibal pinned down as best as
possible, took a gamble. He separated 7,000 picked troops (6,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry)
from his army and marched north, leaving his main force under his second-in-command in
Canusium (Canosa). Within six days he crossed 250 miles to reach Livius and his army in Sena.
It was these additional troops which now granted Livius a critical advantage over his enemy.
Hasdrubal, aware of this, fall back to the river Metaurus, but failed to find a suitable crossing
point. His retreat cut off by the river, he had no choice but to fight.
As the two armies engaged the Romans struggled to make their advantage tell. The majority of
fighting was on the Roman left and with the centre. The right, commanded by Nero, was
inhibited very rough, steep ground which made any engagement by either party almost
impossible.
Again Nero took the initiative and gambled. He separated several cohorts from his right wing,
marched the length of the army, wheeled around Livius left wing and attacked Hasdrubal’s
Spanish troops in the flank and from behind. As a result, Hasdrubal’s right wing collapsed. The
Romans having gained the tactical advantage the battle soon turned to butchery as the
Carthaginian troops were encircled and slaughtered. The Carthaginian losses are unclear, yet any
survivors will not have had any opportunity to rejoin their side, as they were cut off in deep in
enemy territory with no where to go. The historian Polybius states the Punic losses at no fewer
than 10,000 men killed, with the Roman losses amounting to 2,000.

60
Hasdrubal himself died a heroic death. Once realizing that all was lost his spurred on his horse
and charged a Roman cohort. (23 June 207)
With the defeat of Hasdrubal not only did Rome remove a great danger, but so too did she gain
possession of the great war chest that Hasdrubal’s army was carrying to Hannibal. Gaius
Claudius Nero now headed back south to rejoin his troops where Hannibal still waited for news
from his brother completely unaware of the great battle that had just taken place.
He brought with him the head of Hasdrubal which, on his arrival, he ordered flung into the camp
of Hannibal. The first that Hannibal knew of his brother’s fate was to be handed his very head.
On seeing it he is said to have uttered, ‘I recognize the fortune of Carthage.’
The great plan had failed. Rome’s victory was now virtually inevitable.
Battle of Ilipa
Meanwhile the departure of Hasdrubal from Spain had tilted the balance yet further in favour of
Scipio. The successor to Carthaginian power in Spain was yet another Hasdrubal, generally
discerned as Hasdrubal, son of Gisco. He had done his best to supplement his troops with new
Spanish recruits, but they were not of sufficient quality to replace the troops lost in battle and by
Hasdrubal’s departure for Italy. Most certainly they were no equal match for Scipio’s highly
trained, perfectly drilled force. The encounter which should settle the fate of Spain took place in
206 BC at Ilipa.
Scipio’s breathtaking manoeuvres on the battle field utterly outclassed his opponent and were a
perfect demonstration of just how far the Roman army had come since the beginning of the war.
It had evolved. Had it been a blunt, lumbering giant at Cannae, then in the hands of Scipio it had
become a deadly precision tool of almost balletic virtuosity by the time it came to fight at Ilipa.
The scale of Carthaginian losses at Ilipa is not known. But with both wings being virtually
annihilated, the loss of life must have been severe. Scipio in the aftermath of the battle ruthlessly
hunted down the remnants of the Carthaginian troops, leaving the enemy with no field forces to
speak of in Spain. The Roman gamble of sending a twenty five year old aggrieved son, who had
never ascended higher than the office of aedile in politics, to command the Spanish legions had
paid off. He had defeated the Carthaginians and won Spain with all her mineral wealth and
manpower for Rome.
On his return to Rome Scipio was elected consul for 205 BC on a wave of popular support. But
Scipio was not yet finished with Carthage.
At once he lobbied to take the war to Africa.
The senate though remained fearful of sending armies to Africa while Hannibal still remained on
Italian soil with an army. Most of all Fabius, a determined political enemy of Scipio’s, opposed
any venture in Africa. No doubt, he was mindful of Regulus’ disastrous expedition to Africa
during the First Punic War.
It is also clear that Rome was fearful of placing yet further burdens upon her allies. The cost of
the war was also proving ruinous. But no doubt the political powers were beginning to grow
worried at the rise of a military superstar such as Scipio. In the anxious minds of senators, the
worry of what Scipio might do if he succeeded in Africa might well have outweighed the fear of
a failure.
But Scipio persisted, indicating that if necessary he was going to seek the support of the people
for such a campaign. There is no doubt that popular support for Scipio would have been
overwhelming. The senate reluctantly gave in, but did not grant Scipio the right of using the
normal means of levying consular troops. He was allowed the use of the ten thousand survivors
of the battle of Cannae who had been exiled to Sicily in disgrace ever since and of anyone else

61
volunteering to join his force. Scipio needn’t have worried. From several Italian allies volunteers
arrived and from Etruria came plentiful provisions and equipment.
Scipio made for Sicily where he spent the remainder of the year drilling his new army to his
exacting standards.
Mago lands in Italy
In 205 BC Hannibal’s brother Mago landed at Genua (Genoa), no doubt hoping to draw upon
Gallic support in northern Italy and wreak more havoc in Italy. But things had changed since the
descent from the Alps of his brothers Hannibal and Hasdrubal. The Gauls had little fight left in
them. For two years he struggled on in the Po valley achieving little to nothing.
Scipio lands in Africa
In 204 BC Scipio landed in Africa near the city of Utica.
But the Carthaginians were ready for him. He found himself held in check by two armies, a
Punic force commanded by Hasdrubal, son of Gisco, and a Numidian force, commanded by their
King Syphax. It is not clear for how long Scipio remained trapped in this inextricable position. It
was, however, early 203 BC by the time he offered peace negotiations with the enemy.
The talk of peace was merely a ruse to lull his opponents into a false sense of security. He
suddenly broke off negotiations and attacked. The Battle of Utica (203 BC) was not truly a battle
as neither side truly fought. The Numidians and Carthaginians were utterly taken by surprise in
their camps by a nocturnal fire attack. If the setting fire of the enemy camps involved sabotage or
an attack with catapults and archery we do not know.
But with the camps aflame, the Romans cut down any desperate souls seeking to escape the
blaze through the gates. As a result, the two armies were annihilated.
Both enemy leaders managed to escape. Hasdrubal with 2,500 men in total. (early 203 BC)
Battle of the Great Plains
Yet despite their crushing defeat at Utica, Syphax and Hasdrubal, son of Gisco, within a month
managed to raise another force totaling 30,000 men. Meanwhile, Scipio was laying siege to the
city of Utica.
On hearing that the enemy was gathering on the Great Plains (campi magni) some 75 miles to the
west, Scipio left behind a force to continue the siege and marched the remainder of his army,
estimated to be some 15,000 men, to meet the foe.
Five days later he arrived at the Great Plains. There followed two days of skirmishing before the
armies met in battle. Given the haste in which the Carthaginian force had been gathered, the
troops cannot have yet been of any great quality. Scipio’s Italian and Numidian cavalry drove
Syphax’ horsemen off the field. All but the Spanish mercenaries at the centre of the Carthaginian
army, crumpled. The Spaniards were encircled and slaughtered. The remainder of the army was
either cut down as it fled, or dispersed into the countryside, never to be seen again. (203 BC)
Again Hasdrubal, son of Gisco, and King Syphax managed to flee.
King Syphax was pursued by a swift moving Roman force, commanded by Scipio’s trusted
friend Laelius and Scipio’s Numidian ally Masinissa (an enemy of Syphax). They met him at the
Battle of Cirta (Constantine, Algeria), where he force was driven off the field.
Syphax however fell from his horse in battle, was captured and taken prisoner and brought to
Scipio’s camp. Masinissa in turn now became King of Numidia, which meant the vitally
important Numidian horsemen now would serve Rome in greater numbers than Carthage.
With the utter defeat of their armies and the capture of their chief ally, Syphax, things now
looked bleak for the Carthaginians. Envoys were sent to Rome to negotiate terms with the

62
Roman senate. But as not to rely entirely on the mercy of their enemy, Carthage also called home
the two remaining sons of Hamilcar Barca; Hannibal and Mago.Both brothers rushed home, but
Mago died on the way from a wound he had suffered in a recent defeat in Italy by the tribe of the
Insubres.
Scipio’s terms meanwhile had been accepted. Carthage was to pay 5,000 talents, surrender any
claim to Spain and reduce its navy to twenty ships of war. The Roman senate too ratified the
terms. But Hannibal’s arrival with 15,000 battle-hardened veterans at Hadrumentum (Sousse)
changed matters.
Battle of the Zama
The two armies commanded by the two greatest commanders of the age met at Zama. The two
great generals met briefly to negotiate, but the talks came to nothing. The following day their
armies met in battle. (202 BC) Hannibal’s defeat at Zama confirmed the futility of any
Carthaginian hopes ever to beat Rome. Had it not been for his genius the Second Punic War
would never have lasted as long as it did or been of the scale and scope it took.
It is with good reason that this contest is frequently referred to as the ‘world war of the ancient
world’. Rome’s nigh on limitless resources, the quality of her troops and the loyalty of her allies
eventually proved too much even for Hannibal.
In Italy no matter how complete his victories proved in battle, the Romans could always levy yet
another massive force.
Hannibal’s brilliance may have meant that Carthage could for a time face Rome as a worthy
enemy. Yet no sooner did Rome possess a commander not utterly inferior to Hannibal, then all
her superiority in force of arms was made to tell.
Carthage stood utterly defeated after Zama and could do nothing else but seek terms from Rome
yet again. There was a few voices who demanded that even now she should fight on, defying the
inevitable siege that would follow. But these die-hards were silenced by Hannibal, who saw the
futility of any further resistance. The terms of peace were doubled from what they had been prior
to the battle of Zama. Carthage was to pay 10,000 talents over 50 years and her navy was to be
reduced to 10 triremes. In addition she was forbidden from any warfare without expressed
Roman permission. It was that last paragraph which caused great worry among the Carthaginians
as it rendered their African territories helpless to the raids of their Numidian neighbours,
especially as now their new king, Masinissa, was now Rome’s ally.
In general the terms of peace were generous. It was a sign of the magnanimity and humanity of
Scipio’s that in victory he was able to show leniency, where some of his fellow Romans would
have sought to utterly crush their helpless adversary.It is in memory of his great victory that
Scipio, the vanquisher of Africa, was henceforth known as Scipio Africanus.
Hannibal was permitted to stay on in Carthage. Most likely it was Scipio who refused to allow
Roman vengeance to be enacted upon him.Though by 190 BC Hannibal was banished from
Carthage, as his old political enemies reasserted themselves. Unquestionably Roman influence
will have played its part.After traveling to Tyre, it wasn’t long before Hannibal Barca should
reemerge at the court of Antiochus III of Syria. Rome now had become one the great powers of
the ancient world. The reduction of Carthage to a client state, the subjugation of Syracuse and
conquest of Spain meant she was the undisputed mistress of the western Mediterranean.
Gallic Uprising
The Second Punic War had left the Gallic domains which had been conquered after the last
Gallic invasion in utter chaos. The Gauls had revolted against Roman rule once Hannibal had

63
descended from the Alps and Rome had not since been able to re-establish control.
The Romans still held control of their strategic colonies, but the countryside was in utter revolt.
Foremost among the hostile tribes were once again the Boii and Insubres who had suffered so
terribly in the fighting following the last Gallic invasion. It was to take almost a decade of heavy
fighting until Rome had fully reestablished her control over the north of Italy up to the Alps.
The scale of the major battles fought in this frequently overlooked contest indicates just how
great a struggle it was for the Romans to regain control over the region of the Padus river (Po).
In 200 BC praetor Lucius Furius defeated a force of 40,000 Gauls at Cremona. But this was
achieved only after the Gauls had sacked and put to the torch the city of Placentia (Piacenza).
The Gauls were commanded by a Carthaginian called Hamilcar, who was still at large after the
end of the Second Punic War. 35,000 Gauls were killed or captured.
197 BC may have seen yet another great battle of a similar scale take place at the river Minucius
(Mincio). But many details surrounding the Gallic uprising are confused.
In 196 BC Claudius Marcellus defeated another large army of Gauls at Comum (Como).
Next Valerius Flaccus is reported to have defeated the Gauls at Mediolanum (Milan) in 194
BC.At this battle around 10,000 Gauls are said to have been killed.
Finally in 193 BC at Mutina (Modena) the last great battle of this conflict took place. Consul
Lucius Cornelius defeated the fearsome Boii in a close, very hard fought battle. 14,000 Boii
warriors were slain and 5,000 Romans fell, among them 2 tribunes and 23 centurions.
The fighting throughout the Gallic uprising seems to have been a desperate struggle. Yet the
defeat of the Gauls was so crushing that the tribes should thereafter never rise again.
New Latin and Roman colonies were founded to further cement Roman rule over the north:
Bononia (Bologna), Mutina (Modena) and Parma (Parma). Placentia (Piacenza) was reestablish
after its destruction and expanded. Cremona was also further enlarged .
The radical colonization of the north proved very effective. When the historian Polybius visited
the area some fifty years later, he reported it to be thoroughly italianised.
Second Macedonian War
Rome craved peace after the Second Punic war. Putting down the Gallic uprising was arduous
enough a task, without any more demands on a drained treasury and exhausted Italian allies. Yet
Rome had unfinished business across the sea in Macedon. Great resentment was felt toward
Philip V of Macedon for having allied with Carthage just after Cannae, when Rome was at her
weakest. It is true that Rome hardly suffered any consequences at all from the First Macedonian
War. But Rome was not to forgive such treachery.
The first war against Macedon had introduced Roman interest yet further into Greece than they
had been after the Illyrian wars. After all, her allies in the Macedonian conflict had included the
Aetolian and Achaean Leagues and the kingdom of Pergamum in Asia Minor.
Once such ties had been created they didn’t wither away overnight.
After the peace with Rome in 205 BC, Macedon continued an aggressive policy against the
Greeks. Most notably Philip V of Macedon forged an alliance with King Antiochus III of Syria
against Egypt under King Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203 BC). Ptolemy of Egypt was a 4 year old
child, which had recently been made a ward of Rome (no doubt with an eye on the grain supply).
Rome found itself invariably drawn into the machinations of Greek politics and wars. The war
against the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean Sea saw the Macedonians deal savagely with
captured islands. Yet, more importantly, some of the captains of the Macedonian fleet
indiscriminately attacked shipping in the Aegean. Such piracy called Rhodes and her powerful

64
fleet into action. Rhodes declared war in 202 BC was joined by Pergamum (201 BC).
King Attalus I of Pergamum had of course been an ally of Rome in the First Macedonian War
and still entertained friendly relations with the republic. Rhodes and Pergamum appealed to
Rome for intervention. So too did the Athenians who also were under attack from Macedon
(201/200BC).
If Rome was reluctant after the tremendous exertions against Hannibal, she now had ample
reason to act. A valued ally was calling for help against a loathed enemy.
Egyptian territory was under attack. Meanwhile, piracy and unbridled aggression meant
Macedon had no friends left in Greece. Rome surely would not be short of allies. Also, the battle
of Chios Island in late 201 BC in which the joint Rhodian and Pergamene fleet emerged
victorious demonstrated that Rome’s immediately allies possessed considerable force of arms.
What clinched it was the revelation of the pact between Syria and Macedon by the envoys of
Pergamum and Rhodes. If Rome distrusted Philip V, then the prospect of him being allied with
the powerful Seleucid kingdom of Syria was a menace that could not be ignored.
Macedon was fierce, but Syria was a formidable power which had in recent years crushed Parthia
and Bactria (212-206 BC). United they might prove unstoppable.
The senate was unanimous. War it was to be. But when this was put to the popular assembly of
the comitia centuriata for a formal declaration of war, it was overwhelmingly defeated. The
people were tired of war. Too great had the price of war been in the struggle with Carthage.
Also, the alliance with Pergamum was at best tentative. There was no formal treaty or
understanding between Rome and King Attalus. So there was no immediate casus belli ('cause
for war'). But eventually consul P. Sulpicius Galba addressed the comitia centuriata again and
told the gathered people that they really only had one choice. To fight Philip in Greece or in
Italy. The memory of the Carthaginian invasions of Italy was still a fresh, painful wound. The
fear of the re-visitation of such horrors helped swing the crowd in Sulpicius’ favour. War it was.
(200 BC)
But Rome evidently hoped for a limited war, far from the scale seen in the two wars against
Carthage so far. No extensive numbers of troops were levied. In all, the men raised to arms for
the Second Macedonian War never exceeded 30,000. Furthermore, these were new recruits. All
veterans of the war against Carthage were exempt from service. One of the first actions of the
war was the relief of Athens. The siege by the Macedonians depended heavily on their fleet
which was greatly inferior to the might of the allied navy and was hence easily driven off
without a fight. P. Sulpicius Galba landed in Illyria in 200 BC at the head of this new army,
rather late in the year, and made his way east. King Philip V marched an army of 20,000 infantry
and 2,000 cavalry to meet him. Yet nothing more ever came of it other than two skirmishes
between the two sides.
On either occasion King Philip withdrew. Finally Sulpicius pulled back for lack of supplies.
It had been a far from a convincing display by Rome thus far. Sulpicius had started his campaign
too late in the year, had largely inexperienced troops under his command and was showing little
initiative of his own.
More worryingly, the initial hope for a large number of allies had come to nothing. Rhodes and
Pergamum contributed little. Neither did any other Greek state. Even the tribal Dardanians north
of Macedon, whose loose alliance Rome had gained for the purposes of this war proved
ineffectual. Only the Aetolian League was the only significant ally gained in 200 BC, who put
effective troops into the field. Yet Rome proved no better an ally than most of the Greek states
she had assumed would join against Macedon. All through 199 BC it was the Aetolians who bore

65
the brunt of the fighting. Rome did advance at first, but only to retire due to insufficient supplies.
If the Aetolians at first made good progress, they were soon thrown back, suffering great losses
against the vastly superior Macedonians.
The joint Roman and allied fleets in the Aegean fared no better, achieving little, if anything at
all.

In 198 BC, with the war a dismal failure so far, consul Titus Quinctius
Flamininus, only 30 years of age, was dispatched to assume command.
Flamininus was an exceptional individual, with great knowledge of Greek
literature and culture. Militarily he was an adept commander. He had served
as a tribune under Marcellus during the war against Carthage. But it was his
diplomatic skill that should prove invaluable in labyrinthine Greek politics.
Right from the beginning of his involvement in Greece, Flamininus made it
clear that his intention was to drive Macedon completely from all her Greek
Titus Quinctius territories, to be confined within her own boundaries.
Flamininus
British Museum,
London
Yet Flamininus immediate concerns were that his army, as it marched east from Epirus, got
pinned down in the valley of the river Aous for several weeks. After having held the Romans in
check for a month, Philip V of Macedon offered to negotiate. But Flamininus terms remained
unchanged. It was six weeks into the stalemate until an Epirote shepherd revealed to the general
a little known pass through which Philip’s fortified positions could be bypassed. Flamininus saw
his opportunity and forced his way through the Aous valley into Thessaly. With this he had
finally managed to reach his allies of the Aetolian League again.
Better yet, the Achaean League, who had remained resolutely neutral so far, now joined forces
with Rome.
But still Flamininus did not attack, knowing that it would mean trying to force his way passed a
firmly entrenched Macedonian army, a fete impossible with the forces he had available.
The end of 198 BC came to an end with Rome in a stronger position, but little actual
achievement. Again Philip sought to negotiate. Again no resolution could be found. Rome
considered withdrawing Flamininus from Greece (no lesser than Scipio Africanus wanted the
position), but eventually decided to extend his tenure.
By 197 BC the strain of war began to become too great a burden for Macedon. King Philip was
receiving no support at all from his ally, King Antiochus III of Syria. Meanwhile, his borders
were virtually besieged by a joint force of Romans and Aetolians and to the south, in the
Peloponnese, the Achaean League was now at liberty to attack Macedonian territory. Even the
city of Corinth, Macedon’s singular, yet faithful ally, was under siege.
Meanwhile the sea belonged to the Rhodes, Pergamum and the mighty Roman navy.
The Battle of Cynoscephalae
King Philip sought to achieve a decision and marched his army, 25,000 strong, into Thessaly.
This changed matters for Flaminius. As the Macedonians marched down from their defensive
positions on the border between Macedon and Thessaly, it was evident that victory would be
sought in the field. Flamininus gathered what Aetolian reinforcements he could and marched to
meet the enemy. Philip sought to reach Scotussa in the valley of Enipeus, where the open, flat

66
ground was ideally suited his heavy phalanx. However, before he managed to reach this desired
location, the two forces met at a range of hills known as Cynoscephalae (Chalkodonion). (197
BC)
The battle of Cynoscephalae was a crushing victory for Rome. It brought the Second
Macedonian War to an end and allowed Flaminius to dictate his terms – not merely to his
vanquished Macedonian opponent, but so too to his Greek allies. He was charged by Rome with
the settlement of Greek affairs and sent ten commissioners to assist him in this tricky task.
Macedon was to withdraw from all of Greece, was to surrender its fleet and was to provide
hostages (among them King Philip’s own son, Demetrius). Flamininus appeared at the Isthmian
Games at Corinth in 196 BC and announced that Rome had only come to set free the Greek
states from Macedonian tyranny and would withdraw once all was settled. The Greeks were
jubilant.
Chief winners in his settlement was the Achaean League which now controlled almost all the
Peloponnese. The Athenias received several islands (Paros, Scyros and Imbros). The Aetolian
League though felt bitterly disappointed. Had Thessaly been freed from Macedonian occupation
the Aetolians had expected it to be turned over to them. They were only to receive a small part of
it, the rest of Thessaly’s towns being granted independent status. It is clear that Flamininus was
keen to preserve the balance of power in Greece. But the settlement felt like a betrayal to the
Aetolians who had for much of the war borne the brunt of the fighting. This ill feeling between
Rome and the Aetolian League should have far reaching consequences, which at the time most
likely no one could have foreseen. True to his word at the Isthmian Games, Flaminius did
withdrew the last Roman garrisons from the legendary ‘Fetters of Greece’ (the fortresses of
Demetrias, Chalcis and Corinth) and sailed home (194 BC).
War against Nabis
Part of the mire of Greek politics which kept Flamininus from leaving was unfinished business
from the Macedonian war surrounding King Nabis of Sparta. As usual with all things Greek, it
was a convoluted political affair which led to a war. At During the course of the war the city of
Argos had left the Achaean League and asked Philip V of Macedon for help. It was an unwise
choice as Macedon was clearly not in any position to provide help. Instead Philip asked King
Nabis of Sparta to intervene on his behalf. Nabis, keen to gain such a rich prize, did so willingly.
Though this unexpected windfall did not stop him from allying with Rome and providing
Flamininus with Cretan mercenaries at the battle of Cynoscephalae.But with the Macedonian war
over, the Achaean League now wanted to settle matters with Nabis, whom they considered little
more than a bandit. Importantly, Nabis’ rule of Argos was little more than a reign of terror.
Flamininus led an army into the Peloponnese and laid siege to Sparta. (195 BC) Nabis stood no
chance against such an overwhelming force. He put up a valiant attempt at resistance but
eventually had to submit. The city of Argos was reintegrated into the Achaean League. So too
were several other coastal towns of Spartan dominated Laconia made over to the Achaeans. But
Flamininus resisted their demands to remove Nabis and do away with Spartan independence
altogether. Once more Flamininus was keen not to provide any Greek state with too much power.

His work in Greece finally completed, Flamininus returned home. (194 BC)
War against Antiochus
Rome no longer had any troops in Greece, yet it was clear that the regional powers of Greece had
been allotted their territories according to Roman will. To the Aetolian League, who felt

67
betrayed, this arrogant highhandedness seemed intolerable. To the Aetolians it appeared as
though Greece was being treated as thought she had been conquered.

Finally the Aetolian League appealed to King Antiochus III of Syria to come
to their aid.Antiochus had concluded his successful war against Egypt and
even achieved an alliance with King Ptolemy V Epiphanes. He had also made
peace with Rhodes. King Antiochus’ standing was unrivalled among the
rulers of the successor states of Alexander’s empire. Now this great king was
called upon to liberate Greece from Roman oppression. More, so a ready,
powerful ally already awaited him, promising other would follow if only he
led his forces into Greece.
Antiochus III of
Syria
British Museum,
London
As it was, the two parties engaged in deluding each other. The Aetolian League had been
desperately seeking to find supporters among the Greek states for action against Rome, but had
found none interested. In an odd reversal of their recent position, the Aetolians even approached
Macedon. But King Philip V, having not received one scrap of support from Syria in his recent
war against Rome, now had no intention of lending support to Antiochus.
Meanwhile, Antiochus who claimed that he could pour fourth the massed ranks of Asia, alike a
second Xerxes, was truly in no position to do so.
Antiochus landed in 192 BC at Demetrias in Thessaly, which the Aetolian League had
successfully acquired in a coup. But his forces numbered no more than 10,000. The plentiful
allies promised by the Aetolian League never came. Far more Philip V of Maecedon and,
possibly, the Achaean League allied with Rome at the arrival of the Syrian army.
Rome again was ill prepared for another war in Greece. Not least as she had wars in Liguria and
Spain to contend with. War commenced in 192 BC on a small scale. But what few Roman troops
Rome used, soon found themselves cut off in Boeotia. In 191 BC Rome therefore sent a force of
20,000 infantry, accompanied by cavalry and elephants under the command of consul M. Acilius
Glabrio. Glabrio marched on Thessaly and Antiochus at once retreated to the famed pass of
Thermophylae, where once King Leonidas of Sparta had held back Xerxes’ vast host in battle.
In a strange parody of history, two foreign armies were about to contest the famous gates of
Greece, both claiming to be liberators.
Antiochus set up camp in the pass of Thermopylae and blocked it with a stone rampart.
Remembering how the Persians had defeated Leonidas, he sent 2,000 of his Aetolian allies to
block the hidden path set within the heights above the pass.
When Glabrio arrived, he found his enemy well entrenched in an almost unassailable position.
Nonetheless he advanced, pinning the great Syrian force into its defensive position, while he sent
Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder) and Lucius Valerius with 2,000 men each up the path into
the heights to meet the Aetolians. Having twice the numbers, the Romans succeeded in forcing
the pathway and then descended upon the pass from the rear.
Antiochus’ army, all aware of the importance of the path no doubt, panicked and began to flee.
King Antiochus successfully got away. But his dissolving army was slaughtered as the men
desperately sought to escape the crush of the advancing Roman pincer movement. (191 BC) As
68
Antiochus fled Greece, the Aetolian League requested Rome’s terms for peace.
Consul Glabrio bluntly demanded unconditional surrender and prepared to attack.
The Fight for the control of the Aegean
Meanwhile at sea later that year, the Syrian navy would meet the joint navies of Rome and
Pergamum, commanded by Gaius Livius and King Eumenes, at Cape Corcyrus (Koraka). King
Antiochus’ admiral Polyxenidas sought to engage the allied navy before it could further unite
with the Rhodian fleet. Again it was a dire defeat for the Syrians. (191 BC) On the mainland of
Asia Minor itself Rome’s ally Pergamum was being sore pressed, not least by the ravaging of the
countryside by King Antiochus’ son, Seleucus. In spring of 190 BC a surprise attack against the
Rhodian fleet by the Syrian fleet under Polyxenidas all but destroyed the Rhodian navy.
Yet another naval encounter in the summer of 190 BC saw the return of Hannibal Barca. King
Antiochus had so far made very little use of this military genius whose name was legendary
within his lifetime. Had he ever entrusted his land-based force to Hannibal one wonders what
might have been. But with a fleet of over 50 ships the Carthaginian met the Rhodian fleet off
Side. It was a close run affair and at one point the Rhodian flagship with admiral Eudamus
aboard was almost overcome. But the Rhodians managed to make their greater naval skill tell.
Not more than 20 Syrian ships, including that of Hannibal, managed to escape.
The decisive naval battle came followed later in 190 BC at Cape Myonnesus (Doganbey). A joint
roman and Rhodian fleet of 80 vessels commanded by Aemilius Regillus met a fleet of 89 Syrian
ships commanded by Polyxenidas. The Syrian line of ships broke, its admiral fled and, seeing
this, so too did the rest of the fleet. The Syrians may have lost as many as 42 ships. After this
defeat King Antiochus was no longer able to challenge allied dominance of the sea. The way was
now clear for Rome to invade Asia Minor.
Rome enters Asia for the first time
The consulship for 190 BC and the commission to oversee the war against Antiochus fell to
Lucius Cornelius Scipio (the brother of Scipio Africanus). Lucius Scipio had no great experience
of military matters and hence his older brother Scipio Africanus accompanied him to oversee the
army. Rome had no interest in releasing her armies upon the Aetolian League, as Glabrio had
intended, while King Antiochus still posed a threat from across the sea.
The brothers Scipio were intent on taking the war into Asia Minor and hence granted the
Aetolians a simple cease fire until terms could be agreed (which occurred in 189 BC).
The Roman army marched from Greece to the Dardanelles in preparation for an invasion.
Macedon, now an ally of Rome, provided the brothers Scipio every help. King Philip V of
Macedon even provided the Roman army with ready supplies and escort ships as they ferried
across the straits to Asia Minor.
Antiochus III of Syria, who had lost control of the sea in the naval war, meanwhile withdrew his
troops from the coasts in Asia Minor, awaiting the Roman attack. Syria may have been on the
defensive but all was far from lost for her. Rome may have defeated King Antiochus at
Thermopylae, but that had been a smaller Syrian invasion force, short of useful allies.
Now, on his own soil, King Antiochus could command a much greater force.
Having withdrawn across the river Phrygius ( Kum Cay), the king awaited the Romans with a
force of 60,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry. The Romans advanced on the Syrian position with
30,000 men.
However, King Antiochus was well aware of the disparity in quality of the two armies facing
each other. In negotiations he hence offered to withdraw from the Aegean coastal territories of

69
Asia Minor he had acquired recently and to pay half the Roman war expense. The Roman
response was harsh. Antiochus was to pay the entire cost of the Roman war and was to retire
from all of Asia Minor. These were demands King Antiochus III of Syria couldn’t possibly
accept. Rome was demanding he surrender half his kingdom, whilst putting into the field an
army less than half the size of his. Inevitably a decision had to be sought in battle.
The Battle of Magnesia
It was December 190 BC when the two forces met in battle at Magnesia.
The vast force of 72,000 men King Antiochus had at his command was made up of warriors
gathered from all over the vast Syrian kingdom, or mercenaries from beyond its far flung
borders; Celts from Galatia, horsemen from Media, Scythians, archers from as far a field as
Elam, even Arabian dromedary archers. Aside from these impressive units, there were also
numerous war elephants and four-horse scythed chariots present.
Yet this spectacular display of imperial grandeur lay at the heart of the very weakness of the
king’s great army. The units, though most likely of superb quality, spoke different languages and
had no experience of fighting alongside each other as an army.
The Romans meanwhile had a central force of 20,000 Roman and Italian men to count on,
supported by 10,000 auxiliaries (Pergamene and, probably, Achaean forces). Scipio Africanus
was seriously ill and could hence not play any part in the battle.
Joint command fell hence to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and King Eumenes II of Pergamum.
The battle was partly obscured to all present by thick mist, making it impossible for the centre of
either army to observe what was happening on the wings.
Once battle commenced King Eumenes, leading his cavalry and light troops on the Roman right,
drove off the cavalry and chariots of the Syrian left and successfully disrupted the flank of the
Syrian phalanx. The Roman centre saw its chance and advanced, forcing back the Syrian phalanx
which was struggling to maintain its line, due to the trouble on its left.
Only on the Syrian right wing did things go well. As it turned out, things went too well. King
Antiochus himself led a cavalry charge which threw the Roman left into disarray. As the king
drove home his advantage, his cavalry became detached from his army. Hidden in the mist, the
great Syrian army was hard pressed and in dire need of leadership, yet it received none.
Antiochus himself was driven off, once he advanced too far and suddenly found his cavalry
assailed from front and rear.
Stripped of its protective cavalry on right and left, the vast Syrian infantry now stood no chance.
It eventually broke and fled. King Antiochus suffered a crushing defeat. He lost 50,000 infantry
and 3,000 cavalry. The Romans lost 350 men.
Roman settlement of Asia Minor
The peace terms offered by the brothers Scipio were roughly the same as they had been prior to
the Battle of Magnesia. King Antiochus was to retire from Turkey and pay 15,000 talents, a
colossal sum. Cappadocia and the two Armenian dominions were confirmed as independent
kingdoms.
Pergamum received large tracts of land in Asia Minor and the Chersonese Peninsula (Gallipolli).
Rhodes meanwhile received Caria and Lycia in reward for her vital alliance.
In keeping with Rome’s claim to be the guardian of Greece all Greek towns, but for those owned
by Pergamum, were declared free. The Aetolian League suffered a loss of some land to Macedon
and the Achaean League and was effectively made a dependency of Rome.
This settlement seems generally fair. But political enemies of the brothers Scipio back in Rome
sought to discredit their opponents, by insisting the terms upon Syria must be more severe.

70
Gnaeus Manlius Vulso was sent to take the role of Lucius Scipio.
New terms were stated, whereby King Antiochus now had to surrender all his fleet, but for ten
vessels, and give up all his war elephants. Further he was to agree never to make war in Europe
or in the Aegean Sea. He was not to make any allies among the Greeks.
The terms were harsh and the subsequent decline of Syria was no doubt a consequence of the
senate’s insistence for the toughest terms possible. (188BC)
For the Scipii worse was to follow. Their enemies, foremost among them Cato the Elder, would
not rest. On returning home the brothers were charged with embezzlement. Scipio Africanus
escaped conviction as, by strange coincidence, the date of his trial fall on the very anniversary of
his victory at the Battle of Zama. Rather than hold a trial, the people followed him to the
Capitoline for a ritual sacrifice and thanksgiving.
Lucius Scipio was not so lucky. He was convicted and punished. Scipio Africanus thereafter
retired to his villa at Liternum where he spent the last years of his life a recluse. It was a sad end
to one of Rome’s finest generals and statesmen.

Galatian Expedition
Meanwhile the man sent to succeed Lucius Scipio in 189 BC consul Ganeus Manlius Vulso saw
fit to deal with the troublesome Celtic tribes who had invaded Asia Minor and had been
harassing the various kingdoms. This brief campaign, generally known as the Galatian
Expedition, reached its climax when the Romans attacked the Celts fortified position on Mount
Magaba (Elmadagi), ten miles south of Ancyra (Ankara). The enemy was said to number some
60,000 men, of whom 8,000 were killed. After this the tribesmen sued for peace. They were
granted independence, to act as a buffer between the territories of Rome’s allies and the
remaining Syrian domain.
Death of Hannibal
Rome had one more item of unfinished business in Asia Minor. One of the specific conditions
laid down in the terms for King Antiochus was that Hannibal Barca had to be surrendered to
Rome. So terrifying was Hannibal still to Romans that his person obsessed their imagination. But
Hannibal received sufficient warning to flee to the court of King Prusias of Bithynia. King
Prusias in turn had great use for a man of Hannibal’s talents, as in 186 BC he engaged in a war
with Pergamum. Hannibal indeed achieved some successes against the forces of King Eumenes.
But before long no lesser than Titus Quinctius Flamininus, the victor of Cynoscephalae, was in
the East on a diplomatic mission and sent a demand to King Prusias, on behalf of the Roman
senate, that Hannibal be surrendered at once. (183 BC) Bithynia was in no position to oppose the
might of Rome. Prusias sent soldiers to Hannibal’s residence. Yet the Hannibal Barca, one of the
supreme military geniuses of history, was not to surrender himself to the indignity of being
dragged through the streets of Rome in chains. He took his life by poison. (183 BC)
The petty manner in which Rome pursued her erstwhile nemesis seems cruel and vindictive. But
it is best explained as a measure of the sheer fear that the name Hannibal instilled in her. Also
one should never forget the sheer loss of life Italy had suffered at the hands of Hannibal. With so
many people having suffered bereavement it is hardly surprising that the appetite for revenge
was there to drive Hannibal to destruction.
Aftermath of War against Antiochus
What is astonishing is that Rome had managed achieve dominance of the Greek world in only
two major battles; Cynoscephalae and Magnesia.Seen as a whole the Greek world represented a
much greater military power than Rome. Yet the Alexandrian successor states of Egypt, Syria

71
and Macedon, as well as smaller Greek kingdoms and Leagues were reduced to little more than
the status of client states.
In a remarkably brief space of time Rome had achieved preeminence in the eastern
Mediterranean, even if she didn’t own territory there.More remarkable, Rome achieved such
power by conflicts into which she had entered only reluctantly.Rome would hence be the arbiter
to whom rival states would henceforth turn to settle disputes. Her prestige was such, that the
disappointed party would not dare question the decision.
It is important to keep in mind Rome’s preeminence in the region, established after the Second
Macedonian War and the War against Antiochus, when viewing the later eastern wars and
subsequent conquest of the east. For the essential basis of Rome’s eventual rule over the region
had been laid in those two great victories. Rome’s later victories and conquests in the region
came as a result of challenges to her dominance. Yet her de facto overlordship was established
after Cynoscephalae and Magnesia.
Wars in Liguria and Istria
Rome had managed to establish two naval bases on the coast of Liguria, Genua ( Genoa and
Luna (Spezia, before the Second Punic War. A pass connecting Genua with the Padus (Pod)
valley had also been cleared in 197 BC. The mountainous country of the Ligurians though
remained otherwise untouched. Ligurian and Sardinian piracy, however, meant that Rome soon
had a strong interest in establishing her rule over this terrain. Also the fierce Ligurian tribes
remained an irritation next to the newly pacified territory of Cisalpine Gaul.
Very little is known though about the details of the Ligurian Wars. What is known is that the
Ligurian people proved incredibly resilient to Rome. The Romans suffered several reverses as
they sought to fight in unfamiliar terrain against a truly fearsome enemy.
The fighting was not merely restricted to Liguria itself. At times it would be the Ligurians who
took the initiative. In 192 BC they were defeated at Pisae (Pisa), albeit that little is known about
the encounter. In the 180s BC at times not merely one, but two consular armies were sent to
defeat them. Given the small size of Liguria, the fact that they should be able to hold two
consular armies at bay regarding the ferociousness of the local tribes.
In 180 BC L. Aemilius Paullus succeeded in subduing the tribe of the Apuani who lived between
Genua and Luna. So troublesome were these people deemed they were deported to live in
Samnium thereafter. In 177 BC a large battle took place at the river Scultenna Panaro near Pisae,
consul Gaius Claudius leading the Romans. 15,000 Ligurians are said to have died in this
encounter. A year later, 176 BC, another battle at Campi Macri near Mutina (Modena) saw the
Ligurians defeated again. So severe was the fighting though, that the Roman consul
commanding, QuintusPetilius, died in the battle. Throughout most of the 170s BC the Ligurians
resisted valiantly. But gradually, one by one the hilltops were seized and Rome succeeded in
stamping her authority over this barren strip of land. The last decisive battle was north of Genua
at a town called Carystus (173 BC). Consul Marcus Populius defeated the Ligurian army. 10,000
Ligurians died whilst the Romans lost 3,000 men. Thereafter the Ligurians surrendered
unconditionally. A fete which had taken them a quarter of a century to achieve.
Another, though much shorter less bitter contest to secure the northern flanks of Italy was
conducted in Istria. Rome intervened here for much the same reasons as with the Ligurians. The
local Histri made much of their living, alike their Illyrian neighbours, by means of piracy.
Consul Aulus Manlius Vulso was to oversee a successful campaign (178-177 BC), albeit it that it
begun with an embarrassing spectacle. Having made his camp at the river Timavus (Timavo) he

72
created several lightly manned outposts to guard against surprise attack. As some of these
outposts were attacked by the Histri in the morning mist, panicked Roman guards came fleeing
back to the camp, in their excitement exaggerating the size of the mainly unseen enemy and
telling of a vast army approaching in the fog.
The news caused panic in the Roman camp and most present fled towards the ships. Only one
tribune stayed behind with a handful of Roman units. They posed little problem for what limited
Istrian force then finally did try an assault on the camp. Once consul Manlius, already back
aboard his ship, realized that there was no vast horde of barbarians the tribune and his few men
had been overcome and slaughtered. However, when the Romans reached their own camp again
it was only to find the Istrians utterly drunk. They’d evidently come across the wine supply and
thrown caution to the wind. 8,000 of them were killed. What number remained managed to make
an escape. This embarrassing episode behind them, the Romans succeeded in regaining their
military discipline and subdued all of Istria within the following year.
Misrule of Spain
One unintended consequence of victory in the Second Punic War was that Rome gained
possession of Carthage’s territories in Spain. The Spanish possessions however proved a difficult
inheritance. The allegiance of the numerous Spanish tribes proved of very fickle. Meanwhile, the
Spanish were fearsome warriors who proved nigh on impossible to subdue.
However, the sheer mineral wealth of the country, which had originally drawn the Carthaginians
to the peninsula were a phenomenal prize and Rome was determined to secure permanent
possession of these riches. It was to prove an exceedingly long struggle. Sixty years would pass
before Roman authority was solidly established. Not until the rule of emperor Augustus would
Spain finally be completely subdued. In 197 BC Spain was constituted into two colonies;
Hispania Citerior (Hither Spain) and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain).
Having seen the loyalty with which the Spaniards had adhered to Scipio Africanus the senate
assumed the area as good as pacified, handed command of it to magistrates of rank of praetor
only and withdrew most of the troops, leaving only 8,000 Italian auxiliaries in each colony. It
proved a costly mistake. No doubt the senate’s attention was drawn to affairs of Macedon,
Greece and Syria in comparison to which Spain an irrelevant backwater.
The bitterness of the fighting in Spain, however, was also reflected in the nature of provincial
government. Spain was far from Rome and the senate. There were hence few restraints on a
scrupulous governor. Just as the rule of Sicily was infamously savage, so too was that of the
Spanish dominions.Cruelty was the order of the day. Treaties whereby some cities were free,
were simply ignored by greedy governors who squeezed them for all they could. Any protests or
petitions were answered with brutality. The brief tenures of Cato the Elder and Gracchus were
merely short interludes in which governance was said to be fair due to the upstanding nature of
these two individuals. In any other year, Roman overlordship was tantamount to tyranny and
oppression. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Spaniards were intent on resisting conquest
to the last.
Rising in Spain
However the very year in which the Roman provinces were established, 197 BC, and denuded of
troops war broke out as the tribe of the Turdenati rose in revolt. The praetor of Hispania Citerior
saw his forces routed and lost his life at an unknown location.
Two years later saw a general rising of the Celtiberian tribes of central Spain. In a pitched battle
near Turda the Spaniards destroyed another Roman army, causing the loss of 12,000 men. (195
BC) In the same year, as Marcus Helvius was leaving Hispania Ulterior for home with 6,000

73
troops they were ambushed near the town of Iliturgi by 20,000 Celtiberians. They succeeded in
repulsing the attack, killed 12,000 of them. Already in these early years, the nature of warfare
grew bitter. Having driven off the Spanish army, the Romans descended upon the town and
massacred the population. (195 BC) It wasn’t long before Rome posted a consul (Cato the Elder)
to Spain with an army to try and quell the unrest. Marcus Porcius Cato landed his troops at
Emporiae (Ampurias) where he brought the Spaniards to battle. The losses on either side are
unknown, but there are said to have been a meeting of two great armies. The defeat the Spaniards
suffered when lured into an ambush was to have been a crushing one. In consequence the
country and towns north of Ebro surrendered to Roman rule.
Some semblance of order may have been restored, but no sooner did the consular army withdraw
then mayhem ensued again on the peninsula. However, by 194 BC the Turdetani were finally
defeated and subdued by P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica.
The Spaniards were a tribal people who knew how to make the most out the difficult,
mountainous terrain they inhabited. Unlike in the wars Rome fought in the Greek world,
decisions were usually not reached by one huge, pitched battle.
What followed instead were endless small engagements, never sufficient to crush the loser or
grant the victor an unassailable advantage. The accounts of the wars in Spain are fairly patchy, so
we lack the detail of knowledge which we have of the contemporary Roman wars against the
Greeks. In the large engagements into which the Spaniards did enter, Rome tended to emerge
victorious. In 181 BC the Battle of Aebura saw an army of 35,000 Spaniards defeated, whereby
23,000 were killed and 4,700 were taken prisoner. The very next year Fulvius Flaccus defeated
another great force at the Battle of the Manlian Pass. 17,000 of the enemy lay dead and 3,700
were captured. Finally, in 179 BC the Celtiberian Rising was put down by praetor Tiberius
Sempronius Gracchus at the Battle of Mount Chaunus, where another 22,000 tribesmen lost their
lives. The success of Gracchus was not solely down to military prowess. Much more was it that,
unlike anyone since Scipio Africanus, he gained the trust of the Spanish tribes. Spain, it seemed,
could be pacified by a charismatic leader who won the respect of the chieftains.
Gracchus impact on Spain was so significant that the relative peace, established prior to his
departure in 177 BC was to last for some 25 years.
Third Macedonian War
King Philip V of Macedon had died in 179 BC. In his latter years he may have been a reluctant
ally of Rome, but he had also diligently rebuilt his military power since his great defeat at
Cynoscephalae. By the time his son Perseus succeeded to the throne Macedon had indeed
recovered much of her wealth and military might. Right from the start Rome distrusted Perseus
as he had plotted against his younger brother Demetrius, assuring his execution for treason,
during his father’s reign. Demetrius had been on diplomatic missions to Rome, where he had
been on friendly terms with the senate and had been seen as a possible alternative heir to Philip’s
throne.
On taking power King Perseus began to expand the power and influence of Macedon. He had
married Laodice the daughter of the King Seleucus VI of Syria (successor of Antiochus III) and
had married his sister Apame to King Prusias of Bithynia. Meanwhile he was building
diplomatic bridges in mainland Greece and finding ready followers among the many disaffected
and bankrupted Greeks desperate for any dramatic turn of fate that might restore their fortunes.
His proclamation that all Greeks who were dissatisfied with affairs should gather at his court in
Macedon was a clear statement of intent. He, King Perseus of Macedon, was the new liberator of
Greece. Perseus also built alliances with the Illyrian chief Genthius and the powerful Thracian

74
prince Cotys. Even Rhodes appeared to take a friendly attitude toward the new king. Had Rome
laboured to build a delicate balance of power within the Greek world, Perseus’ ambitiousness
now threatened this.
Macedon’s implacable enemy was King Eumenes II of Pergamum. As Rome’s most trusted ally
in the region he enjoyed considerable influence with the senate. His warnings went unheard until
in 172 BC he traveled to Rome himself and presented to the senate his warning of the danger
Perseus represented. (Such was Rome’s prestige by now that an eastern monarch would beseech
the senate in person for her intervention!) Most likely King Eumenes’ visit was sufficient to
sway Rome to intervene, no matter how reluctant. However, if it did not suffice then the fact that
Eumenes was ambushed on his way home and left for dead clearly made up their minds that a
deadly network of intrigues and plots was being crafted by Macedon’s new ruler.
As a pretext for war, Rome demanded that Macedon pay reparation to allied Balkan tribes who
had suffered attacks by Macedon. Perseus refused. (172 BC) But as Rome was not in a position
to engage in war at once, not least due to her commitments in Spain, she instead sent Quintus
Marcius Philippus to open lengthy negotiations with Perseus, holding out the prospect of a peace.
The gesture was utterly insincere as it was merely a ruse by which to buy enough time to secure
Rome’s position in Greece and prepare an army. Rome’s diplomatic interventions though also
assured that, at the declaration of war, Macedon had no allies. Whatever the sympathies for
Macedon may have been, no Greek state wished to stand in the way of Rome’s legions.
The preparations complete, Rome landed an army at Apollonia in spring of 171 BC. Just as she
had drifted into the war reluctantly, even disinterestedly, then so too Rome’s initial conduct in
the conflict was half-hearted. Rome had sent forth consul P. Licinius Crassus to deal with an
enemy who had already been defeated once and was no doubt not deemed as great a challenge as
it had once been. The Roman consular army did indeed number 30,000 men, yet it was an ill-
disciplined and ill-prepared force. Just how badly prepared the Roman force was quickly
emerged at its first major encounter. They were to meet with the Macedonian army of 40,000
infantry and 4,000 cavalry in Thessaly which Perseus had invaded at the beginning of the war.
At the Battle of Callinicus, which took place some 3 miles from Larissa (Larisa), the entire
Roman consular force was put to rout by the army of Perseus. (171 BC) What saved the Roman
force from total destruction was that in the headlong pursuit of the fleeing enemy, the
Macedonian forces fell into disorder and hence chose to pull back.
Such was the success of Macedonian forces that Perseus offered peace.
Rome rejected it out of hand. Had she seen her dominance of the Mediterranean acknowledged
as far as Syria and Egypt, a defeat by Macedon would rendered such Roman authority nil and
void.
Rome would struggle on for two years, her armies demoralized and her generals incompetent or
corrupt. Within this time Rome’s prestige within the wider region suffered. Her defeat at
Callinicus, though not decisive had shown Rome’s hold on power was not as irreversible as most
had thought. Slowly resistance to Roman dominance began to stir. After Callinicus the republic
of Epirus had decided to back Perseus. In various parts of Greece sentiments ran high. None of
this was helped by Rome treating the forces of its own allies in the field with indifferent
harshness. To add to this, several towns in Boeotia were sacked by the Romans.
With Rome seemingly unable to defeat Macedon, her grasp over the region was tottering. Back
in Rome the envoys of Rhodes delivered an arrogant, haughty lecture to the senate upon the
errors of her conduct. – A misjudgment Rhodes later would pay for dearly.

75
Macedon’s ally Genthius was beginning to cause trouble in Illyria. It seemed the tide was turning
against Rome.
Had Perseus acted decisively, had allies arisen in numbers, Greece may have regained her
freedom. But King Perseus remained inactive and no great rising against Rome took place.
Finally in 169 BC Quintus Marcius Philippus (the man who had been stalling with insincere
negotiations in preparation for war) forced his way through the heavily forested slope of Mt.
Olympus on the border to Macedon. It was a reckless manoeuvre which exhausted his army and
left him beyond the reach of supplies.
Yet so taken by surprise was Perseus that, rather than exploit his opponent’s fatal error he
abandoned the entire frontier of Macedon and withdrew further into his kingdom.
The stalemate now continued with the two armies facing each other until in 168 the veteran
commander from the Spanish and Ligurian wars Lucius Aemilius Paulus was sent with
reinforcements to take command. Remarkably, the war was now in its fourth year.
Paulus took himself several weeks to drill the army into shape and instill proper army discipline.
The Battle of Pydna
Paulus forced his way past the current entrenched positions at Mt Olympus and finally brought
Perseus to battle at Pydna. (summer, 168 BC) The battle itself began by the most cursory of
incidents. An attempt to capture a loose horse by the Romans, resulted in a skirmish, which in
turn escalated into a full scale battle. The Macedonian phalanx advanced, sweeping all before it.
The Roman legions were simply driven back, unable to resist the drive of the Macedonian line.
Paulus would later tell of his terror at the sight of the Macedonian phalanx advancing.
But as the Macedonian force advanced over rough ground small breaches appeared in its line.
Paulus ordered small groups to attack these gaps when they occurred. The phalanx not being
designed to repel such impromptu assaults stood no chance and collapsed.
If 80 to 100 Romans are reported to have died in the advance of the phalanx, the slaughter which
ensued once the Macedonian lines broke cost the lives of 25,000 of Perseus’ men.
It was a thoroughly crushing defeat. The Roman legionary system had once again triumphed
over the Greek phalanx.
Aftermath of Third Macedonian War
Rome’s behaviour following her victory at Pydna could be described as vengeance, tipped with
malice. King Perseus fled from the battlefield of Pydna and boarded a ship, but was soon forced
to surrender himself to the Roman fleet. He was paraded to the Roman public at Paulus’ triumph
and spent the rest of his days exiled to Alba Fucens in the Marsian hills in Italy. Rome was not
finished though after her victory at Pydna and dispatched a second force to Illyria. A swift
campaign in 168 BC defeated the Illyrians and brought Genthius back a prisoner. In 168 BC the
Rhodians had sought to mediate between Rome and Macedon. Rhodes indeed had a longstanding
tradition of such diplomacy in settling quarrels between Greek states.
However, the news of the victory at Pydna reached Rome in advance of the Rhodian diplomats.
As a consequence their intervention right after Rome’s victory appeared to the Romans as an
attempt to protect Perseus, once he had been defeated.
The senate also still remembered the arrogant lecture it had received by the Rhodians, when
Roman power in Greece had seemed to be on the wane. For Rhodes it spelled disaster. One
praetor even suggested war. But Cato the Elder counseled against it, realizing that no real malice
had been intended with the bid to mediate. This was however not accomplished without the utter
humiliation of the Rhodian envoys who prostrated themselves before the senators, pleading
tearfully for their city not to be destroyed. Rhodes was to lose her territories in Caria and Lycia

76
which had been granted her after the War against Antiochus. Furthermore she was to suffer a
terrible blow to its trade with the punitive creation of the famous free port on the island of Delos.

But by 165/164 BC Rhodes was at last recognized as an ally of Rome again.

The creation of the free port of Delos was to have significant ramifications upon the
Mediterraenan. Rhodes’ economy was ruined by it and she could no longer afford to maintain
her substantial war fleet. Without Rhodian patrols in eastern waters, pirates soon began to
prosper. It would take a century before piracy was brought back under control. In 171 BC, after
the Roman defeat at Callinicus, Epirus had allied herself with Macedon. But all throughout the
war Epirots had never provided the Macedonians with any help. Their allegiance may indeed
have been induced purely by fear.
Now, however, this fateful alliance should cost them dearly.
In 167 BC Aemilius Paulus was charged by the senate with launching a punitive campaign upon
Epirus. The raid by the Roman legions was horrific and no less than 150,000 Epirots were
carried away into slavery and sold.
Flamininus and the Scipii may have shown leniency toward Greece in settling previous wars. But
the likes of Paulus and Cato were vicious in their insistence on Roman vengeance.
In Aetolia the Romans granted their support to factions who set about massacring suspected
friends of the Macedonian cause. Perhaps most unfair of all was the treatment of the Achaean
League. Throughout the war against King Perseus the Achaeans had remained unwaveringly
loyal to Rome. Yet now Rome extended a spy network across all Greece. A purge was organized
to rid all Greece of anti-Roman leaders. Neighbour denounced neighbour. People deemed
troublesome were simply deported to Italy. Among such outrages 1,000 of Achaea’s leading
citizen’s were deported to Etruria without trial. The historian Polybius was perhaps to be the
most famous among these hostages. It would be more than fifteen years, until in 150 BC the
remaining 300 of these captives were freed and returned to Greece. It is little surprise that all
Greece henceforth harboured deep resentment toward Rome.
The Greek states were left free, albeit that they possessed virtually no independence anymore.
Rome still sought not to absorb Macedon or Illyria into her empire.
Instead Macedon was divided into four independent republics, each administered by its own
senate and each paying a tribute to Rome. Illyria was divided into three republics along the same
lines.
Rome it appeared still wanted to permanent commitment in the east. The creation of these feeble
republics was always doomed to failure. The political and military conditions heaped upon them
assured they could no longer pose a threat to Roman interest, but so too made them too weak to
defend themselves. Yet the division of Macedon and Illyria served as a perfect demonstration
that Rome sought to exert influence upon the eastern Mediterranean, yet had no ambitions of
seizing territory there.
Fourth Macedonian War
The weakness of the individual Macedonian republics was soon demonstrated, when an
adventurer called Andriscus, who pretended to be the son of Perseus, sparked a rising and swept
to power. Impoverished by the crippling of her trade, Macedon in the twenty years following
Rome’s victory at Pydna had fallen on desperate times.
The separate militias of the Macedonian republics simply could not contain the uprising. (150
BC) Once again Rome’s efforts in Greece started badly. Andriscus crushingly defeated a hastily

77
assembled Roman force and overran Thessaly in 149 BC.
Though Rome was not to underestimate her enemy twice and in 148 BC sent a powerful army
under the command of Quintus Caecilius Metellus to deal with the matter.
Andriscus was defeated, driven from Macedon and finally run down and captured in Thrace.
(148 BC)
As a consequence of the Fourth Macedonian War the experiment of dividing Macedon into
republics was at an end. A new province of Macedonia was created mainly from the territories of
Macedon, Thessaly and Epirus. A new military highway, the Via Egnatia, was built from the port
of Apollonia to the provincial capital of Thessalonica.
War against the Achaean League
The final disaster to befall Greece was the determination of Sparta to leave the Achaean League.
The Roman senate, always keen to weaken any Greek state, indicated its consent. The Achaean
League was outraged. Given that only in 150 BC the surviving Greek hostages had returned
which had been taken in the purge following the Third Macedonian War, hostility toward Rome
ran high. Furthermore, Corinth was in a revolutionary ferment. The dictator Critolaus, who was
fervently anti-Roman, had come to power in the city.
Rome meanwhile was busy in Spain and Carthage. Perhaps the Achaean League contented itself
with the thought that Rome would not seek to engage in war over what was after all an interior
and minor Greek affair, whilst she was occupied on several fronts.
In 148 BC the Achaean League marched on Sparta won victory in battle.
Matters may still have been resolved amicably. But Critolaus insulted and threatened Roman
envoys which rendered any negotiations impossible.
Consequently, Quintus Caecilius Metellus marched his armies out of Macedon. There followed
several smaller engagements, one of which saw the death of Critolaus. (146 BC) Metellus
marched on Corinth, but the decisive battle fell to consul Lucius Mummius who had been
especially dispatched with reinforcements from Italy and who arrived just in time to take
command. Roughly 14,000 Greek ramshackle infantry, consisting to a large part of freed slaves,
and 600 cavalry faced 23,000 Roman infantry and 3,500 cavalry. The Greeks stood no chance.
The exact Greek losses are disputed, but must have been very heavy. (146 BC)
The defenceless city of Corinth now faced the wrath of Rome. Most inhabitants had fled. Those
who hadn’t were sold into slavery. The destruction of Corinth in 146 BC ranks among the most
infamous occasions of Roman history. Its instigator, the consul Lucius Mummius, is forevermore
remembered as the figure of ham-fisted barbarity who destroyed one of the ancient world’s
foremost cities of culture and learning. Mummius may be best remembered for his instructions,
when carrying off the manifold treasures of Corinth, that any man who broke one of the priceless
works of art in transport, would have to replace it with an equivalent.
The defeat of 146 BC is traditionally determined as the end of Greek political history. Albeit that
Greece technically remained as a collection of city states, free in all but name, she was
effectively incorporated into the Roman province of Macedonia.
The governor of Macedonia was in fact authorized by the senate to interfere in Greek affairs,
whenever he saw fit. The tragic irony of Greek history is that Greece at last found a lasting peace
under Roman domination; a peace she would most likely never have accomplished on her own.
Third Punic War
The settlement of the Second Punic War had seen the virtual monopoly of Carthaginian trade in
the western Mediterranean broken, yet it had not succeeded in diminishing Carthage as an

78
economic power. Within years Carthage was thriving anew, establishing new trade links deep
into the African continent. For all Rome’s military might she could not rival Carthage as the
mercantile capital of the western Mediterranean. More so, Rome’s destruction of Capua, Italy’s
foremost city of trade, during the war with Hannibal undoubtedly had only furthered Punic
dominance.
Ten years after her surrender following the Battle of Zama, Carthage was able to repay in total
the remaining 8,000 talents it was required to pay over the next 40 years.
(The total sum had been 10,000 talents over 50 years.) Furthermore Carthage had contributed
free gifts of grain to Roman military operations in the east. Carthaginian ships and crews fought
as part of the Roman navy.
There was no indication of Carthage possessing any further imperial ambitions. Her ruling class
seemed to have dedicated itself to prospering by trade alone, leaving all ambitions of military
supremacy firmly with Rome.
Yet, the peace treaty with Rome contained one fatal flaw.
It forbade Carthage to take any military action, even in defence, without the expressed
permission of Rome. However, the chief threat to Carthaginian territory was in fact King
Masinissa of Numidia, who in turn was an ally of Rome. Should trouble arise between Carthage
and Numidia, it would be for Rome to choose if she would allow the Carthaginians to take up
arms against one of her allies.
Masinissa knew all to well of the hatred Rome felt for Carthage, ever since the ordeal of
Hannibal’s campaigns against her. Having secured his position in Numidia and having built a
standing army of 50,000 men, Masinissa proceeded to invade Carthaginian territory, bit by bit.
Carthaginian protests to Rome went unanswered. Masinissa had little to fear. He too was
providing Roman armies with grain for free. He even provided war elephants to the Roman
forces in Spain. How possibly would Rome authorize Carthage to take military action against
such a loyal ally?
In 152 BC a Roman delegation under P.Scipio Nasica did find in favour of Carthage and did
order Masinissa to return some of the territory. The tradition of the Scipio family of showing
leniency and fairness to the vanquished foe still seemed to hold. Rome meanwhile still seemed to
respect the judgment of a Scipio concerning Carthage.
Masinissa however didn’t let such a minor setback deter him from resuming his incursions into
Carthaginian territory. His ambition seemed to be nothing less than the conquest of all
Carthaginian territory. But with his renewed aggression, Masinissa eventually pushed too far. In
150 BC Carthaginian patience snapped. They assembled a force of fifty thousand and, in
defiance of the peace treaty with Rome, confronted the Numidian army. But Masinissa, by now
in his nineties, was not to be defeated. The Carthaginian army was utterly destroyed. Yet
Masinissa was not to enjoy his prize. A much greater predator now cast its eye on Africa: Rome.
One might conclude that Rome sensed its opportunity of seizing its hated enemy, after it had
suffered a defeat, before its avaricious Numidian neighbour conquered it. But more so it was the
ceaseless campaigning of Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder) which saw to it that the senate
finally caved in and took action against Carthage.
Cato’s motives are unclear. Perhaps he truly believed that Rome could never be safe whilst a
rich, powerful and independent port such as Carthage enjoyed her liberty.
Perhaps he was just a bitter old man, who saw the rich produce from the fertile fields of North
Africa as a threat to the farmers of Italy. (One remembers how he is said to have dropped a

79
African fig in the senate only to remind senators admiring the fallen fruit that Carthage lay only
days away.) Or, possibly, Cato’s political feud with the Scipii led him to seek to undermine their
policy of leniency toward Carthage. Either way, Cato succeeded in needling the senate and the
comitia centuriata into action. In 149 BC war was declared on Carthage for breaching the terms
of peace imposed by Scipio Africanus.
Rome now sent fourth her consuls Manilius and Censorinus at the head of an army of 80'000
infantry and 4'000 cavalry. They landed unopposed and set up camp near Utica. Masinissa at
once realized he was to be denied his prey and withdrew, refusing any support to the Roman
enterprise. Carthage surrendered at once. What followed was a disgraceful charade, whereby the
Romans apparently sought to negotiate terms with the Carthaginians.
First hostages were demanded. The Carthaginians without fail provided 300 youths from noble
families. Next, all weaponry was to be surrendered. The Carthaginians handed over thousands of
catapults and suits of armour, denuding themselves of any means of resistance.
At last the true terms were presented. The people were to abandon their great, ancient city and
settle on a site ten miles removed from the coast.
The Roman terms were impossible. The Carthaginians were a people of the sea, a merchant
nation founded on trade and seafaring. But in her deceit Rome had made one vital
miscalculation. Carthage was the fiercest foe she had ever met in the field. This city was imbued
with an indomitable spirit which had brought forth a Hannibal Barca. She would not simply yield
to trickery and disappear from history with a whimper. The great city was now resolved on going
down in history in a spectacular show of heroism that knows few equals.
Knowing their case futile, the Carthaginians took on the might of the Roman empire one last
time. Punic resilience proved of epic proportions. In all of 149 and 148 BC the Roman troops
made little progress against a city which had only recently surrendered them all its armaments.
Even completing their siege works proved troublesome as they were harassed by Punic war
bands in the hinterland. To all intents and purposes the Roman campaign was in deep trouble,
despite utter supremacy of arms.
Finally, in a remarkable turn of events a young officer serving in the army returned to Rome in
147 BC to stand for the office of aedile. Astonishingly the people conferred on him the
consulship and command of their army at Carthage, albeit that he had no qualification for such
high office and the senate counseled vehemently against such a move.
But he had shown great spirit and ability in Africa, even won the personal respect of the hostile
Masinissa. - Most of all though his name was Scipio.
Better still he was the son by birth of Aemilius Paulus, the victor of the Third Macedonian War
and the grandson of Scipio Africanus by adoption. He was P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. What
was needed to conquer Carthage was not brilliant strategy but drive, determination and most of
all the ability to inspire. The Carthaginians, commanded by Hasdrubal, were contesting every
inch of ground, accomplishing nigh on impossible fetes and appeared to all intents and purposes
indefatigable. Rome needed a Scipio in whom to believe.
Throughout 147 CB Scipio Aemilianus pressed on with the siege, massive engineering works
being undertaken to close the harbour entrance and so cut off the few vital supplies the enemy
received by sea. Scipio Aemilianus then waited for winter to pass before in early 146 BC he
ordered the assault. His troops clawed their way over the outer walls against ferocious resistance.

Even once the walls were taken, Carthage was not yet won. It took another week of vicious hand
to hand fighting through day and night, the Romans needing to conquer one house at a time, until

80
they reached the Byrsa, the city’s citadel. There, finally, the surviving 50,000 Carthaginians,
after four years of struggle against the most impossible odds, surrendered.
Yet still there were many who preferred death by their own hand rather than to yield to the
enemy. Most famous of all the wife of Hasdrubal flung her children and herself into the flames,
rather than surrender. The Punic Wars had been truly titanic struggles. The end of Carthage was
equally epic, comparable in both spirit and scale to the destruction of Troy. By order of the
senate the city was razed to the ground, the place was ritually cursed and the soil was strewn
with salt. Her remaining citizens were sold into slavery.
Aftermath to the Fall of Carthage
The immediately evident effect of Rome’s victory was that the city Utica was now made capital
of the new Roman province of Africa.Numidia remained a free ally of Rome, but with Masinissa
having died during the first year of the conflict, his kingdom was now in the hands of his three
quarreling sons and hence posed no threat. Tripolitania apparently also came under Roman rule,
but was kept separate from the African province.
Rome’s destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146 BC was a hideous memorial to Roman
supremacy of arms. There was now no foe who could oppose her. The cruelty underlying such
wanton destruction was most likely bred in the Second Punic War. The fight against Hannibal
had hardened Roman hearts and fostered a generation of ruthless, even spiteful leaders who
sought lasting, final solutions rather than mere victory. Although when one reads of Rome razing
and despoiling great cities, one can but wonder what her contemporaries made of such apparent
barbarity.
Yet the Roman victory established a new world order. Italian unity had overcome Greek
politicking and Punic despotism. The defeat of the Greeks saw to it that Italy no longer lay under
any threat from rivals to the east. More so, Rome dominated the east. Meanwhile victory over
Carthage had left no opposition to Roman occupation of the western Mediterranean other than
the various tribes who lived there.
We must perhaps be forgiving towards the Roman acts of cruelty and deceit afforded the
Carthaginians, Epirotes, Rhodians and Achaeans. Rome was to be one of the great civilizing
forces of history, destined to spread Hellenistic culture into the far flung reaches of the ancient
world. It appears unlikely that the bickering Greek city states or the despotic Carthaginians
would have achieved this. Nonetheless, it stands to reason that 146 BC was one of the darkest
years of Roman history. Not by some grim defeat to barbarians, but by the shameful manner of
her victory.

Desparate struggle in Spain

81
If Roman conduct in regards to Greece and Carthage
was far from creditable, then Rome’s honour sunk to an
all-time low in the Spanish wars. The problems of
campaigns in Spain remained the same as they had been
ever since Rome had unwittingly inherited the
Carthaginian territories there at the end of the Second
Punic War. Commanders and soldiers alike were aware
of being a great distance from their homeland and away
from prying eyes. Accountability slackened markedly,
so too did army discipline.
Map: Iberian Tribes
Army leaders knew they would have to make do with the personnel they had, as reinforcements
were unlikely to be sent out. In turn soldiers knew they were likely to be stuck in Spain fore a
long time with no hope of relief. Morale hence was low among the ordinary ranks as well among
commanders. The result was appalling. The settlement achieved by Tiberius Sempronius
Gracchus in 179 BC had lasted a quarter of a century. In 154 BC the Lusitanians invaded Roman
territory and in 153 BC the Celtiberians rose up. Consul Fulvius Nobilor campaigned from 153
to 152 BC, only to suffer a crushing defeat at Numantia. Consul M. Claudius Marcellus was the
man to succeed him in the field and managed to agree a peace with the Celtiberians (151 BC).
Rome now could concentrate its full force on the Lusitanians who had been achieving a string of
successes. In 151 BC they severely defeated praetor Servius Sulpicius Galba.
Also in 151 BC the successor to consul Marcellus, L. Licinius Lucullus, then launched a sudden,
unprovoked attack on the Celtiberian tribe of the Vaccaei, whereby he set upon the town of
Cauca (Coca) and slaughtered all the men in the city. This set an unholy precedent for Roman
behaviour. Next Lucullus joined with Galba in the war against the Lusitanians (150 BC). Such
were the losses of the Lusitanians they sued for peace. The negotiations were left to Galba who
tempted a several thousand Lusitanians from their homes, by a promise of resettlement to better
land. Having thus drawn them away from the safety of their homes, he had them slaughtered
(150 BC).
This utter treachery backfired as it only instilled in the Lusitanians a bitter desire to henceforth
resist at all cost. Had the Lusitanians been suing for peace, the war was now anything but at an
end.
Viriathus
A survivor of Caepio’s massacre in 150 BC was to ascend to be the new Lusitanian leader. His
name was Viriathus and he achieved the unlikely career of rising from a shepherd to being the
king of the Lusitanians in all but name.
Viriathus was to lead the Lusitanians to an unbroken series of victories between 146 to 141 BC
against five Roman commanders in turn. These crushing Roman setbacks had the Celtiberians
clutching at the chance of throwing off Roman rule and they rose up anew in 143 BC.
In 141 BC Viriathus then achieved a crushing success against consul Fabius Maximus
Servilianus at Erisana. In a scene reminiscent of the infamous Caudine Forks (see: 321 BC), he
outmanoeuvered the Roman consular army and managed to trap in a mountain gorge from which
there was no escape. His army at the mercy of the Lusitanians, Fabius negotiated a treaty. Rome

82
recognized the freedom and sovereignty of the Lusitanians (141 BC).
The sheer fact that Viriathus sought to negotiate suggests that his people were indeed despairing
of war by now, for he had always counseled them against any treaty, following the massacre of
150 BC. The Roman senate did confirm the treaty with the Lusitanians that same year.
However, in the following year, 140 BC, Fabius’ brother Servilius Caepio won the consulship.
Caepio persuaded the senate to now repudiate its own decision and annul the treaty with the
Lusitanians. He then took to the field and invaded Lusitanian territory. The Lusitanians found
themselves once more attacked by the forces of both Roman provinces, as they had been in 150
BC. Again they could not sustain such a combined onslaught and Viriathus, facing increasing
desertion by his own troops, was finally forced to sue for terms.
Yet even in victory, Caepio was still not to be trusted. He bribed the Lusitanian negotiators who
then proceeded to murder Viriathus in his sleep (139 BC). The Lusitanians, their inspirational
leader dead, tried to continue to resist, but their cause proved futile. They were either completely
subdued within the same year of Viriathus’ death, or by the time Caepio’s successor Decimus
Iunius Brutus led Roman campaigns as far as Galicia in 137 BC.
Numantia
The Celtiberian uprising had been swiftly dealt with by consul Q. Caecilius Metellus. From 143
to 142 BC he systematically swept them from the field, leaving his successors merely to reduce a
few strongholds. Among these isolated strongholds was the small town of Numantia at the upper
reaches of the river Durius (Duero).This small town, whose military garrison never exceeded
8,000, was to go down in history for resisting continuous Roman attacks for nine years.
Numantia lay between to deep ravines and was surrounded by thick forest, making any direct
assault impossible.
Metellus’ successor Q. Pompeius was the first to attempt to force the place into submission. Yet
at some point during 141 and 140 BC Pompeius found his own camp besieged by the defenders
of Numantia. In the prevailing spirit of Roman operations on the Iberian peninsula, Pompeius
agreed a peace treaty upon which Numantia was to pay reparations and would be left unharmed.
No sooner had the town paid up Pompeius reneged on the agreement and renewed his attacks.
In 137 BC again a Roman army found itself trapped by those it was supposed to be besieging. Its
commander, consul Hostilius Mancinus, again sought to negotiate his way out of a inescapable
situation. Given their recent experience of Pompeius the Numantines were unlikely to trust in a
Roman’s word again.
However, in the Roman camp was a young officer in whose guarantee they were willing to place
their trust. His name was Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, the son of the very man who had in 179
achieved a lasting peace on the peninsula and whose name was held in high regard by the
Spaniards.
But once more the word of a Roman consul didn’t amount to much. The senate simply refused to
acknowledge the treaty reached. Rather than accept the treaty, the senate claimed Mancinus had
had no right to negotiate it and decided to hand over the hapless commander to the Numantines.
Yet the people of Numantia disdained of wreaking vengeance upon a helpless man. As Mancinus
was presented in chains at the walls of the town, they refused to take any part in this Roman
charade. Instead, once back in Rome, Mancinus was removed from the list of senators. The
injury done to the honour of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was however something which
would linger much longer in Roman politics.
Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia

83
It was to fall to Scipio Aemilianus, the destroyer of Carthage, to finally bring Numantia to heel.
His election to the consulship in 134 BC was once again to stiff opposition from the established
order in Rome. Once more his election represented the pure will of the people, coming about
without any political campaign of sorts. The tribal assembly (comitia tribute) simply chose
Aemilianus to be its champion in Spain and to bring the hideous, dishonourable war to an end.
As a result the senate refused him the right to raise a regular consular army. However, his
considerable authority mean that Scipio Aemilianus could draw upon an army of ready
volunteers and friends. As he had struck up a friendship with king Masinissa when serving at
Carthage (he administered the will of the king after his death) he was now joined by the late
king’s grandson Jughurta. Another notable addition to his expedition was Gaius Marius, who
soon came to be noticed as a military star of the future.
On arriving in Spain, Aemilianus discovered just how low morale had fallen among the troops on
teh ground. Realising the dire state of the main bulk of his army he is said to have uttered, ‘If
they will not fight, they shall dig.’ Thus he resolved to besiege Numantia until it had fallen.
This said, the arrival of grandson of Scipio Afrianus in Spain brought plenty of loyal Spanish
tribes to his standard. Not before long, Scipio Aemilianus presided over a force totaling 60,000
men.
Aemilianus ringed Numantia with a double wall and military camps. To prevent relief getting in
by river a barrier, barbed with spears and blades, was flung across it, making any advance
impossible. An attempt by the Celtiberians to come to the aid of their beleaguered stronghold
was repulsed. After more than a year of this crushing siege the Numantines sought to sue for
peace. Yet it was made plain to them that nothing other than unconditional surrender was
acceptable. Many committed suicide rather than submit. Those who did surrender, reduced to
near skeletons by the prolonged famine, were all sold into slavery. As had been the fate of
Carthage, the town of Numatia was obliterated (133 BC).

The First Slave War

It was in the very same year of Scipio’s election to the consulship that his consular colleague,
Fulvius Flacchus, was required to intervene in Sicily. As early as 139 BC a slave revolt had
begun on the island. It had been gathering pace ever since, until in 135 BC nigh on the whole
slave population rose as one. As the leaders of the slave army emerged a Syrian conjurer called
Eunus and a Cilician by name of Cleon. Their army was massive. No smaller than
60,000.Possibly as large as 200,000.Several fortified cities fell to them, casting a reign of terror
over the province. Savage atrocities were committed against Greek and Roman slave owners
alike.
Not merely was this a rising of the slaves, but so too the poor and unprivileged had join in the
rebellion. Fulvius Flacchus however faired no better at quelling the uprising than had any before
him. It was not until consul Publis Rupilius received some of the well trained soldiers of Scipio
Aemilianus after the successful siege of Numantia that the revolt was at last crushed in 132BC.
Treatment of captured slaves by the Romans in this war was a savage as the treatment dished out
by the slave army toward slave owners. Thousands were crucified.
The time of the First Slave War saw other outbreaks of unrest among the slaves, not least in
Campania and in the annexed territory of Pergamum. As is often the case in history it may have
been a time of general unrest. Alternatively, the sheer mass of slaves so suddenly created by the
victories of Rome and her allies may have been beyond the ability of ancient societies to absorb.

84
Yet clearly the war was an ominous sign of things to come; not least in fore-shadowing the likes
of Spartacus and his massive slave revolt. Also it indicated the discontent and disillusionment of
the poor, the indebted and smallholders.
Rome inherits the Kingdom of Pergamum
In 133 BC king Attalus III of Pergamum died without heirs. The dynasty had been loyal to Rome
through all the shifting policies of the last seventy years. And Attalus, dying, bequeathed his
kingdom to the Roman people, if only to solve the problem of succession. This said, Pergamum
was very much a Roman client state. Given the Roman dominance over the eastern
Mediterranean it was not such a big step to grant them possession of an area in which they had
already achieved a major military victory (Magnesia, 190 BC)
His only demand was that Pergamum and other Greek cities of his kingdom should not have to
pay tribute to Rome. The senate accepted the condition joyfully, knowing that the kingdom of
Pergamum was indeed extraordinarily prosperous.Even without income from the cities, there
were fortunes to be made in Pergamum.
But this was a time of substantial social upheaval. As a pretender to the inheritance of Attalus’
throne arose, many flocked to his support. His name was Aristonicus and he purported to be the
illegitimate son of Attalus III. It wasn’t long before he had a rag-tag army of slaves, poor and
discharged mercenaries under his command. The Greek cities however resisted his advances.
Initially, Rome didn’t grant this rebellion much attention, no doubt thinking it would fizzle out.
Yet by 131 BC they sought it necessary to send a force under consul P. Licinius Crassus to quash
the revolt and hunt down Aristonicus. It wasn’t to be that easy. The Roman army was defeated,
its consul captured and put to death. The following year consul M. Perperna landed in Pergamum
with yet another force. He swiftly gained victory and the rebellion was at an end (130 BC).
In 129 BC consul M. Aquilius created the province of ‘Asia’, thereby officially incorporating this
wealthy territory into the imperial framework of the republic.
Aquilius maintained the immunity from taxation for those Greek cities who had resisted
Aristonicus.

The Late Roman Republic

Bottom of Form

The story of the late Roman republic is essentially a tragic one. Yet the various causes for the
demise of the republic are far from clear cut. One can not point to one single person or act which
led to the fall. Looking back one feels that most of all the Roman constitution was never
designed with the conquest of wealthy overseas territories in mind. With the addition of ever
more provinces, especially that of Asia (Pergamene), the delicately balanced Roman political
constitution began to collapse from within.
For individual politicians, especially for those with a talent for military command, the prize of
power became ever more extraordinary as the empire expanded. Meanwhile, on the streets of
Rome the will of the Roman electorate was of ever greater consequence, as their favour granted a
politician ever greater powers.
In turn the electorate was flagrantly bribed and cajoled by populists and demagogues who knew
that, on achieving power, they could recoup any costs simply by exploiting their offices
overseas. Had in the earlier days of Cincinnatus high office been sought for status and fame
within Roman society, then the latter days of the Roman republic saw commanders win vast
fortunes in loot and governors make millions in perks and bribes in the provinces. The key to

85
such riches was the Roman electorate and the city of Rome. Therefore who controlled the Roman
mob and who held the pivotal positions of tribunes of the people was now of immense
importance. The fate of the ancient world was now decided in the miniature world of one city.
Her town councillors and magistrates suddenly were of importance to Greek trade, Egyptian
grain, or wars in Spain. What had once been a political system developed to deal with a regional
city state in central Italy now bore the weight of the world.
The very virtue of Roman unchanging stoicism now became Rome’s undoing. For without
change a catastrophe was inevitable. Yet adaptable as the Roman mind was to matters of
warfare, it was resistant to any sudden change in political rule. So, as the Roman elite did, what it
was bred to do, as they competed ruthlessly with one another for the highest positions and
honours, they unwittingly tore apart the very structure they were sworn to protect. More so, those
who possessed extraordinary talents and succeeded only reaped the suspicion of their
contemporaries who at once suspected their seeking the powers of tyranny. Had previously
Rome handed extraordinary commands to great talents when a crisis required it, then towards the
end of the republic the senate was loath to grant anyone commissions, no matter how urgent the
situation became.
Soon it therefore became a contest between those of genius and those of mediocrity, of aspiration
and vested interests, between men of action and men of intransigence. The descent was gradual,
unperceivable at times. Its final acts, however, proved truly spectacular. It is little wonder that
this period of Roman history has proved a rich source of material for dramatic fiction. Much
more material has survived regarding this period of Roman history. Hence we are provided with
much greater insight of the events of this era. Thus, this text can elaborate on the problems in
much greater detail.
The Brothers Gracchus
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus
The first fatal steps in the eventual demise of the republic can most likely be traced back to the
disgraceful behaviour of Rome in the Spanish wars. Not merely did the lengthy campaigns lead
to an ever greater alienation between the citizens who supplied the soldiery for lengthy
campaigns overseas and the leadership back in Rome. – It must be noted that in 151 BC citizens
went as far as refusing the call up for another levy to be sent to Spain. So far had the resistance
toward serving in Spain grown.
But more so, the scandalous Roman conduct in Spain most likely directly contributed to the
eventual break with the nobility by the brothers Gracchus.
For it was at Numantia (153 BC) that a young tribune, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, staked his
reputation on a treaty with the Spaniards in order to save the trapped army of Mancinus from
certain destruction. Once the senate dishonorably revoked this treaty, it not merely betrayed the
Numantines, but so too it disgraced Tiberius Gracchus – and so set in motion a dreadful chain
reaction which should play itself out over more than a century.
It is true that Scipio Aemilianus did his best to shelter his brother in law from the dishonour of
the defeat at Numantia. Tiberius Gracchus could most likely have gone on to enjoy a
distinguished senatorial career, following in his father’s footsteps to both the consulship and the
censorship.
However, the outright betrayal by the senate evidently had some profound, lasting effect. If we
consider the Roman understanding of family honour then it is perhaps not surprising that
Tiberius Gracchus took grievance at his treatment.

86
The faith of the Numantines had been placed in the honour of his word, due to his father’s name.
Once the senate revoked the treaty it will therefore have destroyed any honour and respect the
name Gracchus commanded in Spain. Tiberius saw not merely his own person disgraced, but
also the memory of his father sullied.
Tiberius Gracchus shocked the Roman system by standing not for a magistracy, but for the office
of tribune of the people for 133 BC. This was a momentous step. An outstanding member of the
Roman nobles, who was clearly destined to be consul, instead was taking office as the
representative of the ordinary Roman people. Gracchus was hardly the first man of good family
to seek the tribunate, but he was a man of extraordinary high standing, for whom the tribunate
was never intended.
The tribunate, however, carried with it the powers of veto and to propose law. Clearly it had
never been designed as an office to be held by a political heavyweight such as a Gracchus.
Nonetheless the moment Gracchus stood for the office it was clear that he was seeking to rival
the consuls in their power. In doing this he was acting according to the letter of the law, but not
in the spirit of the Roman constitution.This set an ominous precedent that many would follow.
But so too Tiberius Gracchus was set on a collision course with the senate. Had previously other
wellborn sons aspired to the tribunate it had been in a spirit of solidarity with the ruling class.
Tiberius was to change this. He was looking for a fight.
The Roman senatorial class saw its first member break ranks, albeit that this at first will not have
been apparent. For a candidate to the tribunate Tiberius Gracchus had astounding backers.
He probably had the support of Servius Sulpicius Galba, who’d been consul in 144 BC, and
Appius Claudius Pulcher, ex-consul of 143 BC and the leading senator of the day (princeps
senatus). Another former consul, M. Fulvius Flaccus, was also at his side. So too he enjoyed the
support of the famous jurist P. Mucius Scaevola who was standing for the consulship in that very
year. Further supporters were C. Porcius Cato and C. Licinius Crassus. It was a roll call of the
great and the good. More so the program of law he proposed for taking office was impressive.
Most of all it hinged on his ideas for land reform. On traveling to Spain he had observed the
decline of farming in Etruria, seeing how the Italian smallholders, whom Rome depended on for
her soldiery, were declining in numbers as they succumbed to the competition by the massive
farms (latifundiae) of the wealthy, worked by armies of slaves.
Many of these vast farms of the rich were actually situated on public land (ager publicus), which
they rented for pitifully small leases from the state, if they paid for it at all.
Gracchus made clear that public land was just that; public property. He was to attempt a
redistribution of this land to the poor. With such proposals popular support came easy. Given
Gracchus’ powerful backers victory was a foregone conclusion.
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was hence elected tribune for the year 133 BC.
Tiberius Gracchus’ Land Reform
The sheer support that Gracchus had from the most powerful of Rome’s politicians demonstrates
quite clearly that many saw land reform as overdue. This was not radical or extremist legislation.
Rome’s conquests had handed her vast tracts of land which were owned by the state. Only the
wealthy and powerful had the necessary connections to secure the leases necessary to farm these
lands. By the time of Gracchus the rich had come to treat these lands as their own, leaving them
in wills and passing them on as dowries. This was utterly improper. More so it offended an
ancient law which had fallen into disuse, the Licinian Rogations (367 BC). It is true that the
Licinian laws on land reform never really had great effect, as they were easily circumvented.
Nonetheless, they had never been revoked.

87
This provided Gracchus with a sound precedent in law. Gracchus now proposed to reinstate the
limit whereby no man could own more than 500 iugera of land (300 acres). To sweeten the pill,
he offered that the current holders of public land could keep 300 acres as their undisputed
property, including another 150 acres for every child. Any wealthy man with four children would
therefore easily stand to keep 900 acres. These lands would no longer be public in nature, held
by lease, but would be private property.
Details are unclear, but the above suggests that the rich landowners would only be curbed in their
holdings of public land. What other lands they already outright owned would have remained
untouched. Thus, the old Licinian Law would have been superseded, legitimizing their vast
properties. This in turn made the reforms attractive to some rich land owners.
The freed up land in the ager publicus was to be redistributed in plots of 30 acres to family
smallholders. By creating thousands of new landowners, Rome would refresh her stock from
whom to recruit for her armies. The plots, once granted, were to be inalienable. This meant they
could not be sold or transferred to new owners in any way, other than by inheritance passed from
father to son.
It was no doubt a good idea at the time and Gracchus’ proposal seems indeed to have been
heartfelt and sincere. But with hindsight it is unclear how these smallholders could have
competed for any length of time with the slave run latifundiae of the rich - especially, if they
were to be regularly called away on military service. This said, smallholdings had by no means
disappeared by this time and it is possible that Gracchus’ with his contemporary knowledge was
indeed correct in his assertions and was laying down a long-term plan to distribute land to the
urban poor and provide Rome with recruits into the far future.
But Tiberius Gracchus knew he’d have a fight on his hands. Similar land reform had been
proposed some ten years earlier by C. Laelius (ca. 145 BC), who eventually withdrew it in the
face of determined opposition. The main opposition was invariably composed of those who held
significant public lands. For those who were to lose the lion share of their public lands and had
no great holdings of further private estates, Gracchus’ law could represent a crushing blow.
Chiefest among these opponents was to be Scipio Nasica, ex consul of 138 BC, who held vast
amounts of public land.
Tiberius Gracchus’ land reform bill was meticulously drafted. Most likely due to the direct help
of P. Mucius Scaevola who had indeed succeeded in gaining the consulship for that same year.
But Gracchus presented the bill directly to the people’s assembly (concilium plebis). He did not
submit the law for review to the senate. Again, the latter was not required by law. Yet it was the
established practice. Why Tiberius Gracchus decided to proceed this way is unclear. It is very
likely – feeling betrayed by the senate for the Numantia affair – he sought to by-pass them in
contempt.
Whatever his reasons may have been, the senate took offence. There can be little doubt that
Gracchus had formidable political support. His bill may indeed have been passed by the senate
with little amendment, if any. After all, he had no less than the leader of the senate and one of the
incumbent consuls on his side. The law seemed designed for the public good and its opponents
had only self-interest at heart.
But Rome’s most powerful political body resented that it was not being consulted and sought to
block the law’s progress.
To this end the senators secured the services of another tribune, Marcus Octavius.Octavius now
vetoed Gracchus bill.

88
Tiberius Gracchus use of the tribunate was questionable. But Octavius now used his position to
defy the will of the very people he was supposed to represent. For this the office had never been
intended. The tribunate was being corrupted into the tool of the senatorial order. People no doubt
expected that Gracchus would either withdraw from his attempt or seek to somehow come to
terms with the senate. Tiberius Gracchus however intended no such thing.
Gracchus is said to have offered Octavius, who it seems had holdings of public land of his own,
that he would compensate him personally for any losses he incurred, if only he would let the bill
pass. Octavius refused, staying loyal to the senate. Instead Gracchus now proposed the removal
of Marcus Octavius from office, unless the latter was willing to withdraw his veto. Octavius
remained defiant and was promptly voted out of office, dragged from the speaker’s podium and
replaced with a more agreeable candidate.
Once again no-one knew if this was lawful or not. This was utterly unprecedented.
Gracchus actions were most likely not in breach of Rome’s constitution, though neither were
they in the spirit of it.
With Octavius out of the way, the law passed unhindered. A commission was set up, to oversee
the distribution of land to the people. The senate however withheld any moneys that were
necessary to help stock the new smallholdings. Without any funds to provide the basic
necessities, any plots distributed were bare parcels of land, not viable farms.
Tiberius Gracchus therefore seized on the wealth of the kingdom of Pergamene which in that
very year had just been left to the Roman state by the late King Attalus III (133 BC).
He announced a bill whereby some of the money gained from this enormously wealthy new
territory would be directed to agrarian commission in order to help set up farms for new settlers.
Once more the legality of all this was murky. The senate enjoyed sovereignty over all issues of
overseas matters. Yet where was it explicitly written to be so? Tiberius Gracchus was bending
the rules to the utmost, in utter disregard of the senate and Roman tradition. So far though he had
succeeded. He had both the land and the funds he needed to begin land distribution. His agrarian
commission now went to work, handing out parcels of land.
Yet Gracchus had made powerful enemies. Worse, many of his allies had broken away, once he
grabbed the Pergamene moneys in defiance of the senate. It became clear that once his term of
office came to an end, his foes would drag him through the courts, seeking to destroy him. The
only means of protection open to Gracchus was to stand for a new term of tribune, as this would
extend his immunity from prosecution.
Roman law dictated that a successful candidate wait another ten years before standing for the
same office again. But the law strictly speaking only applied to magistracies (lex villia, 180 BC).
The tribunate, however, was technically not a magistracy. Yet tradition dictated that tribunes
follow the rule nonetheless.
Once more it is unclear if Tiberius Gracchus was in breach of the law. But yet again it is self-
evident that he didn’t follow the spirit of the law. Gracchus’ chances on winning office for 134
BC did not look good. Many of his rural voters were busy with the harvest. His powerful
political allies had abandoned him and he had clearly lost the support of his fellow tribunes.
Had he now simply lost the upcoming election much of what befell Rome in future years might
still have been avoided. Alas, Scipio Nasica, after haranguing the senate in vain to take action,
took matters into his own hands and led a mob of supporters and nobles to the Capitol where
Gracchus was holding an electoral assembly. Armed with clubs they set upon the meeting and
beat Tiberius Gracchus and 300 of his supporters to death. The rise and fall of Tiberius Gracchus
set an awful example. Not merely had Gracchus undermined the notion of communal spirit in the

89
governing of Rome, but his vicious murder introduced plain brutality as a political tool onto the
streets of Rome. An unholy example had been set by which all involved declared that only
victory - by any means - was acceptable. Neither side sought to compromise and neither side
sought to adhere to the spirit of the republic. The rules, it appears, could be circumvented ‘for the
public good’.
It may be true that Tiberius Gracchus was the instigator of the crisis. But the way in which
Scipio Nasica and other forces in the senate responded was beyond the pale. They no doubt share
as great a responsibility, if not a greater one, for the terrible legacy this case bestowed on Rome.
Ironically, Gracchus’ land law continued on for years to come. As a result by 125 BC seventy-
five thousand citizens were added to the list of those liable for military service, when compared
to the census figures of 131 BC. Undeniably, his policy did prove a success.
The Aftermath of Tiberius Gracchus
The death of Tiberius Gracchus was followed by a witch hunt by the senate, in which many of
his supporters were sentenced to death. Tiberius younger brother Gaius was also prosecuted, but
easily defended himself and was cleared. Scipio Nasica meanwhile was posted to the new
province of Asia, in order to protect him from the wrath of any Gracchan supporters. (His death
soon after nonetheless was deemed suspicious.) In 131 BC a tribune by name of C. Papirius
Carbo proposed both that elections should henceforth be held by secret ballot and to clarify the
law that tribunes should be able to stand for successive terms of office.
The former proposal was accepted, but the latter was defeated on the intervention of Scipio
Aemilianus who had since returned from Spain. Such was the standing of the great commander
that the popular will bent to his. Though on Scipio’s death (129 BC), another tribune re-
introduced the proposal and the measure was accepted. (This inadvertently cleared the way for
the emperors who a century later would begin their rule by tribunician powers.) There is the
suspicion that Scipio Aemilianus was in fact murdered by his wife, Sempronia, who was the
sister of Tiberius Gracchus. This suggestion, if true or not, is no doubt connected to Scipio’s
refusal to openly condemn the murder of Tiberius Gracchus.
In a strange twist much of the political reform which had made Tiberius Gracchus such a
problem was introduced or simply continued after his death. It appears a peculiar characteristic
of Roman politics to seek to win the fight at all costs, yet to concede the point after victory has
been achieved.
Prior to his death, however, Scipio Aemilianus sought to address the problem faced by the
Italians. The Gracchan land distribution dealt with all public land. Yet many public lands were
used by the Italians, who had either never been removed from them on conquest, or had
encroached onto them with the passage of time. Many therefore faced complete ruin, if the
agrarian commission handed the land they farmed to new settlers.
Scipio was fully aware of the debt he owed to the Italian allies. His military victories were as
much due to them as they were due to the Roman legionaries.
He therefore in 129 BC, shortly before his death, convinced the senate to transfer the power to
settle disputes on public land held by non-Romans from the agrarian commission to one of the
consuls.
This protected the Italians from mob’s clamour for land. However, it could not prevent the
inevitable conflict, as the Italians continued to demand greater rights.
In subsequent years many Italians did begin to drift into Rome, lobbying and agitating for greater
entitlements. In 126 BC the tribune Iunius Pennus even passed a law expelling non-citizens from

90
Rome. It is unclear how many of the rich foreign merchants and traders circumvented this law, or
to what extent it was ever enforced against them. For it seems clear that the measure was really
targeted at evicting the Italian agitators.
But Italian discontent had not gone unnoticed. In 125 BC consul Marcus Fulvius Flaccus
proposed to grant them citizenship (or at least full citizenship to the Latins and Latin privileges
to all Italians in preparation of eventual full citizenship) .
The opposition to this idea was two-fold. The poor saw any increase of the number of citizens as
a lessening of the privilege of citizenship and the senators saw the mass of Italians as a threat to
their political standing, as they held no traditions of political patronage over them. Invariably, the
measure hence had little hope of success. But to curb any risk of it succeeding, the senate
dispatched Flaccus off to Massilia at the head of a consular army to fend off the tribe of the
Saluvii.
Conquest of Narbonese Gaul
The Massilians ranked among Rome’s most longstanding allies.
In 154 BC they had already called on Rome for help against Ligurian raiders. The consul
Opimius had been sent with an army to fend off the invaders.
It must be noted that since 173 BC Liguria was nominally a Roman territory. The marauders
troubling the Massilians seem to be been tribes of the same Ligurian people, yet situated west of
the Alps.
Now, in 125 BC, the Massilians once more called for help. Rome had thus far always maintained
a policy of not seeking any territory in this area of southern Gaul. Things however, were about to
change.
The man sent forth to the aid of Massilia was Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, whom the senate wanted
out of the way for entirely political purposes. Flaccus led an army across the Alps, subduing first
the Saluvii who were attacking the Massilians and then another allied Ligurian tribe in a
campaign lasting two years.
The following two years a new commander, C. Sextus Calvinus, reduced the last remnants of
Ligurian resistance in the area.
To further secure the area, the colony of Roman veterans was founded at Aquae Sextiae (Aix).
It soon proved why Rome had hitherto stayed out of this area. Fighting one enemy inevitably
embroiled you in conflict with another.
The Celtic tribe of the Allobroges refused to hand over a Ligurian chieftain who had sought
refuge. The tribe of the Aedui, previously Roman allies – or at least Massilian ones, - now also
turned hostile.
In 121 BC proconsul Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus defeated the Allobroges at Vindalium. The
Gauls it is said were panicked by the advance of the Roman elephant corps.
The Allobroges appealed for help to the most powerful Gallic tribe, the Arverni. Bituitus, the
king of the Arverni, then put a gigantic army into the field to crush the Roman forces. A Roman
army of 30,000, led by consul Quintus Fabius Maximus, met a joint force of Arverni and
Allobroges totally no less than 180,000 men.
We do not know much of the battle which followed, but that it took places at the confluence of
the river Rhodanus (Rhone) and the river Isara (Isere).
As the Roman force succeeded in breaking the foe, chaos ensued among the Gauls. The two boat
bridges which they had built to cross the Rhodanus (Rhone) broke as the stampeding Gallic army
sought to cross them.

91
If true or not is hard to tell, but the Romans reported their own losses to be 15 whilst claiming to
have slain 120,000. Either way, the Battle of the river Isara was a crushing victory (121 BC). It
secured for Rome all the territory from Geneva to the river Rhone.
Domitius Ahenobarbus, to whom command fell again on Fabius’ departure, concluded the
settlement of the area (120 BC).
A formal alliance was agreed with the tribe of the Aedui to the north.
King Bituitus of the Arverni was taken captive despite a promise of safe conduct and sent to
Rome. As the Arverni sued for peace the southern range of Gaul to the east of the Rhone, all the
way to the Pyrenees fell under Roman rule, bringing under Roman control important regional
towns such as Nemausus (Nimes) and Tolosa (Toulouse).
Domitius now saw to the construction of a road from the river Rhone to the Pyrenees, along the
course of which Roman veterans were settled in a new colony called Narbo. The whole territory
eventually was to become the province of Gallia Narbonensis (or Gallia Transalpina).
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Gaius Gracchus

Gaius Gracchus had been biding his time ever since his brother’s death. He had maintained his
seat on the land commission, served with Scipio Aemilianus at the siege of Numantia and served
as quaestor in Sardinia in 126BC.
His power was already such that his quiet political support to the Carbo (131 BC) and Flaccus
(125 BC) had meant a substantial boon for the two politicians.
His taking up the legacy of his brother was therefore seen as inevitable.
The nobles foresaw this and hence it was attempted to prosecute him on trumped up charges.
Gaius easily shrugged them off. Not only was he a very astute politician, but he also possessed
one of the greatest talents for oratory in Roman history.
When it become clear that Gaius was about to stand for tribune of the people in 124 BC, the
senate went as far as voting for the commander of the army to remain with his forces in Sicily.
With this trick they hoped to keep Gaius away, as staff officers were expected to stay with their
commander.
This didn’t work, as Gaius defiantly returned home. He was called before the censors to explain
himself, yet could point to 12 years of military service where only 10 were the maximum
necessary.
Thus, following in his brother’s footsteps, Gaius Gracchus was elected tribune of the people for
the year 123 BC on a wave of popular support.
Gaius then embarked on a program of political reform.
First he introduced a law by which no Roman citizen could be put to death without a trial.
Following the motto that all Romans were landowners of sorts by having a stake in the empire’s
vast public lands, Gaius stabilized the price of grain – which fluctuated wildly – at a level more
affordable to the city’s poor.
The price of corn was now fixed at 1 1/3 asses for each modius of grain.
This measure was not necessarily such a radical novelty as many would suggest. The Greek
world had seen several examples of controlled grain prices. The Athenians had had controls on
corn since the fifth century BC. Under the rule of the Ptolemies the city Alexandria even had
minister in charge of keeping grain prices low.

92
To finance this policy, however, Gaius introduced a tax on the cities of Asia Minor. Financial
syndicates, from which senators were excluded, could bid for the right to levy taxes. Thus began
the infamous practice of ‘tax farming’. Gaius most likely could not have foreseen the
consequences of this policy. Yet the ruthless extortion of the provinces by tax farmers which
followed led to the hatred of Rome in her overseas territories.
Something Gaius though must have been well aware of was the will of King Attalus who had
bequeathed the territory to Rome. The free Greek cities were not to be taxed. In the uprising
which had followed Rome’s inheritance some cities had lost their tax free status. Yet it appears
that Gracchus law applied to all cities and therefore was in breach of Attalus’ will. This was a
grave abuse of a bequeathal, but made even more noteworthy by the fact that King Attalus had
been a close friend of the house of Gracchus.
Yet such was the contest between Gaius and the senate, that such considerations counted for
nothing.
Trying to further erode the senate’s power and to promote the equestrians as a rival political
force, Gaius also introduced a law by which only equestrians would sit on juries in trials of
provincial governors charged with extortion.
This had twofold effect. Its intended effect was to clearly establish a direct form of power of the
equestrians over the leading senators who invariably enjoyed governorships at some point.
But it unwittingly also created a much more sinister effect. In many cases, the provincial
governors were the only protection the provinces had against the worst excesses of the tax
farmers. These tax farmers in turn were of the same equestrian order which now dominated the
law courts. Therefore any well-meaning governor who sought to curb the tax farmers from
extorting undue amounts could find himself charged with extortion by on his return to Rome.
Governors were therefore left with little other choice than to collude with the tax farmers in
squeezing the provinces for all they were worth.
Any good governance of the provinces there had been, was thus being undermined by corporate
greed and the threat of prosecution.
Another measure introduced by Gaius was a law by which the senate needed to specify the tasks
it wished to charge the consuls with before the election took place. Thereafter it would fall to the
electorate to decide whom it wished to see perform said tasks.
Gaius Gracchus had been an extraordinarily busy and energetic tribune. Yet he made it clear that
he was not going to stand again for the following year (122 BC). No doubt the fate of his brother
loomed large.
Yet, in a remarkable twist of fate Gaius Gracchus was elected nonetheless, without seeking
another term. It seemed the people who already idolized Tiberius, were not to let his brother go
so soon.
But this time the senate had manoeuvered its own champion into position to oppose their
troublesome foe. Their man was Livius Drusus.
In his second year, Gracchus now took to settling people in new colonies in Italy. But more
controversially he also proposed the re-settlement of Corinth and Carthage.
Meanwhile Drusus made every effort to be more populist than Gracchus, promising the people
anything - and more.
He proposed no less than twelve colonies in Italy, he relieved the newly created smallholders of
the rent they were obliged to pay under the Gracchan land laws.

93
Drusus promised the world with no intention of ever delivering.
His entire goal was to become the people’s champion in Gracchus’ stead.
The ordinary people were easily swayed. Gracchus hold on power began to crumble.
When Gaius Gracchus finally presented his new bill to the comitia tributa to bestow citizenship
on the Italians (full citizenship for those with Latin rights, Latin rights to all other Italian allies),
the tide had decisively turned against him.
Granting rights to other Italians had previously proved impossible, yet it may have been within
the reach of someone of Gaius influence over the people to achieve this. But now with Drusus
having undermined his popularity it proved too much.
The defeat of this bill proved decisive turning point.
When Gracchus himself led the effort of establishing colonists in Carthage, things turned from
bad to worse in his absence from Rome.
The work surrounding the re-creation of Carthage as the colony of Junonia was very
controversial. The religious omens proved thoroughly negative.
So too many people in Rome were not convinced that the once cursed city should be allowed to
rise again. The ghost of Hannibal still loomed large within people’s imagination.
Gracchus was at pains to point out that he was not creating a colony within the cursed boundaries
of the razed city. But rumours abounded about sacred boundary markers having been moved. On
returning from Carthage Gracchus entered a very different Rome.
With stories such as these circulating it is little wonder that the thoroughly superstitious Roman
people could not be brought to vote for Gracchus again.
In the summer of 122 BC elections were held for the tribunate for the next year. Gracchus failed
to get elected.
No sooner had Gracchus’ term in office expired then the new consul, M. Minucius Rufus, at
once proposed to revoke the act to create a colony at Carthage.
Seeing one of his policies threatened Gracchus and a large throng of supporters took to the
streets to protest. In a scuffle on the Capitol, an overeager servant of the consul Lucius Opimius
who went by the name of Quintus Antyllius pushed too close to Gracchus. Gracchus’ supporters
feared he was to trying attack Gaius. Thus they ceased him and stabbed him to death. Gaius
Gracchus at once sought to distance himself from this killing, severely reprimanding his
followers, but the damage was done.
Consul Opimius argued that this death was the first sign of a serious threat to the senate and the
republic. He now proposed to the senate a new measure, that they issue a decree whereby the
consuls could take any steps to protect the republic from harm. This was an entirely new idea;
being a substitute for the arcane position of dictator, not used since the times of Hannibal. The
senate granted the proposal and thus issued the senatus consultum ultimum; the famous ‘last
decree’.
As the other consul Quintus Fabius Maximus was in Gaul fighting the Allobroges at the time, in
effect absolute power now fell to Opimius.
Gaius Gracchus and his close political ally M. Fulvius Flaccus were now summoned before the
consul. But appreciating what sheer power the decree had given Opimius the two men were not
minded to hand themselves over to one of their most determined enemies.
Instead they set themselves up on the Aventine with their supporters, at the Temple of Diana.

94
They sent the son of Fulvius to negotiate a solution with the senate. The senators were inclined to
come to some sort of understanding. Yet consul Opimius rejected any talk of compromise out of
hand. As he now was armed with the ‘senatus consultum ultimum’ no one could oppose him.
Opimius was bent on making an example of his opponents and set out with a force of armed
men, including a unit of Cretan archers to take the Aventine by force.
The presence of these archers seems to suggest that there was more than just a little planning to
Opimius’ actions.
As it was it was these professional soldiers who did the most damage. Roughly 250 men were
killed in the desperate attempt to defend the Aventine against Opimius. They never stood a
chance. As all was lost Gracchus was persuaded to flee.
He descended the Aventine with only a small group for company and fled across the Sublician
Bridge to the far side of the river Tiber accompanied only by one slave.
His friends sought to buy him time by heroically staying behind to hold off the pursuers. One last
one made his final stand on the Sublician Bridge, ironically the very bridge Horatius was said to
have held the Etruscans, trying to gain Gaius whatever time possible to get away.
But hotly pursued by Opimius’ henchmen, Gaius Gracchus realized the situation was hopeless.
In a sacred grove, aided by his slave, he took his own life.
That grim day Gaius Gracchus, a former tribune of the people, and Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, an
ex-consul of Rome lay dead.
Worse, the body of Gracchus was decapitated and lead was poured into his skull.
Opimius’ wrath though didn’t end there. Without awaiting any further word from the senate he
made widespread arrests. If there were any trials, they were a farce. Over 3,000 were executed as
a result of this purge.
The memory of the Gracchi was officially damned. Cornelia, their famous mother, was even
prohibited from wearing mourning garments.
The ordinary people of Rome however venerated the Gracchi for generations to come.
The Legacy of the Gracchi
The Gracchi were, there is no doubt, incredibly influential figures. It is around this time that we
start speaking in terms of optimates and populares, the factions of Roman politics.
At the heart of the issue which the Gracchi addressed lay the privilege amassed by the senatorial
class and the increasing burden borne by the small holders of Italy. The destitution of the urban
poor also raised the question for whose benefit the Roman state was being run, if people were
starving on Rome’s very streets.
If the Gracchi perhaps didn’t have the answers, there is little doubt that they were posing the
right questions. The republic was in crisis whether the ruling class wished to acknowledge it or
not.
But perhaps more significant than the deeds of the brothers Gracchus was the nature of the
demise.
Scipio Nasica played a leading role in the death of Tiberius Gracchus.
Lucius Opimius did the same with Gaius Gracchus.
If we point to the Gracchi as instigators of much of the social upheaval that should befall Rome
in the century ahead, then we must lay at least equal blame, if not more, with Nasica and
Opimius.

95
For if the Gracchi were responsible for the nature in which they held office, challenging every
convention, bending law to suit their purposes, then Nasica and Opimius must be held
responsible for the nature of their deaths.
Especially the actions of Opimius had more of a whiff of rule by terror.
More important than the flouting of rules and traditions by the Gracchi was the introduction of
blatant mob violence into republican politics by those claiming to be the champions of the
senate.
To simply club your opponent to death, or to introduce dubious measures licensing you to kill
political opponents, no questions asked, was an outrage.
Where politics and law alone no longer sufficed to perpetuate one’s wealth and privilege, the
Roman ruling class would resort to gross brutality.
One could argue that the Gracchi were seeking to reignite the Conflict of the Orders, attempting
to achieve a new settlement between the classes.
In some ways their means were not that dissimilar from those used by tribunes of the people in
those earlier struggles.
Yet unlike their ancient predecessors those at the top of the Roman society decided not to brook
any talk of change, making clear that anyone attempting to challenge the existing order was
likely to end up dead. Thus, not the demands of the people, but the nature of their rulers had
changed.
In effect the affairs of the republic were no longer a matter of politics, but were being dealt with
by a brutal cartel which would see its will enforced on pain of death.
Thus we need to remember that the later violence of the Roman mob which would arise on the
streets of the city had its roots in the very methods adopted by those acting on behalf of the
senate.
updated to here - 18 October 2008
The Jugurthine War
In 118 BC the king of Numidia, Micipsa, died, leaving the crown to his young sons Hiempsal
and Adherbal jointly with a much older nephew, Jugurtha, who was an experienced soldier.
Jugurtha arranged the assassination of Hiempsal, whilst Adherbal fled for his life and appealed to
the senate.
The senate decided to send a commission to Numidia to divide he kingdom between the two
claimants. Jugurtha appeared to bribe the commission's leader, Opimius, who returned to Rome a
richer man, after awarding the greater and wealthier part of Numidia to Jugurtha. Though this
was not enough for the ambitious Jugurtha who then marched on the territory of Adherbal and
had him murdered, too.
Rome was outraged. Rome's judgement had simply been swept aside. Under the consul L
Calpurnius Bestia troops were sent to Numidia to deal with the usurper. But the campaign was
ineffective from the start, the Roman heavy infantry struggling to make any impression on the
nimble Numidian horsemen.
Back in Rome eventually the comitia tributa to halt the campaign to have Jugurtha summoned to
Rome to give evidence against any senators who were alleged to have accepted bribes from him.
For this he was assured safe-conduct, meaning he was promised no to be charged or in any way
harmed himself. But, once Jugurtha had arrived in Rome, these legal proceedings were stopped
by a Tribune of the People who sought to avoid a political scandal.
So effective were Jugurtha's methods that even while he was in Rome he had another cousin

96
murdered in the city.
This was too much, and he was ordered to depart.
'A city for sale !' he is said to have sneered as he left.
More troops were now sent to Africa to deal with the usurper. though the campaign was so ill
managed that a commission of inquiry was held, which revealed such dire scandals of
widespread bribery and corruption that three ex-consuls, one being Opimius, retired into exile.
Instead Quintus Metellus and Gaius Marius, both known not only for their ability as well as their
for being virtually incorruptible, were sent out to Africa to take command of the troops (109
BC).
Metellus was a good soldier who conducted his campaigns with skill and vigour, but Jugurtha, a
master of the arts of guerilla warfare, held out against him. Marius, a better soldier than Metellus,
returned to Rome to stand for the consulship, claiming that if the command were given to him
the war would be ended at once.
In fact, by the time he returned to Africa as consul to supersede Metellus, it appeared that
Jugurtha was beaten. Metellus went home bitterly disappointed at having had his victory
snatched from him. But Jugurtha was not finished yet.
Marius could not catch him, and he found a dubious ally or protector in his neighbour Bocchus,
king of Mauretania. Finally it was the diplomatic skill of the quaestor Lucius Cornelius Sulla that
induced Bocchus to betray Jugurtha to the Romans and to a miserable death at Rome. But the
conquest was credited to Marius.
Gaius Marius and his Reforms of the Roman Army
Gaius Marius

Before Marius was back in Rome he was re-elected to the consulship (104 BC), though the law
forbade re-election and required the candidate to be present in Rome.
But Marius was the soldier of the hour, and the hour demanded Rome's finest soldier of the day.
For during the Numidian war a tremendous menace had been gathering on the northern frontiers
of Italy. The German tribes were making their first appearance on the stage of history.
The advance hordes of the Teutones and the Cimbri had rolled past the Alps and poured into
Gaul, flooding down the valley of the Saône and the Rhône and also setting in motion the
Helvetic (Swiss) Celts. They defeated the Roman consul Silanus in 109 BC and in 107 BC
another consul, Cassius, was trapped by the Helvetii and lost his army and his life. In 105 BC the
forces of the pro-consul Caepio and the consul Mallius were annihilated by the Cimbri at the
Battle of Arausio (Orange), ancient sources estimating the the losses up to even 80'000 or
100'000 men.
Then for no apparent reason the tide relented for a moment.
Rome, desperate to use the time, turned to Marius, placing control and reorganization of her
armies in his hands and making him consul year after year. And Marius did the unthinkable.
Marius reorganizes the Army
For a primarily agricultural society such as Rome to be a perpetual war machine is to attempt to
combine two incompatibles.
What Tiberius Gracchus had tried to halt when he was tribune in 133 BC was a trend which had
begun centuries earlier and which, by the very success with which Rome had conducted military
operations, had become a vicious circle.
Ancient armies were armed by peasant farmers. A society constantly at war required a constant

97
flow of conscripts. Smallholdings fell into disuse because there was no one to tend to them. As
Roman conquests spread through the Mediterranean lands, even more men were required, and
wealth and cheap corn poured back into Rome, much of it into the hands of entrepreneurs, who
carved out vast areas for vegetables, vines, olives and sheep farming, all managed by slave
labour. The dispossessed rural poor, became the urban poor - so becoming ineligible for military
service as no longer being nominal property holders.
Not only was there therefore a shortage of recruits, but the soldiers had nothing to return to
between campaigns or at the end of their service. A working solution to this problem was finally
devised by Gaius Marius, once consul in 108 BC. He introduced the Roman army as it came to
be known and feared all across the Europe and the Mediterranean.
Rather than conscripting from Roman landowners he recruited volunteers from the urban poor.
Once the idea of a professional army of mercenaries was introduced, it never remained until the
very end of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, Marius introduced the idea of granting soldiers
allotments of farmland after they hand served their term.
Marius defeats the Northmen
Marius' revolution in the army came only just in time.
In 103 BC the Germans were again massing at the Saône, preparing to invading Italy by crossing
the Alps in two different places. The Teutones crossed the mountains in the west, the Cimbri did
so in the east.
In 102 BC Marius, consul for the fourth time, annihilated the Teutones at Aquae Sextiae beyond
the Alps, while his colleague Catullus stood guard behind them.
Next in 101 BC the Cimbri poured through the eastern mountain passes into the plain of the river
Po. They in turn were annihilated by Marius and Catulus at Campi Raudii near Vercellae.
Marius reaped the benefit of his joint victory with Catulus, by being elected to his sixth
consulship.
The Second Slave War
The atrocities of the First Slave War were anything but forgotten when in 103 BC the slaves of
Sicily dared to revolt again. That after the cruelty in the aftermath of the first conflict they dared
to rise again, hints how bad their conditions must have been.
They fought so stubbornly that it took Rome 3 years to stamp out the revolt.
The Social War
In 91 BC the moderate members of the senate allied themselves with Livius Drusus (the son of
that Drusus who had been used to undermine Gaius Gracchus' popularity in 122 BC) and aided
him in his election campaign. If the honesty of the father is open to doubt, that of the son is not.
As tribune he proposed to add to the senate an equal number of equestrians, and to extend
Roman citizenship to all Italians and to grant the poorer of the current citizens new schemes for
colonization and a further cheapening of the corn prices, at the expense of the state.
Though the people, the senators and the knights all felt that they would be conceding too many
of their rights for too little. Drusus was assassinated.
Despite his eventually loss of popularity his supporters had stood by Drusus loyally. The
opposition Tribune of the People, Q. Varius, now carried a bill declaring that to have supported
the ideas of Drusus was treason. The reaction by Drusus' supporters was violence.
All resident Roman citizens were killed by an enraged mob at Asculum, in central Italy. Worse
still, the 'allies' (socii)of Rome in Italy, the Marsi, Paeligni, Samnites, Lucanians, Apulians all
broke into open revolt.

98
The 'allies' had not planned any such rising, far more it was a spontaneous outburst of anger
against Rome. But that meant they were unprepared for a fight. Hastily they formed formed a
federation. A number of towns fell into their hands at the outset, and they defeated a consular
army. But alas, Marius took led an army into battle and defeated them. Though he didn't -
perhaps deliberately - crush them.
The 'allies' had a strong party of sympathizers in the senate. And these senators in 89 BC
managed to win over several of the 'allies' by a new law (the Julian Law - lex Iulia) by which
Roman citizenship was granted to 'all who had remained loyal to Rome (but this most likely also
included those who laid down their arms against Rome).
But some of the rebels, especially the Samnites, only fought the harder. Though under the
leadership of Sulla and Pompeius Strabo the rebels were reduced on battlefield until they held
out only in a few Samnite and Lucanian strongholds.
Was the city of Asculum in particular dealt with severely for the atrocity committed there, the
senate tried to bring an end to the fighting by conceding citizenship to by granting citizenship to
all who laid down their arms within sixty days (lex Plautia-Papiria).
The law succeeded and by the beginning of 88 BC the Social War was at an end, other than for a
few besieged strongholds.
Sulla (138-78 BC)
Sulla

Lucius Cornelius Sulla was yet another nail in he coffin of the Republic, perhaps much in the
same mould as Marius.
Having already been the first man to use Roman troops against Rome itself.
And much like Marius he, too, should make his mark in history with reforms as well as a reign of
terror.
Sulla takes Power
In 88 BC the activities of king Mithridates of Pontus called for urgent action. The king had
invaded the province of Asia and massacred 80'000 Roman and Italian citizens. Sulla, as elected
consul and as the man who had won the Social War, expected the command, but Marius wanted
it, too. The senate appointed Sulla to lead the troops against Mithridates.
But the tribune Sulpicius Rufus (124-88 BC), a political ally of Marius, passed through the
concilium plebis an order calling for the transfer of command to Marius. Peaceful as these
happenings may sound, they were accompanied by much violence.
Sulla rushed straight from Rome to his still undisbanded troops of the Social War before Nola in
Campania, where the Samnites were still holding out.
There, Sulla appealed to the soldiers to follow him. The officers hesitated, but the soldiers did
not. And so, at the head of six Roman legions, Sulla marched on Rome. He was joined by his
political ally Pompeius Rufus. They seized the city gates, marched in and annihilated a force
hastily collected by Marius.
Sulpicius fled but was discovered and killed. So, too, did Marius, by now 70 years old, flee. He
was picked up at the coast of Latium and sentenced to death. But as no one could be found
prepared to do the deed he was instead hustled onto a ship. He ended up in Carthage where he
was ordered by the Roman governor of Africa to move on.
Sulla's first Reforms

99
While he still held the command of the military in his hands, Sulla used the military assembly
(comitia centuriata) to annul all legislation passed by Sulpicius and to proclaim that all business
to be submitted to the people should be dealt with in the comitia centuriata , while nothing at all
was to be brought to the people before it received senatorial approval.
In effect this took away any which the tribal assembly (comitia tributa) and the plebeian
assembly (concilium plebis) possessed. Also it reduced the power of the tribunes, who until then
had been able to use the people's assemblies to by-pass the senate.
Naturally, it also increased the power of the senate.
Sulla did not interfere in the elections for the offices of consul, but to demand from the
successful candidate, L. Cornelius Cinna, not to reverse any of the changes he had made.
This done Sulla left with his forces to fight Mithridates in the east (87 BC).
Marius and Cinna take Power
Though in his absence Cinna revived the legislation and the methods of Sulpicius. When
violence broke out in the city, he appealed to the troops in Italy and practically revived the Social
War. Marius returned form exile and joined him, though he appeared more intent on revenge
than on anything else.
Rome lay defenceless before the conquerors. The city's gates to Marius and Cinna. In the week's
reign of terror which followed, Marius wreaked his revenge on his enemies.
After the brief but hideous orgy of blood-lust which alarmed Cinna and disgusted their allies in
the senate, Marius seized his seventh consulship without election. But he died a fortnight later
(January, 87 BC).
Cinna remained sole master and consul of Rome until he was killed in the course of a mutiny in
84 BC.
The power fell to an ally of Cinna's, namely Cn. Papirius Carbo.
First Mithridatic War
When the Social War had broken out, Rome was fully occupied with its own affairs. Mithridates
VI, king of Pontus, used Rome's preoccupation to invade the province of Asia. Half of the
province of Achaea (Greece), Athens taking the lead, rose against its Roman rulers, supported by
Mithridates.
When Sulla arrived at Athens, the city's fortifications proved too much for him to charge. Instead
he starved them out, whilst his lieutenant, Lucius Lucullus, raised a fleet to force Mithridates out
of the Aegean Sea.
Early in 86 BC Athens fell to the Romans.
Though Archelaus, the ablest general of Mithridates, now threatened with a large army from
Thessaly. Sulla marched against him with a force only a sixth in size and shattered his army at
Chaeronea.
A Roman consul, Valerius Flaccus, now landed with fresh forces in Epirus, to relieve Sulla of his
command. But Sulla had no intention of relinquishing his power. News reached him that general
Archelaus had landed another huge force. Immediately he turned southwards and destroyed this
force at Orchomenus.
Meanwhile Flaccus, avoiding a conflict with Sulla, headed toward Asia seeking to engage
Mithridates himself. Though he never reached it. His second-in-command, C. Flavius Fimbria,
led a mutiny against him, killed him and assumed command himself. Fimbria crossed the
straights and started operations in Asia.

100
Meanwhile Sulla opened negotiations with the defeated Archelaus. An conference was arranged
in 85 BC between Sulla and Mithridates and a treaty was struck by which Mithridates was to
surrender his conquests to Rome and retreat behind the borders he'd held before the war. So too,
was Pontus to hand over a fleet of seventy ships and pay a tribute.
It now remained to settle the problem of Fimbria, who could only hope to excuse his mutiny with
some success. With the war over and Sulla closing on him with his troops, his situation was
hopeless. Alas, his troops deserted him and Fimbria committed suicide.
Therefore, in 84 BC, his campaigns a total success, Sulla could start making his was back to
Rome.
Sulla becomes Dictator
Sulla should arrive back in Italy in the spring of 83 BC and marched on Rome determined to
restore his will upon the city.
But the Roman government controlled greater troops than his own, more so the Samnites
wholeheartedly flung themselves into the struggle against Sulla, who to them represented
senatorial privilege and the denial of citizenship to the Italians.
Alas, it came to the decisive Battle of the Colline Gate in August 82 BC, where fifty thousand
men lost their lives.
Sulla emerged victorious at the Battle of the Colline Gate and so became the master of the
Roman world.
Sulla in no way lacked any of the blood-lust displayed by Marius. Three days after the battle he
ordered all of the eight thousand prisoners taken on the battle field to be massacred in cold blood.
Soon after Sulla was appointed dictator for so long as he might think fit to retain office.
He issued a series of proscriptions - lists of people who were to have their property taken and
who were to be killed. The people killed in these purges were not only supporters of Marius and
Cinna, but so too people Sulla simply disliked or held a grudge against.
The lives of the people of Rome were entirely in Sulla's hands. He could have them killed or he
could spare them. One he chose to spare was a dissolute young patrician, whose father's sister
had been the wife of Marius, and who himself was the husband of Cinna's daughter - Gaius
Julius Caesar.
Sulla's second Reforms
Sulla took charge of the constitution in 81 BC. All the power of the state would henceforth lay in
the hands of the senate.The Tribunes of the People and the people's assemblies had been by the
democrats to overthrow the senate. Tribunes were to be barred from all further office and the
assemblies were deprived of the power of initiating any legislation. The senatorial control of the
courts was restored at the expense of the equestrians.
There were to be no more repeated consulships, like those of Marius and Cinna.
Consuls were not to hold military command until, after their year of office, they went abroad as
proconsuls, when their power could only be exercised in their respective province.
Then in 79 BC Sulla lay down his powers as dictator and devoted his remaining months to the
enjoyment of wild parties. He died in 78 BC.
Although the Roman Republic technically still had some fifty years to go, Sulla pretty much
represents its demise. He should stand as an example to others to come that is was possible to

101
take Rome by force and rule it, if only one was strong and ruthlessness enough to do what ever
deeds were required.

The Age of Caesar

The twenty years following Sulla's death saw the rise of three men who, if Rome's founders were
truly suckled by a she-wolf, surely had within them the stuff of wolves.
The three were Marcus Licinius Crassus (d. 53 BC), one of Rome's richest men ever. Gnaeus
Pompeius Magnus (106-48 BC), known as Pompey the Great, perhaps the greatest military talent
of his time, and Gaius Julius Caesar (102-44 BC), arguably the most famous Roman of all times.
A fourth man was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), is generally understood to have been the
greatest orator in the entire history of the Roman Empire. All four were stabbed to death within
ten years of each other.
Cicero Crassus Pompey Julius Caesar

The Rise of Crassus and Pompey

Two men had risen to prominence as supporters of Sulla. One was Publius Licinius Crassus
(117-53 BC), who had played a major part in the victory of the Colline Gate for Sulla. The other,
Gnaeus Pompeius (106-48 BC), known to the modern historians as Pompey, was a youthful
commander of remarkable military talents. Such talents in fact that Sulla had entrusted him with
the suppression of the Marians (the supporters of Marius) in Africa. This command he had
fulfilled so satisfactorily that it had earned him the complimentary title 'Magnus' ('the Great')
from the dictator. Crassus had no little ability, but he chose to concentrate it on the acquisition of
wealth.
Sulla was hardly dead, when the inevitable attempt to overturn his constitution was made by the
consul Lepidus, the champion of the popular party. when he took up arms however, he was
easily crushed (77 BC).
In one quarter, the Marians had not yet been suppressed. The Marian Sertorius had retreated to
Spain when Sulla returned to Italy, and there he had been making himself a formidable power,
partly by rallying the Spanish tribes to join him as their leader.
He was very much more than a mere match for the Roman forces sent to deal with him. Pompey,
charged with the business of dealing with him in 77 BC, fared not much better than his
predecessors.
More worryingly the menacing king Mithridates of Pontus, no longer in awe of Sulla, was
negotiating with Sertorius with the intention of renewing the war in 74 BC.
But this alliance came to nothing as Sertorius was assassinated in 72 BC. With Sertorius'' death
the defeat of the Marians in Spain posed no great difficulty to Pompey anymore.
Pompey could now return home to Rome to claim and receive credit, scarcely deserved, for
having succeeded were others had failed.
Third Slave War
Slaves were trained as gladiators, and in 73 BC such a slave, a Thracian named Spartacus, broke
out of a gladiator training camp at Capua and took refuge in the hills. The number of his band
swelled rapidly and he kept his men well in hand and under strict discipline and routed two
commanders who were sent to capture him. In 72 BC Spartacus had so formidable force behind
him, that two consular armies were sent against him, both of which he destroyed.

102
Pompey was in the west, Lucullus in the east. It was Crassus who at the head of six legions at
last brought Spartacus to bay, shattered his army, and slew him on the field (71 BC).
Five thousand of Spartacus' men cut their way through the lines and escaped but only to end up
in the very path of Pompey's army returning from Spain.
Pompey claimed the victory of quelling the Slave war for himself, adding to his questionable
glories gained in Spain. Crassus, seeing that the popular soldier might be useful to him, did not
quarrel.
Crassus and Pompey joint Consuls
So powerful were the positions of the two leaders, that they felt secure enough to challenge
Sulla's constitution. Both by the terms of Sulla's laws were barred from standing for the
consulship. Pompey was too young and Crassus was required to let a year pass between his
position as praetor before he could stand for election.
But both men stood and both were elected.
As consuls, during 70 BC, they procured the annulment of the restrictions imposed on the office
of Tribune of the People. Thereby they restored the lost powers of the tribal assembly. The
senate dared not refuse their demands, knowing an army behind each of them.
Third Mithridatic War
In 74 BC king Nicomedes of Bithynia died without heirs. Following the example of Attalus of
Pergamum he left his kingdom to the Roman people. But with Sulla dead, king Mithridates of
Pontus clearly felt his most fearsome enemy had vanished from the scene and revived his dreams
of creating his own empire. Nicomedes' death provided him with an excuse to start a war. He
supported a false pretender to the throne of Bithynia on whose behalf he then invaded Bithynia.
At first the consul Cotta failed to make any significant gains against the king, but Lucius
Lucullus, formerly the lieutenant of Sulla in the east, was soon dispatched to be governor of
Cilicia to deal with Mithridates.
Though provided only with a comparatively small and undisciplined force, Lucullus conducted
his operations with such skill that within a year he had broken up the army of Mithridates
without having had to fight a pitched battle. Mithridates was driven back into his own territory in
Pontus. Following a series of campaigns in the following years Mithridates was forced to flee to
king Tigranes of Armenia.
Lucullus' troops had subjugated Pontus by 70 BC. Meanwhile however Lucullus, trying to sort
out matters in the east realized that the cites of the province of Asia were being strangled by the
punitive tributes they had to pay to Rome. In fact they had to borrow money to be able to pay
them, leading to an ever growing spiral of debt.
In order to alleviate this burden and to return the province back to prosperity he scaled down
their debts to Rome from the huge total of 120'000 talents to 40'000.
This inevitably earned him the enduring gratitude of the cities of Asia, but it also drew upon him
the undying resentment of the Roman moneylenders who had until profiteered from the plight of
the Asiatic cities.
In 69 BC Lucullus, having decided that until Mithridates was captured the conflict in the east
could not be resolved, advanced into Armenia and captured the capital Tigranocerta. In the next
year he routed the forces of the Armenian king Tigranes. but in 68 BC, paralysed by the
mutinous spirit of his depleted troops he was forced to withdraw to Pontus.
Pompey defeats the Pirates

103
In 74 BC Marcus Antonius, father of the famous Mark Antony, had been given special powers to
suppress the large-scale piracy in the Mediterranean. But his attempts had ended in dismal
failure. After Antonius' death, the consul Quintus Metellus was set upon the same task in 69 BC.
Matters indeed did improve, but Metellus' role should be cut shorts, as Pompey in 67 BC decided
he wanted the position. Thanks to no small part to the support of Julius Caesar, Pompey was
given the task, despite opposition by the senate.
A commander free to do as he wished and with nearly unlimited resources, Pompey
accomplished in only three months what no one else had managed. Spreading his fleet
systematically across the Mediterranean, Pompey swept the sea clean from end to end. The
pirates were destroyed.
Pompey against Mithridates
By popular acclaim, fresh from his brilliant triumph over the pirates, Pompey was given supreme
and unlimited authority over the whole east. His powers were to be in his hands until he himself
should be satisfied with the completeness of the settlement he might effect.
No Roman, other than Sulla, had ever been given such powers. From 66 to 62 BC Pompey
should remain in the east.
In his first campaign Pompey forced Mithridates to fight him, and routed his forces on the
eastern border of Pontus. Mithridates fled, but was refused asylum by Tigranes of Armenia who,
after the onslaught by Lucullus, evidently feared Roman troops. Instead Mithridates fled to the
northern shores of the Black Sea. There, beyond reach of the Roman forces, he began to form
plans of leading the barbarian tribes of eastern Europe against Rome. That ambitious project,
however, was brought to an end as his own son Pharnaces. In 63 BC, a broken old man,
Mithridates killed himself.
Meanwhile Tigranes, eager to come to an arrangement with Rome, had already withdrawn his
support for Mithridates and had pulled back his troops based in Syria. when Pompey marched
into Armenia, Tigranes submitted to Roman power. Pompey seeing his task completed, saw no
reason to occupy Armenia itself. Far more he left Tigranes in power and returned to Asia Minor
(Turkey), where he began the organization of the new Roman territories.
Bithynia and Pontus were formed into one province, and the province of Cilicia was enlarged.
meanwhile the minor territories on the border, Cappadocia, Galatia and Commagene were
recognized as being under Roman protection.
Pompey annexes Syria
When in 64 BC Pompey descended from Cappadocia into northern Syria he needed little more
than assume sovereignty on behalf of Rome. Ever since the collapse of the kingdom of the
Seleucids sixty years previously, Syria had been ruled by chaos. Roman order was hence
welcomed. The acquisition of Syria brought the eastern borders of the empire to the river
Euphrates, which should hence traditionally be understood as the boundary between the two
great empires of Rome and Parthia.
In Syria itself Pompey is said to have founded or restored as many as forty cities, settling them
with the many refugees of the recent wars.
Pompey in Judaea
However, to the south things were different. The princes of Judaea had been allies of Rome for
half a century.
But Judaea was suffering a civil war between the two brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus.
Pompey was hence asked to help quell their quarrels and help decide the matter of rule over

104
Judaea (63 BC).
Pompey advised in favour of Hyrcanus. Aristobulus gave way to his brother. But his followers
refused to accept and locked themselves up in the city of Jerusalem. Pompey hence besieged the
city, conquered it after three months and left it to Hyrcanus. But his troops having effectively put
Hyrcanus in power, Pompey left Judaea no longer an ally but a protectorate, which paid a tribute
to Rome.
The Cataline Conspiracy
During the five years of Pompey's absence in the east Roman politics were as lively as ever.
Julius Caesar, the nephew of Marius and son-in-law of Cinna, was courting popularity and
steadily rising in power and influence.
However, among the hot-heads of the anti-senatorial party was Lucius Sergius Catalina (ca. 106 -
62 BC) a patrician who was at least reputed to have no scruples in such matters as assassination.
On the other side the ranks of the senatorial party were joined by the most brilliant orator of the
day, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC).
In 64 BC Catalina stood as a candidate for the consulship, having just been barely acquitted in
the courts on a charge of treasonable conspiracy.
Though Cicero was not popular with the upper class senators of the old families, his party
nominated him as their candidate - if only to prevent Catalina from winning the seat. Cicero's
rhetoric won day and secured him the post of consul.
But Catalina was not a man to take defeat easily.
While Caesar continue to court popularity, managing even to secure election to the dignified
office of pontifex maximus ahead of the most eminent senatorial candidates, Catalina began to
plot.
The intrigue was afoot in 63 BC, and yet Catalina did not intend to move until he had attained
the consulship. He also didn't feel sufficiently ready to strike yet.
But all should come to nothing as some information about his plans was passed on to Cicero.
Cicero went to the senate and presented what evidence he had, of plans being afoot.
Catalina escaped to the north to head the intended rebellion in the provinces, leaving his
accomplices to carry out the programme arranged for the city.
Cicero, by now having been granted emergency powers by the senate, obtained correspondence
between Catalina and the Gallic tribe of the Allobroges. The principal conspirators named in the
letter were arrested and condemned to death without trial.
Cicero told the whole story to the people gathered in the forum amid frantic applause. In the city
of Rome the rebellion had been quashed without a fight.
But in the country Catalina fell fighting indomitably in early 62 BC at the head of the troops he
had succeeded in raising.
For the moment at least civil war had been averted.
The first Triumvirate
With Pompey about to return to Rome, no one knew what the conqueror of the east intended to
do. Both Cicero and Caesar wanted his alliance. But Caesar knew how to wait and turn events in
his favour. At present Crassus with his gold was more important then Pompey with his men. The
money of Crassus enabled Caesar to take up the praetorship in Spain, soon after Pompey's
landing at Brundisium (Brindisi).
However, many people took comfort when Pompey instead of remaining at the head of his army
dismissed his troops. He was not minded to play the part of dictator.
Then in 60 BC Caesar returned from Spain, enriched by the spoils of successful military

105
campaigns against rebellious tribes. He found Pompey showing little interest in any alliance with
Cicero and the senatorial party. Instead an alliance was forged between the popular politician, the
victorious general and the richest man in Rome - the so-called first triumvirate - between Caesar,
Pompey and Crassus.
The reason for the 'first triumvirate is to be found in the hostility the populists Crassus Pompey
and Caesar faced in the senate, in particularly by the likes of Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's
great-grandson. Perhaps his famous namesake before him Cato the Younger was a
(self-)righteous, but talented politician. A fatal mix, if surrounded by wolves of the caliber of
Crassus, Pompey and Caesar. He became one of the leaders in the senate, where he particularly
rounded on Crassus, Pompey and Caesar. Alas, he even fell out with Cicero, the greatest speaker
of the house by far.
The 'first triumvirate was, rather than a constitutional office or a dictatorship imposed by force,
an alliance of the three main popular politicians; Crassus, Pompey and Caesar.
They helped each other along, guarding each other's backs from Cato the Younger and his
attacks in the senate.
With Pompey and Crassus supporting him Caesar was triumphantly elected consul.
The partnership with Pompey was to be sealed in the following year by the marriage between
Pompey and Caesar's daughter Julia.
The first Consulate of Julius Caesar
Caesar used his year as consul (59 BC) to further establish his position. A popular agrarian law,
As his first act in office Caesar brought proposed a new agrarian law which gave lands to the
veteran soldiers of Pompey and poor citizens in Campania.. Though opposed by the senate, but
supported by Pompey as Crassus, the law was passed in the tribal assembly, after a detachment
of Pompey's veterans had by physical force swept away any possible constitutional opposition.
The populace were gratified and the three triumvirs now had a body of loyal and grateful veteran
soldiers to call on in case of trouble.
Pompey's organization of the east was finally confirmed, having been in doubt until then. And
finally Caesar secured for himself an unprecedented term of five years for the proconsulship of
Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum. The senate, hoping to be well rid of him, added to his territories
Transalpine Gaul (Gallia Narbonensis) where serious trouble was brewing.
Before his departure though Caesar saw to it that the political opposition lay in tatters. The
austere and uncompromising Cato the Younger (95-46 BC) was dispatched to secure the
annexation of Cyprus. Meanwhile the arch-enemy of Cicero, Publius Claudius (known as
Clodius), was aided in obtaining the position of Tribune of the People, whilst Cicero himself was
forced into exile in Greece for having illegally killed without trial the accomplices of Catalina
during the Cataline Conspiracy.
Caesar defeats the Helvetii, the Germans and the Nervii
In the first year of his governorship of Gaul 58 BC, Caesar's presence was urgently required in
Transalpine Gaul (Gallia Narbonensis) because of the movement among the Teutonic tribes
which was displacing the Helvetic (Swiss) Celts and forcing them into Roman territory. the year
58 BC was therefore first occupied with a campaign in which the invaders were split in two and
their forces so heavily defeated that they had to retire to their own mountains.
But no sooner was this menace dealt with another loomed on the horizon. The fierce Germans
tribes (Sueves and Swabians) were crossing the Rhine and threatening to overthrow the Aedui,
the Gallic allies of Rome on the northern borders of the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul.

106
The German chief, Ariovistus, apparently envisaged the conquest of entire Gaul and its partition
between himself and the Romans.
Caesar led his legions to the help of the Aedui and utterly defeated the German force, with
Ariovistus barely escaping across the Rhine with what was left of his forces.
With the Germans driven back, fear was aroused in Gaul of a general Roman conquest. The
Nervii, who were the leading tribe of the warlike Belgae in the north-east of Gaul prepared an
attack on Rome's forces. But Caesar received warning from friends in Gaul and decided to attack
first, invading Nervian territory in 57 BC.
The Nervii fought heroically and for some time the outcome of the decisive battle uncertain, but
eventually Caesar's victory proved overwhelming. It was followed by a general submission of all
the tribes between the river Aisne and the Rhine.
Disorder in Rome under Clodius
With Julius Caesar campaigning in Gaul, Clodius exercised his powers as the virtual king of
Rome with neither Pompey nor Crassus interfering. Among his measures was a law which
distributed corn no longer at half price but for free to the citizens of Rome.
But his conduct was generally reckless and violent, as he employed a large gang of thugs and
troublemakers to enforce his will. So much so, that it aroused the anger of Pompey who the
following year (57 BC) used his influence to enable the return of Cicero to Rome. Did the
supporters of Clodius protest in a violent riot then this was met with equal brute force by
Pompey, who organized his own band of thugs, made up partially of veterans of his army, which
under the guidance of the tribune T. Annius Milo took to the streets and beet Clodius' ruffians at
their own game.
Cicero, finding himself still very popular on his return to Rome, proposed - perhaps feeling
indebted - that Pompey should be granted dictatorial powers for the restoration of order. But only
partial, not total power was conveyed upon Pompey, who himself seemed little tempted in acting
as a policeman in Rome.
Conference of the Triumvirs in Luca
With Clodius reduced in power and influence, the senate was stirring again, seeking to gain back
some power from the three triumvirs. So in 56 BC a meeting was held at Luca in Cisalpine Gaul
by the three men, determined to hold onto their privileged position.
The result of the meeting was that Pompey and Crassus stood for the consulship again and were
elected - largely due to the fact that Crassus' son, who had been serving brilliantly under Caesar,
was at no great distance from Rome with a returning legion.
Did Pompey and Crassus gain office in such way, then Caesar's part of the bargain was that the
two new consuls extended his term in office in Gaul by another five years (until 49 BC).
Caesar's expeditions into Germany and Britain
Caesar went on, after the the conference of Luca to reduce the whole of Gaul to submission in
the course of three campaigns - justified by initial aggression from the barbarians.
The two following years were occupied with expeditions and campaigns of an experimental kind.
In 55 BC a fresh invasion of Germans across the Rhine was completely shattered in the
neighbourhood of modern Koblenz and the victory was followed by a great raid over the river
into German territory, which made Caesar decide that the Rhine should remain the boundary.
Gaul conquered and the Germans crushed, Caesar turned his attention to Britain. In 55 BC he led
his first expedition to Britain, a land so far known only by the reports of traders.
The following year, 54 BC, Caesar led his second expedition, and reduced the south-east of the

107
island to submission. But he decided that real conquest was not worth undertaking.
During that winter and the following year 53 BC, the year of the disaster of Carrhae, Caesar was
kept occupied with various revolts in north-eastern Gaul.
Pompey sole consul in Rome
In 54 BC Pompey's young wife had died and with her death had disappeared the personal link
between him and his father-in-law Caesar.
Crassus had started for the east to take up governorship of Syria. Meanwhile Pompey did little.
He simply watched with growing jealousy the successive triumphs of Caesar in Gaul.
In 52 BC things in Rome reached another point of crisis. During the previous two years the city
had remained in a state of near anarchy.
Clodius, still the leader of the popular extremists, was killed in an violent brawl with the
followers of Milo, the leader of the senatorial extremists. Pompey, was elected sole consul and
was commissioned to restore order in the ever more riotous city of Rome.
In effect Pompey was left virtual dictator of Rome. A dangerous situation, considering Caesar's
presence in Gaul with several battle-hardened legions.
Pompey himself achieved a five year extension for his own position of proconsul of Spain, but -
very controversially - he had a law passed by which Caesar's term in Gaul would be cut short by
almost a year (ending in March 49 instead of January 48 BC).
A reaction of Caesar's was inevitable to such provocation, but he could not respond immediately,
as a large scale revolt in Gaul demanded his full attention.
Disaster at Carrhae
In 55 BC Crassus had, during his consulship, in the aftermath of the conference at Luca,
managed to secure himself the governorship of Syria. Phenomenally rich and renowned for
greed, people saw this as yet another example of his appetite for money. The east was rich, and a
governor of Syria could hope to be much the richer on his return to Rome.
But Crassus was for once, it appears, seeking more than mere wealth, although the promise of
gold no doubt played a major part in his seeking the governorship of Syria. With Pompey and
Caesar having covered themselves in military glory, Crassus craved for similar recognition.
Had his money bought him his power and influence so far, as a politician he had always been the
poor relation to his partners in the triumvirate. There was only one way by which to equal their
popularity and that was by equalling their military exploits.
Relations with the Parthians had never been good and now Crassus set out on a war against them.
First he raided Mesopotamia, before spending the winter of 54/53 BC in Syria, when he did little
to make himself popular by requisitioning from the Great Temple of Jerusalem and other temples
and sanctuaries.
Then, in 53 BC, Crassus crossed the Euphrates with 35'000 men with the intention of marching
on Seleucia-ad-Tigris, the commercial capital of ancient Babylonia. Large though Crassus' army
was, it consisted almost entirely of legionary infantry.
But for the Gallic horseman under the command of his son, he possessed no cavalry. An
arrangement with the king of Armenia to supply additional cavalry had fallen foul, and Crassus
was no longer prepared to delay any further.
He marched into absolute disaster against an army of 10'000 horsemen of the Parthian king
Orodes II. The place where the two armies met, the wide open spaces of the low lying land of
Mesopotamia around the city of Carrhae, offered ideal terrain for cavalry manoeuvres.
The Parthian horse archers could move at liberty, staying at a safe distance while taking shots at
the helpless Roman infantry from a safe range. 25'000 men fell or were captured by the

108
Parthians, the remaining 10'000 managed to escape back to Roman territory.
Crassus himself was killed trying to negotiate terms for surrender.
The Rebellion of Vercingetorix in Gaul
In 52 BC, just as Pompey's jealousies reached their height, a great rebellion was organized in the
very heart of Gaul by the heroic Arvernian chief Vercingetorix. So stubborn and so able was the
Gallic chief that all Caesar's energies were required for the campaign. On an attack on Gergovia
Caesar even suffered a defeat, dispelling the general myth of his invincibility.
Taking heart from this, all Gallic tribes, except for three broke out in open rebellion against
Rome. Even the allied Aedui joined the ranks of the rebels. But a battle near Dijon turned the
odds back in favour of Caesar, who drove Vercingetorix into the hill-top city of Alesia and laid
siege to him.
All efforts of the Gauls to relieve the siege were in vain. At Alesia the Gallic resistance was
broken and Vercingetorix was captured. Gaul was conquered for good.
The whole of 51 BC was taken up by the organization of the conquered land and the
establishment of garrisons to retain its control.
Caesar's breach with Pompey
Meanwhile the party in Rome most hostile toward him was straining itself to the utmost to effect
his ruin between the termination of his present appointment and his entry into a new post.
Caesar would be secure from attack if he passed straight from his position of proconsul of Gaul
and Illyricum into the office of consul back in Rome. He was sure to win an election to that
office, but the rules prohibited him from entering such a position till 48 BC (the rules stated that
he had to wait for ten years after holding the office of consul in 59 BC !). If he could be deprived
of his troops before that date, he could be attacked through the law courts for his questionable
proceedings in Gaul and his fate would be sealed, while Pompey would still enjoy command
over his own troops in Spain.
So far Caesar's supporters in Rome delayed a decree which would have displaced Caesar from
office in March 49 BC. But the problem was only delayed, not resolved. Meanwhile in 51 BC,
two legions were detached from Caesar's command and moved to Italy, to be ready for service
against the Parthians in the east.
In 50 BC the question of redistributing the provinces came up for settlement. Caesar's agents in
Rome proposed compromises, suggesting that Caesar and Pompey should resign simultaneously
from their positions as provincial governors, or that Caesar should only retain one of his three
provinces.
Pompey refused, but proposed that Caesar should not resign until November 49 BC (which
would still have left two months for his prosecution !). Caesar naturally refused. Having
completed the organization of Gaul, he had now returned to Cisalpine Gaul in northern Italy with
one veteran legion. Pompey, commissioned by a suspicious senate, left Rome to raise more
troops in Italy.
In January 49 BC Caesar repeated his offer of a joint resignation. The senate rejected the offer
and decreed that their current consuls should enjoy a completely free hand 'in defence of the
Republic'. Evidently they had resigned themselves to the fact that there was going to be a civil
war.
Caesar was still in his province, of which the boundary to Italy was the river Rubicon. The
momentous choice lay before him. Was he to submit and let his enemies utterly destroy him or
was he to take power by force. He made his choice. At the head of one of his one legion, on the
night of January 6, 49 BC, he crossed the Rubicon. Caesar was now at war with Rome.

109
 Showdown between Casesar and Pompey
Pompey was not prepared for the sudden swiftness of his adversary. Without waiting for the
reinforcements he had summoned from Gaul, Caesar swooped on Umbria and Picenum, which
were not prepared to resist. Town after town surrendered and was won over to his side by the
show of clemency and the firm control which Caesar held over his soldiers.
In six weeks he was joined by another legion from Gaul. Corfinium was surrendered to him and
he sped south in pursuit of Pompey.
The legions Pompey had ready were the very legions which Caesar had led to victory in Gaul.
Pompey hence could not rely on the loyalty of his troops. Instead he decided to move south to
the port of Brundisium where he embarked with his troops and sailed east, hoping to raise troops
there with which he could return to drive the rebel out of of Italy. His leaving words are said to
have been "Sulla did it, why not I ?"

Caesar, with no enemy left to fight in Italy, was in Rome no longer than three months after he
had crossed the river Rubicon.
He immediately secured the treasury and then, rather than pursuing Pompey, he turned west to
deal with the legions in Spain who were loyal to Pompey.
The campaign in Spain was not a series of battles, but a sequence of skillful manouvers by both
sides - during which Caesar, by his own admission, was at times outgeneraled by his opposition.
But Caesar remained the winner as within six months most of the Spanish troops had joined his
side.
Returning to Rome he became dictator, passed popular laws, and then prepared for the decisive
contest in the east, where a large force was now collecting under Pompey.
Pompey also controlled the seas, as most of the fleet had joined with him. Caesar therefore
managed only with great difficulty to set across to Epirus with his first army. There he was shut
up, unable to manoeuvre, by the much larger army of Pompey. With even more difficulty his
lieutenant, Mark Antony, joined him with the second army in the spring of 48 BC.
Some months of manoeuvring following Pompey, though his forces outnumbered Caesar's, knew
well that his eastern soldiers were not to be matched against Caesar's veterans. Hence he wished
to avoid a pitched battle. Many of the senators though, who had fled Italy together with Pompey,
scoffed at his indecision and clamoured for battle.
Until at last, in midsummer, Pompey was goaded into delivering an attack on the plain of
Pharsalus in Thessaly.
The fight hung long in balance, but eventually ended in the complete rout of Pompey's army,
with immense slaughter. Most of the Romans on Pompey's side though were persuaded by
Caesar's promises of clemency to surrender once they realized the battle lost.
Pompey himself escaped to the coast, took a ship with a few loyal comrades and made his way to
Egypt, where he found awaiting him not the asylum he sought, but the dagger of an assassin
commissioned by the Egyptian government.
Caesar in Egypt - The 'Alexandrian War'
After Caesar's great victory at Pharsalus, all was not yet won. The Pompeians still controlled the
seas, Africa was in their hands and Juba of Numidia was siding with them. Caesar was not yet
master of the empire.
Therefore, at the first possible moment, Caesar had set out with a small force after Pompey and,
evading the enemy fleets, tracked him all the way to Egypt, where the Egyptian government's
envoys received him, not with his dead rival's head.
But rather than being able to swiftly move on ad deal with the remaining Pompeians, Caesar

110
became entangled in Egyptian politics. He was asked to help settle a dispute between the young
king Ptolemy XII and his fascinating sister Cleopatra.
Though the arrangements Caesar suggested for the dynasty gave such offence to Ptolemy and his
ministers that they set the royal army upon him and kept him and his small force blockaded in
the palace quarter of Alexandria through the winter of 48/47 BC.
With his force of no more than 3000 men Caesar became involved in desperate rounds of street-
fighting against the Ptolemaic royal troops.
Meanwhile, the Pompeians seeing their chance to rid themselves of their foe, used their fleets to
prevent any reinforcements reaching him.
Alas, a makeshift force swept together jointly in Cilicia and Syria by a wealthy citizen of
Pergamum, known as Mithridates of Pergamum, and by Antipater, a Judaean government
minister, managed to land and help Caesar out of Alexandria.
A few days later the 'Alexandrian War' was ended in a pitched battle on the Nile delta, in which
both the king Ptolemy XII and the true power behind the throne, his chief-minister Achillas, met
their death.
The late king's crown was transferred by Caesar to his younger brother Ptolemy XIII. But the
effective ruler of Egypt henceforth was Cleopatra whom Caesar invested a co-regent.
Wether true or not is unclear, but Caesar is said to have spent up to two months with Cleopatra
on a holiday tour up the Nile.
Caesar defeats Pharnaces of Pontus
In the summer of 47 BC Caesar began his way home. While passing through Judaea he rewarded
the intervention of Antipater at Alexandria with a reduction of the tribute the Jewish people had
to pay to Rome.
But more serious matters were still to be taken care of. Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates, had
seized his opportunity to recover power in Pontus, whilst the Romans were tied up in their civil
war.
In a lightning campaign Caesar shattered the power of Pharnaces. It was at the occasion of that
victory on which Caesar dispatched the words back to Rome 'veni, vidi, vici' ('I came, I saw, I
conquered').
Caesar's final Victory over the Pompeians
By July 47 BC Caesar was back in Rome, and was formally appointed dictator for the second
time.
In Spain the legions were in mutiny. And in Africa the Pompeians were scoring victories.
He also found the legions in Campania in mutiny, demanding to be discharged. But what they
really wanted was not a discharge, but more pay.
Caesar coolly complied with their demand, granting them their discharge together with a
message of his contempt. Whereupon the distraught troops begged to be reinstated again,
whatever his terms may be. A triumphant Caesar granted them their will and re-employed them.
Next Caesar carried a force to Africa, but was unable to strike a decisive blow until in February
46 BC he shattered the Pompeian forces at Thapsus. The senatorial leaders either fled to Spain or
killed themselves, including Juba, king of Numidia who had sided with them. Numidia in turn
was annexed and made a new Roman province.
Caesar returned to Rome and celebrated a series of triumphs. Having reconciliation in mind, he
celebrated not his victories over other Romans, but those over the Gauls, Egypt, Pharnaces and
Juba.

111
But more so he astonished the world by declaring a complete amnesty, taking no sort of revenge
on any of his past enemies.
Confirmed as dictator for the third time, Caesar occupied himself with reorganizing the imperial
system, legislating and planning and starting public works.
Then, for a last time, Caesar was called to deal with a Pompeian force. Two sons of Pompey,
Gnaeus and Sextus, had, after fleeing from Africa been able to raise an army in Spain. Once in
Spain, sickness kept Caesar inactive until the end of the year. But by 46 BC he moved on the
Pompeians once more, and at the battle of Munda on 17 March 45 BC he finally crushed them, in
his most desperately fought battle.
For six more months Caesar was occupied in the settlement of Spanish affairs, before in October
45 BC he returned to Rome.
Into the few months of his remaining regime Caesar compressed a surprising amount of social
and economic legislation, most of all the granting of full Roman citizenship to all Italians.
It was in his many reforms and projects that it showed that Caesar was not merely a conqueror
and destroyer. Caesar was a builder, a visionary statesman the likes of which, the world rarely
gets to see.
He established order, begun measures to reduce congestion in Rome, draining large tracts of
marshy lands, revised the tax laws of Asia and Sicily, resettled many Romans in new homes in
the Roman provinces and reformed the calendar, which, with one slight adjustment, is the one in
use today.
The Murder of Caesar
A notable situation occurred when, at the festival of the Lupercalia in February 44 BC, Mark
Antony offered Caesar the crown as king of Rome. He rejected the offer dramatically, but with
obvious reluctance. The idea of a king still remained intolerable to the Romans.
Many senators though suspected it only a matter of time until Caesar should accept such an offer,
or that he simply would choose to rule as dictator forever as a quasi-king of Rome.
They saw their suspicions confirmed at hearing that a suggestion was to be put to the senate that
Caesar should adopt the title of king for use outside of Italy. More so support for the idea was
growing, if not in Rome itself, then with the people of Italy.
And with the appointment of new senators by Caesar, the senate as a whole was becoming more
and more am instrument of Caesar's will. A conspiracy was formed by a group which included
senators of the highest influence, some of them even Caesar's personal friends.
The organizers of the plot was Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus were pardoned
Pompeians, but the majority of their accomplices were former officers of Caesar.
Caesar never took precautions for his personal safety. At a meeting of the senate on the Ides of
March (15th March) 44 BC, they gathered round him on the pretext of urging a petition and then
stabbed him to death.
The Second Triumvirate
For the moment Caesar's fall produced sheer paralysis. The conspirators imagined that they were
going to restore the senatorial republic mid general acclamation. The enemy they had most to
fear was Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony, ca. 83-30 BC), consul designate and a favourite
lieutenant of the murdered dictator, a man of brilliant, though erratic ability, boundless ambition
and a whole-hearted devotion to his dead chief.
There would almost certainly be a duel between the conspirators and Antony. Neither side took
much notice of a youngster of eighteen years away in Macedon, whom the childless Caesar had
adopted, his great-nephew Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.

112
The conflict did not begin at once, for at first there was hollow reconciliation. Antony however
secured Caesar's papers and secured from the senate the ratification of Caesar's acts and a public
funeral - at which Antony's speech and the reading of Caesar's will produced a violent popular
outcry of revulsion against the self-styled 'liberators'.
Under the threat of being lynched by the angry mob, the conspirators hastily left Rome, leaving
Antony master of the situation.
The ablest soldier of the conspirators Decimus Brutus (not to be mistaken for the famous Marcus
Junius Brutus !), took possession of Cisalpine Gaul.
the military situation was extremely uncertain, which is well reflected in the fact that the two
parties were still corresponding with each other at that time.
The young Octavian suddenly appeared on the scene, announcing himself the heir to Caesar's
will, ready to make terms with either party - but only his own terms.
Antony feared a rival, the conspirators saw a remorseless enemy.
The Italian legions seemed likely to transfer their allegiance to the one they saw as Caesar's son,
Octavian.
Decimus Brutus was in Possession of Cisalpine Gaul, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (d 13BC),
Caesar's former chief assistant, was in control of the old Transalpine Province. Caesar himself in
his will (of course not knowing of his future assassination) had granted Macedon and Syria to his
chief murderers Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius, both of whom left Italy to raise troops for the
coming contest.
A time of chaos followed in which Antony besieged Decimus Brutus, suffered defeat, was
declared a public enemy after a series of brilliant speeches against him by Cicero, Octavian
joined the new consuls Hirtius and Pansa who were soon killed in fighting Antony's troops,
Antony then allied with Lepidus and then jointly came to terms with Octavian.
Octavian with his legions then simply marched on Rome and at the age of twenty claimed the
consulship for himself, no one daring to deny him. Then he trial Caesar's assassins tried and, of
course, condemned to death.
At last the governor's of Spain and Gaul, so far prudently neutral declared their support. Antony,
Lepidus and Octavian then met up at Bononia (Bologna) and constituted themselves (officially
by decree of a powerless senate) Triumvirs, joint rulers of the Republic.
A part of this joint programme was, as with Sulla, a merciless proscription, Cicero being the
most distinguished of their victims. Then the Triumvirs went about appointing their shares of the
empire, with little regard for Lepidus.
Climactic End of the Roman Republic
Antonius versus Octavian
No heavy engagement took place before the two battles on the plain of Philippi in Macedonia,
fought with an interval of three weeks in the late autumn of 42 BC. The first battle actually went
to Marcus Brutus, although Cassius mistakenly believing the day lost, ordered his slave to kill
him. In the second battle however Brutus was defeated, his army refused another fight the next
day, and so he was killed by the reluctant hand of a friend.
The victors, Antony and Octavian parted the empire between them, Lepidus having fallen by the
side. In effect, Antony took the east, Octavian the west. However, they found an unexpected rival
in Sextus Pompeius, son of Pompey the Great and having held a command in the Decimus
Brutus' fleet having achieved naval supremacy across the Mediterranean. For ten years there was
no open collision between Antony and Octavian, but there was much friction and actual war was
overted several times only with great difficulty.
The root of the matter was, both were ambitious, but so too did the division of the empire prove

113
that it required sole rule. For Rome, with its institutions of power lay in the west, whilst to the
east lay the wealthiest regions of the empire. Octavian had naturally moved to Rome, Antony
had set up camp in Egypt where he lived with Cleopatra. Antony struggled in the east, Labienus
one of his Roman officers joining with Pacorus, King of Parthia and invading Syria. Weakened
like this, he only overted war with Octavian by marrying Octavian's sister Octavia, much to the
dissatisfaction of Cleopatra. Meanwhile Sextus Pompeius used his fleet to blockade Italy, finally
forcing the triumvirs to admit him to partnership, receiving in his share Sardinia, Sicily and
Achaea.
Ventidius Bassus, commanding troops for Antony, in 39 BC routed the Parthians and drove them
over the Euphrates, then repeated his success in 38 BC against King Pacorus himself, who fell in
battle.
Octavian prepared for a struggle with with Sextus Pompeius and Antony, tired of his wife
Octavia, returned to his Egyptian mistress Cleopatra. In 36 BC Antony flung himself into a new
Parthian campaign but only narrowly escaped complete destruction by a hasty retreat. Back in
Italy Antony's brother Lucius; now consul tried to overthrow Octavian by armed force, but
Octavian's right-hand man Agrippa (63 BC-12 AD) compelled him in 40 BC to retire from Italy.
This was the occasion of the breach of the triumvirs, ended by the pact of Brundisium in 36 BC.
Octavian still desperate to reorganize the west found Sextus Pompeius, still master of the seas, a
growing embarrassment. Though the first attempts to challenge his power failed completely.
The invaluable Agrippa again came to the rescue. Only in 36 BC, having organized and trained
new fleets, was his naval campaign begun. Sextus, defeated by Agrippa, then victorious over
Octavian, was alas crushed by Agrippa at Naulochus, and having fled into the hands of Antony,
was put to death.
Now Lepidus, the initial third triumvir, returned to the scene trying to reassert himself. But he
quickly submitted as his troops deserted to Octavian and was relegated into dignified obscurity
as pontifex maximus.
Finally things came to a climax when Antony in 32 BC openly repudiated his marriage to
Octavia. Octavian's time had come. Rome declared war on Egypt. Antony set out for Greece,
designing on invading Italy. This was made impossible by Agrippa's fleet. Octavian landed in
Epirus, but wisely held back as he knew himself no match for Antony as a general. Though the
winter both sides played a waiting game, which all worked to the favour of Octavian for Antony
could trust none of his men.
In 31 Antony finally decided to abandon his army and retreat with his fleet. He embarked with
Cleopatra at the end of August, but it was overtaken by Agrippa and forced to engage off Actium
on September 2. Agrippa's skill was the greater, yet Antony's fleet was much the heavier. The
battle hung in doubt, until Cleopatra with sixty ships broke away in full flight. Antony deserted
the battle and followed his mistress. The rest of the fleet fought on desperately, until it was
totally destroyed or captured. The deserted army naturally went over to Octavian. The battle of
Actium was decisive.
Antony was beaten though not yet dead. In July of 30 BC a well prepared Octavian appeared
before Pelusium with his fleet. Hearing a false rumour that Cleopatra was dead, Antony
committed suicide. Hearing of her lover's death and that Octavian intended to parade the
defeated queen through the streets of Rome, she too killed herself.
Alas Octavian stood alone and unrivalled, undisputed and indisputable rival of the civilized
world.
Octavian sole ruler of Rome

114
He remained in the east for nearly a year before returning to Rome in triumph. He signalized the
restoration of peace long unknown throughout the empire by closing the temple of Janus.
In 28 BC Octavian's role as pacificator was further emphasized by his reversal of the illegalities
for he and his colleagues had been responsible during the long period of arbitrary authority. He
also revised the senatorial list, restoring some of the dignity of that body.
Then in a remarkable demonstration that the public good, not his own ambition were his
motivation, Octavian in 27 BC laid down his extraordinary powers. Though there was no
question of him retiring. Naturally he resigned his powers only that he might resume them in
slightly different guise in constitutional form.
The titles conferred on him were such to concentrate attention on his dignity, not his power; on
the reverence he commanded from a 'grateful world'.
The Republic was finally dissolved, The imperator was proclaimed pater patriae, father of his
country, princeps, first citizen, Caesar Augustus, - almost, but not as yet, divine.
Henceforth he was known no longer as Octavian, but as Augustus.

The Late Roman Republic

Choose which paragraph to jump to and press "Go!":

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The story of the late Roman republic is essentially a tragic one.

Yet the various causes for the demise of the republic are far from clear cut. One can not point to
one single person or act which led to the fall.
Looking back one feels that most of all the Roman constitution was never designed with the
conquest of wealthy overseas territories in mind.
With the addition of ever more provinces, especially that of Asia (Pergamene), the delicately
balanced Roman political constitution began to collapse from within.
For individual politicians, especially for those with a talent for military command, the prize of
power became ever more extraordinary as the empire expanded.
Meanwhile, on the streets of Rome the will of the Roman electorate was of ever greater
consequence, as their favour granted a politician ever greater powers.
In turn the electorate was flagrantly bribed and cajoled by populists and demagogues who knew
that, on achieving power, they could recoup any costs simply by exploiting their offices
overseas.
Had in the earlier days of Cincinnatus high office been sought for status and fame within Roman
society, then the latter days of the Roman republic saw commanders win vast fortunes in loot and
governors make millions in perks and bribes in the provinces.
The key to such riches was the Roman electorate and the city of Rome.
Therefore who controlled the Roman mob and who held the pivotal positions of tribunes of the
people was now of immense importance.
The fate of the ancient world was now decided in the miniature world of one city. Her town
councillors and magistrates suddenly were of importance to Greek trade, Egyptian grain, or wars
in Spain.

115
What had once been a political system developed to deal with a regional city state in central Italy
now bore the weight of the world.
The very virtue of Roman unchanging stoicism now became Rome’s undoing. For without
change a catastrophe was inevitable. Yet adaptable as the Roman mind was to matters of
warfare, it was resistant to any sudden change in political rule.
So, as the Roman elite did, what it was bred to do, as they competed ruthlessly with one another
for the highest positions and honours, they unwittingly tore apart the very structure they were
sworn to protect.
More so, those who possessed extraordinary talents and succeeded only reaped the suspicion of
their contemporaries who at once suspected their seeking the powers of tyranny. Had previously
Rome handed extraordinary commands to great talents when a crisis required it, then towards the
end of the republic the senate was loath to grant anyone commissions, no matter how urgent the
situation became.
Soon it therefore became a contest between those of genius and those of mediocrity, of aspiration
and vested interests, between men of action and men of intransigence.
The descent was gradual, unperceivable at times. Its final acts, however, proved truly
spectacular. It is little wonder that this period of Roman history has proved a rich source of
material for dramatic fiction.
-
Much more material has survived regarding this period of Roman history. Hence we are
provided with much greater insight of the events of this era. Thus, this text can elaborate on the
problems in much greater detail.
The Brothers Gracchus
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus
Tiberius Gracchus

The first fatal steps in the eventual demise of the republic can most likely be traced back to the
disgraceful behaviour of Rome in the Spanish wars.
Not merely did the lengthy campaigns lead to an ever greater alienation between the citizens who
supplied the soldiery for lengthy campaigns overseas and the leadership back in Rome. – It must
be noted that in 151 BC citizens went as far as refusing the call up for another levy to be sent to
Spain. So far had the resistance toward serving in Spain grown.
But more so, the scandalous Roman conduct in Spain most likely directly contributed to the
eventual break with the nobility by the brothers Gracchus.
For it was at Numantia (153 BC) that a young tribune, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, staked his
reputation on a treaty with the Spaniards in order to save the trapped army of Mancinus from
certain destruction.
Once the senate dishonorably revoked this treaty, it not merely betrayed the Numantines, but so
too it disgraced Tiberius Gracchus – and so set in motion a dreadful chain reaction which should
play itself out over more than a century.
It is true that Scipio Aemilianus did his best to shelter his brother in law from the dishonour of
the defeat at Numantia. Tiberius Gracchus could most likely have gone on to enjoy a
distinguished senatorial career, following in his father’s footsteps to both the consulship and the
censorship.
116
However, the outright betrayal by the senate evidently had some profound, lasting effect. If we
consider the Roman understanding of family honour then it is perhaps not surprising that
Tiberius Gracchus took grievance at his treatment.
The faith of the Numantines had been placed in the honour of his word, due to his father’s name.
Once the senate revoked the treaty it will therefore have destroyed any honour and respect the
name Gracchus commanded in Spain.
Tiberius saw not merely his own person disgraced, but also the memory of his father sullied.
Tiberius Gracchus shocked the Roman system by standing not for a magistracy, but for the office
of tribune of the people for 133 BC.
This was a momentous step. An outstanding member of the Roman nobles, who was clearly
destined to be consul, instead was taking office as the representative of the ordinary Roman
people.
Gracchus was hardly the first man of good family to seek the tribunate, but he was a man of
extraordinary high standing, for whom the tribunate was never intended.
The tribunate, however, carried with it the powers of veto and to propose law. Clearly it had
never been designed as an office to be held by a political heavyweight such as a Gracchus.
Nonetheless the moment Gracchus stood for the office it was clear that he was seeking to rival
the consuls in their power. In doing this he was acting according to the letter of the law, but not
in the spirit of the Roman constitution.
This set an ominous precedent that many would follow.
But so too Tiberius Gracchus was set on a collision course with the senate. Had previously other
wellborn sons aspired to the tribunate it had been in a spirit of solidarity with the ruling class.
Tiberius was to change this. He was looking for a fight.
The Roman senatorial class saw its first member break ranks, albeit that this at first will not have
been apparent.
For a candidate to the tribunate Tiberius Gracchus had astounding backers.
He probably had the support of Servius Sulpicius Galba, who’d been consul in 144 BC, and
Appius Claudius Pulcher, ex-consul of 143 BC and the leading senator of the day (princeps
senatus). Another former consul, M. Fulvius Flaccus, was also at his side. So too he enjoyed the
support of the famous jurist P. Mucius Scaevola who was standing for the consulship in that very
year. Further supporters were C. Porcius Cato and C. Licinius Crassus. It was a roll call of the
great and the good.
More so the program of law he proposed for taking office was impressive. Most of all it hinged
on his ideas for land reform.
On traveling to Spain he had observed the decline of farming in Etruria, seeing how the Italian
smallholders, whom Rome depended on for her soldiery, were declining in numbers as they
succumbed to the competition by the massive farms (latifundiae) of the wealthy, worked by
armies of slaves.
Many of these vast farms of the rich were actually situated on public land (ager publicus), which
they rented for pitifully small leases from the state, if they paid for it at all.
Gracchus made clear that public land was just that; public property. He was to attempt a
redistribution of this land to the poor.
With such proposals popular support came easy. Given Gracchus’ powerful backers victory was
a foregone conclusion.
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was hence elected tribune for the year 133 BC.

117
 Tiberius Gracchus’ Land Reform
The sheer support that Gracchus had from the most powerful of Rome’s politicians demonstrates
quite clearly that many saw land reform as overdue. This was not radical or extremist legislation.
Rome’s conquests had handed her vast tracts of land which were owned by the state. Only the
wealthy and powerful had the necessary connections to secure the leases necessary to farm these
lands.
By the time of Gracchus the rich had come to treat these lands as their own, leaving them in wills
and passing them on as dowries.
This was utterly improper. More so it offended an ancient law which had fallen into disuse, the
Licinian Rogations (367 BC). It is true that the Licinian laws on land reform never really had
great effect, as they were easily circumvented. Nonetheless, they had never been revoked.
This provided Gracchus with a sound precedent in law.
Gracchus now proposed to reinstate the limit whereby no man could own more than 500 iugera
of land (300 acres).
To sweeten the pill, he offered that the current holders of public land could keep 300 acres as
their undisputed property, including another 150 acres for every child. Any wealthy man with
four children would therefore easily stand to keep 900 acres.
These lands would no longer be public in nature, held by lease, but would be private property.
Details are unclear, but the above suggests that the rich landowners would only be curbed in their
holdings of public land. What other lands they already outright owned would have remained
untouched. Thus, the old Licinian Law would have been superseded, legitimizing their vast
properties. This in turn made the reforms attractive to some rich land owners.
The freed up land in the ager publicus was to be redistributed in plots of 30 acres to family
smallholders.
By creating thousands of new landowners, Rome would refresh her stock from whom to recruit
for her armies. The plots, once granted, were to be inalienable. This meant they could not be sold
or transferred to new owners in any way, other than by inheritance passed from father to son.
It was no doubt a good idea at the time and Gracchus’ proposal seems indeed to have been
heartfelt and sincere. But with hindsight it is unclear how these smallholders could have
competed for any length of time with the slave run latifundiae of the rich - especially, if they
were to be regularly called away on military service.
This said, smallholdings had by no means disappeared by this time and it is possible that
Gracchus’ with his contemporary knowledge was indeed correct in his assertions and was laying
down a long-term plan to distribute land to the urban poor and provide Rome with recruits into
the far future.
But Tiberius Gracchus knew he’d have a fight on his hands. Similar land reform had been
proposed some ten years earlier by C. Laelius (ca. 145 BC), who eventually withdrew it in the
face of determined opposition.
The main opposition was invariably composed of those who held significant public lands. For
those who were to lose the lion share of their public lands and had no great holdings of further
private estates, Gracchus’ law could represent a crushing blow.
Chiefest among these opponents was to be Scipio Nasica, ex consul of 138 BC, who held vast
amounts of public land.
Tiberius Gracchus’ land reform bill was meticulously drafted. Most likely due to the direct help
of P. Mucius Scaevola who had indeed succeeded in gaining the consulship for that same year.

118
But Gracchus presented the bill directly to the people’s assembly (concilium plebis). He did not
submit the law for review to the senate. Again, the latter was not required by law. Yet it was the
established practice.
Why Tiberius Gracchus decided to proceed this way is unclear. It is very likely – feeling
betrayed by the senate for the Numantia affair – he sought to by-pass them in contempt.
Whatever his reasons may have been, the senate took offence. There can be little doubt that
Gracchus had formidable political support. His bill may indeed have been passed by the senate
with little amendment, if any. After all, he had no less than the leader of the senate and one of the
incumbent consuls on his side. The law seemed designed for the public good and its opponents
had only self-interest at heart.
But Rome’s most powerful political body resented that it was not being consulted and sought to
block the law’s progress.
To this end the senators secured the services of another tribune, Marcus Octavius.
Octavius now vetoed Gracchus bill.
Tiberius Gracchus use of the tribunate was questionable. But Octavius now used his position to
defy the will of the very people he was supposed to represent. For this the office had never been
intended. The tribunate was being corrupted into the tool of the senatorial order.
People no doubt expected that Gracchus would either withdraw from his attempt or seek to
somehow come to terms with the senate.
Tiberius Gracchus however intended no such thing.
Gracchus is said to have offered Octavius, who it seems had holdings of public land of his own,
that he would compensate him personally for any losses he incurred, if only he would let the bill
pass. Octavius refused, staying loyal to the senate.
Instead Gracchus now proposed the removal of Marcus Octavius from office, unless the latter
was willing to withdraw his veto. Octavius remained defiant and was promptly voted out of
office, dragged from the speaker’s podium and replaced with a more agreeable candidate.
Once again no-one knew if this was lawful or not. This was utterly unprecedented.
Gracchus actions were most likely not in breach of Rome’s constitution, though neither were
they in the spirit of it.
With Octavius out of the way, the law passed unhindered. A commission was set up, to oversee
the distribution of land to the people.
The senate however withheld any moneys that were necessary to help stock the new
smallholdings. Without any funds to provide the basic necessities, any plots distributed were
bare parcels of land, not viable farms.
Tiberius Gracchus therefore seized on the wealth of the kingdom of Pergamene which in that
very year had just been left to the Roman state by the late King Attalus III (133 BC).
He announced a bill whereby some of the money gained from this enormously wealthy new
territory would be directed to agrarian commission in order to help set up farms for new settlers.
Once more the legality of all this was murky. The senate enjoyed sovereignty over all issues of
overseas matters. Yet where was it explicitly written to be so?
Tiberius Gracchus was bending the rules to the utmost, in utter disregard of the senate and
Roman tradition.
So far though he had succeeded. He had both the land and the funds he needed to begin land
distribution.
His agrarian commission now went to work, handing out parcels of land.

119
Yet Gracchus had made powerful enemies. Worse, many of his allies had broken away, once he
grabbed the Pergamene moneys in defiance of the senate.
It became clear that once his term of office came to an end, his foes would drag him through the
courts, seeking to destroy him.
The only means of protection open to Gracchus was to stand for a new term of tribune, as this
would extend his immunity from prosecution.
Roman law dictated that a successful candidate wait another ten years before standing for the
same office again. But the law strictly speaking only applied to magistracies (lex villia, 180 BC).
The tribunate, however, was technically not a magistracy. Yet tradition dictated that tribunes
follow the rule nonetheless.
Once more it is unclear if Tiberius Gracchus was in breach of the law. But yet again it is self-
evident that he didn’t follow the spirit of the law.
Gracchus’ chances on winning office for 134 BC did not look good. Many of his rural voters
were busy with the harvest. His powerful political allies had abandoned him and he had clearly
lost the support of his fellow tribunes.
Had he now simply lost the upcoming election much of what befell Rome in future years might
still have been avoided.
Alas, Scipio Nasica, after haranguing the senate in vain to take action, took matters into his own
hands and led a mob of supporters and nobles to the Capitol where Gracchus was holding an
electoral assembly. Armed with clubs they set upon the meeting and beat Tiberius Gracchus and
300 of his supporters to death.
The rise and fall of Tiberius Gracchus set an awful example.
Not merely had Gracchus undermined the notion of communal spirit in the governing of Rome,
but his vicious murder introduced plain brutality as a political tool onto the streets of Rome.
An unholy example had been set by which all involved declared that only victory - by any means
- was acceptable. Neither side sought to compromise and neither side sought to adhere to the
spirit of the republic. The rules, it appears, could be circumvented ‘for the public good’.
It may be true that Tiberius Gracchus was the instigator of the crisis. But the way in which
Scipio Nasica and other forces in the senate responded was beyond the pale. They no doubt share
as great a responsibility, if not a greater one, for the terrible legacy this case bestowed on Rome.
Ironically, Gracchus’ land law continued on for years to come. As a result by 125 BC seventy-
five thousand citizens were added to the list of those liable for military service, when compared
to the census figures of 131 BC. Undeniably, his policy did prove a success.
The Aftermath of Tiberius Gracchus
The death of Tiberius Gracchus was followed by a witch hunt by the senate, in which many of
his supporters were sentenced to death.
Tiberius younger brother Gaius was also prosecuted, but easily defended himself and was
cleared.
Scipio Nasica meanwhile was posted to the new province of Asia, in order to protect him from
the wrath of any Gracchan supporters. (His death soon after nonetheless was deemed suspicious.)
In 131 BC a tribune by name of C. Papirius Carbo proposed both that elections should
henceforth be held by secret ballot and to clarify the law that tribunes should be able to stand for
successive terms of office.

120
The former proposal was accepted, but the latter was defeated on the intervention of Scipio
Aemilianus who had since returned from Spain. Such was the standing of the great commander
that the popular will bent to his.
Though on Scipio’s death (129 BC), another tribune re-introduced the proposal and the measure
was accepted. (This inadvertently cleared the way for the emperors who a century later would
begin their rule by tribunician powers.)
There is the suspicion that Scipio Aemilianus was in fact murdered by his wife, Sempronia, who
was the sister of Tiberius Gracchus.
This suggestion, if true or not, is no doubt connected to Scipio’s refusal to openly condemn the
murder of Tiberius Gracchus.
In a strange twist much of the political reform which had made Tiberius Gracchus such a
problem was introduced or simply continued after his death.
It appears a peculiar characteristic of Roman politics to seek to win the fight at all costs, yet to
concede the point after victory has been achieved.
Prior to his death, however, Scipio Aemilianus sought to address the problem faced by the
Italians.
The Gracchan land distribution dealt with all public land. Yet many public lands were used by
the Italians, who had either never been removed from them on conquest, or had encroached onto
them with the passage of time. Many therefore faced complete ruin, if the agrarian commission
handed the land they farmed to new settlers.
Scipio was fully aware of the debt he owed to the Italian allies. His military victories were as
much due to them as they were due to the Roman legionaries.
He therefore in 129 BC, shortly before his death, convinced the senate to transfer the power to
settle disputes on public land held by non-Romans from the agrarian commission to one of the
consuls.
This protected the Italians from mob’s clamour for land. However, it could not prevent the
inevitable conflict, as the Italians continued to demand greater rights.
In subsequent years many Italians did begin to drift into Rome, lobbying and agitating for greater
entitlements. In 126 BC the tribune Iunius Pennus even passed a law expelling non-citizens from
Rome. It is unclear how many of the rich foreign merchants and traders circumvented this law, or
to what extent it was ever enforced against them. For it seems clear that the measure was really
targeted at evicting the Italian agitators.
But Italian discontent had not gone unnoticed. In 125 BC consul Marcus Fulvius Flaccus
proposed to grant them citizenship (or at least full citizenship to the Latins and Latin privileges
to all Italians in preparation of eventual full citizenship) .
The opposition to this idea was two-fold. The poor saw any increase of the number of citizens as
a lessening of the privilege of citizenship and the senators saw the mass of Italians as a threat to
their political standing, as they held no traditions of political patronage over them. Invariably, the
measure hence had little hope of success. But to curb any risk of it succeeding, the senate
dispatched Flaccus off to Massilia at the head of a consular army to fend off the tribe of the
Saluvii.
Conquest of Narbonese Gaul
The Massilians ranked among Rome’s most longstanding allies.
In 154 BC they had already called on Rome for help against Ligurian raiders. The consul
Opimius had been sent with an army to fend off the invaders.

121
It must be noted that since 173 BC Liguria was nominally a Roman territory. The marauders
troubling the Massilians seem to be been tribes of the same Ligurian people, yet situated west of
the Alps.
Now, in 125 BC, the Massilians once more called for help. Rome had thus far always maintained
a policy of not seeking any territory in this area of southern Gaul. Things however, were about to
change.
The man sent forth to the aid of Massilia was Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, whom the senate wanted
out of the way for entirely political purposes. Flaccus led an army across the Alps, subduing first
the Saluvii who were attacking the Massilians and then another allied Ligurian tribe in a
campaign lasting two years.
The following two years a new commander, C. Sextus Calvinus, reduced the last remnants of
Ligurian resistance in the area.
To further secure the area, the colony of Roman veterans was founded at Aquae Sextiae (Aix).
It soon proved why Rome had hitherto stayed out of this area. Fighting one enemy inevitably
embroiled you in conflict with another.
The Celtic tribe of the Allobroges refused to hand over a Ligurian chieftain who had sought
refuge. The tribe of the Aedui, previously Roman allies – or at least Massilian ones, - now also
turned hostile.
In 121 BC proconsul Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus defeated the Allobroges at Vindalium. The
Gauls it is said were panicked by the advance of the Roman elephant corps.
The Allobroges appealed for help to the most powerful Gallic tribe, the Arverni. Bituitus, the
king of the Arverni, then put a gigantic army into the field to crush the Roman forces. A Roman
army of 30,000, led by consul Quintus Fabius Maximus, met a joint force of Arverni and
Allobroges totally no less than 180,000 men.
We do not know much of the battle which followed, but that it took places at the confluence of
the river Rhodanus (Rhone) and the river Isara (Isere).
As the Roman force succeeded in breaking the foe, chaos ensued among the Gauls. The two boat
bridges which they had built to cross the Rhodanus (Rhone) broke as the stampeding Gallic army
sought to cross them.
If true or not is hard to tell, but the Romans reported their own losses to be 15 whilst claiming to
have slain 120,000. Either way, the Battle of the river Isara was a crushing victory (121 BC). It
secured for Rome all the territory from Geneva to the river Rhone.
Domitius Ahenobarbus, to whom command fell again on Fabius’ departure, concluded the
settlement of the area (120 BC).
A formal alliance was agreed with the tribe of the Aedui to the north.
King Bituitus of the Arverni was taken captive despite a promise of safe conduct and sent to
Rome. As the Arverni sued for peace the southern range of Gaul to the east of the Rhone, all the
way to the Pyrenees fell under Roman rule, bringing under Roman control important regional
towns such as Nemausus (Nimes) and Tolosa (Toulouse).
Domitius now saw to the construction of a road from the river Rhone to the Pyrenees, along the
course of which Roman veterans were settled in a new colony called Narbo. The whole territory
eventually was to become the province of Gallia Narbonensis (or Gallia Transalpina).
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Gaius Gracchus

122
Gaius Gracchus had been biding his time ever since his brother’s death. He had maintained his
seat on the land commission, served with Scipio Aemilianus at the siege of Numantia and served
as quaestor in Sardinia in 126BC.
His power was already such that his quiet political support to the Carbo (131 BC) and Flaccus
(125 BC) had meant a substantial boon for the two politicians.
His taking up the legacy of his brother was therefore seen as inevitable.
The nobles foresaw this and hence it was attempted to prosecute him on trumped up charges.
Gaius easily shrugged them off. Not only was he a very astute politician, but he also possessed
one of the greatest talents for oratory in Roman history.
When it become clear that Gaius was about to stand for tribune of the people in 124 BC, the
senate went as far as voting for the commander of the army to remain with his forces in Sicily.
With this trick they hoped to keep Gaius away, as staff officers were expected to stay with their
commander.
This didn’t work, as Gaius defiantly returned home. He was called before the censors to explain
himself, yet could point to 12 years of military service where only 10 were the maximum
necessary.
Thus, following in his brother’s footsteps, Gaius Gracchus was elected tribune of the people for
the year 123 BC on a wave of popular support.
Gaius then embarked on a program of political reform.
First he introduced a law by which no Roman citizen could be put to death without a trial.
Following the motto that all Romans were landowners of sorts by having a stake in the empire’s
vast public lands, Gaius stabilized the price of grain – which fluctuated wildly – at a level more
affordable to the city’s poor.
The price of corn was now fixed at 1 1/3 asses for each modius of grain.
This measure was not necessarily such a radical novelty as many would suggest. The Greek
world had seen several examples of controlled grain prices. The Athenians had had controls on
corn since the fifth century BC. Under the rule of the Ptolemies the city Alexandria even had
minister in charge of keeping grain prices low.
To finance this policy, however, Gaius introduced a tax on the cities of Asia Minor. Financial
syndicates, from which senators were excluded, could bid for the right to levy taxes. Thus began
the infamous practice of ‘tax farming’. Gaius most likely could not have foreseen the
consequences of this policy. Yet the ruthless extortion of the provinces by tax farmers which
followed led to the hatred of Rome in her overseas territories.
Something Gaius though must have been well aware of was the will of King Attalus who had
bequeathed the territory to Rome. The free Greek cities were not to be taxed. In the uprising
which had followed Rome’s inheritance some cities had lost their tax free status. Yet it appears
that Gracchus law applied to all cities and therefore was in breach of Attalus’ will. This was a
grave abuse of a bequeathal, but made even more noteworthy by the fact that King Attalus had
been a close friend of the house of Gracchus.
Yet such was the contest between Gaius and the senate, that such considerations counted for
nothing.
Trying to further erode the senate’s power and to promote the equestrians as a rival political
force, Gaius also introduced a law by which only equestrians would sit on juries in trials of
provincial governors charged with extortion.

123
This had twofold effect. Its intended effect was to clearly establish a direct form of power of the
equestrians over the leading senators who invariably enjoyed governorships at some point.
But it unwittingly also created a much more sinister effect. In many cases, the provincial
governors were the only protection the provinces had against the worst excesses of the tax
farmers. These tax farmers in turn were of the same equestrian order which now dominated the
law courts. Therefore any well-meaning governor who sought to curb the tax farmers from
extorting undue amounts could find himself charged with extortion by on his return to Rome.
Governors were therefore left with little other choice than to collude with the tax farmers in
squeezing the provinces for all they were worth.
Any good governance of the provinces there had been, was thus being undermined by corporate
greed and the threat of prosecution.
Another measure introduced by Gaius was a law by which the senate needed to specify the tasks
it wished to charge the consuls with before the election took place. Thereafter it would fall to the
electorate to decide whom it wished to see perform said tasks.
Gaius Gracchus had been an extraordinarily busy and energetic tribune. Yet he made it clear that
he was not going to stand again for the following year (122 BC). No doubt the fate of his brother
loomed large.
Yet, in a remarkable twist of fate Gaius Gracchus was elected nonetheless, without seeking
another term. It seemed the people who already idolized Tiberius, were not to let his brother go
so soon.
But this time the senate had manoeuvered its own champion into position to oppose their
troublesome foe. Their man was Livius Drusus.
In his second year, Gracchus now took to settling people in new colonies in Italy. But more
controversially he also proposed the re-settlement of Corinth and Carthage.
Meanwhile Drusus made every effort to be more populist than Gracchus, promising the people
anything - and more.
He proposed no less than twelve colonies in Italy, he relieved the newly created smallholders of
the rent they were obliged to pay under the Gracchan land laws.
Drusus promised the world with no intention of ever delivering.
His entire goal was to become the people’s champion in Gracchus’ stead.
The ordinary people were easily swayed. Gracchus hold on power began to crumble.
When Gaius Gracchus finally presented his new bill to the comitia tributa to bestow citizenship
on the Italians (full citizenship for those with Latin rights, Latin rights to all other Italian allies),
the tide had decisively turned against him.
Granting rights to other Italians had previously proved impossible, yet it may have been within
the reach of someone of Gaius influence over the people to achieve this. But now with Drusus
having undermined his popularity it proved too much.
The defeat of this bill proved decisive turning point.
When Gracchus himself led the effort of establishing colonists in Carthage, things turned from
bad to worse in his absence from Rome.
The work surrounding the re-creation of Carthage as the colony of Junonia was very
controversial. The religious omens proved thoroughly negative.
So too many people in Rome were not convinced that the once cursed city should be allowed to
rise again. The ghost of Hannibal still loomed large within people’s imagination.

124
Gracchus was at pains to point out that he was not creating a colony within the cursed boundaries
of the razed city. But rumours abounded about sacred boundary markers having been moved. On
returning from Carthage Gracchus entered a very different Rome.
With stories such as these circulating it is little wonder that the thoroughly superstitious Roman
people could not be brought to vote for Gracchus again.
In the summer of 122 BC elections were held for the tribunate for the next year. Gracchus failed
to get elected.
No sooner had Gracchus’ term in office expired then the new consul, M. Minucius Rufus, at
once proposed to revoke the act to create a colony at Carthage.
Seeing one of his policies threatened Gracchus and a large throng of supporters took to the
streets to protest. In a scuffle on the Capitol, an overeager servant of the consul Lucius Opimius
who went by the name of Quintus Antyllius pushed too close to Gracchus. Gracchus’ supporters
feared he was to trying attack Gaius. Thus they ceased him and stabbed him to death. Gaius
Gracchus at once sought to distance himself from this killing, severely reprimanding his
followers, but the damage was done.
Consul Opimius argued that this death was the first sign of a serious threat to the senate and the
republic. He now proposed to the senate a new measure, that they issue a decree whereby the
consuls could take any steps to protect the republic from harm. This was an entirely new idea;
being a substitute for the arcane position of dictator, not used since the times of Hannibal. The
senate granted the proposal and thus issued the senatus consultum ultimum; the famous ‘last
decree’.
As the other consul Quintus Fabius Maximus was in Gaul fighting the Allobroges at the time, in
effect absolute power now fell to Opimius.
Gaius Gracchus and his close political ally M. Fulvius Flaccus were now summoned before the
consul. But appreciating what sheer power the decree had given Opimius the two men were not
minded to hand themselves over to one of their most determined enemies.
Instead they set themselves up on the Aventine with their supporters, at the Temple of Diana.
They sent the son of Fulvius to negotiate a solution with the senate. The senators were inclined to
come to some sort of understanding. Yet consul Opimius rejected any talk of compromise out of
hand. As he now was armed with the ‘senatus consultum ultimum’ no one could oppose him.
Opimius was bent on making an example of his opponents and set out with a force of armed
men, including a unit of Cretan archers to take the Aventine by force.
The presence of these archers seems to suggest that there was more than just a little planning to
Opimius’ actions.
As it was it was these professional soldiers who did the most damage. Roughly 250 men were
killed in the desperate attempt to defend the Aventine against Opimius. They never stood a
chance. As all was lost Gracchus was persuaded to flee.
He descended the Aventine with only a small group for company and fled across the Sublician
Bridge to the far side of the river Tiber accompanied only by one slave.
His friends sought to buy him time by heroically staying behind to hold off the pursuers. One last
one made his final stand on the Sublician Bridge, ironically the very bridge Horatius was said to
have held the Etruscans, trying to gain Gaius whatever time possible to get away.
But hotly pursued by Opimius’ henchmen, Gaius Gracchus realized the situation was hopeless.
In a sacred grove, aided by his slave, he took his own life.

125
That grim day Gaius Gracchus, a former tribune of the people, and Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, an
ex-consul of Rome lay dead.
Worse, the body of Gracchus was decapitated and lead was poured into his skull.
Opimius’ wrath though didn’t end there. Without awaiting any further word from the senate he
made widespread arrests. If there were any trials, they were a farce. Over 3,000 were executed as
a result of this purge.
The memory of the Gracchi was officially damned. Cornelia, their famous mother, was even
prohibited from wearing mourning garments.
The ordinary people of Rome however venerated the Gracchi for generations to come.
The Legacy of the Gracchi
The Gracchi were, there is no doubt, incredibly influential figures. It is around this time that we
start speaking in terms of optimates and populares, the factions of Roman politics.
At the heart of the issue which the Gracchi addressed lay the privilege amassed by the senatorial
class and the increasing burden borne by the small holders of Italy. The destitution of the urban
poor also raised the question for whose benefit the Roman state was being run, if people were
starving on Rome’s very streets.
If the Gracchi perhaps didn’t have the answers, there is little doubt that they were posing the
right questions. The republic was in crisis whether the ruling class wished to acknowledge it or
not.
But perhaps more significant than the deeds of the brothers Gracchus was the nature of the
demise.
Scipio Nasica played a leading role in the death of Tiberius Gracchus.
Lucius Opimius did the same with Gaius Gracchus.
If we point to the Gracchi as instigators of much of the social upheaval that should befall Rome
in the century ahead, then we must lay at least equal blame, if not more, with Nasica and
Opimius.
For if the Gracchi were responsible for the nature in which they held office, challenging every
convention, bending law to suit their purposes, then Nasica and Opimius must be held
responsible for the nature of their deaths.
Especially the actions of Opimius had more of a whiff of rule by terror.
More important than the flouting of rules and traditions by the Gracchi was the introduction of
blatant mob violence into republican politics by those claiming to be the champions of the
senate.
To simply club your opponent to death, or to introduce dubious measures licensing you to kill
political opponents, no questions asked, was an outrage.
Where politics and law alone no longer sufficed to perpetuate one’s wealth and privilege, the
Roman ruling class would resort to gross brutality.
One could argue that the Gracchi were seeking to reignite the Conflict of the Orders, attempting
to achieve a new settlement between the classes.
In some ways their means were not that dissimilar from those used by tribunes of the people in
those earlier struggles.
Yet unlike their ancient predecessors those at the top of the Roman society decided not to brook
any talk of change, making clear that anyone attempting to challenge the existing order was

126
likely to end up dead. Thus, not the demands of the people, but the nature of their rulers had
changed.
In effect the affairs of the republic were no longer a matter of politics, but were being dealt with
by a brutal cartel which would see its will enforced on pain of death.
Thus we need to remember that the later violence of the Roman mob which would arise on the
streets of the city had its roots in the very methods adopted by those acting on behalf of the
senate.
updated to here - 18 October 2008
The Jugurthine War
In 118 BC the king of Numidia, Micipsa, died, leaving the crown to his young sons Hiempsal
and Adherbal jointly with a much older nephew, Jugurtha, who was an experienced soldier.
Jugurtha arranged the assassination of Hiempsal, whilst Adherbal fled for his life and appealed to
the senate.
The senate decided to send a commission to Numidia to divide he kingdom between the two
claimants. Jugurtha appeared to bribe the commission's leader, Opimius, who returned to Rome a
richer man, after awarding the greater and wealthier part of Numidia to Jugurtha. Though this
was not enough for the ambitious Jugurtha who then marched on the territory of Adherbal and
had him murdered, too.
Rome was outraged. Rome's judgement had simply been swept aside. Under the consul L
Calpurnius Bestia troops were sent to Numidia to deal with the usurper. But the campaign was
ineffective from the start, the Roman heavy infantry struggling to make any impression on the
nimble Numidian horsemen.
Back in Rome eventually the comitia tributa to halt the campaign to have Jugurtha summoned to
Rome to give evidence against any senators who were alleged to have accepted bribes from him.
For this he was assured safe-conduct, meaning he was promised no to be charged or in any way
harmed himself. But, once Jugurtha had arrived in Rome, these legal proceedings were stopped
by a Tribune of the People who sought to avoid a political scandal.
So effective were Jugurtha's methods that even while he was in Rome he had another cousin
murdered in the city.
This was too much, and he was ordered to depart.
'A city for sale !' he is said to have sneered as he left.
More troops were now sent to Africa to deal with the usurper. though the campaign was so ill
managed that a commission of inquiry was held, which revealed such dire scandals of
widespread bribery and corruption that three ex-consuls, one being Opimius, retired into exile.
Instead Quintus Metellus and Gaius Marius, both known not only for their ability as well as their
for being virtually incorruptible, were sent out to Africa to take command of the troops (109
BC).
Metellus was a good soldier who conducted his campaigns with skill and vigour, but Jugurtha, a
master of the arts of guerilla warfare, held out against him. Marius, a better soldier than Metellus,
returned to Rome to stand for the consulship, claiming that if the command were given to him
the war would be ended at once.
In fact, by the time he returned to Africa as consul to supersede Metellus, it appeared that
Jugurtha was beaten. Metellus went home bitterly disappointed at having had his victory
snatched from him. But Jugurtha was not finished yet.
Marius could not catch him, and he found a dubious ally or protector in his neighbour Bocchus,

127
king of Mauretania. Finally it was the diplomatic skill of the quaestor Lucius Cornelius Sulla that
induced Bocchus to betray Jugurtha to the Romans and to a miserable death at Rome. But the
conquest was credited to Marius.
Gaius Marius and his Reforms of the Roman Army
Gaius Marius

Before Marius was back in Rome he was re-elected to the consulship (104 BC), though the law
forbade re-election and required the candidate to be present in Rome.
But Marius was the soldier of the hour, and the hour demanded Rome's finest soldier of the day.
For during the Numidian war a tremendous menace had been gathering on the northern frontiers
of Italy. The German tribes were making their first appearance on the stage of history.
The advance hordes of the Teutones and the Cimbri had rolled past the Alps and poured into
Gaul, flooding down the valley of the Saône and the Rhône and also setting in motion the
Helvetic (Swiss) Celts. They defeated the Roman consul Silanus in 109 BC and in 107 BC
another consul, Cassius, was trapped by the Helvetii and lost his army and his life. In 105 BC the
forces of the pro-consul Caepio and the consul Mallius were annihilated by the Cimbri at the
Battle of Arausio (Orange), ancient sources estimating the the losses up to even 80'000 or
100'000 men.
Then for no apparent reason the tide relented for a moment.
Rome, desperate to use the time, turned to Marius, placing control and reorganization of her
armies in his hands and making him consul year after year. And Marius did the unthinkable.
Marius reorganizes the Army
For a primarily agricultural society such as Rome to be a perpetual war machine is to attempt to
combine two incompatibles.
What Tiberius Gracchus had tried to halt when he was tribune in 133 BC was a trend which had
begun centuries earlier and which, by the very success with which Rome had conducted military
operations, had become a vicious circle.
Ancient armies were armed by peasant farmers. A society constantly at war required a constant
flow of conscripts. Smallholdings fell into disuse because there was no one to tend to them. As
Roman conquests spread through the Mediterranean lands, even more men were required, and
wealth and cheap corn poured back into Rome, much of it into the hands of entrepreneurs, who
carved out vast areas for vegetables, vines, olives and sheep farming, all managed by slave
labour. The dispossessed rural poor, became the urban poor - so becoming ineligible for military
service as no longer being nominal property holders.
Not only was there therefore a shortage of recruits, but the soldiers had nothing to return to
between campaigns or at the end of their service. A working solution to this problem was finally
devised by Gaius Marius, once consul in 108 BC. He introduced the Roman army as it came to
be known and feared all across the Europe and the Mediterranean.
Rather than conscripting from Roman landowners he recruited volunteers from the urban poor.
Once the idea of a professional army of mercenaries was introduced, it never remained until the
very end of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, Marius introduced the idea of granting soldiers
allotments of farmland after they hand served their term.
Marius defeats the Northmen
Marius' revolution in the army came only just in time.
In 103 BC the Germans were again massing at the Saône, preparing to invading Italy by crossing

128
the Alps in two different places. The Teutones crossed the mountains in the west, the Cimbri did
so in the east.
In 102 BC Marius, consul for the fourth time, annihilated the Teutones at Aquae Sextiae beyond
the Alps, while his colleague Catullus stood guard behind them.
Next in 101 BC the Cimbri poured through the eastern mountain passes into the plain of the river
Po. They in turn were annihilated by Marius and Catulus at Campi Raudii near Vercellae.
Marius reaped the benefit of his joint victory with Catulus, by being elected to his sixth
consulship.
The Second Slave War
The atrocities of the First Slave War were anything but forgotten when in 103 BC the slaves of
Sicily dared to revolt again. That after the cruelty in the aftermath of the first conflict they dared
to rise again, hints how bad their conditions must have been.
They fought so stubbornly that it took Rome 3 years to stamp out the revolt.
The Social War
In 91 BC the moderate members of the senate allied themselves with Livius Drusus (the son of
that Drusus who had been used to undermine Gaius Gracchus' popularity in 122 BC) and aided
him in his election campaign. If the honesty of the father is open to doubt, that of the son is not.
As tribune he proposed to add to the senate an equal number of equestrians, and to extend
Roman citizenship to all Italians and to grant the poorer of the current citizens new schemes for
colonization and a further cheapening of the corn prices, at the expense of the state.
Though the people, the senators and the knights all felt that they would be conceding too many
of their rights for too little. Drusus was assassinated.
Despite his eventually loss of popularity his supporters had stood by Drusus loyally. The
opposition Tribune of the People, Q. Varius, now carried a bill declaring that to have supported
the ideas of Drusus was treason. The reaction by Drusus' supporters was violence.
All resident Roman citizens were killed by an enraged mob at Asculum, in central Italy. Worse
still, the 'allies' (socii)of Rome in Italy, the Marsi, Paeligni, Samnites, Lucanians, Apulians all
broke into open revolt.
The 'allies' had not planned any such rising, far more it was a spontaneous outburst of anger
against Rome. But that meant they were unprepared for a fight. Hastily they formed formed a
federation. A number of towns fell into their hands at the outset, and they defeated a consular
army. But alas, Marius took led an army into battle and defeated them. Though he didn't -
perhaps deliberately - crush them.
The 'allies' had a strong party of sympathizers in the senate. And these senators in 89 BC
managed to win over several of the 'allies' by a new law (the Julian Law - lex Iulia) by which
Roman citizenship was granted to 'all who had remained loyal to Rome (but this most likely also
included those who laid down their arms against Rome).
But some of the rebels, especially the Samnites, only fought the harder. Though under the
leadership of Sulla and Pompeius Strabo the rebels were reduced on battlefield until they held
out only in a few Samnite and Lucanian strongholds.
Was the city of Asculum in particular dealt with severely for the atrocity committed there, the
senate tried to bring an end to the fighting by conceding citizenship to by granting citizenship to
all who laid down their arms within sixty days (lex Plautia-Papiria).
The law succeeded and by the beginning of 88 BC the Social War was at an end, other than for a
few besieged strongholds.

129
 Sulla (138-78 BC)
Sulla

Lucius Cornelius Sulla was yet another nail in he coffin of the Republic, perhaps much in the
same mould as Marius.
Having already been the first man to use Roman troops against Rome itself.
And much like Marius he, too, should make his mark in history with reforms as well as a reign of
terror.
Sulla takes Power
In 88 BC the activities of king Mithridates of Pontus called for urgent action. The king had
invaded the province of Asia and massacred 80'000 Roman and Italian citizens. Sulla, as elected
consul and as the man who had won the Social War, expected the command, but Marius wanted
it, too. The senate appointed Sulla to lead the troops against Mithridates.
But the tribune Sulpicius Rufus (124-88 BC), a political ally of Marius, passed through the
concilium plebis an order calling for the transfer of command to Marius. Peaceful as these
happenings may sound, they were accompanied by much violence.
Sulla rushed straight from Rome to his still undisbanded troops of the Social War before Nola in
Campania, where the Samnites were still holding out.
There, Sulla appealed to the soldiers to follow him. The officers hesitated, but the soldiers did
not. And so, at the head of six Roman legions, Sulla marched on Rome. He was joined by his
political ally Pompeius Rufus. They seized the city gates, marched in and annihilated a force
hastily collected by Marius.
Sulpicius fled but was discovered and killed. So, too, did Marius, by now 70 years old, flee. He
was picked up at the coast of Latium and sentenced to death. But as no one could be found
prepared to do the deed he was instead hustled onto a ship. He ended up in Carthage where he
was ordered by the Roman governor of Africa to move on.
Sulla's first Reforms
While he still held the command of the military in his hands, Sulla used the military assembly
(comitia centuriata) to annul all legislation passed by Sulpicius and to proclaim that all business
to be submitted to the people should be dealt with in the comitia centuriata , while nothing at all
was to be brought to the people before it received senatorial approval.
In effect this took away any which the tribal assembly (comitia tributa) and the plebeian
assembly (concilium plebis) possessed. Also it reduced the power of the tribunes, who until then
had been able to use the people's assemblies to by-pass the senate.
Naturally, it also increased the power of the senate.
Sulla did not interfere in the elections for the offices of consul, but to demand from the
successful candidate, L. Cornelius Cinna, not to reverse any of the changes he had made.
This done Sulla left with his forces to fight Mithridates in the east (87 BC).
Marius and Cinna take Power
Though in his absence Cinna revived the legislation and the methods of Sulpicius. When
violence broke out in the city, he appealed to the troops in Italy and practically revived the Social
War. Marius returned form exile and joined him, though he appeared more intent on revenge
than on anything else.

130
Rome lay defenceless before the conquerors. The city's gates to Marius and Cinna. In the week's
reign of terror which followed, Marius wreaked his revenge on his enemies.
After the brief but hideous orgy of blood-lust which alarmed Cinna and disgusted their allies in
the senate, Marius seized his seventh consulship without election. But he died a fortnight later
(January, 87 BC).
Cinna remained sole master and consul of Rome until he was killed in the course of a mutiny in
84 BC.
The power fell to an ally of Cinna's, namely Cn. Papirius Carbo.
First Mithridatic War
When the Social War had broken out, Rome was fully occupied with its own affairs. Mithridates
VI, king of Pontus, used Rome's preoccupation to invade the province of Asia. Half of the
province of Achaea (Greece), Athens taking the lead, rose against its Roman rulers, supported by
Mithridates.
When Sulla arrived at Athens, the city's fortifications proved too much for him to charge. Instead
he starved them out, whilst his lieutenant, Lucius Lucullus, raised a fleet to force Mithridates out
of the Aegean Sea.
Early in 86 BC Athens fell to the Romans.
Though Archelaus, the ablest general of Mithridates, now threatened with a large army from
Thessaly. Sulla marched against him with a force only a sixth in size and shattered his army at
Chaeronea.
A Roman consul, Valerius Flaccus, now landed with fresh forces in Epirus, to relieve Sulla of his
command. But Sulla had no intention of relinquishing his power. News reached him that general
Archelaus had landed another huge force. Immediately he turned southwards and destroyed this
force at Orchomenus.
Meanwhile Flaccus, avoiding a conflict with Sulla, headed toward Asia seeking to engage
Mithridates himself. Though he never reached it. His second-in-command, C. Flavius Fimbria,
led a mutiny against him, killed him and assumed command himself. Fimbria crossed the
straights and started operations in Asia.
Meanwhile Sulla opened negotiations with the defeated Archelaus. An conference was arranged
in 85 BC between Sulla and Mithridates and a treaty was struck by which Mithridates was to
surrender his conquests to Rome and retreat behind the borders he'd held before the war. So too,
was Pontus to hand over a fleet of seventy ships and pay a tribute.
It now remained to settle the problem of Fimbria, who could only hope to excuse his mutiny with
some success. With the war over and Sulla closing on him with his troops, his situation was
hopeless. Alas, his troops deserted him and Fimbria committed suicide.
Therefore, in 84 BC, his campaigns a total success, Sulla could start making his was back to
Rome.
Sulla becomes Dictator
Sulla should arrive back in Italy in the spring of 83 BC and marched on Rome determined to
restore his will upon the city.
But the Roman government controlled greater troops than his own, more so the Samnites
wholeheartedly flung themselves into the struggle against Sulla, who to them represented
senatorial privilege and the denial of citizenship to the Italians.

131
Alas, it came to the decisive Battle of the Colline Gate in August 82 BC, where fifty thousand
men lost their lives.
Sulla emerged victorious at the Battle of the Colline Gate and so became the master of the
Roman world.
Sulla in no way lacked any of the blood-lust displayed by Marius. Three days after the battle he
ordered all of the eight thousand prisoners taken on the battle field to be massacred in cold blood.
Soon after Sulla was appointed dictator for so long as he might think fit to retain office.
He issued a series of proscriptions - lists of people who were to have their property taken and
who were to be killed. The people killed in these purges were not only supporters of Marius and
Cinna, but so too people Sulla simply disliked or held a grudge against.
The lives of the people of Rome were entirely in Sulla's hands. He could have them killed or he
could spare them. One he chose to spare was a dissolute young patrician, whose father's sister
had been the wife of Marius, and who himself was the husband of Cinna's daughter - Gaius
Julius Caesar.
Sulla's second Reforms
Sulla took charge of the constitution in 81 BC. All the power of the state would henceforth lay in
the hands of the senate.The Tribunes of the People and the people's assemblies had been by the
democrats to overthrow the senate. Tribunes were to be barred from all further office and the
assemblies were deprived of the power of initiating any legislation. The senatorial control of the
courts was restored at the expense of the equestrians.
There were to be no more repeated consulships, like those of Marius and Cinna.
Consuls were not to hold military command until, after their year of office, they went abroad as
proconsuls, when their power could only be exercised in their respective province.
Then in 79 BC Sulla lay down his powers as dictator and devoted his remaining months to the
enjoyment of wild parties. He died in 78 BC.
Although the Roman Republic technically still had some fifty years to go, Sulla pretty much
represents its demise. He should stand as an example to others to come that is was possible to
take Rome by force and rule it, if only one was strong and ruthlessness enough to do what ever
deeds were required.

The Age of Caesar

The twenty years following Sulla's death saw the rise of three men who, if Rome's founders were
truly suckled by a she-wolf, surely had within them the stuff of wolves.
The three were Marcus Licinius Crassus (d. 53 BC), one of Rome's richest men ever. Gnaeus
Pompeius Magnus (106-48 BC), known as Pompey the Great, perhaps the greatest military talent
of his time, and Gaius Julius Caesar (102-44 BC), arguably the most famous Roman of all times.
A fourth man was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), is generally understood to have been the
greatest orator in the entire history of the Roman Empire. All four were stabbed to death within
ten years of each other.
Cicero Crassus Pompey Julius Caesar

The Rise of Crassus and Pompey

Two men had risen to prominence as supporters of Sulla. One was Publius Licinius Crassus
(117-53 BC), who had played a major part in the victory of the Colline Gate for Sulla. The other,
132
Gnaeus Pompeius (106-48 BC), known to the modern historians as Pompey, was a youthful
commander of remarkable military talents. Such talents in fact that Sulla had entrusted him with
the suppression of the Marians (the supporters of Marius) in Africa. This command he had
fulfilled so satisfactorily that it had earned him the complimentary title 'Magnus' ('the Great')
from the dictator. Crassus had no little ability, but he chose to concentrate it on the acquisition of
wealth.
Sulla was hardly dead, when the inevitable attempt to overturn his constitution was made by the
consul Lepidus, the champion of the popular party. when he took up arms however, he was
easily crushed (77 BC).
In one quarter, the Marians had not yet been suppressed. The Marian Sertorius had retreated to
Spain when Sulla returned to Italy, and there he had been making himself a formidable power,
partly by rallying the Spanish tribes to join him as their leader.
He was very much more than a mere match for the Roman forces sent to deal with him. Pompey,
charged with the business of dealing with him in 77 BC, fared not much better than his
predecessors.
More worryingly the menacing king Mithridates of Pontus, no longer in awe of Sulla, was
negotiating with Sertorius with the intention of renewing the war in 74 BC.
But this alliance came to nothing as Sertorius was assassinated in 72 BC. With Sertorius'' death
the defeat of the Marians in Spain posed no great difficulty to Pompey anymore.
Pompey could now return home to Rome to claim and receive credit, scarcely deserved, for
having succeeded were others had failed.
Third Slave War
Slaves were trained as gladiators, and in 73 BC such a slave, a Thracian named Spartacus, broke
out of a gladiator training camp at Capua and took refuge in the hills. The number of his band
swelled rapidly and he kept his men well in hand and under strict discipline and routed two
commanders who were sent to capture him. In 72 BC Spartacus had so formidable force behind
him, that two consular armies were sent against him, both of which he destroyed.
Pompey was in the west, Lucullus in the east. It was Crassus who at the head of six legions at
last brought Spartacus to bay, shattered his army, and slew him on the field (71 BC).
Five thousand of Spartacus' men cut their way through the lines and escaped but only to end up
in the very path of Pompey's army returning from Spain.
Pompey claimed the victory of quelling the Slave war for himself, adding to his questionable
glories gained in Spain. Crassus, seeing that the popular soldier might be useful to him, did not
quarrel.
Crassus and Pompey joint Consuls
So powerful were the positions of the two leaders, that they felt secure enough to challenge
Sulla's constitution. Both by the terms of Sulla's laws were barred from standing for the
consulship. Pompey was too young and Crassus was required to let a year pass between his
position as praetor before he could stand for election.
But both men stood and both were elected.
As consuls, during 70 BC, they procured the annulment of the restrictions imposed on the office
of Tribune of the People. Thereby they restored the lost powers of the tribal assembly. The
senate dared not refuse their demands, knowing an army behind each of them.
Third Mithridatic War

133
In 74 BC king Nicomedes of Bithynia died without heirs. Following the example of Attalus of
Pergamum he left his kingdom to the Roman people. But with Sulla dead, king Mithridates of
Pontus clearly felt his most fearsome enemy had vanished from the scene and revived his dreams
of creating his own empire. Nicomedes' death provided him with an excuse to start a war. He
supported a false pretender to the throne of Bithynia on whose behalf he then invaded Bithynia.
At first the consul Cotta failed to make any significant gains against the king, but Lucius
Lucullus, formerly the lieutenant of Sulla in the east, was soon dispatched to be governor of
Cilicia to deal with Mithridates.
Though provided only with a comparatively small and undisciplined force, Lucullus conducted
his operations with such skill that within a year he had broken up the army of Mithridates
without having had to fight a pitched battle. Mithridates was driven back into his own territory in
Pontus. Following a series of campaigns in the following years Mithridates was forced to flee to
king Tigranes of Armenia.
Lucullus' troops had subjugated Pontus by 70 BC. Meanwhile however Lucullus, trying to sort
out matters in the east realized that the cites of the province of Asia were being strangled by the
punitive tributes they had to pay to Rome. In fact they had to borrow money to be able to pay
them, leading to an ever growing spiral of debt.
In order to alleviate this burden and to return the province back to prosperity he scaled down
their debts to Rome from the huge total of 120'000 talents to 40'000.
This inevitably earned him the enduring gratitude of the cities of Asia, but it also drew upon him
the undying resentment of the Roman moneylenders who had until profiteered from the plight of
the Asiatic cities.
In 69 BC Lucullus, having decided that until Mithridates was captured the conflict in the east
could not be resolved, advanced into Armenia and captured the capital Tigranocerta. In the next
year he routed the forces of the Armenian king Tigranes. but in 68 BC, paralysed by the
mutinous spirit of his depleted troops he was forced to withdraw to Pontus.
Pompey defeats the Pirates
In 74 BC Marcus Antonius, father of the famous Mark Antony, had been given special powers to
suppress the large-scale piracy in the Mediterranean. But his attempts had ended in dismal
failure. After Antonius' death, the consul Quintus Metellus was set upon the same task in 69 BC.
Matters indeed did improve, but Metellus' role should be cut shorts, as Pompey in 67 BC decided
he wanted the position. Thanks to no small part to the support of Julius Caesar, Pompey was
given the task, despite opposition by the senate.
A commander free to do as he wished and with nearly unlimited resources, Pompey
accomplished in only three months what no one else had managed. Spreading his fleet
systematically across the Mediterranean, Pompey swept the sea clean from end to end. The
pirates were destroyed.
Pompey against Mithridates
By popular acclaim, fresh from his brilliant triumph over the pirates, Pompey was given supreme
and unlimited authority over the whole east. His powers were to be in his hands until he himself
should be satisfied with the completeness of the settlement he might effect.
No Roman, other than Sulla, had ever been given such powers. From 66 to 62 BC Pompey
should remain in the east.
In his first campaign Pompey forced Mithridates to fight him, and routed his forces on the
eastern border of Pontus. Mithridates fled, but was refused asylum by Tigranes of Armenia who,
after the onslaught by Lucullus, evidently feared Roman troops. Instead Mithridates fled to the

134
northern shores of the Black Sea. There, beyond reach of the Roman forces, he began to form
plans of leading the barbarian tribes of eastern Europe against Rome. That ambitious project,
however, was brought to an end as his own son Pharnaces. In 63 BC, a broken old man,
Mithridates killed himself.
Meanwhile Tigranes, eager to come to an arrangement with Rome, had already withdrawn his
support for Mithridates and had pulled back his troops based in Syria. when Pompey marched
into Armenia, Tigranes submitted to Roman power. Pompey seeing his task completed, saw no
reason to occupy Armenia itself. Far more he left Tigranes in power and returned to Asia Minor
(Turkey), where he began the organization of the new Roman territories.
Bithynia and Pontus were formed into one province, and the province of Cilicia was enlarged.
meanwhile the minor territories on the border, Cappadocia, Galatia and Commagene were
recognized as being under Roman protection.
Pompey annexes Syria
When in 64 BC Pompey descended from Cappadocia into northern Syria he needed little more
than assume sovereignty on behalf of Rome. Ever since the collapse of the kingdom of the
Seleucids sixty years previously, Syria had been ruled by chaos. Roman order was hence
welcomed. The acquisition of Syria brought the eastern borders of the empire to the river
Euphrates, which should hence traditionally be understood as the boundary between the two
great empires of Rome and Parthia.
In Syria itself Pompey is said to have founded or restored as many as forty cities, settling them
with the many refugees of the recent wars.
Pompey in Judaea
However, to the south things were different. The princes of Judaea had been allies of Rome for
half a century.
But Judaea was suffering a civil war between the two brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus.
Pompey was hence asked to help quell their quarrels and help decide the matter of rule over
Judaea (63 BC).
Pompey advised in favour of Hyrcanus. Aristobulus gave way to his brother. But his followers
refused to accept and locked themselves up in the city of Jerusalem. Pompey hence besieged the
city, conquered it after three months and left it to Hyrcanus. But his troops having effectively put
Hyrcanus in power, Pompey left Judaea no longer an ally but a protectorate, which paid a tribute
to Rome.
The Cataline Conspiracy
During the five years of Pompey's absence in the east Roman politics were as lively as ever.
Julius Caesar, the nephew of Marius and son-in-law of Cinna, was courting popularity and
steadily rising in power and influence.
However, among the hot-heads of the anti-senatorial party was Lucius Sergius Catalina (ca. 106 -
62 BC) a patrician who was at least reputed to have no scruples in such matters as assassination.
On the other side the ranks of the senatorial party were joined by the most brilliant orator of the
day, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC).
In 64 BC Catalina stood as a candidate for the consulship, having just been barely acquitted in
the courts on a charge of treasonable conspiracy.
Though Cicero was not popular with the upper class senators of the old families, his party
nominated him as their candidate - if only to prevent Catalina from winning the seat. Cicero's
rhetoric won day and secured him the post of consul.

135
But Catalina was not a man to take defeat easily.
While Caesar continue to court popularity, managing even to secure election to the dignified
office of pontifex maximus ahead of the most eminent senatorial candidates, Catalina began to
plot.
The intrigue was afoot in 63 BC, and yet Catalina did not intend to move until he had attained
the consulship. He also didn't feel sufficiently ready to strike yet.
But all should come to nothing as some information about his plans was passed on to Cicero.
Cicero went to the senate and presented what evidence he had, of plans being afoot.
Catalina escaped to the north to head the intended rebellion in the provinces, leaving his
accomplices to carry out the programme arranged for the city.
Cicero, by now having been granted emergency powers by the senate, obtained correspondence
between Catalina and the Gallic tribe of the Allobroges. The principal conspirators named in the
letter were arrested and condemned to death without trial.
Cicero told the whole story to the people gathered in the forum amid frantic applause. In the city
of Rome the rebellion had been quashed without a fight.
But in the country Catalina fell fighting indomitably in early 62 BC at the head of the troops he
had succeeded in raising.
For the moment at least civil war had been averted.
The first Triumvirate
With Pompey about to return to Rome, no one knew what the conqueror of the east intended to
do. Both Cicero and Caesar wanted his alliance. But Caesar knew how to wait and turn events in
his favour. At present Crassus with his gold was more important then Pompey with his men. The
money of Crassus enabled Caesar to take up the praetorship in Spain, soon after Pompey's
landing at Brundisium (Brindisi).
However, many people took comfort when Pompey instead of remaining at the head of his army
dismissed his troops. He was not minded to play the part of dictator.
Then in 60 BC Caesar returned from Spain, enriched by the spoils of successful military
campaigns against rebellious tribes. He found Pompey showing little interest in any alliance with
Cicero and the senatorial party. Instead an alliance was forged between the popular politician, the
victorious general and the richest man in Rome - the so-called first triumvirate - between Caesar,
Pompey and Crassus.
The reason for the 'first triumvirate is to be found in the hostility the populists Crassus Pompey
and Caesar faced in the senate, in particularly by the likes of Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's
great-grandson. Perhaps his famous namesake before him Cato the Younger was a
(self-)righteous, but talented politician. A fatal mix, if surrounded by wolves of the caliber of
Crassus, Pompey and Caesar. He became one of the leaders in the senate, where he particularly
rounded on Crassus, Pompey and Caesar. Alas, he even fell out with Cicero, the greatest speaker
of the house by far.
The 'first triumvirate was, rather than a constitutional office or a dictatorship imposed by force,
an alliance of the three main popular politicians; Crassus, Pompey and Caesar.
They helped each other along, guarding each other's backs from Cato the Younger and his
attacks in the senate.
With Pompey and Crassus supporting him Caesar was triumphantly elected consul.
The partnership with Pompey was to be sealed in the following year by the marriage between
Pompey and Caesar's daughter Julia.
The first Consulate of Julius Caesar

136
Caesar used his year as consul (59 BC) to further establish his position. A popular agrarian law,
As his first act in office Caesar brought proposed a new agrarian law which gave lands to the
veteran soldiers of Pompey and poor citizens in Campania.. Though opposed by the senate, but
supported by Pompey as Crassus, the law was passed in the tribal assembly, after a detachment
of Pompey's veterans had by physical force swept away any possible constitutional opposition.
The populace were gratified and the three triumvirs now had a body of loyal and grateful veteran
soldiers to call on in case of trouble.
Pompey's organization of the east was finally confirmed, having been in doubt until then. And
finally Caesar secured for himself an unprecedented term of five years for the proconsulship of
Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum. The senate, hoping to be well rid of him, added to his territories
Transalpine Gaul (Gallia Narbonensis) where serious trouble was brewing.
Before his departure though Caesar saw to it that the political opposition lay in tatters. The
austere and uncompromising Cato the Younger (95-46 BC) was dispatched to secure the
annexation of Cyprus. Meanwhile the arch-enemy of Cicero, Publius Claudius (known as
Clodius), was aided in obtaining the position of Tribune of the People, whilst Cicero himself was
forced into exile in Greece for having illegally killed without trial the accomplices of Catalina
during the Cataline Conspiracy.
Caesar defeats the Helvetii, the Germans and the Nervii
In the first year of his governorship of Gaul 58 BC, Caesar's presence was urgently required in
Transalpine Gaul (Gallia Narbonensis) because of the movement among the Teutonic tribes
which was displacing the Helvetic (Swiss) Celts and forcing them into Roman territory. the year
58 BC was therefore first occupied with a campaign in which the invaders were split in two and
their forces so heavily defeated that they had to retire to their own mountains.
But no sooner was this menace dealt with another loomed on the horizon. The fierce Germans
tribes (Sueves and Swabians) were crossing the Rhine and threatening to overthrow the Aedui,
the Gallic allies of Rome on the northern borders of the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul.
The German chief, Ariovistus, apparently envisaged the conquest of entire Gaul and its partition
between himself and the Romans.
Caesar led his legions to the help of the Aedui and utterly defeated the German force, with
Ariovistus barely escaping across the Rhine with what was left of his forces.
With the Germans driven back, fear was aroused in Gaul of a general Roman conquest. The
Nervii, who were the leading tribe of the warlike Belgae in the north-east of Gaul prepared an
attack on Rome's forces. But Caesar received warning from friends in Gaul and decided to attack
first, invading Nervian territory in 57 BC.
The Nervii fought heroically and for some time the outcome of the decisive battle uncertain, but
eventually Caesar's victory proved overwhelming. It was followed by a general submission of all
the tribes between the river Aisne and the Rhine.
Disorder in Rome under Clodius
With Julius Caesar campaigning in Gaul, Clodius exercised his powers as the virtual king of
Rome with neither Pompey nor Crassus interfering. Among his measures was a law which
distributed corn no longer at half price but for free to the citizens of Rome.
But his conduct was generally reckless and violent, as he employed a large gang of thugs and
troublemakers to enforce his will. So much so, that it aroused the anger of Pompey who the
following year (57 BC) used his influence to enable the return of Cicero to Rome. Did the
supporters of Clodius protest in a violent riot then this was met with equal brute force by
Pompey, who organized his own band of thugs, made up partially of veterans of his army, which

137
under the guidance of the tribune T. Annius Milo took to the streets and beet Clodius' ruffians at
their own game.
Cicero, finding himself still very popular on his return to Rome, proposed - perhaps feeling
indebted - that Pompey should be granted dictatorial powers for the restoration of order. But only
partial, not total power was conveyed upon Pompey, who himself seemed little tempted in acting
as a policeman in Rome.
Conference of the Triumvirs in Luca
With Clodius reduced in power and influence, the senate was stirring again, seeking to gain back
some power from the three triumvirs. So in 56 BC a meeting was held at Luca in Cisalpine Gaul
by the three men, determined to hold onto their privileged position.
The result of the meeting was that Pompey and Crassus stood for the consulship again and were
elected - largely due to the fact that Crassus' son, who had been serving brilliantly under Caesar,
was at no great distance from Rome with a returning legion.
Did Pompey and Crassus gain office in such way, then Caesar's part of the bargain was that the
two new consuls extended his term in office in Gaul by another five years (until 49 BC).
Caesar's expeditions into Germany and Britain
Caesar went on, after the the conference of Luca to reduce the whole of Gaul to submission in
the course of three campaigns - justified by initial aggression from the barbarians.
The two following years were occupied with expeditions and campaigns of an experimental kind.
In 55 BC a fresh invasion of Germans across the Rhine was completely shattered in the
neighbourhood of modern Koblenz and the victory was followed by a great raid over the river
into German territory, which made Caesar decide that the Rhine should remain the boundary.
Gaul conquered and the Germans crushed, Caesar turned his attention to Britain. In 55 BC he led
his first expedition to Britain, a land so far known only by the reports of traders.
The following year, 54 BC, Caesar led his second expedition, and reduced the south-east of the
island to submission. But he decided that real conquest was not worth undertaking.
During that winter and the following year 53 BC, the year of the disaster of Carrhae, Caesar was
kept occupied with various revolts in north-eastern Gaul.
Pompey sole consul in Rome
In 54 BC Pompey's young wife had died and with her death had disappeared the personal link
between him and his father-in-law Caesar.
Crassus had started for the east to take up governorship of Syria. Meanwhile Pompey did little.
He simply watched with growing jealousy the successive triumphs of Caesar in Gaul.
In 52 BC things in Rome reached another point of crisis. During the previous two years the city
had remained in a state of near anarchy.
Clodius, still the leader of the popular extremists, was killed in an violent brawl with the
followers of Milo, the leader of the senatorial extremists. Pompey, was elected sole consul and
was commissioned to restore order in the ever more riotous city of Rome.
In effect Pompey was left virtual dictator of Rome. A dangerous situation, considering Caesar's
presence in Gaul with several battle-hardened legions.
Pompey himself achieved a five year extension for his own position of proconsul of Spain, but -
very controversially - he had a law passed by which Caesar's term in Gaul would be cut short by
almost a year (ending in March 49 instead of January 48 BC).
A reaction of Caesar's was inevitable to such provocation, but he could not respond immediately,
as a large scale revolt in Gaul demanded his full attention.

138
 Disaster at Carrhae
In 55 BC Crassus had, during his consulship, in the aftermath of the conference at Luca,
managed to secure himself the governorship of Syria. Phenomenally rich and renowned for
greed, people saw this as yet another example of his appetite for money. The east was rich, and a
governor of Syria could hope to be much the richer on his return to Rome.
But Crassus was for once, it appears, seeking more than mere wealth, although the promise of
gold no doubt played a major part in his seeking the governorship of Syria. With Pompey and
Caesar having covered themselves in military glory, Crassus craved for similar recognition.
Had his money bought him his power and influence so far, as a politician he had always been the
poor relation to his partners in the triumvirate. There was only one way by which to equal their
popularity and that was by equalling their military exploits.
Relations with the Parthians had never been good and now Crassus set out on a war against them.
First he raided Mesopotamia, before spending the winter of 54/53 BC in Syria, when he did little
to make himself popular by requisitioning from the Great Temple of Jerusalem and other temples
and sanctuaries.
Then, in 53 BC, Crassus crossed the Euphrates with 35'000 men with the intention of marching
on Seleucia-ad-Tigris, the commercial capital of ancient Babylonia. Large though Crassus' army
was, it consisted almost entirely of legionary infantry.
But for the Gallic horseman under the command of his son, he possessed no cavalry. An
arrangement with the king of Armenia to supply additional cavalry had fallen foul, and Crassus
was no longer prepared to delay any further.
He marched into absolute disaster against an army of 10'000 horsemen of the Parthian king
Orodes II. The place where the two armies met, the wide open spaces of the low lying land of
Mesopotamia around the city of Carrhae, offered ideal terrain for cavalry manoeuvres.
The Parthian horse archers could move at liberty, staying at a safe distance while taking shots at
the helpless Roman infantry from a safe range. 25'000 men fell or were captured by the
Parthians, the remaining 10'000 managed to escape back to Roman territory.
Crassus himself was killed trying to negotiate terms for surrender.
The Rebellion of Vercingetorix in Gaul
In 52 BC, just as Pompey's jealousies reached their height, a great rebellion was organized in the
very heart of Gaul by the heroic Arvernian chief Vercingetorix. So stubborn and so able was the
Gallic chief that all Caesar's energies were required for the campaign. On an attack on Gergovia
Caesar even suffered a defeat, dispelling the general myth of his invincibility.
Taking heart from this, all Gallic tribes, except for three broke out in open rebellion against
Rome. Even the allied Aedui joined the ranks of the rebels. But a battle near Dijon turned the
odds back in favour of Caesar, who drove Vercingetorix into the hill-top city of Alesia and laid
siege to him.
All efforts of the Gauls to relieve the siege were in vain. At Alesia the Gallic resistance was
broken and Vercingetorix was captured. Gaul was conquered for good.
The whole of 51 BC was taken up by the organization of the conquered land and the
establishment of garrisons to retain its control.
Caesar's breach with Pompey
Meanwhile the party in Rome most hostile toward him was straining itself to the utmost to effect
his ruin between the termination of his present appointment and his entry into a new post.
Caesar would be secure from attack if he passed straight from his position of proconsul of Gaul
and Illyricum into the office of consul back in Rome. He was sure to win an election to that

139
office, but the rules prohibited him from entering such a position till 48 BC (the rules stated that
he had to wait for ten years after holding the office of consul in 59 BC !). If he could be deprived
of his troops before that date, he could be attacked through the law courts for his questionable
proceedings in Gaul and his fate would be sealed, while Pompey would still enjoy command
over his own troops in Spain.
So far Caesar's supporters in Rome delayed a decree which would have displaced Caesar from
office in March 49 BC. But the problem was only delayed, not resolved. Meanwhile in 51 BC,
two legions were detached from Caesar's command and moved to Italy, to be ready for service
against the Parthians in the east.
In 50 BC the question of redistributing the provinces came up for settlement. Caesar's agents in
Rome proposed compromises, suggesting that Caesar and Pompey should resign simultaneously
from their positions as provincial governors, or that Caesar should only retain one of his three
provinces.
Pompey refused, but proposed that Caesar should not resign until November 49 BC (which
would still have left two months for his prosecution !). Caesar naturally refused. Having
completed the organization of Gaul, he had now returned to Cisalpine Gaul in northern Italy with
one veteran legion. Pompey, commissioned by a suspicious senate, left Rome to raise more
troops in Italy.
In January 49 BC Caesar repeated his offer of a joint resignation. The senate rejected the offer
and decreed that their current consuls should enjoy a completely free hand 'in defence of the
Republic'. Evidently they had resigned themselves to the fact that there was going to be a civil
war.
Caesar was still in his province, of which the boundary to Italy was the river Rubicon. The
momentous choice lay before him. Was he to submit and let his enemies utterly destroy him or
was he to take power by force. He made his choice. At the head of one of his one legion, on the
night of January 6, 49 BC, he crossed the Rubicon. Caesar was now at war with Rome.
Showdown between Casesar and Pompey
Pompey was not prepared for the sudden swiftness of his adversary. Without waiting for the
reinforcements he had summoned from Gaul, Caesar swooped on Umbria and Picenum, which
were not prepared to resist. Town after town surrendered and was won over to his side by the
show of clemency and the firm control which Caesar held over his soldiers.
In six weeks he was joined by another legion from Gaul. Corfinium was surrendered to him and
he sped south in pursuit of Pompey.
The legions Pompey had ready were the very legions which Caesar had led to victory in Gaul.
Pompey hence could not rely on the loyalty of his troops. Instead he decided to move south to
the port of Brundisium where he embarked with his troops and sailed east, hoping to raise troops
there with which he could return to drive the rebel out of of Italy. His leaving words are said to
have been "Sulla did it, why not I ?"

Caesar, with no enemy left to fight in Italy, was in Rome no longer than three months after he
had crossed the river Rubicon.
He immediately secured the treasury and then, rather than pursuing Pompey, he turned west to
deal with the legions in Spain who were loyal to Pompey.
The campaign in Spain was not a series of battles, but a sequence of skillful manouvers by both
sides - during which Caesar, by his own admission, was at times outgeneraled by his opposition.
But Caesar remained the winner as within six months most of the Spanish troops had joined his
side.

140
Returning to Rome he became dictator, passed popular laws, and then prepared for the decisive
contest in the east, where a large force was now collecting under Pompey.
Pompey also controlled the seas, as most of the fleet had joined with him. Caesar therefore
managed only with great difficulty to set across to Epirus with his first army. There he was shut
up, unable to manoeuvre, by the much larger army of Pompey. With even more difficulty his
lieutenant, Mark Antony, joined him with the second army in the spring of 48 BC.
Some months of manoeuvring following Pompey, though his forces outnumbered Caesar's, knew
well that his eastern soldiers were not to be matched against Caesar's veterans. Hence he wished
to avoid a pitched battle. Many of the senators though, who had fled Italy together with Pompey,
scoffed at his indecision and clamoured for battle.
Until at last, in midsummer, Pompey was goaded into delivering an attack on the plain of
Pharsalus in Thessaly.
The fight hung long in balance, but eventually ended in the complete rout of Pompey's army,
with immense slaughter. Most of the Romans on Pompey's side though were persuaded by
Caesar's promises of clemency to surrender once they realized the battle lost.
Pompey himself escaped to the coast, took a ship with a few loyal comrades and made his way to
Egypt, where he found awaiting him not the asylum he sought, but the dagger of an assassin
commissioned by the Egyptian government.
Caesar in Egypt - The 'Alexandrian War'
After Caesar's great victory at Pharsalus, all was not yet won. The Pompeians still controlled the
seas, Africa was in their hands and Juba of Numidia was siding with them. Caesar was not yet
master of the empire.
Therefore, at the first possible moment, Caesar had set out with a small force after Pompey and,
evading the enemy fleets, tracked him all the way to Egypt, where the Egyptian government's
envoys received him, not with his dead rival's head.
But rather than being able to swiftly move on ad deal with the remaining Pompeians, Caesar
became entangled in Egyptian politics. He was asked to help settle a dispute between the young
king Ptolemy XII and his fascinating sister Cleopatra.
Though the arrangements Caesar suggested for the dynasty gave such offence to Ptolemy and his
ministers that they set the royal army upon him and kept him and his small force blockaded in
the palace quarter of Alexandria through the winter of 48/47 BC.
With his force of no more than 3000 men Caesar became involved in desperate rounds of street-
fighting against the Ptolemaic royal troops.
Meanwhile, the Pompeians seeing their chance to rid themselves of their foe, used their fleets to
prevent any reinforcements reaching him.
Alas, a makeshift force swept together jointly in Cilicia and Syria by a wealthy citizen of
Pergamum, known as Mithridates of Pergamum, and by Antipater, a Judaean government
minister, managed to land and help Caesar out of Alexandria.
A few days later the 'Alexandrian War' was ended in a pitched battle on the Nile delta, in which
both the king Ptolemy XII and the true power behind the throne, his chief-minister Achillas, met
their death.
The late king's crown was transferred by Caesar to his younger brother Ptolemy XIII. But the
effective ruler of Egypt henceforth was Cleopatra whom Caesar invested a co-regent.
Wether true or not is unclear, but Caesar is said to have spent up to two months with Cleopatra
on a holiday tour up the Nile.
Caesar defeats Pharnaces of Pontus

141
In the summer of 47 BC Caesar began his way home. While passing through Judaea he rewarded
the intervention of Antipater at Alexandria with a reduction of the tribute the Jewish people had
to pay to Rome.
But more serious matters were still to be taken care of. Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates, had
seized his opportunity to recover power in Pontus, whilst the Romans were tied up in their civil
war.
In a lightning campaign Caesar shattered the power of Pharnaces. It was at the occasion of that
victory on which Caesar dispatched the words back to Rome 'veni, vidi, vici' ('I came, I saw, I
conquered').
Caesar's final Victory over the Pompeians
By July 47 BC Caesar was back in Rome, and was formally appointed dictator for the second
time.
In Spain the legions were in mutiny. And in Africa the Pompeians were scoring victories.
He also found the legions in Campania in mutiny, demanding to be discharged. But what they
really wanted was not a discharge, but more pay.
Caesar coolly complied with their demand, granting them their discharge together with a
message of his contempt. Whereupon the distraught troops begged to be reinstated again,
whatever his terms may be. A triumphant Caesar granted them their will and re-employed them.
Next Caesar carried a force to Africa, but was unable to strike a decisive blow until in February
46 BC he shattered the Pompeian forces at Thapsus. The senatorial leaders either fled to Spain or
killed themselves, including Juba, king of Numidia who had sided with them. Numidia in turn
was annexed and made a new Roman province.
Caesar returned to Rome and celebrated a series of triumphs. Having reconciliation in mind, he
celebrated not his victories over other Romans, but those over the Gauls, Egypt, Pharnaces and
Juba.
But more so he astonished the world by declaring a complete amnesty, taking no sort of revenge
on any of his past enemies.
Confirmed as dictator for the third time, Caesar occupied himself with reorganizing the imperial
system, legislating and planning and starting public works.
Then, for a last time, Caesar was called to deal with a Pompeian force. Two sons of Pompey,
Gnaeus and Sextus, had, after fleeing from Africa been able to raise an army in Spain. Once in
Spain, sickness kept Caesar inactive until the end of the year. But by 46 BC he moved on the
Pompeians once more, and at the battle of Munda on 17 March 45 BC he finally crushed them, in
his most desperately fought battle.
For six more months Caesar was occupied in the settlement of Spanish affairs, before in October
45 BC he returned to Rome.
Into the few months of his remaining regime Caesar compressed a surprising amount of social
and economic legislation, most of all the granting of full Roman citizenship to all Italians.
It was in his many reforms and projects that it showed that Caesar was not merely a conqueror
and destroyer. Caesar was a builder, a visionary statesman the likes of which, the world rarely
gets to see.
He established order, begun measures to reduce congestion in Rome, draining large tracts of
marshy lands, revised the tax laws of Asia and Sicily, resettled many Romans in new homes in
the Roman provinces and reformed the calendar, which, with one slight adjustment, is the one in
use today.
The Murder of Caesar
142
A notable situation occurred when, at the festival of the Lupercalia in February 44 BC, Mark
Antony offered Caesar the crown as king of Rome. He rejected the offer dramatically, but with
obvious reluctance. The idea of a king still remained intolerable to the Romans.
Many senators though suspected it only a matter of time until Caesar should accept such an offer,
or that he simply would choose to rule as dictator forever as a quasi-king of Rome.
They saw their suspicions confirmed at hearing that a suggestion was to be put to the senate that
Caesar should adopt the title of king for use outside of Italy. More so support for the idea was
growing, if not in Rome itself, then with the people of Italy.
And with the appointment of new senators by Caesar, the senate as a whole was becoming more
and more am instrument of Caesar's will. A conspiracy was formed by a group which included
senators of the highest influence, some of them even Caesar's personal friends.
The organizers of the plot was Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus were pardoned
Pompeians, but the majority of their accomplices were former officers of Caesar.
Caesar never took precautions for his personal safety. At a meeting of the senate on the Ides of
March (15th March) 44 BC, they gathered round him on the pretext of urging a petition and then
stabbed him to death.
The Second Triumvirate
For the moment Caesar's fall produced sheer paralysis. The conspirators imagined that they were
going to restore the senatorial republic mid general acclamation. The enemy they had most to
fear was Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony, ca. 83-30 BC), consul designate and a favourite
lieutenant of the murdered dictator, a man of brilliant, though erratic ability, boundless ambition
and a whole-hearted devotion to his dead chief.
There would almost certainly be a duel between the conspirators and Antony. Neither side took
much notice of a youngster of eighteen years away in Macedon, whom the childless Caesar had
adopted, his great-nephew Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.
The conflict did not begin at once, for at first there was hollow reconciliation. Antony however
secured Caesar's papers and secured from the senate the ratification of Caesar's acts and a public
funeral - at which Antony's speech and the reading of Caesar's will produced a violent popular
outcry of revulsion against the self-styled 'liberators'.
Under the threat of being lynched by the angry mob, the conspirators hastily left Rome, leaving
Antony master of the situation.
The ablest soldier of the conspirators Decimus Brutus (not to be mistaken for the famous Marcus
Junius Brutus !), took possession of Cisalpine Gaul.
the military situation was extremely uncertain, which is well reflected in the fact that the two
parties were still corresponding with each other at that time.
The young Octavian suddenly appeared on the scene, announcing himself the heir to Caesar's
will, ready to make terms with either party - but only his own terms.
Antony feared a rival, the conspirators saw a remorseless enemy.
The Italian legions seemed likely to transfer their allegiance to the one they saw as Caesar's son,
Octavian.
Decimus Brutus was in Possession of Cisalpine Gaul, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (d 13BC),
Caesar's former chief assistant, was in control of the old Transalpine Province. Caesar himself in
his will (of course not knowing of his future assassination) had granted Macedon and Syria to his
chief murderers Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius, both of whom left Italy to raise troops for the
coming contest.
A time of chaos followed in which Antony besieged Decimus Brutus, suffered defeat, was
declared a public enemy after a series of brilliant speeches against him by Cicero, Octavian

143
joined the new consuls Hirtius and Pansa who were soon killed in fighting Antony's troops,
Antony then allied with Lepidus and then jointly came to terms with Octavian.
Octavian with his legions then simply marched on Rome and at the age of twenty claimed the
consulship for himself, no one daring to deny him. Then he trial Caesar's assassins tried and, of
course, condemned to death.
At last the governor's of Spain and Gaul, so far prudently neutral declared their support. Antony,
Lepidus and Octavian then met up at Bononia (Bologna) and constituted themselves (officially
by decree of a powerless senate) Triumvirs, joint rulers of the Republic.
A part of this joint programme was, as with Sulla, a merciless proscription, Cicero being the
most distinguished of their victims. Then the Triumvirs went about appointing their shares of the
empire, with little regard for Lepidus.
Climactic End of the Roman Republic
Antonius versus Octavian
No heavy engagement took place before the two battles on the plain of Philippi in Macedonia,
fought with an interval of three weeks in the late autumn of 42 BC. The first battle actually went
to Marcus Brutus, although Cassius mistakenly believing the day lost, ordered his slave to kill
him. In the second battle however Brutus was defeated, his army refused another fight the next
day, and so he was killed by the reluctant hand of a friend.
The victors, Antony and Octavian parted the empire between them, Lepidus having fallen by the
side. In effect, Antony took the east, Octavian the west. However, they found an unexpected rival
in Sextus Pompeius, son of Pompey the Great and having held a command in the Decimus
Brutus' fleet having achieved naval supremacy across the Mediterranean. For ten years there was
no open collision between Antony and Octavian, but there was much friction and actual war was
overted several times only with great difficulty.
The root of the matter was, both were ambitious, but so too did the division of the empire prove
that it required sole rule. For Rome, with its institutions of power lay in the west, whilst to the
east lay the wealthiest regions of the empire. Octavian had naturally moved to Rome, Antony
had set up camp in Egypt where he lived with Cleopatra. Antony struggled in the east, Labienus
one of his Roman officers joining with Pacorus, King of Parthia and invading Syria. Weakened
like this, he only overted war with Octavian by marrying Octavian's sister Octavia, much to the
dissatisfaction of Cleopatra. Meanwhile Sextus Pompeius used his fleet to blockade Italy, finally
forcing the triumvirs to admit him to partnership, receiving in his share Sardinia, Sicily and
Achaea.
Ventidius Bassus, commanding troops for Antony, in 39 BC routed the Parthians and drove them
over the Euphrates, then repeated his success in 38 BC against King Pacorus himself, who fell in
battle.
Octavian prepared for a struggle with with Sextus Pompeius and Antony, tired of his wife
Octavia, returned to his Egyptian mistress Cleopatra. In 36 BC Antony flung himself into a new
Parthian campaign but only narrowly escaped complete destruction by a hasty retreat. Back in
Italy Antony's brother Lucius; now consul tried to overthrow Octavian by armed force, but
Octavian's right-hand man Agrippa (63 BC-12 AD) compelled him in 40 BC to retire from Italy.
This was the occasion of the breach of the triumvirs, ended by the pact of Brundisium in 36 BC.
Octavian still desperate to reorganize the west found Sextus Pompeius, still master of the seas, a
growing embarrassment. Though the first attempts to challenge his power failed completely.
The invaluable Agrippa again came to the rescue. Only in 36 BC, having organized and trained
new fleets, was his naval campaign begun. Sextus, defeated by Agrippa, then victorious over
Octavian, was alas crushed by Agrippa at Naulochus, and having fled into the hands of Antony,

144
was put to death.
Now Lepidus, the initial third triumvir, returned to the scene trying to reassert himself. But he
quickly submitted as his troops deserted to Octavian and was relegated into dignified obscurity
as pontifex maximus.
Finally things came to a climax when Antony in 32 BC openly repudiated his marriage to
Octavia. Octavian's time had come. Rome declared war on Egypt. Antony set out for Greece,
designing on invading Italy. This was made impossible by Agrippa's fleet. Octavian landed in
Epirus, but wisely held back as he knew himself no match for Antony as a general. Though the
winter both sides played a waiting game, which all worked to the favour of Octavian for Antony
could trust none of his men.
In 31 Antony finally decided to abandon his army and retreat with his fleet. He embarked with
Cleopatra at the end of August, but it was overtaken by Agrippa and forced to engage off Actium
on September 2. Agrippa's skill was the greater, yet Antony's fleet was much the heavier. The
battle hung in doubt, until Cleopatra with sixty ships broke away in full flight. Antony deserted
the battle and followed his mistress. The rest of the fleet fought on desperately, until it was
totally destroyed or captured. The deserted army naturally went over to Octavian. The battle of
Actium was decisive.
Antony was beaten though not yet dead. In July of 30 BC a well prepared Octavian appeared
before Pelusium with his fleet. Hearing a false rumour that Cleopatra was dead, Antony
committed suicide. Hearing of her lover's death and that Octavian intended to parade the
defeated queen through the streets of Rome, she too killed herself.
Alas Octavian stood alone and unrivalled, undisputed and indisputable rival of the civilized
world.
Octavian sole ruler of Rome
He remained in the east for nearly a year before returning to Rome in triumph. He signalized the
restoration of peace long unknown throughout the empire by closing the temple of Janus.
In 28 BC Octavian's role as pacificator was further emphasized by his reversal of the illegalities
for he and his colleagues had been responsible during the long period of arbitrary authority. He
also revised the senatorial list, restoring some of the dignity of that body.
Then in a remarkable demonstration that the public good, not his own ambition were his
motivation, Octavian in 27 BC laid down his extraordinary powers. Though there was no
question of him retiring. Naturally he resigned his powers only that he might resume them in
slightly different guise in constitutional form.
The titles conferred on him were such to concentrate attention on his dignity, not his power; on
the reverence he commanded from a 'grateful world'.
The Republic was finally dissolved, The imperator was proclaimed pater patriae, father of his
country, princeps, first citizen, Caesar Augustus, - almost, but not as yet, divine.
Henceforth he was known no longer as Octavian, but as Augustus.
The 'Five Good Emperors'
Nerva - Marcus Aurelius
Nerva
Marcus Cocceius Nerva
born on 8 November AD 30 at Narnia.Consul AD 71, 90, 97, 98.Became emperor in 18 September AD 96.Wives
unknown.Adopted Trajan as successor October AD 97.Died in Rome, 28 January AD 98.

145
 Nerva

With the murder of Domitian there was no member of the Flavian house, much less one form the
Julio-Claudian, left to succeed him. For once there was no ambitious general at the gates, and the
senate could execute its constitutional authority.
So for the first time the senate made its own choice and appointed Marcus Cocceius Nerva. And
the senators indeed chose well.
With Nerva, as well as with his four successors, there was a further break from tradition, as all
four came from families which had long before settled out of Italy.
Nerva was in his sixties when he was pitch-forked into supreme power. He was not a born ruler
of men, but he was a man of lofty character, wise and courageous. There was an immediate end
of the grievances which had been growing up under Domitian. But he also faced facts and
realized the fundamental weakness of the situation. An old man, he had no heir, and the power of
the emperor rested with the army.
In the choice of his successor lay Rome's destiny. Instead of leaving it to chance, faction or
intrigue, Nerva took it upon himself to nominate a successor.
The very able now commanding on the Rhine was Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, like Nerva himself a
provincial roman whose family had settled in Spain. In AD 97 Nerva adopted Trajan as his heir
and associated the general with himself as co-emperor.
The choice was made acceptable by Trajan's already high reputation, particularly among the
army. It gave immediate security and ensured the undivided loyalty of the soldiery.
The nomination of Trajan was Nerva's legacy to the empire, and in the next year, AD 98, he died.
Trajan
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
born on 18 September AD 53 at Italica in Spain.Consul AD 91, 98, 100, 101, 103, 112.Became emperor in 28
January AD 98. Wife: Pompeia Plotina. Died at Selinus, 7 August AD 117.
Trajan

Trajan, who was born at Italica near Seville in AD 52, became emperor in AD 98 and was thus
of an age of considerable discretion.
He was most a man of high ability and character who had spent half his life in military service
and enjoyed the trust of all who knew him.
The new emperor made no great haste to celebrate his accession.
His work on the Rhine had first to be completed, a work not of conquest but of strategic
fortification. He was in any case more at home in a military camp than in the city.
Right at the beginning of his reign he established that the senate would always be kept informed
about what was going on, and that the sovereign's right to rule was compatible with freedom for
those who were ruled.
Also he announced that during his during his reign no senator should be put to death.
When in due time he left his legions and came to Rome, the good impression was fully
confirmed and he achieved immediate popularity by the frank simplicity and sincerity of his
manners, and his fearless confidence in the loyalty of those who surrounded him.
the atmosphere of suspicion was allayed, the many informants and spies of previous reigns were
substantially reduced.

146
Though Trajan found the finances in very bad order, he entirely declined to replenish the treasury
by heavy taxation of by the usual arbitrary confiscations and fines. The need for economy was
met by the cutting of extravagances in his own imperial household and in public departments. He
further suppressed monopolies which helped develop trade and generally reformed the civil
service, largely reducing corruption.
With increased revenue from trade came expenditure, especially on roads and ports, which again
increased trade and revenue.
The result of all this was that no reign of the Roman empire left more splendid monuments of
public wealth than that of Trajan, paid for without any undue pressure of taxation across the
empire.
Great as the services rendered to the administration of the empire by Trajan were, he is more
renowned for his achievements as a conqueror, since he was a soldier by instinct, whereas he was
a emperor merely by circumstance.
Yet by common consent his military achievements were of no lasting advantage to the empire.
In pursuit of his aggressive military policies, Trajan carried the Roman army across the Danube
in the campaigns of AD 101-106, and over the Euphrates in those of AD 114-117, discarding the
principles recommended by Augustus.
Regarding the Dacian campaign it must be said that Trajan largely reacted due to a perceived
threat from the Dacians. For twenty years previous to the war, the Dacian chief Decebalus had
been welding the tribes of the Danube region into some sort of unity, had crossed the Danube
itself and raided Roman territory, and had dealt with Domitian's punitive expeditions in a fashion
which clearly indicated that his forces were of considerable strength.
In AD 101 Trajan therefore organized his first Dacian expedition. The campaign was a hard-
fought affair which demanded the utmost from the legions as well as from Trajan himself.
Despite the very difficult terrain, Trajan forced his way through the pass known as the 'Iron
Gates' and captured the Dacian capital, forcing Decebalus to submit.
Though no sooner was Trajan's back turned, the Dacian diplomacy was at work again, building a
new Danubian confederacy. So in AD 103 Trajan again took the field, determined to this time
not merely assert Roman authority but crush the Dacians once and for all time. The Danube was
spanned by a mighty bridge, the passes were forced at three different points simultaneously and
Decebalus' kingdom was destroyed in AD 104.
The newly conquered territory was settled largely with legionaries and in AD 106 Trajan
returned to Rome to raise his forum and the monument known as Trajan's Column. There were
123 days of public games and gladiatorial contests.
But by AD 113 affairs in the east again awakened his military ambitions.
The Euphrates had long been the vaguely acknowledged boundary between the Roman and
Parthian dominions, but both empires claimed he northern kingdom of Armenia as a client state.
When the Parthian king Chosroes set up a king of his own on the throne of Armenia it was
excuse enough for Trajan to begin a project of yet more military expansion.
In AD 113 he set his armies in motion and proceeded to the east to take command in person.
Chosroes tried to sue for piece, offering to set a new king in Armenia, a certain Parthamasiris,
instead of the one Trajan initially took objection to, but it was not enough for the Roman
emperor.
Trajan advanced meeting no resistance, till he reached the borders of Armenia. Parthamasiris
came in person to plead for an end to hostilities, but only to be told that Armenia was no longer a
kingdom but a Roman province, and that he should leave. The circumstances in which
Parthamasiris was killed almost immediately after are obscure, but they certainly could not speak

147
well for Trajan.
Armenia with Mesopotamia was secured, but Parthia was the emperor's real objective.
Operations however were delayed till AD 116 owing to the need for creating some organization,
and then due to the havoc wrought by a terrific earthquake at Antioch, in which Trajan himself
barely escaped with his life. Then came a great campaign over the Tigris, the passage of which in
the face of an active foe was no easy task, and the advance to Susa, the last triumphant
achievement.
For in the rear of the victorious armies revolt broke out in the annexed territories. Trajan was
obliged to retreat with the enemy behind him, not in front of him, and his own health had at last
broken down. He was indeed only checked, by no means defeated, but he saw at least that his
dream of recreating the achievements of Alexander the Great could never be accomplished.
His health deteriorating rapidly he started on his way back home to Rome, but died on the way in
Cilicia (AD 117), having left his chief-of-staff, Publius Aelius Hadrianus, in charge of the
inconclusive situation in the east.
Hadrian
Publius Aelius Hadrianus
born on 24 January AD 76 at Rome.Consul AD 108, 118, 119.Became emperor in 11 August AD 117. Wife: Vibia
Sabina. Died at Baiae, 10 July AD 138.
Hadrian

Hadrian claimed that Trajan had adopted him on his deathbed: in any case he had already been
acclaimed as emperor by the army in the east, and the senate had little choice but to confirm him
in the post or risk civil war.
Hadrian was as complex as Trajan had been simple, of a type more readily associated with the
Greek than with the Roman.
The statesman in Hadrian was swift to realize that for the Roman empire conquest was not
statesmanship. With a frontier which could hold any attack at bay, nothing was to be feared from
barbarians only half organized at their best.
Nothing was to be gained by defeating them in battle or occupying their territory. With the old
boundaries the empire was large enough to tax the organizing abilities of any government to the
utmost. Hadrian discarded all designs of expansion, and deliberately abandoned the recent
conquests beyond the Euphrates.
Chosroes of Parthia, in whose place Trajan had set up a puppet of his own, was reinstated.
Having abandoned the recent acquisitions in the east Hadrian settled down to restore general
order throughout the empire and to consolidate the administration at home.
Under Hadrian's rule there was no depreciation of the majesty of Rome, but to him Rome meant
the whole empire, not as to those before him, the imperial city.
The wall in Britain which bears Hadrian's name, and of which portions still survive, is a
monument to and a reminder of the role he took upon himself as ruler of an empire. It was in fact
less of an empire as we understand, and more a collection of separate territories occupied by
Roman troops and administered by Roman citizens according to Roman law. Because of
distances, difficulties of communication, and widely differing circumstances, central government
from Rome was well-nigh impossible, and provincial governors were largely left to their own
devices. Hadrian, however, travelled tirelessly not only to all the provinces of Rome, but along
most of their outer confines as well, and established boundary lines.

148
He was a man of wide learning, who, it was said, spoke Greek more fluently than Latin, was a
patron of art, literature and education, and a benefactor of the needy poor. His liberal-
mindedness, did not, however, extend to the Jews, whom he provoked into renewed revolt by
forbidding Jewish practices, including circumcision, and by building a shrine to Jupiter on the
site in Jerusalem where the ancient Jewish temple had stood before it was gutted and demolished
by Titus. The rising under Simon Bar Kochba (d. AD 135) in AD 131, was surprisingly effective,
and was only put down after Hadrian had transferred Sextus Julius Severus, governor of Britain,
to the Judaean front as commander. If the account of the historian Dio Cassius is accurate, in
order to stop the threat of further war, the Roman army destroyed fifty Jewish fortresses and 985
villages, and killed 580'000 men. The 82 year old Rabbi Akiba, and the other scholars and
teachers who had supported Bar Kochba, were tortured and then executed.
Late in his life Hadrian showed ever greater signs of failing self-control and he began to display
vindictiveness and cruelty. His first choice for a successor was Aelius Verus, a youth who had no
particular qualifications other than a handsome person. Though he soon died, and Hadrian in his
place adopted a senator of mature years and distinguished character, Titus Aurelius
Antoninus.Hadrian though also demanded that Antoninus adopt Verus' son Lucius, as well as a
youth of the highest promise called Marcus Annius Verus, whom the world should come to
remember as Marcus Aurelius.
Hadrian fell the victim of a disease which not only eventually killed him put also saw him suffer
severe bouts of depression and mood swings, which may at least help to account for the
capricious cruelty he displayed at the close of his reign.
A year after the adoption of Antoninus Hadrian died (AD 138).
Antoninus
Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionus Arrius Antoninus
born on 19 September AD 86 at Rome.Consul AD 120, 139, 140, 145.Became emperor in 10 July AD 138. Wife:
Annia Galeria Faustina 'the elder' (two sons; Marcus Aurelius, Marcus Galerius; two daughters; Aurelia Fadilla,
Annia Galeria 'the younger'). Died at Lorium, 7 March AD 161.
Antoninus

At Hadrian's death, once again, the childlessness of the emperor worked to the benefit of the
state.
Antoninus Pius was not a man of great ambitions of his own and far more understood himself as
a caretaker until the true choice of Hadrian, namely Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius, should
succeed him to rule the empire.
The long rule of Antoninus Pius is almost recordless. On the barbarian frontiers occasionally
military movements were inevitable, but even there Antoninus preferred conciliation to force.
His was a reign of peace still more complete than that of his predecessor.
It is perhaps because Hadrian left the administration in such good order that the twenty-tree years
of the reign of Antoninus, who died in AD 161, are remarkable for lack of incident. With the
reports available to him from Hadrian's globetrotting missions, Antoninus was able to spend
most of his time at the centre of government in Rome. He did, however, make two adjustments to
the frontiers of the empire. The eastern boundary of Upper Germany was advanced and
strengthened; in Britain, a fortified turf wall, 60 km long, was built right across the country from
the river Clyde to the Forth, some way north of Hadrian's Wall. Though the Antonine Wall, built
by the Second, Sixth and Twentieth legions, appears to have been abandoned, and perhaps
dismantled, in about AD 165, Hadrian's Wall stood firm until about AD 400, when the Romans

149
withdrew from Britain.
In his lifetime Antoninus fully justified the honorific surname of Pius, bestowed on him by the
senate: his death, unlike that of most other emperors, was appropriately calm and dignified.
Marcus Aurelius & Verus
Marcus Annius Verus
born on 26 April AD 121at Rome. Consul AD 140, 145, 161.Became emperor in 7 March AD 161. Wife: Annia
Galeria Faustina 'the younger' (eight sons; Titus Aurelius Antoninus, Titus Aelius Aurelius, Tituts Aelius Antoninus,
unknown, Titus Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus, Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Marcus Annius Averus, Hadrianus; 6
daughters; Domitia Faustina, Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla, Annia Aurelia Galeria Faustina, Fadilla, Cornificia,
Vibia Aurelia Sabina). Died near Sirmium, 17 March AD 180.
Lucius Ceionius Commodus
born on 15 December AD 130 at Rome.Consul AD 154, 161, 167.Became emperor in 7 March AD 161. Wife: (1)
Annia Aurelia, (2) Galeria Lucilla (one daughter). Died at Altinum, Jan/Feb AD 169.
Marcus Aurelius Verus

In contrast to Antoninus' tranquil reign, his successor, Marcus Aurelius, had to spend most of his
time in the field at the head of his armies, one of which brought back from an eastern campaign
the most virulent plague of the Roman era, which spread throughout the whole empire.
A born student, Marcus Aurelius was called unwillingly by his overpowering sense of duty to be
a man of action.
He was an active devotee of the Stoic school of philosophy, one of whose doctrines was the
universal brotherhood and equality of man. when the time came, he insisted that equal imperial
rights should be vested in his rival candidate, which were fully but largely nominally exercised
by Verus until his death.
If fate had been kinder to Marcus Aurelius, his reign would have been a repetition of that of
Antoninus. Obeying the call not of inclination but of duty, he had been constant in the practice of
public functions whilst his heart was in the pursuit of philosophical truths.
The troops had known the vigour of Hadrian but had never felt the hand of the mild Antoninus,
and the legions in distant Britain were eager to raise their own commander, Priscus, to the
purple. But Priscus was too stoutly loyal to be tempted and the mutiny collapsed.
then in the east Parthia once more asserted her claim to Armenia. Parthian forces poured over the
border and threatened Syria, a region always destructive to the discipline of the Roman garrison.
Hadrian had everywhere maintained very strict discipline, Antoninus had no doubt neglected it.
Now Roman prestige in the east was so threatened as to call for the emperor's presence.
Marcus had no craving for the laurels of a conqueror and so left the command for the Parthian
war to his imperial colleague Verus, who remained for the most part ingloriously in Antioch, one
of the most luxurious cities of the empire.
The work of organizing and campaigning was carried out by subordinates who had been chosen
for their efficiency. Priscus, who was summoned from Britain, and Cassius Avidius, a stern
disciplinarian soldier.
But some five years of hard campaigning were needed before Parthia would submit to the terms
by which she surrendered her claim to Mesopotamia and Armenia.
But the Parthian war was only a prelude, for yet greater violence was to follow. On the upper
Danube the German Quadi and Marcomanni were threatening, and the return of Verus with the
troops from the east was attended with a tremendous outbreak of plague in Italy which delayed
the necessary preparations.

150
Marcus Aurelius was not free from the conviction that the disease was a visitation, a punishment
sent by the gods for some flaw of sacrilege in the state. And to this superstition may well be
attributed the severe persecution of the Christians who had enjoyed almost complete immunity
under Hadrian and Antoninus.
In AD 167 Marcus took the field in company with Verus. The demonstration of force was
enough to bring the Quadi to terms without fighting. In AD 168 the emperors were able to return
home in peace, though Verus fell ill and died, leaving Marcus to reign on alone.
The peace on the Danube though proved a hopeful illusion.
Year after year of campaigning should follow of which the emperor would not spare himself,
however much he disliked it, since he he understood it part of his duty. Though he was under no
illusion as to his own very mediocre abilities as a general, and trusted more in the military
judgement of his officers than in his own.
In AD 175 a unhappy revolt arose in which Cassius Avidius, believing Marcus Aurelius dead,
declared himself emperor. Marcus reluctantly saw himself forced to move his troops to deal with
a man he believed a loyal subject. Though news soon came that the rising had been put down and
Cassius was dead. Understanding the tragedy Marcus insisted that Cassius' family should stay
unharmed and no-one should be punished.
It wasn't long before he was called again to the Danube frontier. On this occasion his armies
proved more convincingly successful than before and yet the campaign was not finished when he
was struck down by sickness, and died in AD 180, worn out by his labours, sixty years of age.
Marcus Aurelius left to posterity the triumphal column in Rome which bears his name and
records his victories over the Marcomanni (an inferior version of that of Trajan), and, rather
unusually, a book of meditations, written in Greek. At his death in AD 180 at the age of 59, the
empire was once again undergoing a period of general unease. As soon as one revolt was crushed
or a barbarian invasion averted, another would break out, or threaten, in a different part of the
empire.
Of Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius Edward Gibbon (an acclaimed British 18th century historian)
wrote, "Their united reigns are possibly the only period in history in which the happiness of a
great people was the sole object of government."
Commodus
Lucius Aurelius Commodus
born on 31 August AD 161 at Lanuvium.Consul AD 177,179,181,183,186,190,192.Became emperor in 17 March
AD 180. Wife: Bruttia Crispina. Died in Rome, 31 December AD 192.
Commodus

The previous 84 years had seen just five emperors; during the next 104 years Rome should
endure no less than 29. What really started the rot was that alone of the 'five good emperors',
Marcus Aurelius had a son whom he had nominated as his successor. Marcus Aurelius had been
40 when he assumed the imperial purple gown of an office for which he had been groomed for
more than twenty years. Lucius Aurelius Commodus had a number of elder brothers who had
died early: he only 19 when he became emperor, and he proved to be a latter-day Nero.
He was an ill-conditioned youth whose education had been excellent though ineffective in
practice Was Commodus in effective command of the Danubian campaign on his accession, he
made a inglorious peace with the barbarians, which confirmed the conviction of the hostile tribes
that the day of Roman supremacy was indeed past - and returned to Rome to live a life of leisure

151
leaving the administration in the hands of his tutors.
The personal character of the last two emperors compelled a respect and admiration which
safeguarded them in spite of a gentleness that might be interpreted as weakness. The young
Commodus though possessed neither force nor elevation of character nor intelligence. Plots were
formed against him. They were discovered and suppressed. But he took alarm, and fear
transformed him into a tyrant who alternated between raising worthless favourites to power and
surrendering them to the enemies they excited.
Like Nero, his private life was a disgrace and his public extravagances outageous; like Nero, he
fancied himself in the circus; and like Nero, he died an undignified death - a professional athlete
was hired to strangle him in his bed in AD 192.
Second Crisis of the Empire
AD 193-194
Pertinax
Publius Helvius Pertinax
born on 1 August AD 126 at Alba Pompeia in Liguria.Consul AD 120, 139, 140, 145.Became emperor in 1 January
AD 193. Wife: Flavia Titiana (one son; Publius HelviusPertinax; one daughter; name unknown. Died in Rome, 28
March AD 193. Deified 1 June AD 193
Pertinax

Whatever the nature of the conspiracy against Commodus, it brought to office in his place a
better man, Publius Helvius Pertinax, prefect of Rome and former governor of Britain; but only
temporarily, as an ominous pattern of events unfolded such as had followed the death of Nero.
Pertinax, an old soldier was made emperor by favour of the praetorians and their prefect. He lost
that favour because in a conscientious effort to rectify the mistakes of Commodus and the evils
which had sprung up during his rule, he tried to tighten discipline instead of relaxing it.
He lasted for a mere three months, until the praetorians mutinied, broke into the palace,
murdered Pertinax, paraded his head through the streets on a pike, and offered the imperial
throne to the highest bidder.
Pertinax reign might have been a short one. But it formed an enormously important precedent.
Pertinax is understood to be the first 'Soldier Emperor' or 'Praetorian Emperor'. They were raised
to the throne by the provincial legions which they commanded and ruled only till ejected and
killed by another soldier who seized the succession.
Julianus
Marcus Didius Severus Julianus
born on 30 January AD 133 at Milan.Consul AD 120, 139, 140, 145.Became emperor in 28 March AD 193. Wife:
Manlia Scantilla (one daughter; Didia Clara). Died in Rome, 1 June AD 193.
Julianus

The winner of a bizarre auction held by the praetorian guard to establish the imperial succession
was Didius Salvius Julianus, an elderly senator.
Rome might have needed to accept the dictate of the praetorian guard, but the provincial armies
had a preference for a chief of their own selection.
The legions in Britain and on the Rhine chose Clodius Albinus, the army in Syria proclaimed
Pescennius Niger, the troops on the Danube hailed Septimius Severus.

152
Rome was the necessary objective. Helpless it lay waiting to be conquered by its own legions.
Albinus was a sluggard, a glutton, commanding little respect among his men. Pescennius was
popular in the east, but his army had least experience of fighting. Severus was a hard soldier at
the head of hardened troops, - and, being in Pannonia, he was nearest Rome.
Neither Albinus nor Pescennius was ready to strike. Severus marched on Rome.
Emperor Julianus alternated between empty threats and desperate offers of compromise. Severus
ignored both. As he drew near, the praetorians, inexperienced in war and realizing themselves
totally inferior to the advancing troops, deserted to Severus who, in order to save himself trouble
and time, had no trouble making promises which he had no intention of keeping.
As he reached Rome on 10 June AD 193, no resistance was offered.
Didius Julianus was stripped of his imperial office and put to death on the orders of the senate.
Severus
Lucius Septimius Severus
born on 11 April AD 145 at Lepcis Magna.Consul AD 190, 193, 194, 202.Became emperor in 9 April AD 193.
Wife: (1) Pacia Marciana, (2) Julia Domma (two sons; Septimius Bassianus, Publius Septimius Geta). Died in
Ebucarum (York), 4 February AD 211.
Sept. Severus Pescennius Niger Clodius Albinus

Having disbanded the imperial guard and replaced it with a force 50'000 strong, from men of his
own legions, Severus set about coming to terms with his two rivals, Pescennius Niger in Syria
and Clodius Albinus in Britain. This he finally did in a most conclusive fashion by defeating
them in turn: Niger at Issus in AD 194, and Albinus at Lugdunum in Gaul in AD 197.
Severus did not understand himself as fully established till he had inspired wholesome fear in the
minds of any potential rivals by dooming several senators to death. Much because the rude
soldier was accepted with reluctance by a body which still looked upon itself as the supreme
constitutional authority.
In the years immediately before his accession Severus had held command on the most dangerous
of all the Roman assignments, the banks of the river Danube. There he had learnt that the
empire's need was defence, not aggression. But so too, that the aggressive barbarians needed to
be kept in healthy awe of the Roman power. Severus was not far from being a barbarian himself.
Grim, hard, unscrupulous, he lacked any statesmanly qualities, and yet he was free from wanton
cruelty or vindictiveness. In his own, crude ways Severus commanded the empire as he had once
commanded his troops as a general.
The domestic administration he left to competent and worthy officials, spending his own time
among the armies on one or another frontier.
It was probably in Severus' time that the prefect of Rome, whose function was primarily military,
was invested also with the main jurisdiction in matters of criminal law in and within 100 miles of
the city, and the commander of the imperial guard, a military office, with similar jurisdiction
over the rest of Italy and the provinces. After the fall and execution in AD 205 of Fulvius
Plautianus, who had performed the latter duty with rather too much authority, Severus appointed
in his place a noted legal expert, Aemilius Papinianus (d. AD 212). Within the army itself, the
top jobs went to those with the best qualifications, not necessarily those of the highest social
rank. Severus improved the lot of the legionaries by increasing their basic rate of pay to match
inflation (it had been static for a hundred years), and by recognizing permanent liaisons as legal
marriages - up until then a legionary was not allowed to marry. It was probably Severus, too,
who improved the status of the ordinary soldier by extending the civil practice to allow veterans

153
to style themselves honestiores (men of privilege) as opposed to humiliores (men of humble
rank). As the distinction between citizens and non-citizens became eroded, so this new form of
class-discrimination developed, which included separate punishments for the same crime.
Whereas humiliores could be sentenced to hard labour in the mines, honestiores were merely
banished for a short term. The most common form of punishment for a minor offence was
flogging, from which honestioreswere immune. Severus' philosophy of rule, was to pay the army
well and to take no notice of anyone else. By 'anyone else' he meant, of course, the senate.
A professional soldier, Severus favoured those with the greater military experience to maintain
the empire's frontiers in the east in the face of the marauding Parthians, and spent the last two
and a half years of his life in Britain fending off the menaces of the northern tribes.
By unremitting hard work Severus restored and increased the security and prestige of the empire,
which had been reduced in the days of Commodus.
But the desire to found a dynasty led him at last to the very blunder into which Marcus Aurelius
had been drawn, as he let the imperial succession fall into the hands of his unsuitable son
Bassianus, better known as Caracalla.
Caracalla & Geta
'Caracalla' - Lucius Septimius Bassianus
born on 4 April AD 188 at Lugdunum (Lyons). Consul AD 202, 205, 208, 213.Became emperor in 4 February AD
211. Wife: Publia Fulvia Plautilla. Died near Sirmium, 8 April AD 217.
Publius Septimius Geta
born on 7 March AD 189 at Rome. Consul AD 205.Became emperor in 4 February AD 211. Wife: none). Died at
Rome, December AD 211.
Caracalla Geta

Severus had two unruly sons, Caracalla (AD 188-217) and Geta (AD189-212), whom he had
nominated to rule jointly after him. Caracalla (a nickname - it means a Gaulish greatcoat)
resolved that aspect of the arrangement by murdering his brother, and kept faith with his father's
advice by increasing the pay of the army by 50 per cent, thus initiating a financial crisis.
Some sources suggest that it was to get more taxes to repair this crisis that he granted full
citizenship to all free men in the Roman empire. Wether or not that is so, it is to Caracalla in AD
212 that is attributed this final step in the process of universal enfranchisement which had begun
in the third century BC.
Caracalla in one swoop did away with the surviving distinction between provincials and citizens.
Though, the murder of his brother, was only the beginning of a continuous display of savagery
by a tyrant. On his travels through the eastern provinces this was only further confirmed as, for a
today unknown insult to his dignity, Caracalla had thousands of the population massacred.
These things were endured because he bought the good will of the soldiery by relaxation of
discipline and lavish donations and increase of pay, both at the expense of the civil population as
well as of military efficiency. While attempting to extend the eastern front Caracalla was
murdered in Mesopotamia in AD 217, by a band of discontented officers who preferred their
own candidate, Macrinus, commander of the imperial guard since Caracalla had done away with
Papinianus.
(Papinianus, after Caracalla had murdered his brother, was ordered to 'play down' the crime on
his behalf in the senate and in public. He responded that it was easier to commit fratricide than to
make excuses for it.)
Macrinus
154
Marcus Oppellius Macrinus
born AD 164 at Caesarea in Mauretania.Consul AD 218.Became emperor in 11 April AD 217. Wife: Nonia Celsa
(one son; Marcus Opellius Diadumenianus). Died at Antioch June-July AD 218.
Macrinus

Macrinus, whose guilt in the assassination of Caracalla was at first undetected, achieved
elevation to the imperial throne, since there was no obvious rival. But he was no soldier, and
lacked both the abilities and the character to maintain the position. Once a rival emerged his fate
was sealed. Though Macrinus was accepted by the senate, he never actually got to Rome. He
continued the eastern war, only to be defeated and killed the following year by detachments of
his own troops in Syria, who supported a 14 year old supposed son, but actually a distant cousin,
of Caracalla who was known as Elagabalus.
Elagabalus
Varius Avitus Bassianus
born AD 204 at Emesa in Syria.Consul AD 218, 219, 220, 222.Became emperor in 16 May AD 218. Wife: (1) Julia
Cornelia, (2) Julia Aquilia Severa, (3) Annia Faustina. Died in Rome, 11 March AD 222.
Elagabalus

There were no descendants of Severus, but there were his sister-in-law Maesa and her daughters
Soaemias and Mamaea.
These Syrian women were ambitious and Soaemias and Mamaea had sons, Bassianius and
Alexander Severus.
The elder of the two boys had been made high priest of the Syrian sun god Elagabal at Emesa.
To win over the soldiery, his mother and grandmother did not scruple to spread the story that
Caracalla was his father.
The actual involvement of Macrinus in the death of Caracalla was becoming known and the
soldiery suspected their new emperor sought to curtail their privileges they had enjoyed under
Caracalla. Hence the troops had ample reason to rid themselves of their ruler, only there was an
alternative. The existence of Elegabalus gave them just this alternative, however dubious his
supposed dependency was.
The bulk of the troops in Syria were easily incited to rise in the name of Caracalla's son.
Macrinus was overthrown in a battle outside Antioch and the young high priest to an exotic
Syrian god became Augustus of the Roman empire.
The reign was a vast orgy of the most extravagant and monstrous luxury and unspeakable vices.
The only redeeming feature in it was the comparative absence of sheer blood-lust. In Rome the
obscene rites of Oriental deities superseded those of the western pantheon.
Even after making every allowance for the exaggeration of shocked moralists or the inventive
capacity of political enemies, what remains is still a picture of a totally decadent, if not depraved
emperor, totally alien to all things Roman.
Maesa no doubt very soon realized that her second grandson Alexander represented the only
possibility of her continuing power.
Pains were made to make Alexander Severus personally popular with the soldiery, who were
sickened at the depravities of Elagabalus.
As it became evident that a jealous Elagabalus sought the death of Alexander Severus, the
praetorians were driven to invade the palace, slay Elagabalus and proclaim the Alexander
Severus emperor.

155
 Alexander Severus
Alexander Severus (205-235)
Marcus Julius Gessius Alexianus
born on 1 October AD 208 at Arca Caesarea in Phoenicia.Consul AD 222, 226, 229.Became emperor in 13 March
AD 222. Wife: Sallustia Orbiana. Died in Rome, March AD 235.
Alexander Severus

That a 16 year old could take office as emperor of the Roman empire and rule for thirteen years
with more than moderate success was due partly to the fact that he was a sensible, likeable lad
who knew his limitations and was prepared to take advice, and partly to his mother, Julia
Mammaea, who recognized who would give the soundest advice.
The historians are full of praises of the virtues of the young emperor, the restoration of
tranquility, the revival of prosperity which had suffered grievously from the merciless and
capricious taxation imposed to meet the extravagances of the two last reigns.
Probably the controlling spirit of government for some years was Mamaea, who exercised a
supreme influence over the son, whom she trained and guided.
In the civil administration Alexander was guided by a selected council of state.
But the problem of effective control was rendered for him more difficult than it had been for the
Antonines, through the failure of military discipline an the insubordination of the rank and file of
the soldiery for which Caracalla was mainly responsible.
Alexander owed his throne, probably his life, to the praetorians who therefore deeply resented
any attempts to curb their powers and privileges. The young emperor in person led Roman
armies on one great campaign against the eastern power which now again bore the Persian
instead of the Parthian name. Trajan at the beginning, and Cassius Avidius in the second half of
the second century had struck heavy blows against the long formidable Arsacid power. Severus
also had conducted a vigorous campaign against the Parthians. But now the Arsacids had been
swept away by a Persian chief, the founder of the Sassanid dynasty, who assumed the old Persian
name Ardashir (Artaxerxes) and was bent on nothing less than the recovery of the old Persian
empire. He deliberately challenged Rome, telling its emperor to withdraw from Asia. Alexander
took up the challenge.
The emperor returned from the campaign to report to the senate of great victories won against
immense odds. It seem clear however that the honours on the whole rested with the Persians,
despite suffering heavy defeats in battle, had not in fact lost any territory.
While it would appear that the personal prestige ofArdashir was enhanced, Alexander's failure to
sufficiently impress a soldiery already disposed to mutiny was fatal.
Alexander had scarcely returned to Rome when he was summoned to the northern frontier to
deal with the German hordes.
In AD 235 the soldiery mutinied and Alexander and his mother were both set upon and murdered
at the fortress town of Mainz.
Maximinus, Gordian and Gordian II
Gaius Julius Verus Maximinus
born AD ca. 173 in the Danube region.Became emperor in March AD 235. Wife: Caecilia Paulina (one son; Gaius
Julius Verus Maximinus). Died at Aquileia, April AD 238.
Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus Romanus
born AD ca. 159.Consul AD ca. 223.Became emperor in 19 March AD 238. Wife: Fabia Orestilla; (two sons;

156
Marcus Antonus Gordianus Sempronianus Romanus; unknown; one daughter; Maecia Faustina). Died in Carthage,
9 April AD 238.Deified AD 238.
Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus Romanus
born AD ca. 192.Became emperor in 19 March AD 238.Died at Carthage, 9 April AD 238.Deified AD 238.
Maximinus Thrax Gordian I Gordian II

The murder of Alexander Severus was certainly the work of Maximinus, a giant of a Thracian
peasant who had risen through the ranks to become commander of the imperial guard. He now
nominated himself as emperor, doubled the pay of the army, and continued the German
campaign at its head. Maximinus enormous strength and almost incredible powers of endurance
had already attracted the attention of Severus thirty before. This mighty barbarian had sufficient
enough intelligence to win and to justify his promotion. The soldiers believed that they had
found a leader who was one of their kind, one to whose discipline and command they would
readily submit.
For the moment the sheer brute force of this giant was irresistible. For three years, remaining
himself with his army on the Rhine or the Danube, Maximinus ruled the empire. This in turn
meant that he disposed of anyone whose ambition, character of abilities he feared. While all over
he empire he robbed the cities of their public funds and stripped temples of their treasures,
stamping out resistance by ruthless massacre.
Eventually things came to a head in the province of Africa. The people slaughtered an imperial
official charged with the business of collecting the exorbitant taxes and persuaded their own
elderly prefect to assume the throne, very much against his own will in AD 237. This new
emperor, Gordian I, immediately associated with himself his scarcely less reluctant son.
The Gordians made haste to report these proceedings to the senate, submitting themselves to its
decision as the constitutional authority. The senate responded by confirming their election and
declaring Maximinus Thrax a public enemy.
But meanwhile the commander of Mauretania fell upon the Gordians and slew them.
Balbinus and Pupienus
Decimus Caelius Calvinus Balbinus
born AD ca. 170.Consul AD 203, 213.Became emperor in February AD 238. Wife: unknown. Died in Rome, May
AD 238.
Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus
born AD ca. 164.Consul AD 217, 234.Became emperor in February AD 238. Wife: unknown (two sons; Titus
Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus; Marcus Pupienus Africanus; one daughter; Pupiena Sextia Paulina Cethegilla)
Died in Rome, May AD 238.
Balbinus Pupienus

On receiving the alarming news of the death of the two Gordians the senators, who could hope
for no mercy from Maximinus, elected two of their own number as joint emperors, Balbinus and
Maximus. Though they were also forced by the angry city mob to further associate the new
emperors with a very youthful Gordian III who became Caesar.
Maximinus Thrax though still had to be reckoned with. After some delay he was now moving
down from the northern frontier upon Italy, and the armies which could be hastily gathered had
little hope of defeating his experienced troops.
Maximinus, passing the Alps, found before him a denuded country, and a strongly defended
fortress in Aquileia. He began to besiege it and his troops began to starve. With no food they

157
became mutinous and murdered their chief.
The senatorial revolution was apparently complete. the joint emperors set about an honest
attempt to place the government on an orderly basis and restore the discipline of the army, which
very soon mutinied again, cut them to pieces and declared the thirteen year-old Gordian III sole
emperor.
Gordian III
Marcus Antonius Gordianus
born 20 January AD 225.Consul AD 239, 241.Became emperor in March AD 238. Wife: Furia Sabina Tranquillina.
Died near Zaitha in Mesoptamia, 25 February AD 244.Deified in AD 244.
Gordian III

Though he was only 13 at his accession, Gordian III, with the help of a capable regent, enjoyed
civil and military success until the regent Timesitheus died of an illness. Timesitheus' successor
though Philippus was considerably less noble-minded and strove from the very beginning to
undermine and eventually murder the emperor he was charged to protect.
Gordian III was murdered in Mesopotamia in AD 244 as a result of Philippus' plotting while
collecting wild animals to take part in his triumphal procession in Rome for his victories in
Persia.
Philippus Arabs
Marcus Julius Verus Philippus
born AD ca. 204.Consul AD 245(?), 246(?), 247.Became emperor in 25 February AD 244. Wife: Marcia Otacilia
Severa (one son; Marcus Julius Philippus). Died at Verona, Sept/Oct AD 249.
Philippus Arabs

Philippus Arabs' reign was remarkable mostly for several revolts against him. Had he achieved
his position by treachery against Gordian III, whom he reported to the senate as having died of
illness, he possessed little moral authority with which to command the loyalty of the troops.
Philippus initial action was to make peace with Persia, to allow him to head for Rome and secure
his throne.
In AD 245 he led a campaign against the Carpi and Quadi who had crossed the Danube and after
a two year struggle successful forced the barbarians to sue for peace.
This success no doubt improved his standing, allowing him enough popular support to try and
create a dynasty by making his son, also named Philippus, co-Augustus.
Yet the question of his own leadership was far from settled among the military, not to mention
his son's accession.
The first rebellion was that of a certain Sibannacus on the Rhine, shortly afterwards followed by
Sponsianus on the Danube. These revolts were brief and easily dealt with.
And yet early in AD 248 some of the legions on the Danube nominated Pacatianus as emperor.
In turn the trouble among the Romans only further encouraged the Goths who now crossed the
Danube and wrought havoc in the northern provinces.
Worse still, in the east of the empire the legions now hailed a certain Iotapianus emperor.
So dire did the situation grow, Philippus became convinced the empire was falling apart and
offered his resignation to the senate.
Though one senator, Decius, responded to the emperor's address to the senate that all was far
from lost and that Philippus should remain in office. When his estimation that both challengers

158
would no doubt soon fall victim to their own mutinous troops came true, it was Decius himself
who at the end of AD 248 was dispatched to the Danube to restore order among the mutinous
soldiers.
In a bizarre turn of events the Danubian troops, so impressed by their leader, proclaimed him
emperor in AD 249. Decius protested he had no desire to be emperor, but Philippus gathered
troops and moved north to destroy him.
Left with no choice but to fight the man who sought him dead, Decius led his troops south to
meet him. In September or October of the AD 249 the two sides met at Verona.
Philippus was no great general and by that time suffered from poor health. He led his superior
army into a crushing defeat. Both he and his son met their death in battle.
Decius
Gaius Messius Quintus Decius
born AD ca. 190.Became emperor in Sept/Oct AD 249. Wife: Herennia Cupressenia Etruscilla (two sons; Quintus
Herrenius Decius; Gaius Valens Hostilianus). Died at Abrittus in Moesia, June AD 251.Deified AD 251.
Decius

After Decius' victory over Philippus Arabs at Verona, the senate made haste to confirm his
election as emperor (AD 249).
Decius then still maintained, perhaps quite truthfully, to have accepted the decision of his
soldiers to make him emperor against his will.
He would seem to have been a man of ability and character who was genuinely resolved to make
worthy use of the power which had been thrust on him.
He proposed to restore the state by a revival of the old Roman virtues. The first steps to that end
were to appoint an honoured and distinguished senator, Valerian, to the long obsolete office of
censor, and a zealous return to the pristine worship of the ancient gods of Rome.
In turn this brought about a sharp but short persecution of the Christians, who had been
undisturbed since the days of Marcus Aurelius.
But action of another kind was immediately necessary. The menace on the middle and lower
Danube was greater than it had ever been before.
In AD 250 Decius was summoned to the Balkans by the news that a vast Gothic horde,
supplemented by fighting men of various non-Gothic tribes, had swarmed over the Danube and
was ravaging the Roman province of Moesia.
He found them engaged in besieging the fortress of Nicopolis, On his approach they broke off
their siege and instead went on to attack the much more important stronghold of Philippopolis.
Decius pursued them, the Goths then suddenly turned, surprised his army and defeated it,
thereafter continuing onward to Philippopolis which fell after stubborn resistance.
Decius however reorganized his army, blocked the passes, cut off the Goths' way out of the
Balkans and threatened them with destruction.
He was determined to deal them nothing less than an annihilating blow and at last he very nearly
succeeded.
Both sides knew that the stake was all or nothing. In the great battle of Forum Trebonii, the
emperor's son was slain before his eyes, but the first line of Goths was shattered, so too the
second.
But the front of the third was covered by a bog in which the imperial legions, pushing on to
complete the victory became hopelessly entangled, so that they were cut to pieces, emperor
Decius perished with his soldiers (AD 251).

159
 Trebonianus Gallus
Gaius Vibius Afininus Trebonianus Gallus
born AD ca. 206.Consul AD 245.Became emperor in June AD 251. Wife: Afinia Gemina Baebiana (one son; Gaius
Vibius Volusianus; one daughter; Vibia Galla). Died at Interamna, August AD 253.
Trebonianus Gallus

The disaster of Decius' defeat and death was terrific, but not without precedent. What was to
follow however was even more ominous. Decius had realized that the Goths were foes who for
the safety of the empire must be broken utterly and at all cost. Trebonianus Gallus, the successor
chosen by his own soldiers was of a different mould than Decius.
Most likely to be able to return to Rome and secure his throne Gallus made a very unpopular
peace with the Goths, allowing them to retire from Roman territory with all their booty and
prisoners, and promising to pay them an annual subsidy.
Had Gallus won a peace which lost him the respect of many of his soldiers, then it wasn't long
before the Goths broke it anyhow. Within only a few months the Goths and their allies were
pouring into Illyria. Aemilianus, the commander of Lower Moesia, flung himself upon them and
utterly defeated them. Having so redeemed Roman honour in the eyes of his troops and many
other Romans, he then claimed the imperial throne for himself.
Leading his forces into Italy he took Trebonianus Gallus completely by surprise. The few troops
Gallus could muster were utterly inferior in both numbers and quality to the hardened Danubian
troops of Aemilian.
And so Gallus' desperate troops killed their own emperor at Interamna in order to escape
slaughter (AD 253).
Aemilian
Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus
born AD ca. 207.Became emperor in July/August AD 253. Wife: Gaia Cornelia Supera. Died at Spoletium, October
AD 253.
Aemilian

The senate had barely time to confirm Aemilian as the new emperor, before he was in turn
overthrown a few months after his victory.
Valerian, nominated three years earlier to the office of censor by Decius, had been sent to
command the armies on the Rhine. Gallus had called for him to come to his aid, when Aemilian's
troops arrived, and yet the call had come too late.
Valerian had started out for Italy, but his emperor was dead before he arrived. But Valerian, once
roused, did nor turn his troops around, but far more marched on, determined to overthrow the
usurper.
Aemilian started out from Rome and moved north with his troops, to face off the invader. But
history repeated itself, and Aemilian was slain at Spoletium by his own troops in order to avoid a
fight (AD 253).
Valerian
Publius Licinius Valerianus
born AD ca. 195.Consul in AD 230's.Became emperor in October AD 253. Wife: Egnatia Mariniana (two sons;
Publis Licinius Egnatius Gallianus; Publius Licinius Valerianus). Captured by Persians in June AD 260.Died in
Captivity.

160
 Valerian

At teh death of Aemilian, Valerian assumed the throne, beginning a seven year reign which
brought fresh disaster. With himself he associated his son Gallienus. The guardianship of teh
German frontiers was placed in the hands of his son and colleague, together with the able soldier
Postumus, who achieved several victories over the Franks and Alemanni. While Gallienus was
engaged in teh west Valerian plunged into disaster in the east. Persian aggression was still a huge
threat to the empire under its leader Sapor (Shapur). Sapor turned his arms on Armenia, aving
first taken the precaution of having the Armenian king Chosroes assassinated. Armenia fell an
easy prey to Sapor, who captured the Roman fortresses of Carrhae and Nisibis. Valerian marched
his troops toward Edessa in Meopotamia to relieve the siege of the city, but suffered heavy
losses. Seeking to come to terms with Sapor he was asked to attend a personal meeting with the
Persian king, who at this encounter simply had him taken prisoner and taken to Persia, where he
died in captivity. Valerian's army was trapped and forced to surrender.
Gallienus
Publius Licinius Egantius Gallienus
born AD ca. 213.Became emperor in October AD 253. Wife: Cornelia Salonina (three sons; Licinius Valerianus,
Licinius Salolinus, Licinius Egnatius Marinianus). Died near Mediolanum (Milan), September AD 268.Deified AD
268.
Gallienus

After the disastrous capture of Valerian, the Persians swept devastatingly over Syria, even
capturing Antioch, gathering spoils and captives but without thought of setting up an organized
dominion.
The Roman generals Macrianus and Callistus managed to rally what was left of Roman forces to
halt Sapor's advance at the battle of Corycus, forcing the Persians to retreat behind the Euphrates.
Macrianus then masterminded a rebellion, placing his two sons, Macrianus and Qietus on the
throne as join eastern emperors. But these efforts of setting up an eastern empire were to be
crushed by an unlikely ally of emperor Gallienus. From Palmyra, on the border of the Syrian
desert, emerged prince Odenathus who should defeat Quietus at Emesa and put an end to the
rebellion. Thereafter the prince of Palmyra, Odenathus, staged an effective campaign against the
Persians which gained him the command of the east by the now sole emperor Gallienus. He used
his powers well, harassing the Persian withdrawal all the way back to the Euphrates river.
Meanwhile Gallienus in the west had to deal with an unfailing crop of challengers to his title.
The worst such rebellion being that of Postumus, who successfully managed to break away
several western provinces from the empire (The Gallic Empire).
In the east Odenathus eventually died in AD 267, leaving his title of commander of the east, to
his famous wife Zenobia.
Then in AD 268 a massive Gothic invasion of the Balkans took place, the barbarians attacking in
such huge numbers, they overwhelmed the Roman frontier defences.
Supported by the vast fleet of the Heruli, over 300'000 Goths broke into Thrace and Macedonia.
Gallienus greatest moment arrived when he marched east, prevented the sack of Athens and
defeated the great barbarian army at the great battle of Naissus, the bloodiest battle of the entire
third century.

161
Though his plans of following up his great victory and driving the remaining Goths back over the
Danube were quashed as news reached him of the rebellion of Aureolus at Mediolanum (Milan).
He returned to Italy and laid siege to Milan, only to be assassinated by a conspiracy involving the
praetorian prefect Heraclianus and the two future emperors Claudius Gothicus and Aurelian.
The Gallic Empire
(AD 260- 274)
For a brief time, caused by the weakened state of the empire, the western provinces managed to
break away from Rome, creating their own independent state, known as the Gallic empire.
The Gallic Empire

Claudius II Gothicus
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Claudius
born 10 May AD 214 in Illyricum.Became emperor in September AD 268.Died at Sirmium, August AD 270.Deified
AD 270.
Claudius II Gothicus

Claudius Gothicus, who had been among the leaders of the conspiracy against Gallienus.
He was the choice of the army to succeed the murdered emperor and was soon after confirmed
by the senate.
Claudius Gothicus would make no terms with the besieged rebel Aureolus and did not interfere
when the senate sentenced him to death.
the title Gothicus in the emperor's name is attributed to have been won in his many engagements
with Gothic armies and marauders as he set about the task which had been denied Gallienus, that
of driving the Goths out of the Balkans after their crushing defeat at Naissus.
(The victory over the Goths at Naissus was for a long time mistakenly believed to have been
achieved by Claudius Gothicus.)
Though not all should go well for Claudius Gothicus. In AD 269 Zenobia, queen of Palmyra,
who had inherited the title of supreme commander of the east, broke with her alliance to Rome
and began her conquest of the eastern provinces of the empire.
Was Claudius still busy with the Goths, and had he also learnt of further troubles with the Jutes
(Juthungi) at the borders of Raetia, he simply could not deal with the threat arising from
Palmyra.
Yet, Claudius was not to be the man to lead the Roman armies either against the Jutes, nor
against Zenobia. A plague broke out in his camp to which he succumbed in AD 270, whilst
making preparations for a campaign against the Jutes.
Quintillus
Marcus Aurelius Quintillus
Became emperor in August AD 270.Died at Aquileia, ca. September AD 270.
Quintillus

Quintillus was the brother of Claudius Gothicus and the story of his brief succession is mainly
that of two conflicting claims of Claudius Gothicus' last will. Did he claim that his brother had

162
made him his successor and was he the preferred choice by many in the army, then Aurelian,
Claudius Gothicus' comrade in arms and highly respected general claimed he had been chosen to
succeed.
For a brief time Quintillus, recognized by the senate as the rightful emperor, contested Aurelian's
claim. But soon he found himself completely abandoned, as everyone turned to Aurelian more
through fear than by choice, and he committed suicide.
Aurelian
Lucius Domitius Aurelianus
born 9 September AD 214.Became emperor in August AD 270. Wife: Ulpia Severina (one daughter; name
unknown). Died at Caenophrurium in Thrace, October/November AD 275.Deified AD 275.
Aurelian

The threat of the empire being overrun from several directions at once was temporarily averted
by Aurelian (AD 214-275), who became emperor in AD 270. In addition to evacuating the
Roman garrisons in Dacia, he defeated the Alemanni, who on this, their fourth invasion of Italy,
had got as far as Ariminum.
Though never since Hannibal had any foreign foe thrust so near to the heart of Italy. So
threatening had the situation been that Aurelian was moved to raise a new wall of defence
encircling Rome.
The overthrow of the Alemanni, following the treaties with the Goths, seemed to promise a long
period of security on the Rhine and Danube frontiers. Though there remained beyond the borders
of the empire the insolent Persian king, still unpunished for the devastation he had wrought and
the humiliation he had inflicted. But before that matter could be taken in hand, there was still the
task of reuniting the empire itself, which had had several provinces torn from it by Postumus
during his revolt against Gallienus.
Tetricus, by now the fourth successor to Postumus, was still ruling these renegade provinces
known as the Gallic Empire.
though in truth this self-styled Gallic emperor was only anxious to be relieved from a situation
where he was anything but master. It would have cost him his life at the hands of the soldiery to
openly submit to Aurelian. And yet the battle of Châlons is believed by many to have been little
more than a token show of defiance, in which Tetricus quite gladly saw his troops defeated in
order to be able to relinquish his position.
Then Aurelian's attention turned to the east of the empire.
In the east Zenobia, following Odenathus, not only claimed for herself the command of the east,
as bestowed on her late husband, but was in fact recognized throughout the east and in Egypt,
which owed to Palmyra their preservation from the Persians.
The abilities first of Odenathus and then of Zenobia, aided by the wisdom of the philosopher
Longinus, had given protection and restored order and prosperity without aid from Rome.
Dispatching his lieutenant Probus to Egypt to take control there, Aurelian himself led the
imperial troops against Palmyra.
Zenobia offered valiant but vain resistance. Palmyra itself was besieged and captured. Zenobia
herself was taken prisoner at her attempt to flee. along with Tetricus the captive queen was
displayed in the magnificent triumph in Rome which celebrated the victories of Aurelian and the
restoration of the empire.
The pride of Rome and the emperor being satisfied, the emperor displayed mercy by granting the
fallen monarchs their lives.

163
It now finally remained to deal with Persia. A great expedition to that end was organized and
under way, when Aurelian fell victim to a conspiracy.
He was murdered (AD 275) still in the fifth year of his reign, which had been a succession of
triumphs. His murderers were not to be rebels but people among his staff who feared deserved or
undeserved punishment.
Tacitus
Marcus Claudius Tacitus
born AD ca 200 in the Danube Region.Consul AD 203. Became emperor Oct./Nov. AD 275. Died in Tyana in
Cappadocia, July AD 276.
Tacitus

Tacitus was the immediate successor of Aurelian. With barbarian invasions befalling the empire
on many fronts, Tacitus decided that it was the east which required most urgent attention and led
his armies into Asia Minor (Turkey), where he alongside his brother Florian, defeated a large
Gothic invasion force in spring AD 276. Though already by July of AD 276 Tacitus was dead,
either due to natural causes or by assassination.
Florian
Marcus Annius Florianus
Became emperor July AD 276.Died at Tarsus, September AD 276.
Florian

Forian acceded to the throne immediately after his brother's death, though within only two or
three weeks Aurelian's lieutenant Pobus, challenged his rule and soon after their armies marched
on each other. Though Florian's troops eventually mutinied, killed their leader and declared
allegiance to Probus.
Probus
Marcus Aurelius Equitius Probus
born on 19 August AD 232 at Sirmium.Consul AD 277, 278, 279, 281, 282.Became emperor in July AD 276.Died
near Sirmium, September AD 282.Deified AD 282.
Probus

After the murder of Florian the senate found itself with no other alternative than to recognize
Probus in AD 276.
Though matters should not be easy for the new emperor.the Persian king Sapor had died and the
campaign against the Persians was abandoned. If the Goths were quieted, the Germans along the
Rhine and the Raetian were growing increasingly active.
Probus, a most distinguished soldier, spent the six years of his reign in vigorous campaigns
carried far across the Rhine, enlisting from the barbarians themselves large bodies of auxiliary
troops in the service of Rome.
But no series of successes could disguise the fundamental dangers of the situation. While the
emperor was constantly personally engaged on campaigns on one frontier, he could not give his
attention to other regions of the great empire.
In the east the commander Saturninus was forced into revolt by his own troops. It collapsed

164
before the advance of the imperial forces, as did one or two others still more futile.
The trouble was that such risings were possible even when the emperor was a soldier and
statesman as able as Probus.
Still more worrying was that a leader so applauded by soldiers and civilians should suddenly be
slain in a mutiny led by the praetorian prefect Carus (AD 282).
Carus
Marcus Aurelius Numerius Carus
born AD ca. 224 at Narbo in Gaul.Consul AD 283.Became emperor in September AD 282.Died near Ctesiphon,
July/August AD 283.
Carus

Carus, though advanced in years, was an able and experienced soldier. Leaving his elder son
Carinus to rule the west, he himself too up the project of the Persian war. On the way eastward,
marching through Illyricum, he inflicted a heavy defeat on a horde of Sarmatians, continued
during the winter his advance through Thrace and Asia Minor (Turkey), and in AD 283
conducted a triumphant campaign in Mesopotamia and even beyond the Tigris.
Though he soon after met his death in mysterious circumstances, reports saying his tent was
struck by lighting during a storm.
Carinus and Numerian
Marcus Aurelius Carinus
born AD ca. 250.Consul AD 283.Became emperor in spring AD 283. Wives: (1) Magnia Urbica (one son;
Nigrinianus), (2 to 9) unknown. Died near Margum, summer AD 285.
Marcus Aurelius Numerius Numerianus
born AD ca. 253.Became emperor in spring AD 283.Died near Nicomedia, November AD 284.
Carinus Numerian

At Carus' death, rule of the empire fell to his two sons, Carinus and Numerian.
The troops compelled Numerian to abandon the Persian expedition on which he had
accompanied his father. He was credited with both character and ability, but his health had
broken down under the hardships of the Persian campaign. Though he accompanied his army in
its withdrawal westwards he was constantly confined to a sick-bed, where he was rarely seen by
anyone else but Arrius Aper, the praetorian prefect. All state business passed through Aper's
hands, so too all communication with the outside world.
At length the general suspicion became intolerable. Soldiers forced their way to their emperor,
and found not a sick man, but a corpse.
Aper was then led in chains before a new emperor Diocletian, who had been elected the new
ruler from his post of commander of the imperial bodyguard, who executed Aper by his own
sword.
A few months later the tyrannical Carinus was slain at the very point of victory in battle over
Diocletian, by the dagger of one of his own officer's whose wife he had seduced.
Partial Recovery
Diocletian - Constantine AD 284-337
Diocletian splits the empire

165
 Diocletian, Maximian and Carausius
Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus
born 22 December AD 240.Consul AD 284, 285, 287, 290, 293, 296, 299, 303, 304, 308.Became emperor in 20
November AD 284. Wife: Prisca (one daughter; Galeria Valeria). Died at Spalatum, 3 December AD 311.
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus
born 21 July AD ca 250.Consul AD 287, 288, 290, 293, 297, 299, 303, 304, 307.Became emperor in 1 April AD
286. Wife: Eutropia (one son; Marcus Valerius Maxentius; one daughter; Fausta). Died at Massilia, July AD 310.
Mausaeus Carausius
born in Menapia, date unknown. Became emperor in AD 286/7.Died AD 293.
Diocletian Maximian Carausius

One aspect of the problem was not so much that the empire was falling apart, but that it had
always consisted of two parts.
Much of the region which comprised Macedonia and Cyrenaica and the lands to the east was
Greek, or had been Hellenized before being occupied by Rome. The western part of the empire
had received from Rome its first taste of a common culture and language overlaid on a society
which was largely Celtic in origin.
Diocletian was an organizer. In AD 286 he split the empire into east and west, and appointed a
Dalmatian colleague, Maximian (d. AD 305), to rule the west and Africa. A further division of
responsibilities followed in AD 292. Diocletian and Maximian remained senior emperors, with
the title of Augustus, but Galerius, Diocletian's son-in-law, and Constantius (surnamed Chlorus -
'the pale') were made deputy emperors with the title of Caesar. Galerius was given authority over
the Danube provinces and Dalmatia, while Constantius took over Britain, Gaul and Spain.
Significantly, Diocletian retained all his eastern provinces and set up his regional headquarters at
Nicomedia in Bithynia, where he held court with all the outward show of an eastern potentate,
complete with regal trappings and elaborate ceremonial.
The establishment of an imperial executive team had less to do with delegation that with the need
to exercise closer supervision over all parts of the empire, and thus to lessen the chances of
rebellion. There had already been trouble in the north, where in AD 286 the commander of the
combined naval and military forces based at Boulogne, Aurelius Carausius, to avoid execution
for embezzling stolen property, proclaimed himself emperor of Britain and even issued his own
coins.
Diocletian ruled for twenty one years until, on 1 May AD 305, he took the unprecedented step of
announcing from Nicomedia that he had abdicated, and offered Maximian no choice but to do
the same. While his reign had been outwardly peaceful, the years of turmoil had left their mark
on the administration of the empire and on its financial situation. Diocletian reorganized the
provinces and Italy into 116 divisions, each governed by a rector or praeses, which were then
grouped into twelve dioceses under a vicariusresponsible to the appropriate emperor. He
strengthened the army (while at the same time purging it of Christians), and introduced new
policies for the supply of arms and provisions.
Diocletian's monetary reforms were equally wide-ranging, but though the new tax system he
introduced was workable, if not always equitable, his bill in AD 301 to curb inflation by
establishing maximum prices, wages, and freight charges fell into disuse, its effect having been
that goods simply disappeared from the market.
Its interest today lies in its comparisons, even though or because these are much as one would
expect. Ordinary wine was twice the price of beer, while named vintages were almost four times

166
as much as the ordinary wine. Pork mince cost half as much again as beef mince, and about the
same as prime sea fish. River fish were cheaper. A pint of fresh quality olive oil was more
expensive that the same amount of vintage wine; there was cheaper oil as well. A carpenter could
expect twice the wages of a farm labourer or a sewer cleaner, all with meals included. A teacher
of shorthand or arithmetic might earn half as much again per pupil as a primary-school teacher;
grammar teachers, and teachers of rhetoric five times as much. Baths' barbers were all paid the
same rate per customer.
Diocletian died in his retirement palace in his native Dalmatia in AD 311, having spent his
retirement gardening and studying philosophy, refusing to play any further part in the
government of the empire, which immediately after his departure began to founder.
Thre was however a curious episode during Diocletian's reign which took place in the west of the
empire. The western Augustus Maximian had hardly taken office, and proven his authority by
crushing an insurrection in Gaul, when Britain declared its independence. For seven years the
two Augusti found themselves compelled to recognize a third emperor in the person of Mausaeus
Carausius, previously commander of the North Sea Fleet.
Constantius Chlorus, Galerius, Severus II
Maxentius, Licinius and Maximinus II Daia
Flavius Julius Constantius
born 31 March AD ca. 250 in Illyricum.Became emperor in 1 May AD 305. Wife: (1) Helena (one son;
Constantine), (2) Theodora ( two sons; Flavius Dalmatius, Flavius Julius Constantius; third child unknown). Died at
Ebucarum (York), 25 July AD 306.
Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus
born AD ca. 250 at Florentiniana, Upper Moesia.Became emperor in 1 May AD 305. Wife: (1) Galeria Valeria (one
daughter; Valeria Maximilla), (2) an unknown concubine (one sons; Candidianus). Died at Nicomedia, May AD
311.
Flavius Valerius Severus
born in the Danubian region, date unknown. Became emperor in August AD 306. Wife: (1) unknown (one son;
Severus). Died at Rome, 16 September AD 307.
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius
born in AD ca. 279 possibly in Syria.Became emperor in 28 October AD 306. Wife: Valeria Maximilla (two sons;
Valerius Romulus; unknown). Died at Milvian Bridge at Rome, 28 October AD 312.
Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximinus
born 20 November AD 270 in the Danubian region.Became emperor in 1 August AD 310. Wife: unknown (one
daughter; unknown). Died at Tarsus July/August AD 313.
Valerius Licinius Licinianus
born in AD ca. 250 in Upper Moesia.Became emperor in 11 November AD 308. Wife: Constantia (one son;
Licinius). Died at Thessalonica early in AD 325.
Constantius Chlorus Galerius Severus II

Maxentius Maximinus II Daia Licinius

When he retired, Diocletian had promoted Galerius and Constantius to the posts of Augustus,
and appointed two new Caeasars. The troubles broke out when Constantius died in York in AD
306, and his troops proclaimed his son Constantine as their leader.
Encouraged by this development, Maxentius, son of Maximian, had himself set up as emperor
and took control of Italy and Africa, whereupon his father came out of involuntary retirement
167
and insisted on having back his former imperial command.
The situation degenerated into chaos. At one point in AD 308 there seem to have been six men
styling themselves Augustus, whereas Diocletian's system allowed for only two. Galerius died in
AD 311, having on his deathbed revoked Diocletian's anti-Christian edicts. Matters were not
fully resolved until AD 324, when Constantine defeated and executed his last surviving rival.
The empire once again had a single ruler, and against all the odds he lasted for some years.
Constantine
Flavius Valerius Constantinus
born on 27 February AD 285 (or AD 272/273) at Naissus.Consul AD 307, 312, 313, 315, 319, 320, 326,
329.Became emperor in AD 307. Wife: (1) Minervina (one son; Gaius Flavius Julius Crispus), (2) Fausta (three
sons; Flavius Claudius Constantinus, Flavius Julius Constantius, Flavius Julius Constans; two daughters; Constantia,
Helena) Died at Ankyrona near Nicomedia, 22 May AD 337. Deified AD 337.
Constantine

Constantine was born in Naissus in Upper Moesia in about AD 290, his father subsequently
being forced to divorce his mother (a former barmaid) and marry Maximian's daughter. His
appellation 'the Great' is justified on two counts. Under Diocletian especially, the Christians had
suffered a terrible time. In AD 313, while the struggle for imperial power was at its height,
Constantine initiated the edict of Milan - Milan, not Rome, was now the administrative centre of
the government of Italy - which gave Christians (and others) freedom of worship and exemption
from any religious ceremonial. It is said that before the battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312,
at which he enticed Maxentius to abandon his safe position behind the Aurelian Wall and then
drove most of his army into the Tiber, Constantine had dreamed of the sign of Christ. Thereafter
he was not actually baptized until just before his death in AD 337, he regarded himself as a man
of the god of the Christians, and can therefore claim to be the first Christian emperor or king. In
AD 325 he assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia 318 bishops, each elected by his community, to
debate and affirm some priciples of their faith. The result, known as the Nicene Creed, is now
part of the Roman Catholic mass and the Anglican churches' service of communion. And, in AD
330, he established the seat of government of the Roman empire in a town known as Byzantium,
which he renamed Constantinopolis (city of Constantine), thus ensuring that a Roman (but
Hellenized and predominantly Christian) empire would survive the inevitable loss of its western
part. Its capital stood, until the middle of the fifteenth century, as a barrier between the forces of
the east and the as yet ill-organized tribes and peoples of Europe, each struggling to find a
permanent identity and culture.
To the Jews Constantine was ambivalent: while the Edict of Milan is also known as the Edict of
Toleration, Judaism was seen as a rival to Christianity, and among other measures he forbade the
conversion of pagans to its practices. In time he became even more uncompromising towards the
pagans themselves, enacting a law against divination and finally banning sacrifices. He also
destroyed temples and confiscated temple lands and treasures, which gave him much needed
funds to fuel his personal extravagances. His reign constituted, however, a series of field days for
architects, whom he encouraged to celebrate the religious revolution by reinventing the basilica
as a dramatic ecclesiastical edifice.
A general of considerable dynamism, he developed Diocletian's reforms, and completed the
division of the military into two arms: frontier forces and permanent reserves, who could be sent
anywhere at short notice. He changed the system of command so that normally the posts of civil
governor and military commander were separate. He disbanded the imperial guard, and
established a chief of staff to assume control of all military operations and army discipline; the

168
praetorian prefects (commanders of the imperial guard), became appeal judges and chief
ministers of finance.
Constantine the Great died 22 May AD 337.
onstantine II, Constantius II and Constans
Flavius Claudius Constantinus
born in February AD ca. 317.Consul AD 320, 321, 324.Became emperor in AD 337.Died near Aquileia, AD 340.
Flavius Julius Constantius
born in August AD 317.Became emperor in AD 337.Died at Mopsucrene in Cilicia, AD 361.
Flavius Julius Constans
born in AD 320.Became emperor in AD 337.Died on in Gaul, on the way to Spanish border, January AD 350.
Constantine II Constantius II Constans

At Constantine's death at Nicomedia in AD 337, three sons and two of his nephews were
destined by the late emperor to succeed him. Though two of those sons were absent from
Nicomedia. With the consent of the third, Constantius, the other members of the imperial family,
except two young cousins were slaughtered by the soldiery.
The empire was thereafter by agreement parted between the three sons. Constantine taking the
west, Constans the centre and Constantius the east. The eldest of the three new emperors was
twenty one; their two cousins, Gallus and Julian, the nephews of the great Constantine, were in
AD 337 aged twelve and six respectively.
From the outset Constantius was thoroughly occupied in coping with the activities of the Persian
King Sapor II. Was Constantius engrossed in the quarrel with the Persian Sapor II over Armenia,
then the real seat of the struggle soon was in Mesopotamia, where the war raged for some years
without any decisive result. Both sides called into action Arab horsemen, who raided and
wrought havoc far and wide; nine pitched battles were fought, in which, by admission of roman
historians, the advantage generally lay with the Persians. Constantius himself was twice present;
but it is safe to assume that his officers, not he, were responsible for the military direction.
Meanwhile Constantius' brothers, Constantine and Constans, were quarreling and then actually
fighting over the possession of Illyria. The elder, Constantine, was slain in an ambush near
Aquileia (AD 340), and the younger, Constans, was recognized throughout the western
dominion. But Constans now conducted himself as an irresponsible tyrant. Loyalties soon waned
and when Magnentius was acclaimed by the legions while the emperor was away hunting,
Constans could only flee for his life, only to be overtaken and slain on the Spanish coast.
Magnentius
Flavius Magnus Magnentius
born in February AD ca. 303.Became emperor on 18 January AD 350.Died at Lugdunum (Lyons), AD 353.
Magnentius

If Magnentius in AD 350 was recognized immediately in the prefectures of Gaul and Italy, then
in Illyria another general Vetranio was set up as emperor.
In the east Constantius still locked horns with Sapor II. Alas the King of Persia was called to see
to other problems in the east of Persia, as news reached Constantius of the death of Constans and
two new emperors being in place in the west. Both Sapor II and Constantius left Mesopotamia,
leaving behind a devastated no-man's-land. The two new emperors meanwhile made haste to

169
come to terms and to proffer their equal amity to the surviving son of Constantine in the east. But
for Constantius reconciliation with his brother's murderer Magnentius was impossible. Far more
won over Vetranio as his ally and took to war against Magnentius, defeating him at the grueling
Battle of Mursa in Pannonia where 50'000 of the best troops of the imperial armies were left
dead. Though Magnentius himself was not dead, he sought to continue the war, but his troops
gradually deserted him. By the time those who remained were ready to deliver him to the enemy,
if only to spare themselves, he chose suicide. Had Constantius left his cousin Gallus in charge of
ruling the east, it was only to learn that Gallus was an irresponsible tyrant and was already
planning on treason. Gallus was summoned to Pannonia where he met with an executioner's
sword in AD 354. Except for Constantius himself, the only surviving male descendant of
Constantine the Great was Julian, the younger brother of Gallus. Julian lived in Athens devoting
himself to literary and philosophical studies. He had no practical experience of rule and sought
none. Yet against his will Julian was raised by Constantius to Caesar with the souvereignty over
transalpine Europe. The fact that the empire was too large to be managed without viceroys was
once more proving itself; especially since the Persian King Sapor II, having dealt with his
problems to the east of Persia, was now back at the Roman borders to renew his ambitions.
The barbarians moreover were again swarming over the upper Danube.
Constantius occupied himself with the barbarian problem while his lieutenants dealt with Sapor
in Mesopotamia.
Though the Persian army was vastly superior in numbers, it eventually exhausted itself in several
vain attempts to conquer the stubbornly defended fortress city of Amidia. Alas their numbers
depleted and, though the war went on, the great threat to the eastern empire was averted.
Meanwhile the reluctant Julian was proving himself a valiant man of action in Gaul and on the
Gallic frontier. A strong man was certainly needed in Gaul; for in the civil war Magnentius had
called to his aid hosts of Franks and Alemanni, who promptly assumed the role not of auxiliaries
but of conquerors.
Despite his inexperience and his academic predilections, Julian proved himself equal to the
emergency, winning battles against heavy odds with distinguished personal valour, and restoring
law and order in the devastated districts.
Until the reputation he was winning aroused the jealousy of Constantius, whose own credit was
being not at all enhanced by his operations in the east, neither as soldier nor as ruler.
Jealousy rapidly developed into suspicion and probably into secret designs against the life of the
younger man.
Constantius ordered an immediate dispatch of the best of the legions of Julian to the
Mesopotamian front. The legions responded by calling upon Julian to save the empire by
assuming the purple of Augustus.
For some time Julian held out loyally, but the soldiery would take no denial till he yielded, at last
convinced that loyalty to the empire was above loyalty to the emperor.
Julian the Apostate
Flavius Magnus Magnentius
born in AD 332 at Constantinople.Became emperor in February AD 360.Died in Mesopotamia, 26 June AD 363.
Julian

Though Julian professed to demand only his own recognition as Western Augustus, Constantius
naturally refused to look on his as anything but a rebel. When this was made clear to Julian and
his legions there remained no alternative but civil war. And suddenly Julian with no more than

170
three thousand men vanished into the forests and mountains of south Germany to reappear on the
lower Danube. Constantius, returning from his inglorious campaign in the east, was taken ill in
Cilicia, and died AD 361.
There was no civil war.
Julian the Apostate crossed over to Asia, his title of Augustus undisputed, and never returned to
Europe.
Julian reigned for no more than two years. He bears the name 'Apostate' because he renounced
the Christianity of his earlier years and proclaimed himself the champion of the ancient gods.
Though, if Julian did refute Christianity, his method of suppressing the religion he discarded was
not that of persecution in the ordinary sense. He went no further than to exclude Christian
teaching and teachers from the schools.
For the rest of his reign Julian remained occupied with the Persian war. A victorious campaign in
which he penetrated beyond the Tigris ended in disaster. The army advancing under the direction
of rashly trusted guides, was lead into a trap. It was almost overwhelmed by the myriads of foes
by which it found itself surrounded. Yet valour and skill broke every onslaught. But in the
pursuit which followed the last repulse, Julian was wounded by a javelin and was carried back to
camp, only to die. (AD 363)
Jovian
Flavius Jovianus
born in AD 330 at Singidunum.Became emperor in June AD 363.Died in Dadastana, winter AD 363/4.
Jovian

There was no surviving male descendant of the imperial house and Julian had named no
successor. The army chose an old soldier, Jovian, who lived long enough to patch up a peace
with Persia and withdraw. But six months after his accession Jovian died.
Valentinian and Valens
Flavius Valentinianus
born in AD 321 at Cibalae, Pannonia.Became emperor early in AD 364. Wives: (1) Marina Severa (one son; Flavius
Gratianus); (2) Justina (one son; Flavius Valentinianus). Died in Brigetio along the Danube, 17 November AD 375.
Flavius Julius Valens
born in AD ca. 328 at Cibalae, Pannonia.Became emperor early in AD 364.Wife; Albia Domnica (three
children).Died near Hadrianopolis, 9 August AD 378.
Valentinian Valens

Again the choice lay with the soldiery. In AD 364 a barbarian of Pannonian stock and common
descent but proved capability was elected to be Rome's new master, Valentinian.
By his first act the new emperor recognized the practical necessity for partition. No one man
could successfully hold in his own hands for long the responsibility for both east and west.
Valentinian chose for himself his native west, and made his brother Valens Augustus of the east.
This time the division was permanent, though the empire still remained nominally one.
For twelve years Valentinian ruled the west with vigour and, apart from his savage mercilessness
toward any opposition, with justice and moderation.
Valentinian was rigid in his insistence on equal treatment for all religions, he held the Gallic
frontiers with a strong hand against swarming Franks and Alemanni who he defeated in
successful campaigns beyond the Rhine.

171
It was on a campaign against the Quadi on the upper Danube that one of those outburst of
ungovernable rage which marred his character wrought his own undoing inducing an apoplexy
that killed him.
Gratian and Valentinian II
Flavius Gratianus
born in AD 359 at Sirmium.Became emperor 17 November in AD 367. Wives: (1) Constantia; (2) Laeta. Died in
Lugdunum (Lyons), August AD 383.
Flavius Valentinianus
born in AD 371 at Treviri.Became emperor 22 November in AD 367.Died in Vianna in Gaul, 15 May AD 392.
Gratian Valentinian II

On Valentinian's death, his elder son Gratian was at once recognized as his successor. Gratian's
mother had been discarded by Valentinian in favour of a wife who bore him another son,
Valentinian II, whom Gratian immediately named as co-emperor.
Had since Constantine Christian emperors always been able to accept several religions in being
within their empire, then Gratian was the first to be unable to tolerate this.
Had over time privileges been bestowed upon the church then the privileges for the state religion
had still remained. The latter were now being withdrawn. In consequence none-Christians were
beginning to grow restive, whilst the Christian church was becoming increasingly intolerant of
others.
Meanwhile in the east still ruled Valens. His appointment as emperor of the east proved to be the
gravest error of judgement Valentinian had ever made. The worst faults of Valens were
feebleness and indecision, not brutality. And to these weaknesses it was due that King Sapor II in
his old age finally was able to establish complete if detested mastery over Armenia.
However, the great disaster in the reign of Valens did not befall the empire till after the death of
Valentinian.
About the middle of the century the widespread Gothic confederation had been extending and
consolidating its territories between the Baltic in the north and the Danube and Black Sea in the
south, under the leadership of Hermanaric the Amal, whom all tribes recognized as King. But
during the same period a new and formidable foe was pouring from Asiatic Scythia into
European Scythia, the flood of the terrible Huns.
Now it rolled down on the Goths. Officially at the least the Goths were now friends of Rome.
Reeling under the shock, the Visigoths sought the aid of Valens, who granted them wide lands
for settlement on the southern side of the Danube barrier. Their vast swarms, only in part
disarmed, were ferried across the river by hundreds of thousands, in numbers which had been
utterly underestimated. The cramped starvation conditions to which they were subjected were
wholly intolerable. Hence arose on the hither side of the Danube defences a new enemy.
Valens had in effect created his own disaster. War now raged in the Balkans, a war so critical
that Valens called upon Gratian to come to his aid.
But Gratian had hardly less serious embarrassment of his own, for the Alemanni were upon him.
It was not until he had won a decisive crushing victory over them that he could report himself as
on the march to effect a junction with the army in the east.
But Valens would not wait. In the neighbourhood of Adrianople he flung himself upon the Goths
and in the battle that followed his army was annihilated, he himself perished, and the triumph of
the Goths was complete (9 August AD 378).

172
 Battle of Adrianople

The battle of Adrianoble stopped the advance of Gratian. Tremendous though the disaster had
been, Adrianople and the greater capital on the Bosporus could defy the onslaughts of the Goths,
who were no experts in siege warfare. But for Gratian to have marched on the Goths would have
meant to risk disaster in both east and west. the Alemanni had been disposed of only for the
moment.
Gratian made haste to pronounce a new emperor in the east to take in hand the Gothic problem.
His choice fell upon Theodosius, the son of a great captain and servant of the state on whom in
Gratian's first year the intrigues of traitors had brought the undeserved penalty of treason. The
son, who had already had time to prove his capacity, had been suffered to retire into private life;
and was now raised to the purple at the age of thirty-three.
Theodosius and Magnus Maximus
Flavius Theodosius
born in AD 347 at Cauca in Spain.Became emperor 19 January in AD 379. Wives: (1) Aelia Flavia Flaccilla (two
sons; Arcadius; Honorius); (2) Galla (one daughter; Galla Placidia). Died in Mediolanum (Milan), January AD 395.
Magnus Maximus
probably born at Callaecia, Spain.Became emperor AD 383.Died AD 388.
Theodosius Magnus Maximus

Theodosius took up his hard task with admirable skill and prudence, but no lack of courage.
Hermanaric had fallen before the Gothic war began. The able successor who had led the united
Goths to victory died, and with his death their unity departed. Theodosius made no ambitious
attempt to retrieve the position by staking the fate of the empire on a pitched battle. He risked no
great engagements; but while he struck minor blows against their divided forces he encouraged
their internal divisions. His diplomacy attached some of their leaders to the empire, for which
they had an almost superstitious reverence. In little more than four years a comparatively
enduring if precarious peace was established.
Gratian meanwhile was losing the high reputation he had won. Of his courage and his private
virtues there could be no question, but the appearance of high capacity may have been due to his
early submission to wise direction. Further he made the mistake of abandoning much of the cares
of state for amusements, which brought him into contempt with the soldiery.
Theodosius had hardly set the seal on his own reputation in AD 382 by his much applauded
treaty with the Goths, when the army in Britain, as in the days of Carausius, renounced its
allegiance to Gratian and proclaimed an emperor of its own choice. The Spaniard Maximus
reluctantly accepted the dangerous honour.
In AD 383 Maximus crossed the Channel with a great force which depleted the garrison of the
island, and marched upon Lutetia (Paris) where Gratian was residing. The soldiery in Gaul
refused to move. Gratian fled, but was overtaken at Lyons, where he was treacherously
assassinated, though without any connivance of the British emperor.
The successful usurper had nothing to fear from the boy Valentinian II - or rather from his
mother Justina - reigning at Milan. But he hastened to send an embassy to Theodosius,
repudiating and condemning the murder which had been so hastily committed in his name, but
justifying his own assumption of the purple and inviting the friendly alliance of the eastern
emperor. Theodosius may well have felt that the pacification he had just effected was too

173
precarious to warrant him in plunging the empire into a civil war, whose result would be
doubtful, though justice and honour demanded the punishment of Gratian's murderer. He
contented himself with recognizing the title of Maximus in the Gauls and Britain as a third
Augustus, provided that the souvereignty of Valentinian II in Italy, Africa and western Ilyria
were unquestioned. And to those terms Maximus agreed.
But the excessive ambition of Maximus brought about his own downfall. Justina was unpopular
as Italy was fanatically Christian orthodox, whereas she was an Arian heretic. Maximus seized
this as an excuse to invade Italy. Justina fled to Theodosius with Valentinian II and her daughter.
The emperor fell in love with the daughter and married her.
Theodosius' cautious policy was blown to the winds, Maximus was promptly wiped out and
Valentinian II was restored to the empire of the west, where on his mother's death, he fell
completely under the influence of the orthodox part (AD 388).
His reign was brief although he had barely emerged from boyhood. The supreme command in
Gaul was conferred on the pagan Frank, Arbogast, an able captain who had stood loyal to
Gratian and had taken service with Theodosius instead of Maximus. The Frank now gave way to
aspirations of his own. After a quarrel with Arbogast, Valentinian II committed suicide or was
murdered, and Arbogast set up in hi place his own puppet, Eugenius in AD 392.
In AD 394 Theodosius disposed of the usurper, and divided the succession in east and west
between his own sons Arcadius (382-408) and Honorius (AD 384-423). The latter at once
became western emperor, and on the death of Theodosius in AD 395 Arcadius succeeded him at
Constantinople.
Honorius, Constantine III and Constantius III
Flavius Honorius
born in AD 383.Became emperor in January AD 395. Wife: Maria. Died at Ravenna, AD 423.
Flavius Claudius Constantinus
birthdate unknown.Became emperor in AD 407.Died outside Ravenna, AD 411.
Flavius Constantius
born in Naissus, birthdate unknown. Wife: Aelia Galla Placidia (one son; Flavius Valentinianus; one daughter; Justa
Grata Honoria). Became emperor in AD 421.Died AD 421.
Honorius Constantine III Constantius III

The young heirs of the powerful Theodosius were feeble and incompetent.
From the death of Theodosius to the disappearance of the western empire, mighty figures stalked
across the stage, but they were not of Roman or Byzantine emperors but of barbarians: Vandal,
Visigoth, Ostrogoth, Frank, or - most terrible of all - Hun.
Theodosius had named as the guardian of his sons and chief of his armies of the west a soldier of
proven ability and worth, the Vandal Stilicho, who discharged his office with more loyalty than
Arbogast the Frank. Virtualy the rule of the west was in his hands. While he was engaged in
crushing the dangerous independence of a Moorish prince and tyrant, Gildo, in Africa, the
misrule of prefect Rufinus at Constantinople brought on a great rebellion of the Visigoths - that
branch of the Gothic race which had settled in Moesia and Illlyria, the Ostrogoths remaining
beyond the Danube - led by Alaric the Balt.
The Goths overran Greece practically unchecked and wrought much destruction, till the
appearance of Stilicho, his work in Africa accomplished, stayed their conquering career. Alaric

174
was in danger of being enveloped, but escaped with great skill, and in fact frightened the court of
Constantinople into buying him off by appointing him to the command in Illyria as an imperial
officer.
The Goth accepted the position, but as a stepping stone. Italy was the objective on which he had
fixed his ambitions. The were miscellaneous and for the most part barbarian troops now at his
disposal were ready to follow him. And in AD 403 Honorius and Italy were terrified by an
apparently wholly unexpected invasion. The genius of Stilicho, who with amazing energy
gathered together troops from every possible quarter, saved the situation. in the duel between the
two great captains Alaric met with a heavy defeat at Pollentia, and the caution of the Gothic
chiefs compelled him for the time to abandon the contest.
Though the withdrawal of Alaric only left the way open for a fresh flood of mixed barbarians to
pour into Italy in AD 406, under their chief Ragadaisus. They swept over the plain of the Po,
over the Apennines into Tuscany on their way to wipe out Rome. But while they delayed to
besiege Florence Stilicho again gathered troops in the north, spread them round the besieging
hosts, cut off the supplies of the barbarians and reduced them by sheer starvation. Radagaisus
with a third of his forces was compelled to capitulate. He himself was slain. The rest of the
horde, Vandals, Sueves, Burgundians, Ostrogoths, Huns and Alans were deliberately allowed to
retreat unmolested across the Alps, and their various bands were soon spoiling and looting in
Gaul on their way to Spain, reinforced by their respective homelands (AD 406).
Thus it was only Italy that was spared of the invaders, who in AD 407 were harrying Gaul.
And the harrying of Gaul was the excuse for the army of Britain to proclaim its own Augustus.
Constantine III, probably a native Briton, was raised to the purple and set out to Gaul to save it
from the Germans and add it to his own empire, taking with him a substantial part of the British
garrison. The Vandals, Sueves and Alans, however, did not seek to remain permanently in Gaul
to dispute possession with Constantine, but took their devastating way through the south to
Spain, where they established themselves.
On the middle Rhine the Burgundians appear to have remained in effective possession.
Constantine III pushed into Spain, established his dominion in Aragon, and succeeded in
extorting from Honorius his own recognition as a third Augustus.
Constantine's movement to Gaul in AD 407 is commonly referred to as the Roman evacuation of
Britain.
Meanwhile Stilicho's ambitions evidently centred on the relations between the eastern and the
western empires, in both of which he sought to be the power behind the throne (as he already
was in the west).
The key to this position was the possession of the whole of Illyria, and he meant Alaric to be his
agent.
The eastern court had no inclination to be dominated by him, and the relations between
Constantinople and Ravenna (Where for greater security Honorius had fixed his residence) were
strained. Stilicho could not afford to wholly neglect the rebellion of Constantine III, but he left
him to Alaric, with whom he had made his own bargain, and again Alaric only took as much
action as he considered sufficient.
Early in AD 408 Arcadius, leaving the throne to the six year old Theodosius II. Almost everyone
believed that Stilicho, who had married the feeble Honorius to his own daughter, meant to make
himself emperor. His enemies formed a plot and gained ascendancy over the mind of Honorius.
At the height of his apparent power, Stilicho was suddenly arrested, condemned without trial as a
brigand and an 'enemy of the state' and executed. But no evidence of any treasonable designs on

175
his part was ever forthcoming. Among those most active in his downfall was Heraclian, who was
rewarded by being made Count of Africa.
Stilicho's fall opened the way on one hand to friendly relations with Constantinople, and on the
other to the ambitions of Alaric. It was the expression of the simmering hostility of Italy towards
men of barbarian blood, in fact the massacre of many of the foreigners in the country, which
gave the Gothic king more than adequate excuse for swooping on Italy before the year was out.
Alaric marched straight on Rome, ignoring Honorius in Ravenna. The city was rapidly reduced
to starvation, and plague broke out. Alaric demanded all the treasure within it and all the
barbarian slaves.
For a brief period Alaric and Honorius existed alongside each other in Italy. But in the next year
the emperor's evasions irritated the Goth into setting up the prefect Attalus as puppet
emperor.Honorius, however, was made safe in Ravenna by the arrival of troops from the east.
Attalus was declined to be altogether a puppet and was subsequently deposed. Further
negotiations with Honorius broke down. Alaric lost patience and on August 24, AD 410 he let
loose his Goths and other followers on Rome, which was sacked for three days.
Though Alaric did not proclaim himself emperor. He ravaged southward, and was planning an
invasion of Africa, the granary of Italy, when at the end of the year he died.
He was succeeded by his brother-in-law, Athaulf, who abandoned the designs on Africa.
In AD 412 the Visigoths crossed the Alps into Gaul.
While Athaulf was still lingering in Italy, the empire of Constantine III was collapsing. It
extended from Britain to Aragon. It broke down, partly owing to the revolt of one of his officers
in Spain, Gerontius, and partly because in AD 411 the place once held by Stilicho was to some
extent filled by another able soldier, Constantius. Gerontius was besieging Constantine III at
Arles, when Constantius intervened on the hypothesis that both were rebels.
Gerontius retreated to Spain, where he was murdered, Constantius captured Arles, and with in
Constantine III, who was executed. No sooner had Constantius returned to Italy, which Athaulf
was evacuating, then a new emperor, Jovinus, was proclaimed in Gaul. Yet another complication
arose when in early AD 413 Heraclian, Count of Africa, proclaimed himself emperor, too. Worse
still, Heraclian, having already amassed a great fleet, sailed for Italy.
Though Heraclian's rebellion proved an utter fiasco. He was captured and executed in
midsummer. But meanwhile it had not been possible for Constantius and Honorius to take direct
action in Gaul. Instead they had had to bargain with Athaulf, who then crushed Jovinus.
Now the princess Galla Placidia enters the stage. Being the sister of Honorius she was captured
and carried off for bargaining purposes by Alaric during his sack of Rome. However, the
princess had in Constantius a devoted admirer, who wanted her back. Naturally emperor
Honorius also understood a stain on his honour that his sister should be a hostage of the
barbarians.
It was part of the bargain with Athaulf that should be returned. But the Roman part of the
bargain, the supply of corn to Athaulf's troops, had been foiled by the rebellion of Heraclian.
Consequently Athaulf, instead of returning the princess, married her himself in AD 414,
apparently with her own willing consent, - but without that of her brother.
The marriage failed to draw Athaulf any closer to the imperial court, and Athaulf set out with his
Goths and his bride to conquer Spain. There he was murdered in AD 415, and his successor
Wallia struck a bargain with Rome, to make war with the other barbarians in Spain. Placidia was
at last sent back to Ravenna, where she reluctantly accepted the hand of Constantius.
The Vandals, Alans, and Sueves in Spain hastened to seek peace with the empire, which they
obtained; Wallia and his Visigoths were settled in Aquitania instead as 'federates'. This meant

176
they occupied most of the soil upon condition of military service to the empire, under their king.
A similar settlement was made with the Burgundians on the Rhine. In AD 417 Wallia was
succeeded by Theodoric I, probably a grandson of Alaric.
The position in Britain by this time is by no means clear. Constantine III had not left the island
denuded of troops but only depleted. The Roman magistrates and the Roman government did not
disappear, but hey had to make the best they could of the situation, utilizing their own resources.
And the situation became progressively more difficult was the raids of the unsubdued Picts and
Scots on the north, Irish Celts on the west coast and Saxon rovers on the east and south coasts
increased in intensity and frequency. But many years were still to pass before the raiders
established a permanent footing. In AD 421 Constantius was associated with Honorius as
western emperor, but died after a few months. Princess Placidia quarrelled with her brother, who
had developed an embarrassing affection for her, and retreated with her small children to
Constantinople. Honorius, after a reign of twenty-five years, during which nothing whatever is
recorded to his credit, died at the age of forty in AD 423.
John
Johannes
birthdate and place unknown. Became emperor in AD 423.Died May/June AD 425.
John

The obvious successor to Honorius was Placidia's child Valentian III, but a usurper named John,
a rival of no particular merit, had to be suppressed before Placidia could effectively take up the
regency in AD 425.
Valentinian III
Flavius Placidus ValentinianusJohannes
born AD 419.Became emperor in AD 425. Wife: Licinia Eudoxia (one daughter; Placidia). Died 16 March AD 455.
Valentinian III

The leading figure in the west, however, for nearly thirty years to come was Aetius (AD395-
454), a native of Moesia, but of Italian descent. He possessed Gothic connections, his wife being
of noble Gothic house, and Hun connections because he had passed long time as a hostage
among the Huns.
When John the usurper was overthrown, Aetius had been engaged in bringing a Hun force to his
aid. But on John's death, Aetius made his peace with a reluctant Placidia, and was entrusted with
the rule of Gaul, where he checked the aggressive expansion of the Burgundian Gunther in the
east and the Goth Theodoric in the west and south, as well as the Salian Franks on the Scheldt.
But the most notable movement during Placidia's regency was that of the Vandal-Alan group
which had taken possession of southern Spain. In AD 428 Boniface the Count of Africa, had
broken with the imperial government, and invited the help of the Vandals in his own ambitious
projects. Africa offered a more promising field than Spain. The Vandals, led by their crafty and
able King Geiseric, crossed to Africa and proceeded to ravage Mauretania in a merciless fashion.
This was not what Boniface had intended. He returned to his allegiance to Rome, but when he
fought the Vandals he was so heavily defeated that he threw up the contest and retired to Italy,
where his rivalry with Aetius brought about an armed conflict in which he was killed (AD 432),
while the entire province of Africa was at the mercy of Geiseric. The position in Gaul was too

177
critical to permit a reconquest of Africa. But Geiseric was quite ready to make peace in AD 435,
on terms which left him practically master of Mauretania and part of Numidia.
In his conflict with Boniface, Aetius was in actual rebellion. But his rival's fall restored his
ascendancy, which became a virtual supremacy when Placidia had to surrender the regency on
the marriage of Valentinian III, at eighteen to his cousin Licina Eudoxia at Constantinople in AD
437. The treaty had no sooner been made with the Vandals, then Aetis found himself forced to
curb first the Burgundians and then the Visigoths. The former he broke by calling in aid from the
Huns, with whose King Rugila he had always been on the most friendly terms. The Visigoths,
who aimed at establishing themselves at the Mediterranean coast, were pushed back into
Aquitania. But, stretched as he was, Aetius could not spare the forces to check the continued
aggression of the Vandals in Africa.
So the Vandal Geiseric, inspite of the treaty of AD 435, extended his African dominion will he
won Carthage. Then, satisfied of the weakness of Italy, he collected a fleet and attacked Sicily.
The menace brought the eastern empire to the aid of the west. The arrival of the eastern fleet,
saw Geiseric willing to peacefully withdraw from Sicily, returning to Carthage in AD 442.
Had the Hun King Rugila died in AD 434 then his two nephews jointly inherited his powers. On
of those sons, Attila, in AD 441 had attacked the eastern empire, overrunning the Balkans and
devastating all he came across. Constantinople itself was not attempted, as it was deemed
impregnable. In AD 443 Theodosius II came to terms, doubling his annual subsidy to Attila and
agreeing to a no-man's-land between the two empires. The conflict erupted again in AD 447,
only to be halted in AD 449 with unchanged conditions. In AD 450 Theodosius II died,
succeeded by the able Marcian.
But this was no longer of interest to Attila who now had his eyes set on the west.
A curious episode had perhaps determined Attila's course. The court at Ravenna proposed to
marry Valentinian III's sister Honoria to a safe and distinguished but elderly husband. She
objected and sent secretly to the mighty Hun, inviting him to rescue her.
Attila accepted the message as a betrothal and claimed his bride and half her brother's empire as
a dowry (AD 450). Valentinian III raged and rejected the demand. Meanwhile Attila marched on
Gaul. He told Ravenna that he was coming to save the Romans from the Goths and he told the
Goths that he was coming to join them against the Romans. But the diplomacy of Aelius and the
intelligence of Theodoric sufficed to combine Romans and Visigoths against the Hun.
Attila swept, devastating all in his path, over the Gallic frontier, with Orléans (the city of
Aurelius) as his objective. Theodoric effected a junction with Aetius; Attila began to retreat,
though turned near Châlons, and suffered a crushing defeat (AD 451), while Theodoric himself
was killed. Though already in the next year Attila was back, this time throwing himself at Italy to
enforce his demand for Honoria's hand. Aetius, faced with a hugely superior foe, could not
afford a pitched battle, leaving Atilla to destroy Aquileia, before marching on Rome. Tradition
says that Attila was finally overawed by Pope Leo, another story says that the plague broke out
in his camp, at any rate, Rome was miraculously delivered from the Hun as he suddenly
withdrew without a fight.
In 453 Attila died and the whole terrifying, flimsy fabric of his empire dissolved. the Huns were
helpless without a head. Ostrogoths, Gepids, Rugians, Herulians arose and overwhelmed them at
the battle of Nedao in Pannonia in AD 454.
Aetius, often referred to as 'the last of the Romans', met with the same reward as Stilicho the
Vandal. The mind of the emperor was poisoned against him and he was charged with treason and
was slain by emperor Valentinian III himself in AD 455.

178
 Petronius Maximus
Flavius Petronius Maximus
born in AD ca. 396.Became emperor March AD 455.Died at Rome, 31 May AD 455.
Petronius Maximus

When Valentinian III was murdered in the same year, Maximus bought the crown and forced the
widowed Eudoxia to marry him.
Geiseric the Vandal - summoned to by the widowed empress - arrived two months later with a
fleet. The mob tore Maximus limb from limb, which though did not prevent Geiseric from
occupying Rome, sacking it with methodical and conscientious thoroughness, and retiring with a
host of captives, including Eudoxia and her two daughters, the younger of whom he married to
his son Hunseric.
Avitus
Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus
born in Gaul.Consul AD 456.Became emperor 9 July AD 455.Died on way to the Alps from Placentia, AD 456.
Avitus

A few weeks later a new emperor was proclaimed by the Goths at Tolosa (Toulouse), Avitus, the
lieutenant of the Aetius, who had been instrumental in forming the alliance between Romans and
Goths against Attila.
Marcian in the east and Avitus in the west both threatened Geiseric , who defied them both.
Avitus dispatched his armies under the generalship of Ricimer, a Sueve and grandson of the
Visigoth Wallia, and Ricimer won a naval victory over the Vandals.
Meanwhile Theodoric II, posing as imperial champion, attacked the Sueves in Spain, breaking
but not destroying their power. Avitus was bound closely to the Goths, while Italy detested them
- and Ricimer was a Sueve !
Avitus had to beat a hasty retreat from Italy. Ricimer set up the Roman Majorian, an officer of
distinction, as emperor, and the deposed Avitus was consoled with a bishopric AD 457).
Majorian
Julius Valerius Majorianus
Became emperor 1 April AD 457.Died on 7 August AD 461 at Dertona.
Majorian

Majorian bestowed on Ricimer the title of Patrician - in effect first minister - which had already
been borne by Stilicho, Constantius and Aetius before him.
Majorian declined to be Ricimer's puppet, but the fleet he collected against the Vandals met with
disaster, giving Ricimer sufficient excuse to depose him.
In his place the puppet emperor Libius Severus was set up.
Libius Severus
Libius Severus
Became emperor AD 461. Died on 14 November AD 465 at Dertona.

179
 Libius Severus

Though Libius Severus soon died and for a time there was no emperor, save Leo at
Constantinople. In AD 467 Leo appointed the Greek Anthemius, son-in-law of Marcian, as
western Augustus.
Anthemius
Procopius Anthemius
born in Galatia.Consul AD 455.Became emperor AD 467. Wife: Euphemia (a daughter; Alypia). Died on
March/April AD 472 at Rome.
Anthemius

Ricimer was placated by receiving the new emperor's daughter to wife.

Then east and west combined to crush the Vandals who were masters of the Mediterranean.
Though Geiseric once more managed to keep the upper hand and the joint Roman fleet under
Basiliscus met with disaster in AD 468.
With the Vandal controlling the sea, he consequently held Mediterranean commerce at his
mercy.
Meanwhile the Visigoths, under Euric, were bringing southern Gaul under their control. Britain
had slipped away, Jutes and Saxons taking a grip of her. The same fate was befalling northern
Gaul. To the east of Gaul the Burgundian kingdom was gathering ever more strength.
In AD 472 Ricimer resolved to depose Anthemius, having proclaimed Olybrius (husband of the
elder daughter of Valentinian III) emperor in his place.
Olybrius
Anicius Olybrius
Became emperor March/April AD 472. Wife: Placidia (one daughter; Juliana Anicia). Died November AD 472.
Olybrius

Anthemius was captured and put to death. But within a few weeks Ricimer himself died.
For a time his place was taken by his Burgundian nephew Gundobad. Olybrius died, and after
some delay in AD 473 Gundobad set up a puppet emperor, Glycerius, whom Leo in
Constantinople declined to recognize.
Glycerius
Glycerius
Became emperor March AD 473.Deposed by Julius Nepos AD 474.
Glycerius

So Gundobad returned to Burgundy and Leo proclaimed Julius Nepos emperor in AD 474.
Julius Nepos
Julius Nepos
Became emperor June AD 474.Died 9 May in Dalmatia AD 480.
Julius Nepos

180
Though already the following year Julius Nepos was a fugitive from Rome, ejected by his
'master of the soldiers', Orestes, who made his own son, contemptuously known as Romulus
'Augustulus', emperor.
Romulus Augustus
Romulus Augustus
Became emperor 31 October AD 475. Abdicated 4 September AD 476. Date of death unknown.
Romulus Augustus

At the same time Zeno, the successor to Leo, was a fugitive from Constantinople, ejected by
Basiliscus. Both usurpers fell in AD 476. In the east Zeno was restored, but in the west the
Germanic mercenary Odoacer seized power.
Odoacer chose not to be Augustus himself, nor to serve another western Augustus, but to be the
viceroy of one Roman emperor in Constantinople.
The western Roman empire had ceased to be.

Constantinople
Choose which paragraph to jump to and press "Go!":

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Byzantium had first been reconstructed in the time of Septimius Severus not just as a Roman
city, but modelled on Rome itself, on and around seven hills. Later Constantine the Great chose
it as his new capital, renaming it Constantinople, and it remained the capital of the eastern part of
the Roman empire.
Arcadius (reign AD 395-408)
Flavius Arcadius
born AD ca. 377 in Spain.Became emperor January AD 395. Wife: Aelia Eudoxia; (one son Theodosius) Died at
Constantinople, AD 408.
Arcadius

But the story of Constantinople as an independent entity begins during the reign of co-emperors
Arcadius (c.AD 378-408) and Honorius (AD 385-423), under whom the two parts of the Roman
empire finally went their own ways (Arcadius succeeding Theodosius in Constantinople in AD
395). As Rome fell in AD 410 the burden of sustaining roman civilization alas fell solely to the
eastern capital.
The eastern empire, largely by reason of its geographical situation, was bypassed by the ant-like
hordes of invaders who befell Rome.
The Parthian threat from the east had also ceased as Parthia had to contend with the Scythian
menace on her own eastern frontier.
The independent Arabian tribes, now beginning to be known as the Saracens, might worry

181
Romans and Persians alternately, having their own retreat secured by the wastes of the Arabian
desert, but they constituted no real menace to neither of the great powers.
Theodosius II (reign AD 408-450)
Flavius Theodosius
born AD 401.Became emperor January AD 408. Wife: Aelia Eudocia; (one daughter; Licinia Eudoxia) Died at
Constantinople, AD 450.
Theodosius II

Early in AD 408 Arcadius died, succeeded by his six year old son Theodosius II. Was
Constantinople ruled feebly, it could only watch on as its great ally in the west was savaged by
one barbarian invasion after another.
There was little done for all the time Theodosius II grew up. the empire was largely run be able
ministers and the state apparatus, - and Theodosius II's older sister Pulcheria, under pious regime
the court almost became a nunnery.
Under constant pressure by the Huns Constantinople was blackmailed to pay an annual subsidy
to them, who by now dominated Hungary and were an ever-present threat to the eastern empire.
In AD 435 at last an intervention was made against the Vandals, who from Carthage crossing the
Mediterranean with a fleet attacked Sicily. The Vandal leader Geiseric was persuaded to
withdraw for the time and retain possession of Carthage.
In AD 441 Attila alas attacked with his Huns, overrunning a great part of the Balkan peninsula,
capturing cities and devastating; but he did not attempt Constantinople, which was virtually
impregnable. In 443 Theodosius II came to terms; his subsidy to the Huns was to be doubled,
and a great territory south of the Danube was to be left waste, a no-man's-land, between the two
empires.
From Attila's point of view, Theodosius had acknowledged himself his tributary. But the Hun
was still not satisfied, and again overran the peninsula in 447; but he contented himself with a
confirmation of the treaty in 449, thereafter turning his attention to the west.
In AD 450 Theodosius II died in tranquil respectability, his empire having enjoyed a placid
prosperity instead of breaking up as might well have been anticipated. The most notable
achievements of his Reign had been the issue of a great codification of the laws, known as the
Theodosian code, and the establishment of a university in Athens.
Marcian (reign AD 450-457)
Marcianus
born in AD 392.Became emperor March AD 450.Died at Constantinople, AD 457.
Marcian

Theodosius II named as his successor an able officer, Marcian, with whom Pulcheria consented
to go through the form of marriage in order to bring him into the imperial family circle.
Marcian's brief and prosperous reign was distinguished by very judicious financial reforms and
by his repudiation of the Hun tribute, which undoubtedly have brought Attila down on him but
for the lure of the west.
Marcian died in AD 457.
Leo the Great (reign AD 457-474)

182
Flavius Leo
born in AD 401.Became emperor March AD 457. Wife: Aelia Verina (two daughters; (1) Aelia Ariadne, (2)
Leontia). Died at Constantinople, 18 January AD 474.
Leo

With no obvious successor the choice was dictated by the powerful soldier and minister Aspar,
who nominated Leo, a Thracian.
Leo reigned not at all as a puppet of the man to whom he owed his elevation.
He countered the Teutonising tendencies of Aspar by recruiting his armies and his ministers from
his own people.
In AD 467 it was Leo who appointed the Greek Anthemius to the vacant position of emperor of
the west.
Then east and west combined to crush the Vandals who were the masters of the Mediterranean,
but met with disaster as the imperial fleet, commanded by Basiliscus was destroyed by Geiseric
in AD 468.
Leo II (reign AD 474)
With the great emperor Leo dead, the rule of constantinople fell to his boy grandson, whom he
had in 473 made made co-Augustus. Leo's son in law, the father of Leo II, was to be regent,
during the boy's childhood. But already in February AD 474 Zeno made himself co emperor and
within the year the child-emperor Leo II was dead. Most likley he was killed by his own father
Zeno.
Zeno (reign AD 474-475)
Tarasicodissa
born in Rosoumblada in Isauria (Asia Minor).Consul AD 469.Became emperor 9 February AD 474. Wife: (1)
Arcadia, (2) Aelia Ariadne. Died AD 491.
Zeno

Had Zeno virtually usurped the throne and most likley been responsible for his own son's death,
then within a year he, too, was no longer on the throne. Zeno became a fugitive, having been
ejected from Constantinople by the very Basiliscus whose fleet under the rule of Leo had been
annihilated by Geiseric.
Basiliscus (reign AD 475-476)
Basiliscus
Became emperor AD 475. Wife: Aelia Zenonis (three sons; Marcus, Leo, Zeno). Died AD 476.
Basiliscus

Basiliscus ejected Zeno and snatched the throne for himself with the aid of Teutonic
mercenaries, whose commander was the Ostrogoth soldier of fortune Theodoric, called Strabo -
the 'one-eyed'.
Basiliscus, too, didn't last long, falling from power in AD 476, as Zeno returned at the head of
his Isaurians.
Zeno, restored (reign AD 476-491)

183
Zeno was restored to power in AD 476. Not only did he regain his throne, but so too in AD 477
did the deputation arrive proclaiming that Odoacer the Germanic conqueror of Rome voluntarily
would submit to him, if he was to be allowed to remain King of Italy on Zeno's behalf.
Naturally Zeno accepted. He was in no position to refuse recognition of the de facto ruler of
Italy, and it could at any rate do no harm if the ruler chose to call himself the subordinate instead
of the colleague of the Augustus of Constantinople.
Meanwhile Theodoric Strabo, the mercenary having helped Basiliscus oust Zeno from power,
now having retired into the Balkan mountains, invited Zeno to make him master of the army or
to face the consequences.
Zeno declined and Teodoric Strabo, united with the Ostrogoth King Theodoric the Amal,
marched on Constantinople.
Diplomatic conniving on the part of Zeno managed to persuade Theodoric Strabo to change
sides, but what was now a war between the Ostrogoths and Constantinople should last for four
years (479-483), with all the honours falling to Theodoric the Amal.
With Theodoric Strabo having died, the emperor troubled with conspiracies and Theodoric the
Amal realizing that in any case he could never conquer the hugely fortified City of
Constantinople, the emperor and the Ostrogoth eventually agreed terms. Theodoric the Amal was
made master of the soldiers (the very position Theodoric Strabo had demanded) and received
fresh grants of land for his followers.
What followed was the revolt of a certain Leontius in Syria, who appealed for aid to the Persian
king Balas and to Odoacer. But before any of the promised aid could arrive, Zeno had crushed
the rebellion by the help of Theodoric.
But Zeno well appreciated just how dangerous helpers like Theodoric were. And the attitude of
Odoacer was growing more menacing.
A plan was put into place to embroil the two. In AD 488 he offered Theodoric the rule of Italy in
exchange for Moesia, the province he then ruled.
Of course the Ostrogoth accepted, assuming that Odoacer, another mere lieutenant of the
emperor would make way.
Naturally, Odoacer had no intentions of giving up his position as self-styled King of Italy.
The fight was on, Theodoric eventually defeating Odoacer in a grim war, Odoacer being
murdered in AD 490, despite surrender the sheer impregnable city of Ravenna after the offer of
generous terms.
But a year before the city of Ravenna fell, the very master having created this war, emperor
Zeno, died in Constantinople.
Under his rule the Balkans had been ravaged repeatedly, depopulated by an onslaught of war
upon war. Yet the rest of the eastern empire stood reasonably untouched during the barbaric
nightmare unfolding in the west.
Zeno was not a tyrant, nor a conquering general. Far more he was a politician, who preferred
compromise and whose political astuteness is best displayed in the way he played off Odoacer
and Theodoric against one another in order to have his empire spared of their aggression.
If he left one problem behind at his death it was the ever growing hostilities within two factions
of Constantinople itself. The Church of Constantinople was deeply divided into the orthodox and
the monophysites. This divide, which literally split Constantinople's population into two feuding
camps, was continued in the sporting arena of the Hippodrome (chariot racing), where the
orthodox supported the 'blues' and the monophysites supported the 'greens'. Having tried to
reconcile these hostile groupings, Zeno had only managed to inflame the hatred yet further.
Anastasius (reign AD 491-518)

184
Zeno died leaving no obvious heir. An eminently wise choice, mainly influenced by Zeno's
widow, Ariadne, bestowed the office on Anastasius, an experienced official of the highest
character, universally respected, who became emperor in AD 491.
Anastasius reign is deemed a highly creditable one. He did his best to calm the theological
animosities between the orthodox and the monophysite Christians and only concerned himself
with the west when Theodoric's activities in Illyria involved him in a boundary dispute with his
powerful lieutenant.
Thrace and Moesia were vexed by Bulgarian raids from across the Danube, and Anastasius built
a great defensive wall fifty miles long to hold the raiders in check.
The Isaurian troops, who had made themselves so unpopular in the capital, were disbanded,
returned home to their accustomed occupation as brigands and were not suppressed without great
difficulty.
A brief war between the Sassanide King of Persia, Kobad, after the invasion of Mesopotamia by
the Persians resulted in peace along the lines of the pre-war basis.
The wars of Anastasius were merely disturbing episodes. They neither added to nor materially
detracted from the general credit to his reign. Anastasius died in AD 518, well respected, and
leaving a full treasury.
Justin (reign AD 518-527)
Anastasius left no heir, and the throne was unexpectedly secured by an elderly Illyrian officer,
Justin.
Justin continued the safe policy of his predecessor. Justin was an old soldier who had served in
the imperial armies for some fifty years, having risen though the ranks of the army to be
emperor, still, it was alleged, unable to read or write.
At the end of his nine year rule, he associated with himself on the throne his nephew Justinian,
who had practically been his colleague throughout his reign.
Justin died only a few months after the appointment of Justinian as joint ruler.
Justinian AD 527-565)
In AD 527 acceding to the throne, Justinian was already fully conversant with the whole system
of administration. Though he had just scandalized society by marrying a lowly-born dancer,
Theodora, whose reputation was notorious.
He was born in Illyricum, the son of a Slavonic peasant. Was his uncle Justin rumoured not to
have been able to read or write, he had not skimped on the education of his nephew Justinian,
whose ambitious aims included stamping out corruption in government, refining and upholding
law, uniting the churches in the east and taking Christianity forcibly to the barbarians in the west,
thus recovering for the empire the territories that it had lost.
With such high-flying ideas in mind Justinian already in AD 528 found himself forced into a war
with the Persians. King Kobad having revived the power of the Sassanid dynasty in Persia
reopened hostilities after twenty years of peace and invaded Mesopotamia. Though nothing
decisive was to happen until AD 530.
The war brought into prominence Belisarius (505-565), a brilliant soldier to whom the emperor
should be mainly indebted for the military glories of his reign. Belisarius, then a very young
officer in command of the forces on the frontier, had previously only been able to stand on
guard. But in AD 530 he completely routed a much larger Persian force during a large-scale
cavalry battle. Kobad died the next year, and his son Chosroes (Khusru), as yet insecurely seated
on the throne, made peace.

185
In AD 532 much of the city was destroyed during what is known as the Nika rebellion, which
began as a riot between two sets of fans, the 'Blues' and the 'Greens', in the circus, and developed
into a full-scale revolt against his authority. The revolt was, with difficulty, quelled, but the
damage caused enabled him to exploit his own hobby of building, at a time when the golden age
of Byzantine architecture had just been reached. Among four major new churches was the
sensational Hagia Sophia (today Santa Sophia or Aya Sophia), designed by Anthemius, the main
dome of which was built, unusually, on a square base and was replaced in AD 555 by one with
forty arched windows around its circumference. Hagia Sophia survives, but since 1453 has been
a mosque.
The Nika insurrection having been brutally crushed, the leader of is and his brother beheaded,
and at peace with Persia, Justinian now turned his attention to the Vandals in Africa. In AD 530
Geilamir had usurped the Vandal crown ignoring Justinian's protests.
Now, unburdened by rebellions and Persians, Justinian sought to have his revenge for the
insolence shown toward him by this Vandal upstart. In AD 533 Belisarius landed in Africa with
fifteen thousand men. The local Vandal force was routed outside Carthage and the city from its
Vandal oppressors. Geilamir retreated to the west and gathered his forces, while every city was
flinging open its gates to Belisarius. The decisive battle was fought in December at Tricameron,
where the Vandals were annihilated. Geilamir initially escaped. But he soon realized that a
further struggle was hopeless. He surrendered himself and was relegated to an easy retirement in
Phrygia. The Vandal kingdom was no more. Belisarius had succeeded with only fifteen thousand
men, where the vast armaments of Leo I had failed ignominiously. He returned in triumph to
Constantinople to prepare for a fresh task.
And a new task was soon at hand. In AD 534 the boy grandson of Theodoric (Theodoric had
died in AD 526) died. Had Theodoric's daughter Amalaswintha ruled as regent until her son
would come of age she now appointed Theodoric's nephew Theodahad to rule Italy together with
her. Theodahad, an unsavoury but ambitious character with little to no talent for rule, though
soon conspired against her, captured her and had her murdered. This in effect gave Justinian all
the excuse he needed to intervene in Italy.
In AD 535 Belisarius landed in in Sicily with a small force. Had Theodoric given Italy just and
firm government, the Italian population had always remained hostile against him. For Theodahad
they was no love lost at all in Italy. The Goths were said to have 100'000 fighting men in the
country, but the entire Italian population was on the side of the imperial invaders. Meanwhile the
Goths were also paralyzed by the inaction of their own king. Sicily welcomed Belisarius with
open arms. In the next spring he advanced into southern Italy with seven thousand men, meeting
no resistance until he reached Naples. All the while 50'000 Goths lay about Rome.
Alas, in AD 536 the Goths in despair deposed Theodahad, who was subsequently murdered.
They elected as their new king Witiges, a valiant but stupid old warrior who had forgotten
anything he once may have known about generalship.
Instead of marching to overwhelm Belisarius , who had captured Naples, Witiges carried almost
his entire army north to deal with a force of Franks who had seized the opportunity to pour
through the Alps. Belisarius with a small force pounced on Rome, which the garrison evacuated
in a panic as he entered it.
Witiges came to peace with the Franks, ceding to them the Roman Provence. Then he returned
with his entire Gothic army and laid siege to Rome. However, he never managed to enforce a
complete blockade, so that at first supplies and later reinforcements continually seeped into the
city. In spite of his hugely superior numbers all his attacks were repelled with massive losses.
After a year (AD 538) sufficient reinforcements from the east had arrived to enable Belisarius to
take the offensive.

186
After two more years of campaigning it was Witiges who found himself besieged in Ravenna. By
then he would have accepted the generous terms offered by Justinian. But his Goths would have
none of it. Instead they offered the crown to Belisarius, who, apparently having fooled them into
the belief that he accepted this offer, had them open the gates to Ravenna which he then occupied
in the name of Justinian. Ravenna in imperial hands it was deemed an easy task to mop up the
rest of Italy, and Belisarius was recalled to take up the command against the Persians, with
whom another war had broken out.
King Chosroes, apparently upon request by the besieged Witiges in Ravenna who sought a
diversion of imperial attention, had attacked northern Syria in AD 540. His attack took the
empire by surprise and he captured Antioch and carried off great spoils.
Was Belisarius in charge again of leading the troops in the east, the war proved less rewarding
for Constantinople this time, as Belisarius, expecting Chosroes to attack Mesopotamia, could
only stand by helplessly as his adversary instead overran the trans-caucasian province of Colchis.
But soon Belisarius was dispatched back to Italy where his successor had suffered reverses
against the Goths.
After the fall of Ravenna and Belisarius' departure to the east, the Goths had elected a new king,
Hildebad, who soon recovered the plain of the Po. though Hildebad was assassinated in AD 541
and he was succeeded by his nephew Baduila, better known as Totila.
By AD 542 Totila had routed the imperial armies in the field wherever he had met them and had
driven them back into their fortified towns like Ravenna or Rome. But for those cities he had
made his Goths in effect masters over all Italy once again.
In AD 543 Belisarius was back in Italy. But by now he had fallen out of favour with his emperor.
Instead of his devoted veterans he was allowed only a meagre force of raw recruits with which to
fight the Goths. In AD 545 Totila laid siege to Rome. Belisarius vainly attempted to relieve it,
and it fell back to the Goths in AD 546. They forcibly removed the population and dismantled
the defences. Belisarius after their departure reoccupied the city and refortified it, only to be
recalled to the east by Justinian, and for Totila to subsequently take Rome yet again.
Justinian was at war with Persia for the third time. Nevertheless he achieved great successes in
the west. The Italian command he granted to his chamberlain, the eunuch Narses, together with
the veteran troops he had denied Belisarius. The lengthy struggle so far had depleted the Gothic
army. Marching on Rome Narses forced Totila into a decisive engagement at Taginae.
Totila and his brother were slain and the Gothic was all but annihilated. The Ostrogoth power
was no more. Within the reign of the same emperor they had been befallen by the same fate as
the Vandals.
Narses then drove the Franks out of the north of Italy, leaving the motherland of the ancient
Roman empire once again restored to the empire itself. But the ceaseless struggle which had
waged for twenty years had destroyed the country, leaving it depopulated and desolated. Italy
was a poor prize for the efforts it had taken to conquer her.
Justinian further sought to restore imperial authority in Spain, where some cities were, as the
land suffered civil war among the Visigoths, secured, occupied and garrisoned with imperial
troops.
The third war with Persia under Justinian was exclusively a struggle to recover Colchis. Finally
the peace of AD 555 restored it to Constantinople, but only in return for substantial payment.
Despite public pressure Justinian remained true to his wife Theodora throughout his reign. Until
her death in AD 548 she proved an admirable foil and a supportive wife, on the one hand
standing up for persecuted members of the heretical Monophysite sect whose views she
supported, and on the other comforting and encouraging her husband at times of stress, notably
during the Nika rebellion. While the eastern empire was largely Greek in its morality, it did

187
uphold Roman law. The Justinian Code (AD 529) brought together all valid imperial laws and
laid the foundation for almost all the legal systems in Europe. In addition he issued a revised and
up-to-date edition (AD 534) of the works of classical jurists, and a textbook on Roman law (AD
533). He is also credited with introducing into Europe the culture of the silk-worm.
Justinian's liking of architecture and his subsequent spectacular churches did provide a
permanent legacy to his name, though they also threw the imperial finances into disarray.
Constantinople could not afford them out of normal revenue and hence the funds to pay for them
had to be raised form abnormal taxation which crippled trade and industry of every kind - at the
same time during which very heavy war taxation was to pay for Justinian's and Belisarius'
campaigns.
So as much as Justinian achieved, and his achievements are many, ant his death he left behind an
empire exhausted by war and the treasury drained dry.
Justinian died in the same year as his most dedicated general, Belisarius, in AD 565 at the age of
83.
Justin II (reign AD 565-578)
Justinian's successor, Justin II, was ambitious, but lacked both the capacity and the means to
achieve his imperial ambitions. By this time the Slavs (Slovenians) were rather flooding than
infiltrating the Balkan peninsula in an inexhaustible stream. The Avars in conjunction with the
Lombards (Langobards) had just obliterated their trans-Danubian enemies (the Herulians and the
Gepidae) and were ready to expand southward. The financial and military resources of the
empire were reduced to the very ebb.
Early on in his reign (AD 567) Justin II removed Narses, the exarch of Ravenna, who'd
completed the conquest of Italy for Justinian, from his post. It was a grave mistake which left
Italy without firm leadership and hence wide open to any prospective invaders. The Lombards
didn't need to be invited. they vacated their Danubian lands and poured through the Alps to take
the place vacated by the Ostrogoths.
Justinian had kept the Avars quiet by a subsidy. Justin invited their attack by withdrawing the
subsidy, and they responded by raiding with ever increasing intensity. Then in 571 he refused to
continue payments to the Persians under the agreement which had been made when they
evacuated Colchis. Thus began the prolonged Persian war (AD 572-591) which was a steady
drain on the resources of the empire, bringing no counterbalancing gains. Although, on the
whole, the Persians had the worse in the fighting.
Then Justin went mad. He recovered sufficiently to nominate Tiberius Constantius as his
colleague - the wisest act of his entire reign. Then he relapsed again.
For a time the power remained in the hands of his own empress. On his death, Tiberius II, of
whom much was expected, became true emperor of Constantinople.
Tiberius II (reign AD 578-582)
Tiberius II's reign was cut short by premature death (AD 582), though not after he had achieved
a shaky peace agreement with the Avars.
Maurice I (reign AD 582-602)
Tiberius had nominated as his successor Maurice I, who had been doing good service in the
command of the eastern army. He was a good soldier, but custom forbode the emperor from
commanding in the field, and he did not understand administration. The one truth he realized was
the need for economy, and his economies ruined the discipline of his forces. Still, the war was

188
ended by a Persian revolution. The Persian king Hormisdas was killed and the crown was
usurped by Varahnes. The legitimate heir Chosroes II fled to the Romans. Maurice granted him
help which enabled him to carry out a counterrevolution and recover the throne. In such
circumstances it was not difficult to negotiate a peace much needed by both sides.
Meanwhile the Avars had broken the peace which Tiberius II had induced them to accept. Also
the Slavonic flood was rising. In AD 599 the economical emperor refused to ransom some
thousands of prisoners who had fallen into the hands of the Avars. The khan of the Avars had
them massacred. Public opinion laid blame on Maurice. Then in AD 601, again for the sake of
economy, the troops were ordered not to return to winter quarters. The soldiers mutinied, chose
Phocas, one of their own, as their leader, marched on Constantinople, murdered Maurice, and
proclaimed Phocas emperor (AD 602).
Phocas (reign AD 602-610)
Chaos followed Phocas' usurpation of the throne, for he was nothing but a brutal savage.
Chosroes II, as the avenger of his old protector Maurice, set about the conquest of the east, while
Avars and Slavs ranged practically unresisted over the Balkans. Meanwhile Phocas occupied
himself with hunting down and killing conspirators, real or suspected. Mesopotamia, northern
Syria, Asia Minor all fell to Chosroes II's Persians. Only southern Syria, Egypt and Africa
remained untouched.
In AD 609 Heraclius the elder, who had governed Africa long and well, organized a revolt. In
AD 610 his son, Heraclius the younger, arrived at the Dardanelles with a fleet. The tyrant found
himself utterly deserted. He was seized and handed over in chains to young Heraclius, who
forthwith sent him to his death. Then Constantinople proclaimed its deliverer emperor.
Heraclius (reign AD 610-641)
The task before him was nigh impossible. Experienced officers, disciplined troops, money above
all, were wanting. Disaster followed disaster. The Persians turned on Syria, in AD 514 capturing
Jerusalem. They sacked it and carried off what had been for centuries treasured as the 'True
Cross' on which Jesus Christ had been crucified. Two years later they invaded Egypt, which
offered no resistance at all. In AD 617 they took and garrisoned Chalcedon, facing
Constantinople across the Bosporus. The end seemed at hand.
Despair wrought a miracle. High and low rallied to the cause. The church leading the way, they
brought in by voluntary effort all their treasures, and troops were raised. Heraclius proclaimed
his resolve to break through tradition and take the field in person - to stake all on the last
desperate effort to save the empire (and Christianity). But first the Avars and the Slavs had to be
bound over. It was not until AD 622 that Heraclius was at last free to attack.
He had one vital asset, the command of the sea, and he used it. While he controlled the waters,
Constantinople was safe from the Persians. He carried his troops along the coast to Cilicia where
he landed cutting Asia Minor from Syria and forcing the enemy to withdraw from the west. Next
year he drove straight at Media. Year after year success followed success. He penetrated
victoriously further into the heart of Persia than any Roman commander before him.
When the Avars broke the treaty again, he even dared to risk leaving the capital to the strength of
its own defences, and the siege was indeed broken up in AD 626.
In AD 627 he shattered the last Persian armies near Nineveh. This was the last blow to Chosroes
II's hold on power. His own troops deposed him, and his successor immediately sued for peace.
Heraclius granted peace on generous terms. The Persian threat was finally nullified. The idol of
the army and the people, Heraclius returned in AD 628 to Constantinople, unconscious of the
rise, in remote Arabia, of a menace to his empire, far more terrific than that which he had so

189
gloriously broken - the world shattering power of Islam. For the Prophet Mohammed had arisen,
upon whose death four years later the flood-gates would be opened.
After the death of Mohammed in Medina, the leadership of the Arabs was to fall to Abu Bekr
who became the first Khalif. It wasn't long before two armies were dispatched, - one to
Mesopotamia (Irak) and the other to Syria.
They were tiny forces indeed compared to what might both Persia and Constantinople
represented, and at that time it was still doubtful if Arabia was to hold together itself or break
into fragments.
If the Arabs met with easy success against the Persians then the Romans were of a different fibre.
Though the veterans who had served un Heraclius glorious campaigns against Chosroes II were
mostly disbanded. The new recruits were of comparatively poor quality.
Meanwhile the Arabs moved their commander who'd been so successful against the Persians,
Khalid, to the front against the Romans. This turned events in favour of the Arabs, or Saracens as
they were becoming to be known as. In the late summer of AD 634 they won a crushing victory
against the Romans on the Yermak.
Next year Damascus fell. Heraclius once more took the field in person, but he was no longer the
same Heraclius who had heroically smashed the Persians. He was hopelessly enfeebled by
disease. In AD 636 the emperor abandoned Syria, emphasizing the completeness of the defeat by
carrying with him to Constantinople the 'True Cross', which had, after his triumph over the
Persians, had been re-enshrined at Jerusalem.
Antioch and Jerusalem itself fell in AD 637, and the capture of the great port of Caesarea in AD
640 completed the Saracen conquest of Syria.
But things were only to get worse for Constantinople as the Saracens then took to Egypt under
the commander Amru. The conquest of this country in fact presented no serious difficulty to
them at all. The population of the Nile basin had no affection for the Empire, Monophysite
Christianity being widespread, which orthodox Christian Byzantium sought to repress. Also
Egyptian farmers were systematically exploited by their Roman masters for their corn supply,
upon which Constantinople depended heavily. A force of 16'000 men proved sufficient to effect
the conquest, finishing with the capitulation of Alexandria in AD 641, with little serious fighting,
and the dying Heraclius making no effort for its relief.
Constantine III (reign AD 641) and Heracleonas (reign AD 641-642)
When Heraclius died in AD 641, he was succeeded by his two sons, Heraclius Constantinus and
Heracleonas. The elder died almost immediately, his ten year old son Constans II, was associated
with Heracleonas as emperor.
Constans II (reign AD 642-668)
In AD 642 Heracleonas died and the boy Constans II became sole emperor. Until he reached
manhood the government was conducted by the senate.
Though Constans II's reign was also not to be a lucky one. In AD 646 his forces invaded from
Asia Minor. The Saracen general Moawiya not only repelled the attack but carried the war into
the empire's territory. Troops from Asia Minor raided further and further into Asia Minor in
successive years, pushing nearer and nearer to the western limit of Asia, while Europe itself was
threatened by the passing of the command of the eastern Mediterranean into the hands of the
Saracen fleet.
In AD 649 the Saracen fleet effected the capture of Cyprus.

190
In AD 652 the imperial fleet was driven from Alexandria and in AD 655 it was finally defeated
off Phoenix on the Lycian coast, in the heaviest sea-fight since Actium.
Constans though was not intent on sitting there and watching his dominions being slowly eroded
away. Most of all he longed to restore imperial supremacy to Italy. In AD 662 he set out on his
Italian expedition, overrunning southern Italy in AD 663 and visiting Rome. But then, without
attacking the northern kingdom, he retired unhindered through the south and took up his
headquarters in Syracuse. From there he directed the AFrican campaigns against the attacking
Saracens, who had assaulted and captured Carthage (AD 663). The African campaigns were
successful and the Saracens were driven back as far as Tripoli.
Though all around him turned hostile in Syracuse as a result of his merciless means by which to
make the Sicilians and southern Italians pay for the war.
In AD 668 Constant II was murdered at Syracuse by a slave who was probably the instrument of
a conspiracy.
Constantine IV Pogonatus (reign AD 668-685)
Constans II was succeeded by his son Constantine IV Pogonatus. The new emperor was only
eighteen when he took the throne. AFter suppressing a usurper at Syracuse who had tried to
make his profit out of the murder of his father, the young emperor plunged into the war with the
Saracens.
For some time Moawiya, now Khalif of the Saracens, met with success against him. By AD 673
Moawiya was in possession of the Asiatic shore of the Sea of Marmora and laid siege to
Constantinople itself. Then the tide turned. The Byzantine fleet, - armed with a new weapon,
known as 'Greek Fire', a mixture of flammable oils which were blown at opponents with bellows,
a little like an early flame-thrower, - recovered the mastery of the sea and drove off the Saracens.
In ad 678 Moawiya had to sue for peace, and the hostilities were again suspended for several
years.
At about that time however, Bulgaria came into being as a kingdom. The Slavs had long been in
occupation of Moesia. To expel them had proved impossible, and Constans II had made terms
with them which practically left them independent. The Bulgars had then crossed the Danube in
force and now dominated the Slavs. Constanine IV recognized the Bulgarian kingdom in AD
679.
In the next year a general council of the churches, eastern and western, was held at
Constantinople, which finally banned the Monothelite heresy. Constantine IV died in AD 685
Justinian II (reign AD 685-695)
After the death of Constantine IV the empire fell on evil days. The young emperor, Justinian II,
who was deposed in AD 695, restored in AD 705 and killed in AD 711 was a brilliant but
tempestuous and vindictive man.
A successful campaign against the Bulgarians in AD 690 excited his military ambitions, and in
AD 693 he picked a quarrel with Abd el-Malik. Justinian II invaded Syria through the Taurus,
only to meet with an overwhelming defeat at Sebastopolis.
Meanwhile at Constantinople his ministers had been extorting crippling taxes by monstrous
methods. The emperor himself dealt so drastically with generals who met with reverses that one
who had hitherto been successful, Leontius, revolted in AD 695, seized his person, slit his nose -
a method of disfigurement that had recently come into practice in Europe - and sent him off to
imprisonment in the Crimea.

191
 Leontius (reign AD 695-698)
Leontius himself though was deposed in AD 698 by officers returning from Africa, who were
afraid of paying the penalty for the loss of Carthage, just captured by the Saracens. They now slit
his nose, shut him up in a monastery, and made Tiberius III emperor.
Tiberius III (reign AD 698-705)
Tiberius III fought some successful campaigns against the Saracens, penetrating into northern
Syria.
But in AD 705 Justinian II escaped from the Crimea, got help from the king of Bulgaria, was
received into Constantinople by traitors, seized the palace, resumed the throne and put to death
Leontius and Tiberius III after treading on their necks as they lay bound before him.
Justinian II, restored (reign AD 705-711)
Justinian II, restored to his throne, then indulged in an orgy of undiscriminating cruelty, which
was only ended by a military insurrection. Having been sent by the emperor to crush a revolt in
the Crimea, the general Philippicus Bardanes instead joined the rebels and sailed back to
Constantinople wehre he swept to power on a wave of popular support (AD 711). And so
Justinian II and his wife and children died at the hands of his own soldiers.
Philippicus (reign AD 711-713)
Philippicus made himself emperor following the example of the mutineers who had made Phocas
emperor a century earlier.
In the same year the Saracen fleets descended on Sardinia and tore from the empire the most
westerly province which still acknowledged its sovereignty.
Anastasius II (reign 713-715)
Two years after Philippicus accession to the throne another conspiracy set Anastasius II in the
place of Philippicus
Theodosius III (reign AD 715-716)
Yet another two years went by and Anastasius II fell, making way for Theodosius III (AD 715).
Collapse seemed imminent. At that time the Saracens were preparing a great blow to the empire.
A mighty armament was made ready by and land under the command of the khalif's brother
Moslemah for the siege of Constantinople. At Amorium, in the heart of Asia Minor the empire
had an able defender in its army's commander, Leo the Isaurian, who held the Saracens at bay.
But Leo chose to make a truce and march on the capital himself to depose the latest incompetent
occupant of the imperial throne. Theodosius III, only two years into his reign, anticipated his
own deposition by a judicious abdication in favour of the very man who would otherwise have
forcibly ejected him, Leo III the Isaurian.
Leo III (reign AD 716-741)
The latest struggle for the throne seemed to make Constantinople's fall only all the more certain.
But Constantinople did not fall.
Not for the first, and not for the last time did the city show an amazing power of recuperation.
AS the thousands of Arab and Persian warriors for the first time poured over the Hellespont the
walls remained impregnable. Their fleets swarmed up and down the Bosporus, but were
eventually beaten by the imperial fleet and its 'Greek Fire'. With its sea roads open to the Black
Sea, Constantinople could not be starved out of supplies.

192
The death of the Khalif made no difference to the continued Saracen attempts to take the great
city. The khalif sent yet further reinforcements by land and sea. Again the Saracen fleet sailed up
the Bosporus, this time to be almost completely annihilated by the Byzantines.
Following up from this victory, Leo landed a force of the Asiatic shore and cut the great Saracen
army off from the east. The besieging army in effect now found itself besieged, and its general,
Moslemah, had the utmost difficulty keeping it from starvation. Then came the news that the
Bulgar king was mobilizing a great force against the Saracens. Moslemah raised the siege of
Constantinople and cut his way back into Asia Minor to Syria with what was left of his once
mighty army.
Leo III had decisively delivered the eastern empire from the Saracen threat.
Centuries should pass before the Asia Minor should again be invaded in force by Saracen armies.
Leo III's military glories are indeed impressive. But he perhaps even better known as Leo the
Iconoclast. This is due to the role he played in a theological controversy of such magnitude that it
should eventually drive the churches of east and west apart.
Iconoclasm was the revolt against the church's habit of reading supernatural meanings into
unaccustomed natural events, the understanding of miraculous legends as accepted history, and -
most importantly - the belief that, at least in part, the spirits of the saints, Mary and Jesus resided
within their pictoral and sculptural representation in the churches. The iconoclasts (the 'image
breakers') denounced the worshipping of holy images as idolatry.
Leo III resolved to do away with what he saw as superstitious idolatry and prohibited the
worship of images, and ordering the removal or painting out of sacred statues and pictures.
The cross as a symbol he retained, the crucifix bearing the image of Christ he banned. A mass of
intelligent lay opinion was with him. The clergy, headed by Pope Gregory II at Rome, were
solidly against him. And with them were the unrestricted masses to whom the images had
become fetishes.
In Italy it was impossible to enforce the edict, while Gregory not only defended the principle of
image worship, but denounced the sacrilegious emperor in person. Elsewhere the execution of
Leo III's orders was attended by furious riots. The antagonism between the papal and the
imperial authority reached an unprecedented bitterness, so that Leo III prepared once more to
appeal to the sword in AD 732. But the elements were against him and wrecked his fleet before it
could reach Italy in a storm.
This ended, before it even began, the last attempt of Constantinople to make good its theoretical
sovereignty in the west.
But in the east the battle between iconoclasts and iconodules was only just beginning.
The collision between Gregory and Leo had given the Lombard king Liutprand occasion for
aggressive action. The Ravenna exarchate was a wedge between the northern kingdom and the
southern duchies. Liutprand attacked the exarchate, and before the end of AD 727 the whole of it
was in his hands, with very little fighting. The exarch Eutychius, however, escaped to Venice,
now rising to prominence in the security of her lagoons, and in AD 729 Eutychius recovered
Ravenna by a surprise attack in Liutprand's absence. He then marched on Rome to bring Gregory
to reason. Liutprand though managed to impose a pacification on all the parties, which left the
exarch in possession of Ravenna, and Gregory virtually independent. It was this that caused Leo,
two years later when Gregory III had succeeded Gregory II in the papacy, to prepare the great
but futile expedition of AD 732.
Constantinople still enjoyed the prestige of the empire of the Caesars. For the Oriental the City
of Constantine was 'Rome'. But its face was not turned to the west but to the east. Asia Minor
formed the larger part of its dominion. The Danube had long ceased to be its northern boundary.

193
The interior of the Balkan peninsula had passed into the occupation of the tribes which had
flooded over the Danube since the departure of the Goths. Mixed Bulgars and Slavs. A Bulgarian
kingdom with only the most shadowy subordination to the empire was already established and a
Serbian kingdom was shaping. In Italy there was still an imperial exarch at Ravenna. There were
imperial governors in Sicily and Calabria and at the head of the ADriatic Venice chose to own
imperial overlordship mainly because it involved her in no inconvenient obligations.
The papacy made a certain profession of loyalty to the empire, as a protection to itself to
Lombard aggression, but it contested the position of spiritual supremacy with Constantinople.
Meanwhile the great controversy of image worship remained irreconcilable.
Leo III was an administrator of high ability. After AD 732 he recognized that Italy was out of
reach, but in the east he was able to enforce his iconoclastic principles on reluctant Europeans
and approving Asians.
Prosperity revived and prestige was strengthened by a victory, won under his personal command,
at Acroinon, over a large invading army which Hisham sent over the Taurus in AD 739. Two
years later Leo III died and was succeeded by Constantine V.
Constantine V (reign 741-775)
Constantine V's rule was vigorous and active. By in large it was a successful reign. The
prolonged conflicts attending the fall of the Ommiad dynasty and the establishment of the
Abbasids in the Khalifate gave him many opportunities for campaigns in Armenia or beyond the
Taurus, by which some territory was recovered. He fortified the passes of the Balkan range,
curbing Bulgarian and Serbian aggression. And when the Bulgar kings replied by attacks he
repelled them, only being prevented from crushing them completely by a disastrous storm which
wrecked his fleet. He cleared the country of brigands, so that merchants travelled in security,
leading to a marked increase in trade.
But he left an ill name in history because where his father was a puritan he was a zealot. Not
satisfied with imposing public conformity, he searched out and penalized those who continued to
practise 'image worship' in private, instituted a harsh religious persecution, based on the decision
of the general council at Constantinople in AD 753. A council which was rejected by the
patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria and the pope before it had even begun.
Alas, Constatine V even embarked on a campaign against monks and monasticism which was
shocking to all but the very extremists.
Leo IV (reign 775-780)
The same policies, though with a degree less brutality and intolerance, were pursued by
Constantine V's son, Leo IV, who also in the course of his brief reign fought two successful
campaigns with the khalif Mahdi. But when he died, leaving a ten year old son, Constantine VI,
the power passed into the hands of his widow.
Irene, regent for Constantine VI (regency AD 780-790)
For ten years the dowager empress Irene reigned in her son's name. She was an ambitious
woman who had hitherto concealed the fact that she was herself a zealous 'iconodule' (image
worshipper).
Beginning by relaxing the measures against the image worshippers, she went on to dismiss
iconoclast officials civil and ecclesiastic and to replace them by iconodules. She called a fresh
religious council which in effect reversed the decrees of the last.
A plot was uncovered in favour of one of the late Leo IV's brothers. But it was discovered and all
the young emperor's uncles were forced to become monks.

194
The imperial guard mutinied, but was suppressed.
While Irene was carrying through her ecclesiastical policy the Slavs broke out in Thrace and the
khalif's armies raided Asia Minor with impunity, so that they had to be bought off.
Constantine VI (reign AD 790-797)
In AD 790 Constantine VI, chafing at still being kept in tutelage by his mother, and angered at
weakness displayed in Asia Minor, effected a coup d'état and took the reigns of power into his
own hands. Quickly he began to show signs of ability and vigour in government. But he again
allowed his mother a freedom and a degree of authority of which she took advantage.
Irene (reign AD 797-802)
In AD 797 Irene, abusing the authority granted to her by her son, effected her own coup d'état,
had her son seized, his eye gouged out, and had him shut up in a monastery. Then, she - and for
this there was no precedent - assumed the throne herself.
For five unhappy years Irene was empress, largely because there was no one ready to take upon
himself the risk of deposing her. They were years of disaster/ Haroun al Raschid's raiders,
checked for a time by Constantine VI, now overran Asia Minor and once again needed to be
bought off by a promise of heavy tribute. The domestic government was in the hands of petty
favourites. Constantinople was coming apart.
Nicephorus (reign AD 802-811)
The situation became so intolerable that in AD 802 the treasurer, Nicephorus, conspired against
the empress. Irene was seized in the middle of the night, carried off to a convent and forced to
take her vows to become a nun.
Without further disturbance Nicephorus was accepted as emperor.
The new emperor possessed no personal prestige. He was known solely as a competent treasury
official. Nicephorus took the always unpopular but highly commendable course of maintaining a
resolute neutrality between the image worshippers and the iconoclasts. And though he was no
soldier, he did his best to restore the efficiency of the army. But he failed to free himself from the
tribute to Haroun al-Raschid.
Nicephorus fell in a Bulgarian campaign against the Bulgar Khan Krum, who after defeating
him, had his skull lined with silver and used it as a drinking cup.
Michael Rhangabe (reign AD 811-813)
Nicephorus' had a son, Stauracius, but he never made it home to Constantinople, having been
mortally wounded in Bulgaria.
And so succession was secured by the incompetent Michael Rhangabe, Nicephorus' Greek son-
in-law. He was the first ever Greek to sit on the throne.
In AD 812 he acknowledged the new Roman emperor of the west (Holy Roman Empire).
Alas his incapacity led to his deposition in AD 813 by the soldier Leo V, the Armenian.
Leo V (reign AD 813-820)
Leo V's rule did much to counteract the unhappy effects of Irene's reign, which that of
Nicephorus had only in small degree been able to remedy. Also the Bulgars were firmly checked.
More still could have been achieved if the emperor had been able to keep clear of the
iconoclastic controversy, in which, like most soldiers, he was on the otherwise unpopular side of
the iconoclasts.
But, having thus made himself unpopular, he was assassinated in AD 820.

195
 Michael II (reign AD 820-829)
The accession of another soldier, Michael II the Amorian (the stammerer) was attended by
outbreaks of rebellion and his nine year reign was mainly memorable for the loss of Crete to the
Corsairs and the invasion of Sicily by the Aglabids.
Theophilus (reign AD 829-842)
Success and defeat alternated in the struggle for Sicily between the empire and the Aglabids. But
two years after the accession of Theophilus, son of Michael II, war was renewed between the
empire and the khalifate. Mamun invaded Cappadocia and Theophilus was forced to concentrate
all his military efforts on the war against the khalifate. Theophilus had provoked the attack by
harbouring refugees from the khalif's religious persecution.
The consequence was that he could no longer send aid to his Sicilian subjects, and, in spite of a
prolonged and stubborn defence, the Saracen conquest of Sicily became inevitable as Messina
fell in AD 842. Meanwhile the war in the east raged on, neither side gaining a distinct advantage
over the other.
Michael III (reign 842-867)
At the death of Theophilus in AD 842 government passed into the hands of a council of regency
on behalf of his infant son, afterwards unhappily known as Michael the Drunkard. A feeble
government at Bagdad, a feeble government at Constantinople, and generals usually inefficient
on both sides, kept the war dragging on indecisively.
The regency council was directed by the young mother of the infant emperor, who was only four
years old in AD 842. Theodora, the empress-dowager, was a fervent image worshipper for whom
the religious question dominated all others. She reversed her late husband's policy and persecuted
the iconoclasts. Administration generally went to pieces.
At eighteen Michael in AD 856 set his mother aside and ruled for ten years with his drinking
companion, his disreputable uncle Bardas, first as councilor than as colleague.
In AD 858 Michael of his own authority deposed the austere patriarch Ignatius and set in his
place the more amenable Photius. The pope Benedict III proclaimed the invalidity of the action
and denounced both Photius and the emperor.
Tiring of Bardas, Michael put him out of the way and set in his place as caesar another drinking
companion of his, Basil the Macedonian. Then in AD 866 the Synod of Constantinople gave the
imperial reply to their patriarch's excommunication by formulating the pronouncement which
marked the irrevocable parting of the church in the east from the church in the west. Neither
attempts then, nor any later ones ever managed to unify the Christian church thereafter.
Though not twelve months went by and Basil the Macedonian, a hard-headed character, had
Michael murdered after a heavy drinking bout (AD 867).
Basil (reign AD 867-886)
Already being caesar, Basil, after the murder of Michael III, assumed the position of emperor
unopposed, inaugurating the Macedonian dynasty, which should reign Constantinople for nearly
two centuries.
As an emperor Basil the Macedonian meant business. He reorganized the finances. He directed
the administration with vigour and substantial justice. With campaigns he reconquered territories
long lost in the east from a tottering khalifate. His fleets recaptured the mastery of the
Mediterranean, driving the Corsairs of the seas, his armies swept the Saracens out of Calabria.
But in Sicily he failed altogether and he died in AD 886, before he could expel them from
Campania.

196
 Leo VI (reign AD 886-912)
Leo VI, also known as Leo the Wise, justified his title by writing a manual on military tactics
and becoming an authority on witchcraft. He was educated by the Byzantine patriarch Photius
and had been made co-emperor to his father Basil in AD 870.
Under him the empire prospered. The fleet was strengthened and on land the Bulgars were kept
at bay with the help of the Magyars. Though eventually concessions needed to be made and in
AD 896 Leo VI agreed to pay an annual subsidy to the Bulgar king Simeon.
Treaties were signed with Russia in AD 907 regulating trade between the two powers.
Leo's wish for a male heir though led him into conflict with the church, as he married four times.
Alexander (reign AD 912-913)
Alexander was the younger brother of Leo VI and the third son of Basil. Leo VI made him co-
emperor in AD 879 but ruled on his own until his death.
With the rule falling to Alexander all emperor Leo VI's advisers were dismissed and even his
widow, Zoe, was sent to a nunnery. Hostilities soon restarted with the Bulgars, as Alexander
refused to pay the tribute to the Bulgar king Simeon.
However, Alexander did make his young nephew, Leo's IV son, Constantine VII co-emperor.
Perhaps this had been agreed with his brother before his death.
Constantine VII (reign AD 913-959), Romanus I (reign 920-944)
Alxander was succeeded by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. He became emperor at the age of
five and was officially or unofficially set aside or reinstated at intervals. Commerce and the arts
of peace flourished. Constantinople maintained its prosperity. Its forces were adequate to keep
the barbarians to the north in check, and the the power Bagdad had waned to pose no significant
threat. This was a time of prolonged stability within the empire. For a great part of Constantine
VII's reign the imperial title was shared and the imperial office discharged by a soldier of some
distinction, Romanus I, whose name was given to Constantine VII's son, who succeeded him in
AD 959.
Romanus II (reign AD 959-963)
The reign of Romanus II was active but brief, inaugurating a period of military energy. The
Saracen empire was split between three rival khalifs and was further fragmented by feuding
powerful families and tribes. The time was deemed favourable for an attack on the Saracens. The
emperor's, Nicephorus Phocas, opened the assault in AD 960. Crete was recaptured, Cilicia was
invaded.
Basil II, Constantine VIII and Nicephorus II Phocas (reign AD 963-969)
Romanus II died in AD 963, leaving two infants, Basil II and Constantine VIII, to share the
imperial crown, with their mother Theophano as regent. The victorious general Nicephorus
returned, married the widow, and associated himself on the throne with the infants after the
precedent of Romanus I. He recovered Cyprus, and his armies overran half Syria. But he was
extremely unpopular with the clergy and the court.
Theophano repented her marriage and entered on a conspiracy with one of Nicephorus II's
captains, John Zimisces. John murdered the rather terrible emperor while he slept, and
proclaimed himself, without opposition, the associate of the two children. Though, instead of
marrying their mother, he shut her up in a convent (AD 969).
Basil II, Constantine VIII and John Tzimiskes (reign AD 963-976)

197
Then, like Basil the Macedonian, he atoned for his crime. He treated the boys, his colleagues,
with all the respect due to their position. One of their sisters he married himself. with his own
wealth he was lavish in pious charity.
Meanwhile the Russian Sviatoslav was overrunning Bulgaria. In AD 971 John marched against
him, defeated him in two desperate battles, and then struck a treaty, which converted the Russian
power into an ally and the Russian people into Christians of the orthodox church.
Then he went campaigning in Syria where the Saracens had been recovering ground. But his
career of victory was cut short by his sudden death in AD 976.
Basil II (reign AD 976-1025) and Constantine VIII (reign 1025-1028)
Basil II, now twenty years old, admitted no new colleague to share the imperial power and
dignity with his brother Constantine VIII and himself. For nearly fifty years - until 1025 - he
reigned virtually alone.
A new trouble had arisen in the increasing independence of territorial magnates in Asia Minor.
Perhaps it would have been better for the empire had Basil II sought to convert them into
baronies, subject to the empire, but the more obvious course, which he adopted with ultimate
success, was to suppress them.
But while he was thus engaged, Bulgaria, profiting by the expulsion of the Russians, was again
becoming powerful and troublesome under her king Samuel. Dominating the Serbs in the north
west, Samuel's raisers poured year by year over Macedonia. In AD 996 they harried the
Peloponnese but suffered a disastrous defeat while retiring. In 1002 Basil set about the work of
conquest in earnest. But it was not completed until in 1014 he won an overwhelming victory,
taking 15'000 captives. He blinded those captives, all but a hundred and fifty, who were left an
eye each to guide the rest home. The horror of the act killed Samuel, while Basil won the grim
honour of his distinctive name Bulgaroctonus - 'Slayer of the Bulgars'. The Bulgars still held out
till the last resistance was crushed in 1018. So ended the first Bulgar kingdom.
Basil, now an old man, next turned his arms against Armenia - a mistake, since thereby he
destroyed an effective buffer between the empire and the Islamic powers. With his death in 1025
passed the revived strength and energy of the eastern empire.
Constantine VIII was the last prince of the Macedonian house. He followed his brother to the
grave in 1028.
Zoe, Romanus III Argyrus (1028-1034), Michael IV (1034-1041), Michael V
Calaphates (1041-1042) and Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1054)
For the next twenty-six years the emperors were the successive husbands of Constantine VIII's
daughter Zoe. During this period the last of the imperial power was being ejected from south
Italy and the eastern empire was in effect without a ruler.
Zoe's successive husbands, Romanus Argyrus, Michael IV wielded power between 1028 and
1041. Zoe then adopted Michael Calaphates who repaid her with imprisonment. she was released
at the clamour of the populace, who cherished loyalty to her family. Zoe's last husband was
Constantine Monomachus.
Theodora (reign 1054-1056)
For three brief years Zoe's sister Theodora did what she could to check the process of decay. But
she died at the moment when the Mohammedan world was falling to the Seljuk Turks.
Michael VI Stratioticus (reign 1056-1057)
In 1056 Theodora died, the last of the Macedonian family. On her deathbed, she nominated an
elderly official, Michael Stratioticus. But Michael proved utterly incompetent for the job. His

198
actions so enraged the aristocracy and military leaders that they announced another leader, Isaac
Comnenus, in his place after not even a year had elapsed. The challenger Isaac simply marched
on Constantinople where he defeated the emperor's forces at Petroë on 20 August 1057. Only
eleven days later Michael VI resigned.
Isaac Comnenus (reign 1057-1059)
In his coup against the emperor Michael VI the soldier Isaac Comnenus acted with with the
support of the aristcracy, the military elite and even the religious leadership. He had been a
favourite of emperor Basil II and had since won much confidence among the people during
previous his military career.
Isaac proved a capable man, putting the government back onto a steady footing, though he did
clash with the church on attempts by the patriarch tryig to exert influence on government. At the
height of the crisis, Isaac even took the drastic step of deposing patriarch Cerularius and sending
him into exile.
In 1059 Isaac campaigned against the Hugnarians and then against the Patzinaks. Then he fell
severely ill, and believing himself about to die, he resigned his throne and handed power to
Constantine Ducas.
After this, his health improved. But Isaac did not seek to return to power but instead retired to a
monastery.
Constantine X Ducas (reign 1059-1067)
Constantine X Ducas was an experienced politician who was neither soldier nor a statesman.
In 1060 Alp Asrlan flung himself on Armenia. The empire gave no effective aid to the country
whose power Basil II had destroyed. The Seljuks overran Armenia, and then flooded into Asia
Minor.
Romanus IV Diogenes (reign 1068-1071)
At last a new emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes, took up the neglected task and attacked the
invader. Alp Arslan drew him into the mountains, fought him in a great pitched battle at
Manzikert (1071), took him prisoner and cut his army to pieces. The Seljuks swept on, the young
colleague of Romanus IV, was soon after reduced to buying a respite by the cession of virtually
the whole of Asia Minor.
On the death of sultan Alp Arslan, command of Asia Minor was left to the general Sulayman,
who captured Nicaea in 1073, to be a permanent menace to Constantinople.
Michael VII Ducas (reign 1071-1078)
After the death of Romanus IV, the feeble young emperor Michael VII Ducas was compelled to
concede to the Turkish general Sulayman the 'governorship' of all those provinces of which he
was in actual possession. In other words, all but an insignificantly small portion of Asia Minor
fell to Sulayman which he very converted into the practically independent sultanate of Roum.
Nicephorus III Botaniates (reign 1078-1081)
A few years later Michael VII was deposed by Nicephorus III, who proved almost as
incompetent and in other respects far worse than his predecessor. A very serious rebellion by
Nicephorus Bryennius saw a large part of the remaining territories of the empire side with the
usurper.
The rebel was only narrowly defeated and taken prisoner at the battle of Calavryta (AD 1079).
But government went from bad to worse, until finally, in 1081, the very general who had won the
battle of Calavryta for his emperor, Alexius Comnenus, removed Nicephorus III from the throne.

199
 Alexius Comnenus (reign 1081-1118)
Alexius established a dynasty which should hold the throne for a century. He was a skillful
soldier, a capable administrator and an astute diplomat, who had to make the best of bad
materials.
The best troops in his service were the Varangian guard, mostly composed of Swedes, Russians
an miscellaneous Viking adventurers, and recently recruited Englishmen who preferred the
wages of the emperor to subjugation to the Normans.
The old Isaurian recruiting grounds had passed under the sway of the Turks. The population over
which he ruled was inert. Nicaea, the capital of Roum, was eminently near the Bosporus. And the
moment of his accession was also the moment chosen by the duke of Apulia, Robert Guiscard,
for his attack on Dyrrhachium (Durazzo), we he captured, the Varangians' heroic defence being
overwhelmed. To the Norman duke, a zealot papist, the heretic empire was a tempting and
legitimate target.
It wasn't long and the duke and his elder son, Bohemud, were in Macedonia, where the latter
remained when his father hurried back in aid of the pope in 1084. But Alexius saved himself
from disaster by a crafty and competent strategy. Bohemud, too, returned on his father's death to
secure his title, and for the time Alexius was relieved of the Norman peril.
There was work enough for him in the recovery of effective control in his own dominions, but
his ambition was to recover it also in the lost provinces to the empire, which there was no hope
of doing without aid from the west. So Alexius set himself to procure that aid. He had already
found pope Gregory VII not averse from the idea of holy war. But he knew the pope very likely
to demand ecclesiastical submission to Rome as a condition for any support.
At first Alexius had been inspired rather by fear of the Seljuks than by ambition, but his hopes
rose with the disintegration of the Seljuk power on the death of Malik Shah in 1092. Still relying
on the emotional aspects of Turkish misrule in the holy land, he renewed his appeal to pope
Urban II in 1095.
Urban II had gathered at Piacenza a great assembly (primarily to denounce the sins of king
Henry IV). There was an emotional atmosphere in which the words of Alexius' envoys took deep
effect.
But Urban II did not at once respond.
It took until November that year until a vast council was gathered at Clermont. Urban II had
found, indeed almost created the psychological moment. To the gathered crows he issued a
passionate appeal to Christian men to lay aside their private quarrels and unite for the redemption
of the Holy Sepulchre from the Hands of the infidels. (For since the coming of the Turks, the
Muslim masters of Jerusalem repressed access to holy Christian sites such as the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre.) The multitude was swept away on the torrent of irresistible emotion and
answered with one universal cry, 'It is the will of god !'
Urban II had launched the first crusade.
A year after the Congress of Clermont the real crusading masses were swarming to there
appointed meeting place, Constantinople. Alexius had overreached himself. Hoping to raise in a
west a force of warriors whose services would enable him to recover Asia Minor, he had called
in a mighty army which cared not at all for his empire and seemed not unlikely to begin its
operation by dismembering what was left of it. But his diplomatic skill was equal to the
occasion. In the spring of 1097 he had passed them all safely over the Bosporus, with no
intention of facilitating their return and their leaders had pledged to restore to him any provinces
within the theoretical borders of the empire which they conquered. The crusaders laid siege to
Nicaea, which surrendered in June. A great victory at Dorylaeum drove Kilij Arslan east. Asia

200
Minor was won. The crusaders made their way through the Taurus. In October the main army
laid siege to Antioch, which held out against them until the following June. By July of the
following year Jerusalem was taken by storm from the Fatimids, who had only in the previous
year captured it from the Turks. The newly conquered, independent territories were generally
referred to as the 'Latin Kingdom'. This kingdom covered the territories of Palestine and
Phoenicia, with Antioch, extending north across the Euphrates to Edessa.
Meanwhile there had been no co-operation between the eastern empire and the Latin kingdom.
Alexius in fact had done far more to thwart then to help the crusaders.
John II Comnenus (reign 1118-1143)
After the death of Alexius Comnenus in 1118 his successor John II had seen no reason to change
an attitude which was mutually returned by the crusaders themselves. Even in Palestine itself the
Franks distinguished between their Catholic and Orthodox Christian subjects, taxing the
followers of the Orthodox church, but not the Catholics.
John II was an able and just ruler who gave to the Empire peace at home and was usually
successful in his wars. But he sought no reconciliation with the west and the Latin kingdom.
There was at least one respect in which the empire had suffered from the establishment of the
Latin kingdom. The levantine ports had robbed Constantinople of its trade, which passed into the
hands of the Genoese and Venetians.
Manuel Comnenus (reign 1143-1180)
Whilst all around the crusaders were now turning to quarreling amongst each other, rather than
fighting their sworn enemy, Islam, Constantinople, after the death of John II was ruled by a
brilliant, but erratic emperor, of the mould of a Richard the Lionheart. But the empire needed
something more than a recklessly daring knight-errant or a captain who won startling victories
against heavy odds.
Alexius II Comnenus (reign 1180-1183)
The mercurial Manuel was succeeded by his son Alexius II Comnenus, a minor whose throne
was usurped by his cousin.
Andronicus Comnenus (reign 1183-1185)
Andronicus Comnenus was a tyrant whose short reign was brought to an end as another rising
killed him in 1185.
Isaac II Angelus (reign 1185-1195)
The tyrannical Andronicus out of the way, and the dynasty of the Comneni at an end, fortune
played the throne into the hands of Isaac Angelus, a ruler of little worth, in whose eyes duplicity
was the essence of statecraft. In fact, Isaac's reign was quite disastrous.
Meanwhile Saladin, the great sultan of Egypt and Syria, swept through the ranks of the ranks of
the Latin kingdom. In October 1187 Jerusalem was back in Muslim hands.
As the Third Crusade swept by Isaac did little to help, if not more to hamper their success. This
was to prove a grave mistake, as this soured the relationship with the west to the point of
hostility.
So too, Bulgaria, which had always acknowledged at least the theoretical submission broke away
completely, establishing its total independence. By 1192 the Latin situation was hopeless and
Richard the Lionheart signed a treaty with Saladin by which the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem
was no more.

201
 Alexius III Angelus (reign 1195-1203)
In 1195 Alexius III Angelus, Isaac II's brother, usurped the throne. Isaac was blinded and thrown
into a dungeon in Constantinople. Though his government was no improvement. Anarchy
prevailed at Constantinople as well as elsewhere in its few dominions.
But now the Fourth Crusade began, proving perhaps one of the greatest farces in the history of
mankind.
The bad blood Isaac had created with the west during the Third Crusade now was to come and
haunt Constantinople.
Having gathered in Venice the great army became heavily indebted to the Venetians. Was the
original idea of the crusaders an attack on Egypt, the Venetians, who were to provide the
transport for the crusaders, very much to their own profit, suggested an attractive change of
programme. A business proposition by which the Venetian fleet and the crusading lords were to
share in the profits.
The totally destabilized Constantinople offered an easy prey.
And so the Fourth Crusade, composed to fight the 'infidels of the east' resulted in the attack upon
the most populous Christian city on the face of the earth.
Isaac II Angelus, restored(reign 1203-1204) &
Alexius IV Angelus (reign 1203-1204)
With the Crusaders still outside the city, Alexius III losthis nerve and fled. This left the people of
Constantinople to free his blinded brother and restore him the throne.
Under the pressure from the crusaders Isaac's son Alexius IV, who was the pretender the
crusaders had wished to see on the throne, was crowned co-emperor.
Though soon after hostilities should resume between the two sides.
Alexius V Ducas (reign 1204)
The troubles, fires and riots which ensued under the joint rule of the enfeebled Issac II and the
western 'puppet emperor' Alexius IV, with the crusaders at the gates, led eventually to their
overthrow. Alexius Ducas, son of the previous emperor Alexius III Ducas, seized the throne for
himself.
Alexius IV was strangled and Isaac II is said to have died of grief at the news of the murder of
his son.
No sooner was Alexius V in command he began to energetically lead the city in its defence
against the crusaders. Had he been in charge at the time of the arrival of the Crusade, the
invaders would most likely have been repulsed. But now it was too late. Despite the valiant
efforts of Alexius V the city fell on 12/13 April 1204.
The Fourt Crusade &
The Sack of Constantinople

To read the story of the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople, please select the button
below.

The Fourth Crusade &

The Sack of Constantinople

Baldwin of Flanders 1204-1205

202
Baldwin of Flanders was officially elected emperor of a feudal state, modelled on the former
Latin kingdom. The eastern empire or 'Greek' empire was for the time in which it was ruled by
the foreign lords known as the Latin empire.
Baldwin was killed in the Bulgarian war.
At the fall of Constantinople two grandsons of the former emperor Andronicus I Comnenus fled
to Trebizond, where they set up a government, crowning one of the brothers Alexius Comemnus
as emperor. If this imperial throne of Trebizond initially laid any claim to the rule of
Constantinople is unclear.
In any case the Trebizond empire continued its independence, without returning into the
Byzantine empire again.
Meanwhile Theodore Lascaris, who had also fled at the capture of Constantinople in 1204
created another exile government of Constantinople in Nicaea, which established control over
the western dominions in Asia Minor and continued its claim against for the rightful rule of
Constantinople.
And yet a third part of the territories of the Byzantine empire broke away in 1204 as Michael
Angelus created the Despotate of Epirus which ruled over Constantinople's former western
domains.
Henry of Flanders (reign 1205-1216)
Theodore Lascaris (reign 1208-1222)
Baldwin's successor, Henry of Flanders, made the best of an impossible situation, protecting his
Greek subjects and keeping some control over his Latin vassals.
In 1208 Theodore Lascaris, having established control of the western dominions in Asia Minor
was crowned emperor by the exiled court of Constantinople at Nicaea.
Robert of Courtenay (reign 1216-1228)
Theodore Lascaris (reign 1208-1222)
John III Ducas (reign 1222-1254)
Theodore Angelus (reign 1224-1230)
The successor to Henry of Flanders, Peter of Courtenay, was taken prisoner while on the way to
assume the imperial crown, and died in captivity.
The hapless Peter of Courtenay was succeeded by his son, Robert of Courtenay, who was a
minor at his accession to the throne.
In 1222 John III Ducas succeeded his father-in-law Theodore Lascaris to the throne of Nicaea.
However in 1224 the despot of Epirus, Theodore Angelus also laid claim the throne of
Constantinople. The Despotate of Epirus had been set up by Michael Angelus in 1204 at the fall
of Constantinople. Now Michael's heir Theodore had managed to conquer Thessalonika and had
been crowned emperor of Constantinople, becoming another pretender.
Baldwin II of Courtenay (1228-1261) & John of Brienne (reign 1228-1237)
John III Ducas (reign 1222-1254)
Theodore Angelus (reign 1224-1230)
Theodore II Lascaris (reign 1254-1258)
John IV Lascaris (reign 1258-1261)

203
Robert of Courtenay died in 1228 and was followed by his boy brother whose guardians called in
John of Brienne, the former king of Jerusalem. John of Brienne did what he could as joint
emperor till his death in 1237.
Meanwhile the claimant to the throne of Constantinople from Epirus, received a fatal blow. In
1230 the Bulgar King Ivan Asen II defeated and captured Theodore Angelus at the battle of
Klokotnitsa, in turn conquering much of his territory.
Using his rival's fall to the best of his advantage John III Ducas launched an assault on the
territory of the Despotate of Epirus and conquered Thessalonica in 1230.
The Despotate of Epirus limped on under Theodore's successor Manuel, but was effectively
defeated in its quest to recover the throne of Constantinople.
In 1254 the Nicaean emperor John III Ducas died, succeeded by his son Theodore II Lascaris.
In 1258 the boy John IV Lascaris succeeded his father to the throne, with the general Michael
Palaeologus reigning on his behalf.
Michael VIII Palaeologus (reign 1259-82)
In 1259 Michael VIII Palaeologus usurped the crown and made himself co-emperor to the infant
John IV Lascaris.
Then in 1261 Michael VIII captured the hopelessly enfeebled Constantinople still ruled by
Baldwin II Courtenay by a surprise.
The Latin empire, born in infamy, perished thus after only fifty-six years of futility.
And with the conquest of Constantinople Michael VIII found himself sufficiently confident to
depose his young co-emperor John IV Lascaris (1261).
Also with a Greek emperor back on the throne of Constantinople any aspirations which the
emperors of Trebizond might have had on the Byzantine throne fell away. Though the Trebizond
empire continued its independence. And although it at times paid tribute to the various powers
which rose and fell in time, it went on to outlast Constantinople, surviving until 1461.
Andronicus II Palaeologus (reign 1282-1328)
Michael VIII was succeeded by his son Andronicus II, well-meaning but inefficient.
There was a moment when Andronicus II had the opportunity of making at least a serious bid for
the reconquest of Asia Minor, when the Seljuk power was breaking up and the Ottomans were
not yet established in their place. In 1303 the troops from Catalonia, by whose aid Frederick of
Sicily had just secured his crown, took service with Andronicus II. They were sent across the
Bosporus, but, getting neither military support nor pay, they broke with the emperor and lived at
ease on the country, until they decided to transfer their services to another sovereign altogether.
From 1321 to 1328 the empire fell into civil war between the emperor and his grandson, who
finally defeated and deposed him.
Andronicus III Palaeologus (reign 1328-41)
Andronicus III should not have any happier time in office than the grandfather he deposed. In
1330 the Ottomans captured Nicaea (and renamed it Iznik) and within a few years all that
remained to Andronicus III in Asia was a strip of coast.
Andronicus III died in 1341. He left a so-called empire smaller even than it had been on his
accession. What the Ottomans had not taken in the east, the Serbian king Stephen Dusan had torn
from him in the Balkans.
John V Palaeologus (reign 1341-76) & John VI Cantacuzenus (reign 1347-55)

204
Andronicus III was succeeded by an infant, John V, while the government remained in the hands
of his minister John Cantacuzenus.
John Cantacuzenus though thoght only to make himself emperor alongside the boy emperor.
However this entailed much political effort, one of which was to buy the favour of the Ottoman
prince Orkhan, not only with a large subsidy of money, but also by giving his daughter
Theodora, whom Orkhan demanded for his harem (1345).
This bought the ruthless Cantacuzenus the service of six thousand of Orkhan's horsemen, and
thereby helped him achieve his goal of crowning himself emperor alongside the John V.
Together with continual new troops of Turkish mercenaries sent by Orkhan John Cantacuzenus
managed to keep himself in power till his deposition in 1354.
The city of Constantinople only escaped capture by the Serb King Stephen Dusan because of its
impregnable defences and due to up to twenty thousand of Orkhan's horsemen who served under
John Cantacuzenus. However, Soliman, the eldest son of Orkhan and leader of the Ottoman
horsemen in service of Constantinple in 1353 used the chance offered by the destruction of the
walls of the city of Gallipolli by an earthquake to simply occupy the city with his forces. thoguh
his son, Orkhan established for the first time a permanent footing in Europe.
This was the last straw for the people of Constantinople. A popular rising overthrew the loathed
John Cantacuzenus in 1354.
In 1361 the Turks went on to capture Adrianople, which they made their capital.
Andronicus IV Palaeologus (reign 1376-79)
Though John V's son Andronicus plotted against his own father. However, the plot was
uncovered and Andronicus was thrown into prison. But with the aid of the Genoese, who were
hostile towards John V, Andronicus managed to escape. Then in 1376 he returned to
constantinople and in a coup managed to overthrow his father. John V was thrown into prison
and on 18 October 1377 Andronicus IV was crowned emperor. But the Turks and Venetians
were now to help John V escape. John V was restored to the throne on condition that he should
recognize Andronicus IV as his rightful heir.
However, Andronicus died before his father and so didn't acceed to the throne again.
John V Palaeologus, restored (reign 1379-90)
Helped back onto his throne by the Turks and the Venetians, John V, as one of the conditions of
his retoration, needed to submit as a vassal and swear allegiance to Ottoman Sultan. Then, in
1381, John V acknoledged himself a tributary to the Ottomans.
Constantinople itself would most likely have fallen were not to have been for the stubborn
resistance against the Ottoman Turks by the Slavonic states, and more so, by the devastating
advance of Tamerlane in Central Asia.
John VII Palaeologus (reign 1390)
In 1390 John VII Palaeologus, who was the son of Andronicus IV, seized power from his aged
grandfather John V Palaeologus with Turkish help and reigned for several months. However he
had to eventually concede defeat and allow his granfather John V back onto to the throne.
(Though John VII would have a brief comeback, when from 1399 to 1402 he acted as regent to
the new emperor.)
John V Palaeologus, restored again (reign 1390-91)
After the very brief usurpation of the throne by his grandson, John VII, the old John V retook his
place on the throne for the few months which remained of his life.

205
 Manuel II Palaeologus (reign 1391-1425)
After the impact on the eastern powers of Tamerlane's destruction it took the Ottomans some
time to recover.
The current incumbent at Constantinople, Manuel II, was quick to submit to Mohammed I.
Though Manuel II made the error of challenging his successor, Murad (Amurath) II, by
supporting a rival. Murad II slew the pretender and laid siege to Constantinople, where he was
repulsed and had to retire to deal with yet another rival.
But on his return in 1424 Manuel II again made submission, renewing the and increasing the
tribute which had been extorted from his father.
John VIII Palaeologus (reign 1425-48)
John's contribution to the defence of Europe was a treaty with the western ecclesiastical council
of Ferrara (1439) for the union of the Greek and Latin churches which he was quite unable to
impose on his own subjects.
Throughout his reign Murad II simply ignored Constantinople, having more serious antagonists
then the feeble John VI to deal with, namely the Slavonic peoples on both sides of the Danube.
Constantine XI Palaeologus (reign 1449-53)
John VI was succeeded to the throne by his brother, Constantine XI.
When Murad II died in 1451, his successor, Mohammed II the Conqueror (Mehmet II), was not
distracted by other European ambitions from the great goal of Constantinople.
At once he set about his preparations for the grand attack on Constantinople.
As a last despairing effort to procure aid Constantine XI proclaimed the union of the eastern and
western churches. The only effect though was the alienation of his own subjects. The Slavs were
broken. Succession troubles paralyzed Hungary, the west was exhausted. From no quarter was
aid forthcoming. Only the Venetians, Genoese and Catalans would help, for fear of Turkish
dominance of the Mediterranean. And it was to these few allies that Constantine XI was
compelled to entrust not merely maritime defence but the actual garrisoning of the city itself.
In 1452 Mohammed II completed his preparations unhindered. He laid much trust in the ability
of modern artillery and employed a Hungarian gunfounder, called Urban, to cast him a siege
artillery of seventy guns. Another major part of Mohammed II's preparations was to contruct a
fortress at the narrowest point of the Bosporus, called Rumeli Hisari, with which he could
blockade the sea-straight.
In April 1453 the siege began. A Genoese squadron carrying supplies forced its way into the
harbour, and two direct attacks were repulsed (May 6 and 12). But the small force could have
little hope of maintaining resistance for very long.
No hint of help came.
By advice of his astrologers, Mohammed II waited for the fortunate day (May 29, 1453), when
the grand assault was delivered on all sides simultaneously, by sea and by land.
The large cannons had already been used to batter down the magnicient walls in two places
during the siege.
The small garrison, led by emperor Constantine XI personally, offered desperate resistance, but
was alas overwhelmed.
Buried among the heaps of slain, the body of the last of the Roman emperors was never
recovered. There was no general massacre, but the city was thoroughly sacked, its literary
treasures dispersed or destroyed, and 60'000 of the population were sold into slavery.
Alas, the Eastern Roman Empire, too, had ceased to be.

206
 Roman Religion
Pantheon

List of Gods
Roman Paganism
The religion of Rome
If anything, the Romans had a practical attitude to religion, as to most things, which perhaps
explains why they themselves had difficulty in taking to the idea of a single, all-seeing, all-
powerful god.
In so far as the Romans had a religion of their own, it was not based on any central belief, but on
a mixture of fragmented rituals, taboos, superstitions, and traditions which they collected over
the years from a number of sources.
To the Romans, religion was less a spiritual experience than a contractual relationship between
mankind and the forces which were believed to control people's existence and well-being.
The result of such religious attitudes were two things: a state cult, the significant influence on
political and military events of which outlasted the republic, and a private concern, in which the
head of the family oversaw the domestic rituals and prayers in the same way as the
representatives of the people performed the public ceremonials.
However, as circumstances and people's view of the world changed, individuals whose personal
religious needs remained unsatisfied turned increasingly during the first century AD to the
mysteries, which were of Greek origin, and to the cults of the east.
The origins of Roman Religion
Most of the Roman gods and goddesses were a blend of several religious influences. Many were
introduced via the Greek colonies of southern Italy. Many also had their roots in old religions of
the Etruscans or Latin tribes.
Often the the old Etruscan or Latin name survived but the deity over time became to be seen as
the Greek god of equivalent or similar nature. And so it is that the Greek and Roman pantheon
look very similar, but for different names.
An example of such mixed origins is the goddess Diana to whom the Roman king Servius
Tullius built the temple on the Aventine Hill. Essentially she was an old Latin goddess from the
earliest of times.
Before Servius Tullius moved the center of her worship to Rome, it was based at Aricia.
There in Aricia it was always a runaway slave who would act as her priest. He would win the
right to hold office by killing his predecessor. To challenge him to a fight he would though first
have to manage to break off a branch of a particular sacred tree; a tree on which the current priest
naturally would keep a close eye. From such obscure beginnings Diana was moved to Rome,
where she then gradually became identified with the Greek goddess Artemis.
It could even occur that a deity was worshipped, for reasons no-one really could remember. An
example for such a deity is Furrina. A festival was held every year in her honour on 25 July. But
by the middle of the first century BC there was no-one left who actually remember what she was
actually goddess of.
Prayer and Sacrifice
Most form of religious activity required some kind of sacrifice. And prayer could be a confusing
matter due to some gods having multiple names or their sex even being unknown. The practice
of Roman religion was a confusing thing.

207
 Prayer and Sacrifice

Omens and Superstitions

The Roman was by nature a very superstitious person. Emperors would tremble and even legions
refuse to march if the omens were bad ones.
Omens and Superstitions

Religion in the Home

If the Roman state entertained temples and rituals for the benefit of the greater gods, then the
Romans in the privacy of their own homes also worshipped their domestic deities.
Religion in the Home

Countryside Festivals
To the Roman peasant the world around simply abound with gods, spirits and omens. A
multitude of festivals were held to appease the gods.
Country Festivals

The Religion of the State

The Roman state religion was in a way much the same in essence as that of the individual home,
only on a much larger and more magnificent scale.
State religion looked after the home of the Roman people, as compared to the home of an
individual household. Just as the wife was supposed to guard the hearth at home, then Rome had
the Vestal Virgins guard the holy flame of Rome. And if a family worshipped its lares, then,
after the fall of the republic, the Roman state had its deified past Caesars which it paid tribute to.
And if the worship of a private household took place under guidance of the father, then the
religion of state was in control of the pontifex maximus.
The High Offices of State Religion
If the pontifex maximus was the head of Roman state religion, then much of its organization
rested with four religious colleges, whose members were appointed for life and , with a few
exceptions, were selected among distinguished politicians.
The highest of these bodies was the Pontifical College, which consisted of the rex sacrorum,
pontifices, flamines and the vestal virgins.
Rex sacrorum, the king of rites, was an office created under the early republic as a substitute for
royal authority over religious matters. Later he might still have been the highest dignitary at any
ritual, even higher than the pontifex maximus, but it became a purely honorary post.
Sixteen pontifices (priests) oversaw the organization of religious events. They kept records of
proper religious procedures and the dates of festivals and days of special religious significance.
The flamines acted as priests to individual gods: three for the major gods Jupiter, Mars and
Quirinus, and twelve for the lesser ones. These individual experts specialized in the knowledge
of prayers and rituals specific to their particular deity.
The flamen dialis, the priest of Jupiter, was the most senior of the flamines. On certain occasions
his status was equal to those of the pontifex maximus and the rex sacrorum.
Though the life of the flamen dialis was regulated by a whole host of strange rules.

208
Some of the rules He was not allowed to go out without his cap of office.
surrounding the flamen He was not allowed to ride a horse.
dialis included. If a person was into the house of the flamen dialis in any form of
fetters he was to be untied at once and the shackles pulled up through
the skylight of the house's atrium on to the roof and then carried away.
Only a free man was allowed to cut the hair of the flamen dialis.
The flamen dialis would neither ever touch, nor mention a goat,
uncooked meat, ivy, or beans.
For the flamen dialis divorce was not possible. His marriage could
only be ended by death. Should his wife have died, he was obliged to
resign.
The Vestal Virgins
There were six vestal virgins. All were traditionally chosen from old patrician families at a
young age. They would serve ten years as novices, then ten performing the actual duties,
followed by a final ten years of teaching the novices. They lived in a palatial building next to the
small temple of Vesta at the Roman forum. Their foremost duty was to guard the sacred fire in
the temple. Other duties included performing rituals and baking the sacred salt cake to be used at
numerous ceremonies in the year.
Punishment for vestal virgins was enormously harsh. If they let the flame go out, they would be
whipped. And as they had to remain virgins, their punishment for breaking their vow of chastity
was to be walled up alive underground.
But the honour and privilege surrounding the vestal virgins was enormous. In fact any criminal
who was condemned to death and saw a vestal virgin was automatically pardoned.
A situation which illustrates high sought after the post of vestal virgin was, is that of emperor
Tiberius having to decide between two very evenly matched candidates in AD 19. He chose the
daughter of one Domitius Pollio, instead of the daughter of a certain Fonteius Agrippa,
explaining that he had decided so, as the latter father was divorced. However he assured the other
girl of a dowry of no less than a million sesterces to console her.
Other Religious Offices
The college of Augurs consisted of fifteen members. Theirs was the tricky job of interpreting the
manifold omens of public life (and no doubt of the private life of the powerful).
No doubt these consultants in matters of omens must have been exceptionally diplomatic in the
interpretations required from them. Each of them carried as his insignia a long, crooked staff.
With this he would mark a square space on the ground from which he would look out for
auspicious omens.
The quindecemviri sacris faciundis were the fifteen members of a college for less clearly defined
religious duties. Most notably they guarded the Sibylline Books and it was for them to consult
these scriptures and interpret them when requested to do so by the senate. The Sibylline books
being evidently understood as something foreign by the Romans, this college also was to oversee
the worship of any foreign gods which were introduced to Rome.
Initially there was three members to the college of epulones (banqueting managers), though later
their number was enlarged to seven. Their college was by far the newest, being founded only in
196 BC. The necessity for such a college obviously arose as the increasingly elaborate festivals
required experts to oversee their organization.
The Festivals

209
There was not a month in the Roman calendar which did not have its religious festivals.
And the very earliest festivals of the Roman state were already celebrated with games.
The consualia (celebrating the festival of Consus and the famous 'rape of the Sabine women'),
which was held on 21 August, also was the main event of the chariot racing year. It can hence
hardly be a coincidence that the underground granary and shrine of Consus, where the opening
ceremonies of the festival were held, was accessed from the very center isle of the Circus
Maximus.
But apart from the consualia August, the sixth month of the old calendar, also had festivals in
honour of the gods Hercules, Portunus, Vulcan, Volturnus and Diana.
Festivals could be somber, dignified occasions, as well as joyful events.
The parentilia in February was a period of nine days in which the families would worship their
dead ancestors. During this time, no official business was conducted, all temples were closed and
marriages were outlawed.
But also in February was the lupercalia, a festival of fertility, most likely connected with the god
Faunus. Its ancient ritual went back to the more mythical times of Roman origin. Ceremonies
began in the cave in which the legendary twins Romulus and Remus were believed to have been
suckled by the wolf. In that cave a number of goats and a dog were sacrificed and their blood
was daubed onto the faces of two young boys of patrician families. Dressed in goatskins and
carrying strips of leather in their hands, the boys would then run a traditional course. Anyone
along the way would be whipped with the leather strips. However, these lashings were said to
increase fertility. Therefore women who sought to get pregnant would wait along the course, to
be whipped by the boys as they passed.
The festival of Mars lasted from 1 to 19 March. Two separate teams of a dozen men would dress
up in armour and helmet of ancient design and would then jump, leap and bound through the
streets, beating their shields with their swords, shouting and chanting. The men were known as
the salii, the 'jumpers'. Apart from their noisy parade through the streets, they would spend every
evening feasting in a different house in the city.
The festival of Vesta took place in June and, lasting for a week, it was an altogether calmer
affair. No official business took place and the temple of Vesta was opened to married women
who could make sacrifices of food to the goddess. As a more bizarre part of this festival, all mill-
donkeys were given a day of rest on 9 June, as well as being decorated with garlands and loaves
of bread.
On 15 June the temple would be closed again, but for the vestal virgins and the Roman state
would go about its normal affairs again.
The Foreign Cults
The survival of a religious faith depends on a continual renewal and affirmation of its beliefs,
and sometimes on adapting its rituals to changes in social conditions and attitudes. To the
Romans, the observance of religious rites was a public duty rather than a private impulse. their
beliefs were founded on a variety of unconnected and often inconsistent mythological traditions,
many of them derived from the Greek rather than Italian models.
Since Roman religion was not founded on some core belief which ruled out other religions,
foreign religions found it relatively easy to establish themselves in the imperial capital itself. The
first such foreign cult to make its way to Rome was the goddess Cybele around 204 BC.
From Egypt the worship of Isis and Osiris came to Rome at the beginning of the first century BC
Cults such as those of Cybele or Isis and Bacchus were known as the 'mysteries', having secret
rituals which were only known to those initiated into the faith.
During the reign of Julius Caesar Jews were granted freedom of worship in the city of Rome, in

210
recognition of the Jewish forces which had helped him at Alexandria.
Also very well known is the cult of the Persian sun god Mythras which reached Rome during the
first century AD and found great following among the army.
Traditional Roman religion was further undermined by the growing influence of Greek
philosophy, particularly Stoicism, which suggested the idea of there being a single god.
The Beginnings of Christianity
The beginnings of Christianity are very blurry, as far as historical fact is concerned.
The birth date of Jesus himself is uncertain. (The idea of Jesus birth being the year AD 1, is due
rather to a judgement made some 500 years after the even took place.)
Many point to the year 4 BC as the most likely date for Christ's birth, and yet that remains very
uncertain. The year of his death is also not clearly established. It is assumed it took place
between AD 26 and AD 36 (most likely though between AD 30 and AD 36), during the reign of
Pontius Pilate as prefect of Judaea.
Historically speaking, Jesus of Nazareth was a charismatic Jewish leader, exorcist and religious
teacher.To the Christians however he is the Messiah, the human personification of God.
Evidence of Jesus' life and effect in Palestine is very patchy. He was clearly not one of the
militant Jewish zealots, and yet eventually the Roman rulers did perceive him as a security risk.
Roman power appointed the priests who were in charge of the religious sites of Palestine. And
Jesus openly denounced these priests, so much is known. This indirect threat to Roman power,
together with the Roman perception that Jesus was claiming to be the 'King of the Jews', was the
reason for his condemnation. The Roman apparatus saw itself merely dealing with a minor
problem which otherwise might have grown into a greater threat to their authority. So in essence,
the reason for Jesus' crucifixion was politically motivated. However, his death was hardly
noticed by Roman historians.
Jesus' death should have dealt a fatal blow to the memory of his teachings, were it not have been
for the determination of his followers.
The most effective of these followers in spreading the new religious teachings was Paul of
Tarsus, generally known as Saint Paul.
St Paul, who held Roman citizenship, is famed for his missionary voyages which took him from
Palestine into the empire (Syria, Turkey, Greece and Italy) to spread his new religion to the non-
Jews (for until then Christianity was generally understood to be a Jewish sect).
Though the actual definite outlines of the new religion of that day is largely unknown. Naturally,
the general Christian ideals will have been preached, but few scriptures can possibly have been
available.
Rome's Relationship with the early Christians
The Roman authorities hesitated for a long time over how to deal with this new cult. They
largely appreciated this new religion as subversive and potentially dangerous.
For Christianity, with its insistence on only one god, seemed to threaten the principle of religious
toleration which had guaranteed (religious) peace for so long among the people of the empire.
Most of all Christianity clashed with the official state religion of the empire, for Christians
refused to perform Caesar worship. This, in the Roman mindset, demonstrated their disloyalty to
their rulers.
Persecution of the Christians began with Nero's bloody repression of AD 64. This was only a
rash an sporadic repression though it is perhaps the one which remains the most infamous of
them all.

211
The first real recognition Christianity other than Nero's slaughter, was an inquiry by emperor
Domitian who supposedly, upon hearing that the Christians refused to perform Caesar worship,
sent investigators to Galilee to inquire on his family, about fifty years after the crucifixion.
They found some poor smallholders, including the great-nephew of Jesus, interrogated them and
then released them without charge.
The fact however that the Roman emperor should take interest in this sect proves that by this
time the Christians no longer merely represented an obscure little sect.
Towards the end of the first century the Christians appeared to sever all their ties with the
Judaism and established itself independently.
Though with this separation form Judaism, Christianity emerged as a largely unknown religion to
the Roman authorities. And Roman ignorance of this new cult bred suspicion. Rumours were
abound about secretive Christian rituals; rumours of child sacrifice, incest and cannibalism.
Major revolts of the Jews in Judaea in the early second century led to great resentment of the
Jews and of the Christians, who were still largely understood by the Romans to be a Jewish sect.
The repressions which followed for both Christians and Jews were severe.
During the second century AD Christians were persecuted for their beliefs largely because these
did not allow them to give the statutory reverence to the images of the gods and of the emperor.
Also their act of worship transgressed the edict of Trajan, forbidding meetings of secret societies.
To the government, it was civil disobedience. The Christians themselves meanwhile thought
such edicts suppressed their freedom of worship. However, despite such differences, with
emperor Trajan a period of toleration appeared to set in.
Pliny the Younger, as governor of Nithynia in AD 111, was so exercised by the troubles with the
Christians that he wrote to Trajan asking for guidance on how to deal with them. Trajan,
displaying considerable wisdom, replied:
' The actions you have taken, my dear Pliny, in investigating the cases of those brought before
you as Christians, are correct. It is impossible to lay down a general rule which can apply to
particular cases. Do not go looking for Christians. If they are brought before you and the charge
is proven, they must be punished, provided that if someone denies they are Christian and gives
proof of it, by offering reverence to our gods, they shall be acquitted on the grounds of
repentance even if they have previously incurred suspicion. Anonymous written accusations
shall be disregarded as evidence. They set a bad example which is contrary to the spirit of our
times.' Christians were not actively sought out by a network of spies. Under his successor
Hadrian which policy seemed to continue.
Also the fact hat Hadrian actively persecuted the Jews, but not the Christians shows that by that
time the Romans were drawing a clear distinction between the two religions.
The great persecutions of AD 165-180 under Marcus Aurelius included the terrible acts
committed upon the Christians of Lyons in AD 177. This period, far more than Nero's earlier
rage, was which defined the Christian understanding of martyrdom.
Christianity is often portrayed as the religion of the poor and the slaves. This is not necessarily a
true picture. From the beginning there appeared to have been wealthy and influential figures who
at least sympathised with the Christians, even members of court.
And it appeared that Christianity maintained its appeal to such highly connected persons. Marcia,
the concubine of the emperor Commodus, for example used her influence to achieve the release
of Christian prisoners from the mines.
The Great Persecution - AD 303

212
Had Christianity generally grown and established some roots across the empire in the years
following the persecution by Marcus Aurelius, then it had especially prospered from about AD
260 onwards enjoying widespread toleration by the Roman authorities.
But with the reign of Diocletian things would change. Towards the end of his long reign,
Diocletian became ever more concerned about the high positions held by many Christians in
Roman society and, particularly, the army.
On a visit to the Oracle of Apollo at Didyma near Miletus, he was advised by the pagan oracle to
halt the rise of the Christians.
And so on 23 February AD 303, on the Roman day of the gods of boundaries, the terminalia,
Diocletian enacted what was to become perhaps the greatest persecution of Christians under
Roman rule.
Diocletian and, perhaps all the more viciously, his Caesar Galerius launched a serious purge
against the sect which they saw as becoming far too powerful and hence, too dangerous.
In Rome, Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor (Turkey) the Christians suffered most. However, in the
west, beyond the immediate grasp of the two persecutors things were far less ferocious.
Constantine the Great - Christianization of the Empire
The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman
empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival
emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or
at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that
Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.
However, Constantine's claim to conversion is not without controversy. There are many who see
in his conversion rather the political realization of the potential power of Christianity instead of
any celestial vision.
Constantine had inherited a very tolerant attitude towards Christians from his father, but for the
years of his rule previous to that fateful night in AD 312 there was no definite indication of any
gradual conversion towards the Christian faith. Although he did already have Christian bishops
in his royal entourage before AD 312.
But however truthful his conversion might have been, it should change the fate of Christianity
for good. In meetings with his rival emperor Licinius, Constantine secured religious tolerance
towards Christians all over the empire.
Until AD 324 Constantine appeared to on purposely blur the distinction of which god it was he
followed, the Christian god or pagan sun god Sol. Perhaps at this time he truly hadn't made up
his mind yet.
Perhaps it was just that he felt his power was not yet established enough to confront the pagan
majority of the empire with a Christian ruler.
However, substantial gestures were made toward the Christians very soon after the fateful Battle
of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312. Already in AD 313 tax exemptions were granted to Christian
clergy and money was granted to rebuild the major churches in Rome.
Also in AD 314 Constantine already engaged in a major meeting of bishops at Milan to deal with
problems befalling the church in the 'Donatist schism'.
But once Constantine had defeated his last rival emperor Licinius in AD 324, the last of
Constantine's restraint disappeared and a Christian emperor (or at least one who championed the
Christian cause) ruled over the entire empire.
He built a vast new basilica church on the Vatican hill, where reputedly St Peter had been

213
martyred. Other great churches were built by Constantine, such as the great St John Lateran in
Rome or the reconstruction of the great church of Nicomedia which had been destroyed by
Diocletian.
Apart from building great monuments to Christianity, Constantine now also became openly
hostile toward the pagans. Even pagan sacrifice itself was forbidden. Pagan temples (except
those of the previous official Roman state cult) had their treasures confiscated. These treasures
were largely given to the Christian churches instead.
Some cults which were deemed sexually immoral by Christian standards were forbidden and
their temples were razed.
Gruesomely brutal laws were introduced to enforce Christian sexual morality. Constantine was
evidently not an emperor who had decided to gradually educate the people of his empire to this
new religion.
Far more the empire was shocked into a new religious order.
But in the same year as Constantine achieved supremacy over the empire (and effectively over
the Christian church) the Christian faith itself suffered a grave crisis. Arianism, a heresy which
challenged the church's view of God (the father) and Jesus (the son), was creating a serious
divide in the church.Constantine called the famous Council of Nicaea which decided the
definition of the Christian deity as the Holy Trinity, God the father, God the son and God the
Holy Spirit.
Had Christianity previously been unclear about its message then the Council of Nicaea (together
with a later council at Constantinople in 381 AD) created a clearly defined core belief. However,
the nature of its creation - a council - and the diplomatically sensitive way in defining the
formula, to many suggests the creed of the Holy Trinity to be rather a political construct between
theologians and politicians rather than anything achieved by divine inspiration.
It is hence often sought that the Council of Nicaea represents the Christian church becoming a
more wordly institution, moving away from its innocent beginnings in its ascent to power.
The Christian church continued to grow and rise in importance under Constantine. Within his
reign the cost of the church already became larger than the cost of the entire imperial civil
service.
As for emperor Constantine; he bowed out in the same fashion in which he had lived, leaving it
still unclear to historians today, if he truly had completely converted to Christianity, or not.
He was baptized on his deathbed. It was not an unusual practice for Christians of the day to leave
their baptism for such a time. However, it still fails to answer completely to what point this was
due to conviction and not for political purposes, considering the succession of his sons.
Christian Heresy
One of the primary problems of early Christianity was that of heresy.
Heresy as generally defined as a departure from the traditional Christian beliefs; the creation of
new ideas, rituals and forms of worship within the Christian church. This was especially
dangerous to a faith in which for a long time the rules as to what was the proper Christian belief
remained very vague and open to interpretation.
The result of the definition of heresy was often bloody slaughter. Religious suppression against
heretics became to any account just as brutal as some of the excesses of Roman emperors in
suppressing the Christians.
Christian Heresy

Julian the Apostate

214
If Constantine's conversion of the empire had been harsh, it was irreversible.
when in AD 361 Julian ascended to the throne and officially renounced Christianity, he could do
little to change the religious make-up of an empire in which Christinaity by then dominated.
Had under Constantine and his sons being a Christian almost been a pre-requisite for receiving
any official position, then the enire working of the empire by now had been turned over to
Christians.
It is unclear to what point the population had converted to Christianity (though the numbers will
have been rising quickly), but it is clear that the institutions of empire must by the time Julian
came to power have been dominated by Christians.
Hence a reverse was impossible, unless a pagan emperor of the drive and ruthlessness of
Constantine would have emerged. Julian the Apostate was no such man. Far more does history
paint him as a gentle intellectual, who simply tolerated Christianity in spite of his disagreement
with it.
Christian teachers lost their jobs, as Julian argued that it made little sense for them to teach pagan
texts of which they did not approve. Also some of the financial privileges which the church had
enjoyed were now refused. But by no means could this have been seen as a renewal of Christian
persecution.
In fact in the east of the empire Christian mobs ran riot and vandalized the pagan temples which
Julian had re-instated.
Was Julian not a violent man of the likes of Constantine, then his response to these Christian
outrages were never felt, as he already died in AD 363.
If his reign had a been a brief setback for Christianity, it had only provided further proof that
Christianity was here to stay.
The Power of the Church
With the death of Julian the Apostate matters quickly returned to normal for the Christian church
as it resumed its role as the religion of the power.
In AD 380 emperor Theodosius took the final step and made Christianity the official religion of
state.
Severe punishments were introduced for people who disagreed with the official version of
Christianity.
Furthermore, becoming a member of the clergy became a possible career for the educated
classes, for the bishops were gaining ever more influence.
At the great council of Constantinople a further decision was reached which placed the bishopric
of Rome above that of Constantinople.
This in effect confirmed the church's more political outlook, as until the prestige of the
bishoprics had been ranked according to the church's apostolic history. And for that particular
time preference for the bishop of Rome evidently appeared to be greater than for the bishop of
Constantinople.
In AD 390 alas a massacre in Thessalonica revealed the new order to the world. After a massacre
of some seven thousand people the emperor Theodosius was excommunicated and required to do
penance for this crime. This did not mean that now the church was the highest authority in the
empire, but it proved that now the church felt sufficiently confident to challenge the emperor
himself on matters of moral authority.

The Roman Army

215
 Army Picture Page

Choose which paragraph to jump to and press "Go!":

Top of Form

Bottom of Form
Nowhere does the Roman talent for organization show itself so clearly as in its army. The story
of the Roman army is an extensive one, demonstrated in part by the scale of this chapter.
The first part of this chapter considers the history of the Roman army (concentrating on the
legions), trying to explain as much background as possible. The later part of the chapter seeks to
explain specific points such as various different units, the workings of the army, etc.
The Greek Phalanx
For large image click on
picture

The early Roman army, however, was a different thing altogether than the
later imperial army.
At first, under the Etruscan Kings, the massive Greek phalanx was the mode
of battle. Early Roman soldiers hence must have looked much like Greek
hoplites.
A key moment in Roman history was the introduction of the census (the
counting of the people) under Servius Tullius. With this the citizens were
graded into five classes, from these classes were in varying degrees recruited
the ranks of the army. The most wealthy, the first class, were the most
heavily armed, equipped like the Greek hoplite warrior with helmet, round
shield, greaves and breastplate, all of bronze, and carrying a spear and sword.
The hoplite
The lesser classes bore lesser armament and weaponry, the fifth class carrying no armour at all,
solely armed with slings.
The army officers as well as the cavalry were drawn from leading citizens who were enrolled as
equestrians (equites).
All in all the Roman army consisted of 18 centuries of equites, 82 centuries of the first class (of
which 2 centuries were engineers), 20 centuries each of the second, third and fourth classes and
32 centuries of the fifth class (of which 2 centuries were trumpeters).
In the early fourth century BC Rome received its greatest humiliation, as the Gauls sacked Rome
itself.
If Rome was to reestablish her authority of central Italy, and be prepared to meet any similar
disasters in future, some reorganization was needed. These changes were traditionally by the
later Romans believed to have been the work of the great hero Fluvius Camillus, but it appears
more likely that the reforms were introduced gradually during the second half of the fourth
century BC.
Undoubtedly the most important change was the abandonment of the use of the Greek phalanx.
Italy was not governed by city states like Greece, where armies met on large plains, deemed
suitable by both sides, to reach a decision. Far more it was a collection of hill tribes using the
difficult terrain to their advantage. Something altogether more flexible was needed to combat
such foes than the unwieldy, slow-moving phalanx.
216
 The Early Legion (4th century BC)
In abandoning the phalanx, the Romans showed their genius for adaptability.
Though much of the credit might not be due to the Romans alone. For Rome was a founding
member of the Latin League, an alliance initially formed against the Etruscans. The development
of the early legion therefore might well be seen as a Latin development.
There were now three lines of soldiers, the hastati in the front, the principes forming the second
row, and the triarii, rorarii and accensi in the rear.
At the front stood the hastati, who were most likely the spearmen of the second class in the
previous organization of the phalanx. The hastati contained the young fighters and carried body
armour and a rectangular shield, the scutum, which should remain the distinctive equipment of
the legionary throughout Roman history. As weapons they carried a sword each and javalins.
Though attached to the hastati were far more lightly armed skirmishers (leves), carrying a spear
and several javelins.
The soldiers of the old first class now appear to have become two types of units, the principes in
the second line and the triarii in the third line. Together they formed the heavy infantry.
The principes were the picked men of experience and maturity. They were similarly, though
better equipped than the hastati. In fact the principes were the best equipped men in the early
legion.
The triarii were veterans and still much looked and functioned like the heavily armed hoplites of
the old Greek phalanx.
The other new units, the rorarii, accensi (and leves) represented what once had been the third,
fourth and fifth class in the old phalanx system.
The rorarii were younger, inexperienced men, and the accensi were the least dependable
fighters.
At the front the hastati and principes each formed a maniple of about 60 men, with 20 leves
attached to each maniple of hastati.
At the back the triariirorarii and accensi were organized into a group of three maniples, about
180 men, called an ordo.
As the historian Livy quotes the main fighting force, the principes and the hastati, at a strength
of fifteen maniples then the following size could be assumed for a legion:
15 groups of leves (attached to the hastati) 300
15 hastati maniples 900
15 principes maniples 900
45 maniples (15 ordi) triarii, rorarii, accensi 2700
Total fighting force (without horsemen) 4800
The tactics were thus;
The hastati would engage the enemy. If things got too hot, they could fall back through the lines
of the heavy infantry principes and re-emerge for counter attacks.
Behind the principes knelt a few yards back, the triarii who, if the heavy infantry was pushed
back, would charge forward with their spears, shocking the enemy with suddenly emerging new
troops and enabling the principes to regroup. The triarii were generally understood as the last
defence, behind which the hastati and principes could retire, if the battle was lost. Behind the
closed ranks of the triarii the army would then try to withdraw.
There was a Roman saying 'It has come to the triarii.' which described a desperate situation.
Hastati + Leves in front

217
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Principes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Triarii

Rorarii

Accensi

The famed Fluvius Camillus made some significant changes to the armament of the legion
according to traditional Roman view. As the bronze helmets proved to be inadequate protection
against the long swords of the barbarians, the Romans credited him with the issue of helmets
made of iron with a polished surface to cause the swords to be deflected. (Though bronze
helmets were later re-introduced.)
Also the introduction of the scutum, the large rectangular shield was attributable to Camillus, the
Romans thought. Though in fact, in is doubtful for both the helmet as well as the rectangular
scutum to have been introduced by Camillus alone.
In the early third century BC the Roman legion proved a worthy adversary against King Pyrrhus
of Epirus and his well-trained Macedonian phalanx and war elephants.
Pyrrhus was a briliant tactician in the tradition of Alexander and his troops were of good quality.
The Roman legions might have been defeated by Pyrrhus (and only survived due to a near
endless resource of fresh troops) but the experience gathered by fighting such an able foe was to
prove invaluable for the great contests that lay ahead.
In the same century the first war against Carthage steeled the Roman army yet further, and
towards the end of the century the legions defeated a new attempt by the Gauls to launch
themselves southward from the Po valley, proving that now the Romans were indeed a match for
the Gallic barbarians who had once sacked their capital.
At the outset of the Second Punic War, the historian Polybius tells us in his formula togatorum,
Rome possessed the largest and finest army of the Mediterranean. Six legions made up of 32'000
men and 1600 cavalry, together with 30'000 allied infantry and 2'000 allied cavalry. And this was
merely the standing army. If Rome called on all her Italian allies she had another 340'000
infantry and 37'000 cavalry.
Scipio's Reforms of the Army
One man who made a great contribution to the running of the army, and thereby also to the
wellfare and survival of Rome, was Scipio Africanus (Publius Cornelius Scipio).
He is believed to have been present at the military disasters of Trebia and Cannae where he
learnt the lesson that the Roman army needed a drastic change in tactics. With only 25 years of
age he assumed command of the troops in Spain and began training them harder than so far
anyone had done. Undoubtedly the Roman legionaries were the best troops of their day. But if
tactical movements, as Hannibal performed them on the battlefield, were supposed to be possible
then the soldiers needed to be trained for it.
If Scipio was doing the right thing, then his victory over Hannibal at Zama clearly confirmed it.
Young, bright upcoming Roman commanders were quick to see the wisdom of Scipio's approach
and adopted his military style.

218
Scipio's revolution changed the way of the legions. Rome was now to use proper tactics on the
battlefield, rather than merely relying on the fighting superiority of the legionaries. Henceforth
the Roman soldiers would be led by clever men seeking to outmanoeuvre their foe rather than
merely being lined up and marched at the enemy.
If Rome had the best soldiers it now should also acquire the best generals.
The Roman Legion (2nd century BC)
For large image click on
picture
For the second century BC we have accounts of a slightly reorganized legion.
The hastati were still up front, carrying bronze breastplates, or the more
wealthy ones among them wore chain mail coats. They now also wore purple
and black feather plumes on their helmets, 18 inches in height, to increase their
apparent height and appear more intimidating to the enemy. They carried a
pilum, a well-crafted wooden spear with iron tip. The javelins that were carried
now were short ones, only about four feet long, but with a head nine inches
long, well hammered, but so fashioned that it bent on impact and could not be
returned by the enemy.
The other ranks of the legion were equipped in much the same manner except
that they carried a long spear, the hasta, rather than the shorter pilum.
The rorarii and accensii appear by now to have been done away with, having
become velites. The velites did not form their own battle line but were divided
up equally among all the maniples to compliment their numbers. It emerges that
The veles
plural: velites now it was the velites who were the more mobile troops who operated in the
front of the army, stinging the enemy with their javelins, before retiring through
the ranks of the hastati and principes
Velites

Hastati
- - - - - - - - - -
Principes
- - - - - - - - - -
Triarii
- - - - - - - - - -

The divisions were now of ten maniples. The figures are a bit unclear, but For large image click on
picture
what is known is that the hastati maniple consisted of 120 men.
Subdivisions of all three ranks (hastati, principes, triarii) was one of ten
maniples. A maniple is defined as consisting of 160 men. (Although the
hastati are supposedly had 120 per maniple. The figures are confusing. I
assume that the maniple was brought its full numbers by the addition of
velites. i.e. 120 hastati + 40 velites = 160 men = 1 maniple)
The soldier now used the gladius, also known as 'the Spanish sword' to the
Romans, apparently due to its origin. The iron helmets had now been
replaced by bronze ones again, though of thicker metal.
Each maniple was commanded by two centurions, the first centurion
commanding the right, the second the left of the maniple.
The cavalry force of 300 men was divided into ten squadrons (turmae), each The hastatus
with three decuriones in command.

219
As more of the east came under Roman control, it was inevitable that an increasing number of
citizens became involved in commercial enterprises and enforced army service would have been
a considerable nuisance. Rome could no longer rely on a regular supply of legionaries from the
simple sturdy country population. Service in Spain was particularly unpopular. The continuous
series of local wars and uprisings, bad Roman leadership and heavy losses all meant hardship,
possible death and little loot.
For large image click on
picture
In 152 BC popular pressure in Rome was such that the time-honoured
method of enlistment was modified and men were chosen by lot for a period
of six years continuous service.
Another effect was an increased use of allied forces. When Scipio
Aemilianus took Numantia in 133 BC Iberian auxiliaries accounted for two-
thirds of his force. In the east the critical Battle of Pydna which ended the
third Macedonian War was probably won by the allies, who with elephants
crushed the left wing of Perseus and enabled the legionaries to split and
outflank the Macedonian phalanx.
The overseas expansion also had a serious effect on the citizens of the upper
classes. New opportunities of enrichment and rising corruption saw to it that
competent leadership became more and more difficult to find.
The Gracchi Brothers attempted to halt the decline in the numbers recruitable
for the army with land distribution and by extending the franchise to the
The triarius
Italian allies. But as this failed and the two brothers both were killed, the
scene was set for the Social War and the arrival of Marius and Sulla.
Marius' reforms of the Army
To Marius are attributed some of the major reforms of the Roman Army. Yet his were the final
touches to a process begun much earlier. Rome, and Rome's army in particular, by its very nature
tended to resist any radical changes of direction. Far more it moved gradually.
Minor reforms of Gaius Gracchus had been such to make the state responsible for the supply of
equipment and clothing to the legionaries and to forbid the enlistment of youths under seventeen.
Also the practice of filling in the ranks of depleted troops by raising extra troops and calling for
voluteers from the so-called capite censi (meaning: head count), the Roman poor who owned no
property, was common practice.
Marius however took the final step and opened the army to anyone who was poor, but fit and
willing to fight. Rather than supplementing his ranks with the poor capite censi, he made an
army out of them. These volunteers would sign up as soldiers for much longer periods then than
the six years which conscripts had been obliged to serve. To these people drawn largely from the
poor from the cities, being a soldier was a profession, a career, rather than a duty performed to
Rome. Marius so created the first professional army Rome had ever had.
Marius, too, was careful to enlist experienced soldiers as well, by offering special inducements to
veterans.
It was with this new army that Marius saved Italy from massive barbarian invasions by defeating
the Germans at Aix-en-Provence and, together with Catulus, against the Cimbri at Vercellae.
Marius is also given credit for changing the construction of the pilum by replacing one of the
iron nails with a wooden pin, so that the connection would break under impact and be impossible
to return (the pilum had already been fashioned to bend on impact, as mentioned above, but it
was notoriously difficult to temper the long metal head so that it was bent on impact, yet was
strong enough to actually do damage.)
Also to Marius is attributed the allotment of land to legionaries at their demobilization - giving

220
every legionary a prize to look forward to at the end of his service. A pension, so to speak.
Marius also is given credit for changing the construction of the legion, abolishing the three lines
and the velites and instead founding the entire legion of soldiers of equal armour and weaponry.
Already under the great Roman general Scipio Africanus (who defeated Hasdrubal and
Hannibal) the cohort had occasionally been the preferred tactical division.
I can not be clearly proven if it truly was Marius who made this change to the legion, or if it once
more was not rather a gradual development within the army.
Though the most likely reasoning for the introduction of the cohort system for the legion was the
change in recruitment policy under Marius. The previous system was based on the wealth and the
experience of the individuals. Now, with the legionaries reduced to complete uniformity in
recruitment, the same equal treatment was afforded when forming battle lines.
Under Marius the Roman legion reached a stage in its organization which in strength, resilience
and flexibility had no equal.
In the period from Marius to Rome's first emperor Augustus, there is little change in the
organization of the army itself.
Though one or two points of Marius' reforms changed the nature of the army in ways, which
Marius himself would not have foreseen, nor intended.
Provincial governors could recruit to make up for losses without any reference to the consuls,
who so far had enjoyed sole authority in recruitment. Changes such as these allowed for Julius
Caesar to raise new troops in Cisalpine Gaul for his campaigns.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, the loyalty of the soldiery was transferred from Rome itself
to their commanders. The non-Roman people of Italy had little loyalty to Rome itself and yet
they made up greater and greater numbers of the army. Had the previous system of recruitment
which drew only from the land-owning classes ensured that the legionaries had responsibilities
and loyalties back home, then the urban poor had nothing to lose back home. The soldiers'
loyalties lay with the one man who could provide them with the loot, a victorious commander.
Hence arose a specter to Roman authority which would haunt it for the rest of its history.
The Army of Augustus - the 'classic' legion
For large image click on picture The army as operated from the time of Augustus can generally be
referred to as the 'classic' legion, the armed body of men which most
imagine in their minds upon hearing the word 'legion'. And it is this
state of the legion which is largely recreated in illustrations or
Hollywood movies.
Under Julius Caesar, the army had become a highly efficient and
thoroughly professional body, brilliantly led and staffed.
To Augustus fell the difficult task of retaining much that Caesar had
created, but on a permanent peace-time footing. He did so by creating a
standing army, made up of 28 legions, each one consisting of roughly
6000 men. Additional to these forces there was a similar number of
auxiliary troops. Augustus also reformed the length of time a soldier
served, increasing it from six to twenty years (16 years full service, 4
Legionary
1st century AD years on lighter duties).

The standard of a legion, the so-called aquila (eagle) was the very symbol of the unit's honour.
The aquilifer who was the man who carried the standard was in rank almost as high as a
centurion. It was this elevated and honourable position which also made him the soldiers'
treasurer in charge of the pay chest.

221
A legion on the march relied completely on its own resources for weeks. To make camp each
night every man carried tools for digging as well as two stakes for a palisade.
Apart from this and his weapons and armour, the legionary would also carry a cooking pot, some
rations, clothes and any personal possessions.
Weighed down by such burdens it is little wonder that the soldiers were nicknamed 'Marius'
Mules'.
For large image click on
picture

Marius' mules
There has over time been much debate regarding how much weight a legionary actually had to
carry. Now, 30 kg (ca. 66 lbs) is generally considered the upper limit for an infantryman in
modern day armies. Calculations have been made which, including the entire equipment and the
16 day's worth of rations, brings the weight to over 41 kg (ca. 93 lbs). And this estimate is made
using the lightest possible weights for each item, it suggest the actual weight would have been
even higher. This suggests that the sixteen days rations were not carried by the legionaries. the
rations referred to in the old records might well have been a sixteen days ration of hard tack
(buccellatum), usually used to supplement the daily corn ration (frumentum). By using it as an
iron ration, it might have sustained a soldier for about three days. The weight of the buccellatum
is estimated to have been about 3 kg, which, given that the corn rations would add more than 11
kg, means that without the corn, the soldier would have carried around 30 kg (66 lbs), pretty
much the same weight as today's soldiers.
The necessity for a legion to undertake quite specialised tasks such as bridge building or
engineering siege machines, required there to be specialists among their numbers. These men
were known as the immunes, 'excused from regular duties'. Among them would be medical staff,
surveyors, carpenters, veterinaries, hunters, armourers - even soothsayers and priests.
When the legion was on the march, the chief duty of the suveyors would be to go ahead of the
army, perhaps with a cavalry detachment, and to seek out the best place for the night's camp.
In the forts along the empire's frontiers other non-combatant men could be found. For an entire
bureaucracy was necessary to keep the army running. So scribes and supervisors, in charge of
army pay, supplies and customs. Also there would be military police present.
As a unit, a legion was made up of ten cohorts, each of which was further divided into six
centuries of eighty men, commanded by a centurion.
The commander of the legion, the legatus, usually held his command four three or four years,
usually as a preparation for a later term as provincial governor.
The legatus, also referred to as general in much of modern literature, was surrounded by a staff
of six officers. These were the military tribunes, who - if deemed capable by the legatus - might
indeed command an entire section of a legion in battle.
The tribunes, too, were political positions rather than purely military, the tribunus laticlavius
being destined for the senate.

222
Another man, who could be deemed part of the general's staff, was the centurio primus pilus.
This was the most senior of all the centurions, commanding the first century of the first cohort,
and therefore the man of the legion, when it was in the field, with the vastest experience. And it
was also he who oversaw the everyday running of the forces.
1 Contubernium - 8 Men
10 Contubernia 1 Century 80 Men
2 Centuries 1 Maniple 160 Men
6 Centuries 1 Cohort 480 Men
10 Cohorts + 120 Horsemen 1 Legion 5240 Men *
*1 Legion = 9 normal cohorts (9 x 480 Men) + 1 "First Cohort" of 5 centuries (but each century at the strength of a
maniple, so 5 x 160 Men) + 120 Horsemen = 5240 Men
Together with non-combatants attached to the army, a legion would count around 6000 men.
The 120 horsemen attached to each legion were used as scouts and dispatch riders. They were
ranked with staff and other non-combatants and allocated to specific centuries, rather than
belonging to a squadron of their own.
The senior professional soldiers in the legion was likely to be the camp prefect, praefectus
castrorum. He was usually a man of some thirty years service, and was responsible for
organization, training, and equipment.
Centurions, when it came to marching, had one considerable privelege over their men. Whereas
the soldiers moved on foot, they rode on horseback. Another significant power they possessed
was that of beating their soldiers. For this they would carry a staff, perhaps two or three foot
long. Apart from his distinctive armour, this staff was one of the means by which one could
recognise a centurion.
One of the remarkable features of centurions is the way in which they were posted from legion to
legion and province to province. It appears they were not only highly sought after men, but the
army was willing to transport them over considerable distances to reach a new assignment.
The most remarkable aspect of the centurionate though must be that they were not normally
discharged but died in service. Thus, to a centurion the army was truly his life.
Each centurion had an optio, so called because originally he was nominated by the centurion.
The optiones ranked with the standard bearers as principales receiving double the pay of an
ordinary soldier. The title optio ad spem ordinis was given to an optio who had been accepted for
promotion to the centurionate, but who was waiting for a vacancy.
Another officer in the century was the tesserarius, who was mainly responsible for small sentry
pickets and fatigue parties, and so had to receive and pass on the watchward of the day. Finally
there was the custos armorum who was in charge of the weapons and equipment.
Battle Order
Front Line
5th Cohort 4th Cohort 3rd Cohort 2nd Cohort 1st Cohort
Second Line
10th Cohort 9th Cohort 8th Cohort 7th Cohort 6th Cohort
The first cohort of any legion were its elite troops. So too the sixth cohort consisted of "the finest
of the young men", the eighth contained "selected troops", the tenth cohort "good troops".
The weakest cohorts were the 2nd, 4th, 7th and the 9th cohorts. It was in the 7th and 9th cohorts
one would expect to find recruits in training.
The Roman Army AD 250-378
223
Between the reigns of Augustus and Trajan the Roman Army perhaps reached its pinnacle. It is
the army of this time which is generally understood as the 'classical' Roman army. However,
contrary to popular belief, this was not the army which was eventually defeated by the northern
barbarians.
The Roman army evolved, changing in time, adapting to new challenges. For a long time it didn't
need to change much as it held supremacy on the battlefield. And so until AD 250 it was still the
heavy armed infantry which dominated the Roman army.
But the day of gladius and the pilum were eventually to become a thing of the past.
The main reason for such changes to come about were the demands border warfare was placing
on the army.
From the time of Hadrian onwards defensive systems along the Rhine Danube and Euphrates
held off the opponents with large permanent camps placed along these boundaries. Any
barbarians who crossed the border would need to make his way across the defences and locally
stationed auxiliary forces only to eventually face the nearest legion which would march up from
its camp and cut off their retreat. For a long time this system worked well enough.
But in the third century it could no longer cope. The old legions became gradually more
disorganized, having cohorts detached and sent to various places to fill breeches in the defences.
A whole host of new cavalry and infantry units had been created in desperate times of civil war
and barbarian invasions.
One of the most significant differences between the old army system was that Caracalla in AD
212 had bestowed Roman citizenship on all the provinces. With this the ancient distinction
between the legionaries and the auxiliary forces had been swept aside, each now being equal in
their status.
So provincial inhabitants might have become Romans, but this didn't mean the end to non-
Romans being part of the Roman army.
In their desperation the embattled emperors of the third century had recruited any military forces
which came to hand. Germans Sarmatians, Arabs, Armenians, Persians, Moors; all were not
subjects of the empire and now stood to the Roman army in the same relation as once the
auxiliaries had done.
These new barbarian imperial forces might have grown larger as the third century went on, but
their numbers did not pose a threat to the legions of the empire.
Ever from emperor Gallienus onward the tendency of increasing the proportion of cavalry and
light infantry and relying less on the heavy infantry legionary grew more apparent.
The legions gradually were ceasing to be the preferred imperial troops.
Emperor Diocletian was largely responsible for the reforms of the army which followed the
tumultuous third century.
He addressed the chief weakness of the Roman defence system by creating a central reserve. Had
large invasions of barbarians broken through the defences, there never had been anyone in the
interior of the empire to stop them, due to the system introduced by Augustus by which all the
legions were based at the edges of the empire.
So Diocletian created a central reserve, the comitatenses, who now enjoyed For large image click on
picture
the highest status among the army. They were what the legionaries in their
bases along the border, now referred to as the limitanei, had once been.
These new, mobile units were organized into legions of one thousand men,
rather than the traditional full-scale size of the old legion.
With the fourth century the shift toward cavalry and away from heavy
infantry continued.

224
The old legionary cavalry completely disappeared in the face of the
emerging heavier, largely Germanic cavalry.
And yet throughout the reign of Constantine the Great the infantry still
remained the main arm of the Roman army.
Though the rise of the cavalry was manifested in the fact that Constantine
abolished the post of praetorian prefect and instead created two positions;
Master of Foot (magister peditum) and Master of Horse (magister equitum).
Though still the legions held dominance in the empire. Emperor Julian still
defeated the Germans at the Rhine with his legionaries in AD 357.
Legionary
4th century AD
But the cavalry was nevertheless rising in importance. For this rise there were mainly two
reasons. Many barbarians resorted simply to raiding for plunder rather than actual invasion. To
reach such raiding parties before they retired out of Roman territory, infantry was simply not fast
enough.
The other reason was that the superiority of the Roman legion over its opponents was no longer
as clear as it had been in the past. The barbarians had been learning much about their Roman
foes in past centuries. Thousands of Germans had served as mercenaries and taken their
experience of Roman warfare back home with them. With this increased competition, the Roman
army found itself forced to adapt new techniques and provide strong cavalry support for its
embattled infantry.
If the Roman army had throughout most of the third and fourth century been undergoing a
transition, gradually increasing the number of cavalry, then the end of this period of gradual
change was brought about by a dreadful disaster.
In AD 378 the Gothic cavalry annihilated the eastern army under emperor Valens at the Battle of
Adrianople (Hadrianopolis).
The point had been proven that heavy cavalry could defeat heavy infantry in battle.
The Roman Army AD 378-565
Emperor Theodosius, the immediate successor of Valens, appreciated that after the disaster at the
battle of Adrianople drastic changes were necessary.
Not only had the eastern army been wiped out, but the Roman reliance on infantry was now
outdated.
After achieving peace with the Goths, he began to enlist every German warlord he could bribe
into his services. These Germans with their horsemen were not part of the regular army, but were
federates (foederati) for whose services the emperor paid them a fee, the so-called annonae
foederaticae.Only six years after the Battle of Adrianople there was already 40'000 German
horsemen serving under their chiefs in the army of the east. The Roman army had changed
forever. So too had the balance of power in the empire itself.
If the west at first did not adapt the same method as the east, then it soon learnt its own lesson,
when emperor Theodosius a few years later met the the western usurper Magnus Maximus in
battle in AD 387. The western legionaries, widely regarded as the best infantrymen of their day,
were ridden down and crushed by Theodosius' heavy cavalry.
The lesson was not immediately learnt by the western empire and in AD 392 Arbogast and his

225
puppet emperor Eugenius saw their infantry defeated by the Gothic horsemen of Theodosius.
If the west didn't turn to the use of cavalry as quickly as the east it was because two of their most
formidable opponents (and recruiting grounds), the Franks and the Saxons, had themselves also
not converted their armies to the horse.
But the west now too began to increasingly employ the services of German heavy cavalrymen.
For large image click on
picture
While in the armies of the east and the west the cavalry reigned supreme the
infantry underwent change, too. Much of the heavy infantry survived. But
for newly added infantry units the armour got lighter, reducing protection
but allowing for swifter movement across the battlefield. And more and
more soldiers were trained as archers in contrast to the legionary training of
the old army. For one of the chief weapons against the cavalry charges of
the barbarians appeared to be showering them with arrows.
Though morale suffered extensively in the infantry with the ascent of
cavalry. Seen as second-class soldiers by their commanders, when compared
to the Gothic cavalry, the men increasingly saw Germans take command of
army at all levels, the natives of the empire gradually being pushed aside by
foreigners.
During the fifth century the German federates became the sole military force
Legionary of real importance in the west and eventually overthrew the state bringing
5th century AD about the fall of Rome. But in the east the emperors Leo I and later Zeno
managed to avoid German dominance of the army by recruiting large
numbers of soldiers from Asia Minor (Turkey). It was this development
which assured the survival of the east against the threat of the German
federate warlords.

The east gradually developed its cavalry into a force of horse archers, For large image click on
picture
much like that of the Persians, with their federate German heavy cavalry
fighting with lance and sword. Together these two forms of cavalry
proved superior to the Gothic cavalry which didn't use the bow at all.
The historian Procopius describes the eastern horse archer as wearing a
helmet, chest and backplate and greaves as armour, being armed with a
bow, a sword and, in most cases, also with a lance. Also they had a small
shield slung on their left shoulder.
These horse archers were well-trained troops, good riders and capable of
firing their bow while galloping at full speed.
What also added to the effectiveness of cavalry was that somewhen in the
fifth century, the exact origin is unclear, the stirrup began to be
introduced.
Another development of the day was that the individual native Roman Cavalryman
5th century AD
units were becoming organised along the lines of the barbarian federates.
If the federates operated in a unit called a comitatus then this meant that
they were a war band attached to the command of a chief by personal
loyalty. This system now became apparent with the native Roman troops,
largely due to the system which allowed distinguished officers to raise
their own troops for the imperial service.

226
The most prestigious of such troops raised by high ranking officers were the oath-bound
bodyguards, the buccellarii, who were not part of the army at all. Far more they were seen as a
general's personal bodyguard. The famous commander Belisarius surrounded himself with a
large number of such buccellarii.
If Belisarius used his army as described largely above, with light infantry/archers, heavy cavalry
and horse archers, then his successor Narses added another option to this array.
In several battles he ordered his heavy cavalrymen to dismount and use their lances in a phalanx
against cavalry, creating a form of armoured pikeman. This method appeared very effective,
though it is doubtful if Narses did not deploy this tactic to prevent his heavy cavalrymen, whom
he deeply distrusted, from fleeing the battlefield, rather than seeking to create a new form of
soldier.
The Byzantine Army AD 565-ca.900
Less than thirty years after the death of emperor Justinian, when the emperor Tiberius II
Constantinus succeeded to the throne in AD 578, the army was further reorganized.
One of the emperor's leading generals, who was later to become emperor himself, Maurice,
issued the strategicon, a handbook of the workings of the army of the eastern empire.
The Byzantine army possessed not only the Roman traditions of strategy but also a complete
system of tactics suited to the conflicts of the age.
Greek expressions, as well as some Germanic terms, are now in some cases beginning to take the
place of the former Latin ones. Though Latin still remained the language of the army.
The mailed horse-archer still remained the great power of war, but a completely new system of
units and names was introduced.
The forces were now organized in numeri, an expression for some units which appeared to have
come into use as early as Diocletian or Constantine. The numeri, or war-bands (bandae), were
not necessarily all of the same size. In fact the Byzantine army appeared to take great care not to
have all its units of the same size, in order to confuse an opponent in battle as to where its
strengths and weaknessses lay. (A system still used by Napoleon.) A numerus which was
between three or four hundred men strong and was commanded by a comes or tribunus. If
several numeri could form a brigade (drungus) of two to three thousand men, which would be
commanded by a dux. These brigades again could unite to form a division (turma) of up six to
eight thousand men.
During peacetime these forces were not united into brigades and divisions, far more they were
spread across the territories. It was only at the outbreak of war that the commander would weld
them into a force.
Also part of the reorganization was the end of the comitatus system by which the soldiers owed
their loyalty to their commander. Now the soldiers' loyalties lay with the emperor. This change
was made easy by the fact that the German federates who had brought in such customs were now
in the decline within the eastern army. As the amount of money available to the government
declined so too did the number of German mercenaries decrease.
The remaining German mercenaries were to be found divided into foederati (federates), optimati
(the best men picked from the federates), buccellarii (the emperor's bodyguard).
The optimati are of particular interest as they appear clearly to resemble the fore-runners of
medieval knights. They were chosen bands of German volunteers, who appeared to be of such
standing among their own people that they each brought with them one or two armati, who were
their personal assistants, just as later squires attendend to their knights.
Around the end of the first war with the Saracens in the seventh century, during the reign of
Constans II or his son Constantine IV, a new order was established. The military order was

227
closely linked with the very land it protected.
The old boundaries of the provinces and their administration had been wiped out by the
invasions of the Persians and the Saracens. The lands were ruled by the military commanders of
the various forces. Hence the emperor (either Constans II or Constantine IV) divided the land
into provinces, called themes, which took their names directly from the units that were based
there. Themes with names like Buccellarion, Optimaton or Thrakesion (the Thracian units in
Asia Minor (Turkey)) clearly revealing who was based there and in charge of the administration.
The names of the themes further reveal that the various units were not all based along the
frontiers with the Saracen foe, but far more were spread out all over the Byzantine territories.
The commander of a frontier theme of course had greater forces at his disposal than one of his
colleagues in an inland district.
Did the word 'theme' come to stand for both the province as well as the garrison within it, then
the same was the case for the 'turma'. The turma, commanded by a turmarch, was merely smaller
unit within a theme. Further there was also the clissura, commanded by a clissurarch, which was
a small garrison protecting one or more fortified mountain passes.
The strength of the Byzantine army remained its heavy cavalry. The infantry was merely there to
man the fortresses and to act as garrisons for important centres. Though some campaigns appear
to have been done solely by the cavalry, the infantry did appear still to be a part of most, though
it never really played a decisive role.
The heavy cavalryman wore a mail shirt reaching from the neck to the waist or thighs. A small
steel helmet protected his head whilst gauntlets and steel shoes protected his hands and feet.
The horses of the officers and of the men in the front rank also were armoured with protection to
their heads and chest.
Over their armour the riders would wear a linen cape or tunic to protect themselves against the
sun or a heavy woolen cloak to protect against cold weather. These tunics, as well as the tufts on
the helmets and any pennants on the lances would be of the same colour in each warband,
creating a kind of uniform. The weapons of the rider were a broadsword, a dagger, a bow and
quiver, a long lance fitted with a leather strap towards it butt (to help keeping hold of it).
Some would further add to their weaponry by carrying an axe or a mace strapped to the saddle.
Some of the young, inexperienced soldiers would still use the shield, but its use was frowned
upon as it was seen to hinder the free use of the bow.
These armoury and weaponry can not be precisely gauged as the Byzantine army was by no
means as uniform as the old Roman army. Had once every soldier carried the same weapons and
armour, the Byzantine army possessed a large mix of individually armed riders.
Like the equestrians of the old Roman republic, the cavalry men of the Byzantine army were of
considerable social standing.
The emperor Leo VI pointed out that the men chosen for the cavalry should be robust,
courageous and should possess sufficient means to be free from care for their homes and
possessions in their absence.
Farms of cavalrymen were exempt from all taxation except land tax during the reign of Leo VI
(and most likely under the rule of other emperors) in order to help in the management of the
estates when the master was on campaign.
The large proportion of cavalrymen were hence small landowners and their officers were drawn
from the Byzantine aristocracy.
As many of the men were of some standing, many brought with them servants boys and
attendants who relieved the forces of many of their menial duties. However, these camp
followers did indeed slow down the otherwise rapid moving cavalry units considerably.
The infantry in the time of Leo VI still consisted almost entirely of archers, just as it had done in

228
the sixth century under Justinian.
The light archer is largely unprotected, wearing merely boots and tunic and no helmet.
The more heavily armed footsoldier, the so-called scutatus wore a pointed steel helmet and a
mail shirt. Some of them may have also worn gauntlets and greaves to protect the hands and
shins. The scutatus carried with him a large round shield, a lance, a sword and an axe with a
blade at one side and a spike at the other. The shield and the colour of the the tuft on the helmet
were of all the same colour for each war band.
Once more, just as with the cavalry, we most imagine the Byzantine infantry as a body varying
largely in its equipment from each soldier to the other.
The infantry also went on campaign with a large baggage train, bringing with it, among vital
supplies also picks and spades, for the Byzantine army carefully fortified its camps against
suprises, just as the ancient Roman army had done. A unit of engineers always marched ahead
with the vanguard helped the footsoldiers in the preparation of the camp for the night's stay.
Decline of the Byzantine Army AD 1071-1203
The great turning point for the Byzantine army was the battle of Manzikert in AD 1071 at which
the main body of the army under command of emperor Romanus IV Diogenes was shattered by
the Seljuk Turks under their Sultan Alp Arslan.
The disaster of Manzikert was followed by a mass invasion of Asia Minor (Turkey) by the Turks
and a time of civil wars within the remaining Byzantine realm.
In this chaos the formidable old Byzantine army practically disappeared. Not only had
Constantinople lost its army at Manzikert but with the invasion of Asia Minor it had lost its
traditional recruiting grounds where to find the soldiers with whom to replace the lost regiments.
In AD 1078 emperor Michael VII Ducas collected the remaining soldiers from the former
provinces of Asia Minor into a new body of cavalry - the so-called 'Immortals'. And even though
he supplemented them with new recruits they numbered only ten thousand. They were the
survivors of what had once been 21 themes, a force most likely well above 80'000 men.
In the face of such devastation Constantinople turned to recruiting of foreign mercenaries to help
protect itself. Franks, Lombards, Russians, Patzinaks and Seljuk Turks were taken into service in
the defence of what little territory remained Byzantine. Most favoured were the westerners as
they were found less likely to rebel and because the sheer bravery the Frankish and Lombard
warriors displayed in battle.
Though naturally the eastern horse-archers were still sought to provide their skill in ranged
combat to the fierce charge of the western heavy cavalry.
Though if the troops were now largely foreign, the old tactics, the sophisticated Byzantine art of
war survived in its commanders.
Even when parts of Asia Minor (Turkey) were reconquered, the military organisation of the
'themes' was not restored. Asia Minor had been so utterly devastated by the Turks, that the old
recruiting grounds of the empire were barren ruins. And so the Byzantine army remained an
improvised mix of various mercenary forces.
Under the emperors Alexius, John II and Manuel the Byzantine military though still managed to
function quite well, despite these shortcomings. But with the death of Manuel Comnenus (AD
1180) the time of Byzantine military power faded away.
The next emperors possessed neither their predecessors' strength of leadership nor did they find
the means by which to raise the money necessary to maintain an effective army.
Unpaid mercenaries make for a bad army. And so, when the Frankish knights forced their way
into the city of Constantinople (AD 1203), most of the garrison - but for the Varangian Guard -
refused to fight.

229
 Legionary Equipment
Legionary Equipment

Army Camp Layout

For the famous camp of the Roman army was set up every night, for the troops to sleep in.
Every soldier carried tools for digging as well as two stakes for a palisade.
The army surveyors travelled ahead of the main force to find the site best suited for the night's
camp.
Once the army arrived, the standards were driven into the ground. Then the contruction of the
camp began, every soldier having a assigned role to play. A ditch was dug, the earth was used to
make a rampart behind it on which the stakes were used to form a palisade.
Following the systematic nature of the legion this camp was slavishly built in the same form
every day.
The leather tents, each of which would house eight men, were carried by mules.
The Army Camp

Tactics
Information about tactics can be derived from accounts of battles, but the very military manuals
known to have existed and to have been used extensively by commanders, have not survived.
Perhaps the greatest loss is the book of Sextus Julius Frontinus. But parts of his work were
incorporated into the compilation of Vegetius.
Tactics

Legion Names
Under the republic the custom was introduced of giving each legion a number, numbers I to IV
were reserved specifically for those forces raised by the consuls. Any armies formed by others
were given higher numbers.
The system, however simple it seems at first glance, though is very confusing when one
considers that at any one time there might be several legions bearing the same number.
One doesn't really fully understand how such duplications of numbers came about.
However, apart from their number, legions also bore a title. This name would either indicate
where the force had originally been raised, or where it had distinguished itself.
So, for example the 'Legio I Italica' was the '1st Italian' legion; it had been formed in Italy.
Meanwhile the 'Legio V Macedonica' was the '5th Macedonian', Macedonia being the place
where it won great battle honours. Another possibility is illustrated by the 'Legio X Gemina'.
Gemina (united) here inticated that this legion had been formed out of two. Most likely two
forces had suffered heavy losses and were simply turned into one legion.
Legion Names

The Roman Standards

The Roman army's standards were held in awe. They were symbols of Roman honour. Nothing
throughout the world's military history quite compares to these unique objects, for the recovery
of which the empire itself would go to war.

230
 The Standards

The Mark of the Legion

The historian Vegetius reports that before being entered into the records of the legion a soldier
was given the 'military mark'.
It is unclear if this mark was made by tattooing or branding. It purpose was clearly to prevent
desertions, as it would make deserters far easier to identify.
This practice also illustrates the steep decline in the status of the army in the fourth century. For
in earlier times such marking of soldiers, apart from being painful, would have insulted the
dignity of the men, and hence could have led to mutinies. Though in the changed, harsher setting
of the fourth century such things appear to have been deemed necessary.
A decree in AD 398 which ordered the branding of workers in the imperial armament factories,
suggests that by that time the practice of branding new soldiers was widespread.
For it states that the 'national mark' should be branded onto the arms of these workes, 'in
imitation of the branding of recruits'.
It is most likely that the 'national mark' the text refers to would have been the famous letters
SPQR which signified the Roman state.
Other Units
The Auxilia
The allies of Rome began very early in Republican history to play an effective part in the annual
campaigns of large-scale wars. the citizens of Rome provided first-class heavy infantry in the
form of legionaries, but in other types of fighting they were not so adept. In particular, they did
not take so easily to the horse and their own cavalry troops were no match against nomadic
peoples nurtured in the saddle. there were other notable differences. In some parts of the
Mediterranean local conditions had evolved special methods of attack. Among these were the
archers of the eastern parts of the Mediterranean an the slingers of the Balearic Isles. Likewise
against nimble, light-footed mounted tribes, the legionaries were too slow and clumsy. The need
for the Romans to equip themselves with these specialized arms and ways of fighting was felt as
early as the third century BC. It was not always possible to obtain the required skills from within
the circle of accepted allies and so it became necessary to hire mercenaries. All the non-Roman
forces, whatever their status, became known as auxilia, aids to citizen legionaries. As Rome
extended her influence over more and more countries, so she was able to make demands on their
forces and call an increasing number of different kinds of auxilia into her armies. What may
have been unusual in the third century BC, soon became an accepted fact and many garbs and
weapons were to be found side by side with the legionaries in most major wars.
In some of these conflicts the Romans came into contact with new forms of warfare and they
were able to appraise their value and occasionally adopt them. They were not always quick,
however, to appreciate this kind of lesson. In Spain, for example, the Romans put down repeated
revolts, but usually judged the Spaniards to be too wild and unpredictable to make good soldiers.
The Roman officer Sertorius, using Spain as his base for waging civil war against Rome,
demonstrated that - when well led and disciplined - they made first-class troops, and the revolt
was only crushed after the death of its leader. Caesar, during his conquest of Gaul, was given
many opportunities of seeing the Gallic horsemen in action and it is hardly surprising that he was
soon recruiting them, taking a large contingent with him to fight against Pompey. Similarly the
wars against Jughurta demonstrated the value of nimble Moorish horsemen whom Trajan later
found so useful against the Dacians.

231
Augustus, upon assuming power had the urgent and difficult task of rationalizing the chaos
caused by the divided loyalties of the various armies which survived the civil wars. His practice,
whenever possible, was to work to Republican precedent and although one might argue that he
created for Rome the first fully professionalized standing army, this was only giving official
recognition of what had been the actual state of affairs for many years.
The auxiliary troops were completely reorganized and given regular status. Most auxiliaries were
now no longer to be led by their own chiefs, but were brought within the overall chain of
command under Roman officers.
Instead of raising levies from the provinces as occasion required, the numbers of units and yearly
intake of recruits were worked out according to a fixed annual scale, doubtless organized in close
connection with the census of population, the initial purpose of which was the reorganization of
taxation.
Not every tribe was treated alike and there does no appear to have been a rigid, standardized
system throughout the empire. Conditions of service were also regularized and, most important,
roman citizenship was to be given on honourable discharge. this probably did not come into full
effect until the time of Claudius. Spanish auxiliaries had received this privilege as early as 89
BC, after the siege of Asculum, although at the time this was regarded as a special case.
Anyhow, the receipt of citizenship gave a real incentive in the first century AD to join the army
and serve it well. The cumulative effect of this steady extension of the franchise could hardly
have been foreseen with at least 5'000 men ready for discharge each year from the auxilia.
There were three kinds of units in the auxilia of the early empire. The cavalry alae, the infantry
cohorts and the mixed infantry and horsemen cohortes equitatae.
The Ala The Infantry Cohorts Cohortes Equitatae

(The Cavalry) (Auxiliary Infantry) (Mixed Units)

Auxiliary Equipment
The Auxiliary's Equipment

The Numeri and Cunei

Numeri and Cunei were other kinds of infantry and cavalry units which seem to have been raised
from the more barbarous provinces on the frontiers in the second century by Trajan and
regularized by Hadrian. By the second century AD the process of Romanization had advanced so
far that the recruits into the auxilia were reasonably civilized and lacking in the tough, warlike
qualities of the tribes beyond the frontiers which they had to face in battle. These irregular
formations were thus used in the frontier districts against similar barbarians of hostile intent. By
this very practical policy the Romans were able to absorb the potential hostile tribes on the
frontiers and use them as a screen between the more distant barbarians and the regular army.
A good example of numeri were units of Britons settled in Upper Germany, on the outer parts of
the German frontier. Watchtowers were built at regular intervals. Though there are suggestions
that the watchtowers were rather meant as a means of control by which to keep the Britons in,
rather than the Germans out.
The numeri were infantry units, each called a vexillatio. The cunei were cavalry. Due to the
random nature of these auxilia units, records on them are rather rare and we hence know little of
their composition and order of command, except that their commmander was a praepositus.
The main districts from which such numeri and cunei were drawn were Britain, Germany, Syria,
Africa and Dacia.

232
Words of command and battle cries were in the native tongue, not in Latin.
The main differences between these units and the regular auxilia were that they did not receive
Roman citizenship on discharge.
Praetorian Guard
The praetorians (cohors praetoria) were the imperial guard to protect Rome and the emperor.
They were a crack unit whose members wore a special uniform and received double pay, in
addition to the bribes which they came to be offered in the guise of bonuses for their allegiance.
(Traditional teaching is that the praetorians were crack soldiers, chosen for their fighting ability.
There are however those who claim that the Praetorian guard, rather than being a body of select
men, were merely an army drawn from Italy, rather than from the provinces.)
When the emperor went on campaign, the imperial guard went with him.
The institution of the cohors praetoria had originally been that of a group of men acting as
bodyguards to a general, but Augustus - most likely drawing on the experience of Julius Caesar's
murder - created a large personal army.
Initially, the Praetorian guard consisted of nine cohorts of 500 men each. This was increased by
emperor Caligula to twelve cohorts. Vitellius again increased their number to sixteen cohorts.
Vespasian therafter reduced their number again to nine cohorts and Domitian increased them to
ten cohorts of 500 men. A cohort was commmanded by a tribune, together with two equestrians.
The guard itself was commanded by the praetorian prefects, who were equestrians rather than of
senatorial rank. A sign of the exclusion of the mighty senate from certain key positions by the
emperor.
Soldiers of the praetorian guard served only for sixteen years, a term much shorter that the
service of an ordinary legionary. But after their sixteen year term they became so-called evocati,
which ment that they were held back from discharge. Their service in the praetorians meant they
either went on to perform specialist military duties or it simply qualified them either for service
as centurions. These centurionates would usually be taken up in praetorian guard itself or in the
city cohorts and the vigiles. Though some also took commands as centurions in the regular
legion.
Imperial Horseguard
Together with the praetorian infantry unites there was also a small cavalry unit, which by the
second century - created either by Domitian or Trajan - had become the imperial horseguard
(equites singulares augusti). This cavalry unit, drawn from the best frontier cavalry forces, was
in size about that of aala quingenaria which would amount to roughly five hundred men.
Unlike the praetorians, the imperial horseguard did not necessarily wear special uniforms or
insignia. Instead every rider may well have worn his individual provincial equipment, thereby
granting the unit a very cosmopolitan appearance, reflecting the variety of people within the
empire.
The early emperors tried their best to detract from their reliance on the military, choosing to be
seen as political leaders instead. So the praetorians and the imperial horse guards often wore
civilian clothes in those early days.
The German Bodyguard
The German bodyguard (germani corporis custodes) was reasonably small unit of up to 300
men, which formed a guard around the emperor, closer still than the praetorians. Being
foreigners, almost entirely recruited from the German tribes of the Batavii and Ubii, they were
seen as less corruptible by bribes of power or privilege than the praetorians. Though it was

233
exactly their foreign blood which also made them very unpopular.
They existed only under the early emperors, commanded by the emperor himself, until in AD 69
Galba disbanded them.
The Palatini
Among the many reforms introduced by Diocletian one was the creation of a huge imperial
guard. He confined the Praetorian Guard (which he saw as corrupt and dangerous) to Rome.
The numbers of the new troops he originally raised, the palatini, are not known. But by the end
of the fourth century this new imperial guard mustered twenty four vexillations of cavalry (five
hundred each), twenty-five legions (a thousand each) and one hundred and eight auxiliary troops
(five hundred each), stationed all around the empire at the major cities.
The Varangian Guard
The Varangian Guard, also known as the Waring Guard or the Barbarian Guard, emerged in the
11th century in Constantinople as the bodyguard to the emperor. The first mention of this guard
appears in 1034, and they were re-organized in the mid eleventh century by Romanus IV.
Mostly this bodyguard consisted of Danes and Englishmen, many of the latter joined after the
defeat at Hastings in 1066, preferring the service to the emperor to life under Norman rule back
home in England.
The Varangians were ferocious fighters, with full beards and using two handed battle-axe as their
prefered weapon (which is why they were also known as 'the axe-bearers' in Constantinople).
They lived under their own laws, prayed at their own church and elected their own officers.
Their leader was known as the 'Acolyte' (the follower), which was derived from the fact that he
always followed immediately behind the emperor whereever he went. At banquets or
audeniences the acolyte was to find found standing right behind the emperor's throne.
Unlike bodies such as the Praetorian Guard, the Varangians became famed for their loyalty to the
emperor, even their willingness to fight to the death to protect him.
City Cohorts
Towards the end of his reign emperor Augustus created three more praetorian cohorts, bringing
the number to twelve. But these additional cohorts were very soon re-designated as city cohorts
(cohortes urbanae). Their duty was to patrol the city of Rome as a police force.
Given their success, further such cohorts were formed and sent to police other important cities of
the empire.
The Vigiles
A further force, the vigiles, also created by Augustus patrolled Rome itself and served as its fire
brigade.
Seven cohorts of 1000 men, all recruited from former slaves, were established. The whole force
was commanded by a praefectus, and each cohort in turn was commanded by a tribune.
The vigiles carried quite sophisticated fire fighting equipment, including water pumps and hoses,
and even ballista catapults with which to fire hooks attached to climbing ropes or to demolish
burning buildings in order to prevent the spread of fire.
It is believed that they wore helmets for protection, but it is unlikely they wore any other kind of
armour. Although they were indeed understood to be a military unit.
Centurions for the vigiles appear to have been drawn exclusively from the praetorian guard.
Allied Troops

234
The realms of so-called 'client kings' were largely seen as an extended part of the Roman empire.
Very often these royal houses owed their position to Rome. As part of the arrangement between
Rome and the client kingdoms, the kings had to provide troops for Roman campaigns. It was
therefore not uncommon for the troops of such client kings to fight alongside Roman forces in
battle against the enemy.
For example Titus' army in Judaea in AD 70 was accompanied by forces of Agrippa II
(Palestine), Sohaemus (Emesa) and Antiochus IV (Commagene).
Some of the troops from these client kingdoms were even trained in a fashion similar to that of
Roman legions, in order to be more effective on the battle field when working in union with real
Roman forces.
For instance the annexation of Galatia as a Roman province brought the thirty cohorts of King
Deiotarus under Roman command and saw them formed into a Roman legion (legio XXII).
Though this was clearly an exception. The vast majority of troops from annexed client kingdoms
became auxiliary forces.
Soldier's Pay
One of the most difficult aspects of army service to understand is that of the soldiers' pay.
A soldier's pay began with the viaticum which recruits received upon joining. Some records still
exists for recruits joining the auxiliary forces, who received 3 aurei (75 denarii). There is no
definite evidence for the legions, but it is largely assumed that the viaticum for joining the legion
was the same amount. At least until the time of emperor Septimius Severus, it is believed that the
viaticum remained at the level of 75 denarii.
As for the regular pay of the Roman soldier, it is unknown if any amounts might have been
compulsorily deducted for rations, equipment and various purposes.
The situation changed from time to time and with gradual inflation the pay progressively
increased.
Basic facts are few and far between. Caesar doubled the daily pay of legionaries from 5 to 10
asses, meaning 225 denarii a year. When Augustus left in his will 300 sestertii (75 denarii) to all
legionaries this was a third of the annual amount and most probably indicates that the troops
were paid three times a year and Augustus merely added an extra pay-day.
The basic rate remained unchanged until Domitian, who increased it from nine to twelve gold
pieces a year (i.e. to 300 denarii) In spite of the steady inflation during the second century, there
is no further rise until the time of Severus who increased it to 500 denarii a year.
Occasionally there were bounties or donations. Caligula after his abortive invasion of Britain
gave all legionaries four gold pieces (100 denarii). Claudius started an unfortunate precedent in
giving a donation to the praetorian guards on his accession, and it can be assumed that equivalent
amounts would have been given to the legionaries.
Later emperors simply felt obliged to follow this example to secure the loyalty of the troops. The
inevitable result was that it was expected, until Vespasian, having satisfied at least part of his
victorious army with booty, quietly dropped the idea.
Although the custom of paying the praetorians on accession did return later.
Apart from the bounties and donations the legionaries could look forward to substantial grants on
their discharge either in cash or land (praemia). Augustus fixed the amount in AD 5 at 3000
denarii and by the time of Caracalla it had risen to 5000 denarii. The real difficulty in assessing
the soldiers' pay is that of stoppages (soldier's food and animal fodder) and deductions. This
practice dates back to the origins of the army. Early records show that the soldiers had to
purchase their corn and clothes and some of their arms, presumably replacements, at a set price
which the quaestor deducted from their pay. Although attempts were made to alleviate this

235
burden, it remained a source of grievance in the early empire.
A small amount was paid into a pool, watched over by the chief signifer which paid for soldiers'
burial expenses.
There is no evidence on the pay of centurions, but it seems likely that it was at least five times
the soldiers' rate and may have been even more. one of the main privileges of the centurion's
position was the practice of levying fees for exemption from certain noncombatant duties. Otho
tried to correct this abuse of power at least within the paetorians by making a grant from the
treasury of an equivalent amount which would have had the effect of raising centurions' pay.
Later this became an established rule under some emperors, or emperors like Hadrian, enforced
stricter discipline in order to suppress such illegitimate practices.
A primus ordo (a centurion of the first cohort) would earn about twice as much as a normal
centurion.
A primus pilus (first centurion) would earn an estimated four times the amount of a normal
centurion. He would receive enough on discharge to acquire equestrian status, a property
qualification of 400'000 sestertii.
The pay of the auxilia poses difficult questions through absence of reliable evidence. There
appears to have been basic differentials between units.
The cavalry of the alae were better paid than the men in the cohortes and in the cohortes
equitatae mounted men got more than the foot soldiers.
A humble foot soldier in the auxilia is estimated by modern historians to have received about
100 denarii a year.
Length of Service
In the early republican days, there was no army if Rome was at peace. Armies were only raised
to fight particular foes and were dispanded once these were defeated. But in practice, as Rome
was almost perpetually at war with someone, there always appeared to be men at arms.
By the time of Marius regular army service of the conscripts was already at 6 years.
With Marius' introduction of mercenaries the length of time they served increased to roughly 16
years. For now military life had become a choice of profession, rather than a duty of the Roman
citizen.
Though by the time of Augustus, after the lengthy civil wars which had seen huge numbers of
men at arms, the length of service had fallen back to between 6 and 10 years again.
Augustus reset the number of years back to 16, with a further four years served by a veteran with
the legion, though for this extended time he was excused from some duties.
Unlike in the late republic there would be no veterans who had served only a few years,
experienced fighters within the population who could threaten the peace. Now all ex-soldiers
would in effect be old soldiers.
Though the main reason for this was most likely the cost of discharging veterans (grants of land)
which was a great a burden to the state.
Later the period of service was extended even further, to 20 years, with propably a further five
years service as veterans with lesser duties. The distinction between the ordinary legionary and
the veteran eventually began to fade, and a soldier served a full 25 to 26 years, discharges only
being made every two years.
Becoming a Soldier
Just how it was that young men joined the army, in both the republican, as well as the imperial
period.

236
 Becoming a Soldier

The Army Career

Roman society was governed by class and so in effect there was three separate army careers
possible, that of the common soldier in the ranks, that of the equestrians and that for those
destined for command, the senatorial class.
The Army Career

Army Training
It comes as no great surprise to most, that the finest army in the world insisted much on training
its soldiers.
In a world in which all armies fought with much the same weapons, - swords, spears, etc - it was
vital that Roman soldiers achieved a high level of skill in use of their weapons to assure the
supremacy of Rome.
Every soldier needed to be a skilled fighter in order to shape the army into an efficient killing
machine. And if it was simply to achieve the fitness of its recruits or to guarantee their ability in
handling the weapons, the Roman army had a training program for it.
Army Training

The Military Oath

To be placed on the rolls of the legion, a recruit had to swear the military oath.
The oath, the sacramentum, naturally changed in time as the Roman state and the empire
evolved.
In republican times, one man would recite the oath out loud (praeiuratio), thereafter each oteh
man in turn would say the words, 'idem in me' ('the same in my case').
It may well have been that new recruits who joined the army all had to speak the full oath, if
numbers allowed this. But the renewal of the oath, will have been conducted in the shorter
fashion described above.
In early republican times, the historian Dionysius tells us, the oath sounded something like this;
'to follow the consuls to whatever wars they may be called, and neither desert the colours nor do
anything else contrary to law.'
The renewal of the oath was always conducted on New Year's Day, up until either the reign of
Vespasian or Domitian when it was moved to 3 January.
A Christian version of the oath is described by the historian Vegetius,
'They swear by God, by Christ and by the Holy Spirit; and by the majesty of the emperor, which,
next to God, should be loved and worshipped by the human race... The soldiers swear to perform
with enthusiasm whatever the emperor commands, never to desert, and not to shrink from death
on behalf of the Roman state.'
Army Discipline
The discipline of the republican army is legendary. However, it is believed to be somewhat
exaggerated by Roman historians keen to show that discipline of earlier generations had been
firmer than that of their own.
Though it was indeed the case that a strict system of rewards and punishments was applied the
the conscripted soldiers. But discipline was not necessarily so strict as to blunt the citizen-

237
soldier's individual initiative. Intelligent, independent-minded soldiers who worked together as a
unit no doubt posed a significantly greater threat to an enemy, than blindly obedient men who
only did what they were told.
But then this is not to say that the discipline of the Roman army wasn't an iron one. During times
of crisis such as the war against Hannibal severe measures were most likely necessary to
maintain army discipline against a seemingly invincible opponent.
The historian Polybius reports that the Roman army punished with death not only things such as
desertion but also far more minor matters and that order and discipline was largely maintained by
fear.
In the days of the empire discipline does appear to have relaxed at least slightly. Perhaps this was
due to it by then being a volunteer army which shouldn't be abused quite as harshly if one
wanted to find any new recruits, perhaps it was the emperor's desperate need to keep the troops
happy if he was to survive, or perhaps it was simply the result of changing attitudes of the day.
In any case the changes brought about more self-confident armies, which were more likely to
revolt if an old-fashioned disciplinarian took command.
Corporal punishment (castigatio), monetary fine, (pecunaria multa), added duty (munerum
indictio), relegation to an inferior service (militiae mutatio), reduction in rank (gradus
deiectio) or dishonourable discharge from service (missio ignominiosa) were all forms of
minor punishments at the disposal of commanders seeking to maintain discipline. Execution -
The death penalty was a deterrent used against desertion, mutiny or insubordination. In practice
however, it was rare. Even in cases of desertion, factors such as the soldier's length of service,
his rank, previous conduct, etc. were taken into consideration. Special consideration was also
given to young soldiers. After all, trained soldiers didn't grow on trees. To kill off one's own
ranks was to be avoided as much as possible.
Decimation - Perhaps the most gruesome punishment of all known to the Roman army was that
of decimation. It generally was applied to entire cohorts and meant that every tenth man,
randomly chosen by a draw of lots, was killed by being clubbed or stoned to death by his own
comrades. This form of punishment of the troops was however extremely rare.
Disbandment of an entire legion was also a means by which to punish mutinous troops. This
naturally was very rarely done, and if so more for political purposes (ridding oneself of armies
who had supported a contender to the throne, etc) then as a purely punitive measure. But the
threat of disbandment was sometimes used against troops demanding more pay, or better
conditions to bring them to heel.
Army Decorations
Like most modern armies, the Roman army did not only have a code for disciplining soldiers, but
also one for rewarding them. Decorations were usually worn by the soldiers on parades and were
generally awarded at the end of a campaign.
The decorations possible for any soldiers lower than the centurions were torques (necklaces),
armillae, (armbands) and phalerae (embossed discs worn on the uniform).
Such minor awards were abandoned during the reign of emperor Severus, but the torques were
reintroduced in the later empire.

238
Centurions could be awarded the corona aurea, a plain gold crown.
Aside from this there was also the corona vallaris or corona muralis,
for being the first officer over enemy defences or city wall.
(The corona aurea could apparently also be awarded to ranks beneath
the centurionate, the little known so-called evocati who ranked between
the principales and the centurionate.)
the corona muralis
Museo della Civilta, Rome
The primus pilus, the highest ranking centurion of a legion, could be awarded the hasta pura
(silver spearshaft), which was the award usually handed to any members of the questrian order, -
a rank the primus pilus would only strictly speaking have achieved by the end of his service.
Above the rank of primus pilus the awards become, just as the posts were, of more politically
symbolic nature. High ranking commanders needed hardly storm any enemy walls in person to
gain their awards. And it is to a point questionable if only truly oustanding commanders received
awards.

A military tribune of the lowest rank (tribunus augusticlavius) would be awarded

with a corona and a hasta pura. But those tribunes senior two him might already
receive a vexillum. This award was a little miniature standard mounted on a silver
base.
The senior tribune (tribunus laticlavius), a man of senatorial rank no less, would
generally receive two coronoae, two hasta purae and two vexilla.
the vexillum
award
Museo della
Civilta, Rome
Men of praetorian rank, the legionary legates (the generals of the Roman army), would receive
three coronoae, three hasta purae and three vexilla.
If this bestowing of glory in such numbers seems a little ridiculous, then it is still not the highest
award. For a general of consular rank, would receive four coronae, four hasta purae and four
vexilla.
An award which was open to all ranks, was the corona civica. It was an award granted for saving
the life of a fellow Roman. Though it appeared to go out of use after the reign of Claudius.
Emperor Severus later reintroduced it as the corona civica aurea, but only for centurions.
There is a wellknown case in the traditional Roman semi-mythical hero L. Siccius Dentatus of
awards being quite literally heaped onto war heroes. A veteran of 120 battles he is supposed to
have received 18 hastae purae, 25 phalerae, 83 torques, over 160 armillae, 14 coronae civicae,
8 coronae auraea, 3 coronae murales and one corona obsidialis/corona graminae (the highest
award for valour).
But not only individuals, also entire units could be awarded. Praetorian cohorts could be awarded
the cornona aura, which they could add to their standards. The regular legions could be granted
a corona, but their cohorts could only receive phalera.

239
 Army Supplies
A Roman legion was a vast body of men who all required food. A soldier's daily grain ration was
the equivalent of 1.5 kg (ca. 3 lb 5 oz), which was generally supplemented with other foodstuff.
However, this meant that the total consumption of grain was around 7500 kg a day. Together
with up to 500 kg of fodder for the animals this made a substantial amount of food.
In military bases, units were heavily involved in their own supply. Land was set aside for the use
of the military to plant crops and graze their animals. These lands were referred to either as prata
(meadow), or simply as territorium (territory).
Herds of cattle were also kept, watched over by soldiers called pecuarii (herdsmen). There are
reports, particularly in the later empire of large numbers of limitanei (frontier guardsmen) who
acted as soldier-farmers, charged with growing the crops for the troops.
Estimates of yield in Roman-style farming vary from 2000 kg to 500 kg per hectare land. These
estimates result in land being required in the region between 7.5 km x 7.5 km and 3.5 km x 3.5
km to produce enough grain to feed the men. Add to this the necessity for additional land to
grow grain and forage for the animals and one can only conclude that the military bases on the
frontiers of the empire were far more than mere fortified headquarters, but large agricultural
estates.
It also gives us an impression of the logistical difficulties of bringing up food when the armies
were on campaign.
In some areas though grain could simply not be grown on the scale required and had to be
imported.
Merchants would fulfil the function of shipping the grain from its point of origin to the army
bases. But so too veterans and even some acting soldiers were involved in the trade.
Further food was brought in by hunting expeditions. Archaeologists have unearthed the remains
of deer, foxes, even bears in the scrap heaps of military camps.
And yet an army was not supplied with food alone. Wine beer and olive oil had largely to be
imported.
But so too, was there a constant need for other materials. Leather, iron and wood for repairs to
equipment as well as for heating and cooking.
Clothing, too, would need to be replaced.
And for the maintenance of any army base, stores of building materials would be needed. A
regular legionary fortress would be built of something akin to 15000 cubic metres of stone,
alongside other materials.
The Fleet
Romans most certainly did not feel at home on water. For a long time they used foreign ships
sailed by foreigners to provide them with ships. But as there empire grew it became inevitable
that they needed to take control of the sea.
The Fleet

Siege Warfare
If there is one thing in which Roman ingenuity and ruthlessness was best displayed, other than
by the organization of the legion itself, then it must have been the Roman art of siege warfare.
No other ancient civilization's army ever showed such thoroughness and such single-mindedness
when setting about winning no matter what the effort to do so required.
Siege Warfare

240
 Engineering
Fighting was not the sole purpose of the Roman army.
But so too was it a body capable of great building work. Such expertise in engineering came
quite naturally to the Roman army, as it had to build its own camps and forts, if necessary it had
to be able to span bridges across rivers and build siege works.
But the army also took part in building projects for civilian use. There was sound reasons for the
use of the army in building projects.
For one, if they weren't directly engaged in military campaigns, the legions were largely
unproductive, costing the Roman state large sums of money. But the involvement of the soldiers
in building works, kept them not only well accustomed to hard physical labour, but also kept
them busy ! And it was the widely held belief that busy armies weren't plotting to mutiny,
whereas idle armies were. Also the quality of work delivered by the army tended to be better
than that of civilian engineers.
Of both military and civilian use was the construction of roads in which the army was heavily
involved. But so too were soldiers put to use in the construction of town walls, the digging of
shipping canals, the drainage of land, aquaeducts, harbours, even in the cultivation of vineyards.
In some rare cases soldiers were even used in mining work.
After construction of public works, the duty of maintenance fell to the local communities. But
these communities often made arrangements to pay the army to maintain them, bringing in
helpful sources of income to pay the army's huge costs.

Police Duties
Several policing duties fell to the army in the provinces of the empire.
Many such duties played a important role in trade. For it was the army which inspected the
weights at market and collected customs payments.
Whenever there was a census (the counting of the people of the empire) it fell to the army as the
only institution large enough to handle such a huge operation.
With there being no police force and no customs officials, in the provinces everything regarding
law enforcement or border controls rested with the army.
Large numbers of soldiers were detached from their armies and, in small units, provided escort
protection to traders, guarded provincial governors, patrolled country roads and towns.
Some troops were even used as prison guards, but this was rare, as it was deemed demeaning
work and hence was normally given to slaves.
These activities naturally kept the army in close contact with local people and, one may assume,
ensured it some degree of popularity, as it was seen enforcing law and order and protecting trade.

The Census
In the beginning was the census. Every five years, each male Roman citizen had to register in
Rome for the census. In this he had to declare his family, wife, children, slaves and riches.
Should he fail to do this, his possessions would be confiscated and he would be sold into slavery.
But registration meant freedom. A master wishing to free his slave needed only to enter him in
the censor's list as a citizen (manumissio censu).
Throughout the entire republican era, registration in the census was the only way that a Roman
could ensure that his identity and status as a citizen were recognized. Fathers registered their

241
sons, employers their freedmen.
Primarily the census served to count the number of citizens and to assess the potential military
strength and future tax revenue. Most important, the census transformed the city into a political
and military community.
But the census performed a highly symbolical function. To the Romans the census made them
more than a mere crowd, or barbarian rabble. It made them a populus, a people, capable of
collective action.
To the Roman the census was one of the foundation stones of their civilization.
With the census itself being of such importance, the job of compiling the lists was not simply left
to anonymous scribes. It was overseen by two censors. These were incorruptible and noble-
blooded men of substance who were appointed for their proven integrity and authority.
It was their role to scrutinize each man, carefully evaluating his riches and his rank and placing
him in his rightful place within the civic hierarchy of Rome.
In assessing the lower ranks of Roman society, little was taken into account but their material
belongings. However, for the citizens of high position in the hierarchy were subjected to the
most penetrating gaze of the censor.
And it was an uncomfortable thing indeed, to be inspected in such a way. For very much was at
stake.
The censors, looking into a man's public and private lives, might decide to move a citizen a few
rungs down the social ladder if he had, for example, turned a blind eye to his wife's adulteries,
committed perjury, fathered no children, appeared on the stage (actors were seen with contempt
by Roman society) or failed to cultivate his land properly.
The civilized City
The entire concept of Roman life seemed to center around the city, be this the city of Rome itself
or any other town.
The countryside was a nice place to retire to for a while in order to stay in touch with nature. Yet
it was seen as an unsuitable place for a true citizen. Romans were after all social creatures, which
craved being part of a society.
The truly civilized citizen had to be more than educated or successful. No, in the Roman mind
set it was necessary to belong. The Roman needed a community, a family, or at least a group of
friends around him. No better place was there for this than the city.
And so if one was to look at Roman cities merely as hives of economic life where people settled
merely to find jobs, entertainment and convenience one would only see part of the picture.
The idea of living of cities, like with the Greeks, was a cultural statement in itself. To them it
represented an advancement from the mere existence as a peasant living off the land. One might
say they saw themselves as a further step in the evolution of man.
For it was the barbarian tribes who still lived dispersed all over the countryside. In the Roman
mind, cities formed its inhabitants into greater, abler, nobler beings.
No-one more so than the highborn Roman was a citizen. For, if he was expected to succeed
against all odds in his political career, continuing the lineage of his forefathers, then this was
only possible in the city. Only there could he ever hope to win office and match father's
achievements. Only there could he exercise his rights as a citizen.
Though to be a citizen also meant to prove oneself. A Roman was always subject to the gaze of
his fellow citizens. And it was in their eyes that he was to show himself a worthy person,
respectful to his parents, loyal to his patrons, able in raising his family and just towards his
slaves.
just as the Roman craved society, so was he made to prove himself worthy of membership in it.

242
 The City of Rome
If Romans lived in cities throughout the empire, then their greatest city, naturally, was the city of
Rome itself.
Had it originally started as a small settlement on the Palatine Hill it had grown into the greatest
city of the ancient world.
The Forum
In the earliest days of Rome the Forum was an uninhabited swamp, but soon the marshy plain at
the bottom of the Palatine Hill was drained and the first paved streets, most of all the Via Sacra,
were built. The Via Sacra, the oldest Roman street, was to remain most important street at the
very heart of the city.
From these early beginnings the Forum changed several times, but it always remained the center
of Roman life. In the early days political life was restricted to the comitium the northern corner
of the Forum whilst the rest of the open square would be occupied by the market.
In the later days of the republic the shops and the market were largely moved to make way for a
greater public meeting space, as well as for Caesar's Forum. Caesar built his new Forum on one
side of the Via Sacra and the Basilica Julia on the other.
Generally it was Caesar's contribution which initiated the Forum's greatest splendour. Every
emperor in turn set out to add to the architectural glory of Rome's centre.
With the growth of the empire and the increase in Rome's population the old Forum became to
small to cope with the sheer weight of numbers. In time other fora were added, the Forum of
Caesar, of Augustus, of Vespasian, of Nerva and that of Trajan.
The people in the Forum varied considerably as the day went on. Life in the Forum reached its
height at about 11 o'clock each day (the Roman 'fifth hour').
Wheeled vehicles were prohibited from driving through the streets of Rome from sunrise until
the Roman 'tenth hour' (4 o'clock in the afternoon) This meant that during the daytime
pedestrians alone made up the huge crowds which filled the streets and squares, except for some
wealthy people, particularly women, being carried in litters by their slaves.
During these busy hours in the city centre there was a tremendous hustle and bustle in the Forum.
Affairs of state were debated in the offices. In the basilica businessmen made deals, financiers
discussed loans and the money-change's had their stands, and stood jingling their money noisily
in their hands to attract the attention of any potential customers.
Close to the courtrooms the baying of the spectators and the loud voices of the lawyers could be
heard from quite a distance. In other places perhaps the loud screeching of a quarrel or a fight,
about to break out could be heard. Sometimes, if a public figure had died, his funeral procession
would lead through the Forum. Fathers would traditionally bring their sons to the Forum when
their offspring wore his toga for the first time.
As the empire expanded the crowds on the Forum became yet bigger and more colourful. It
appeared that nearly every nationality was present on the Forum in the days of empire. But the
Romans were not very fond of such foreigners. Most despised of all were the Orientals. Eastern
businessmen and scholars were the targets of a traditional Roman hatred of the eastern
civilizations (one need only look at the Roman attitude toward Cleopatra and Mark Antony).
Nobles would move about on the Forum always followed by a group of clients, eager to please
their patron and sure to see that he came to no harm. Many such nobles flaunted their wealth,
adorned in costly clothes, expensive rings and having with them exotic pets.
And where there was such wealth, there was of course also many doubtful characters moving

243
about, keen to reap the benefit of such riches.
Quacks, soothsayers and charlatans of all shapes and sizes were all around.
The Forum may have lain at the heart of the centre of Rome, but it was not the only place of
public life. Other areas too were busy during the day.

Shops and Markets

With the growth of the Forum the old market had been forced to go elsewhere. With the Forum
being the centre of Roman life the shops obviously clung to as closely as they could. And so the
streets leading from the Forum boasted many shops. The Via Sacra itself had shops, but so did
the streets leading out of the Forum, foremost the vicus iugarius, the vicus tuscus and the
argiletum.
The vicus tuscus is said to have been the host of many spice shops. The argiletum was host to
many bookshops and shoe shops.
To the east lay the poor man's market of Rome in the quarter of the subura, no selling foods
more suited to those with limited money, like simple vegetables and chickens.
To the south of the Forum lay the velabrum, the general market, the forum boarium and the
forum cuppedinis, the market for luxury goods. These were huge markets, feeding the greatest
city of the world.
The wealthy Romans might go shopping near the saeptia in the Campus Martius where the
luxury shops could be found, selling amongst other things the most expensive slaves in Rome.

The Subura
But the wealthy would stay well clear of the district east of the Forum known as the subura. This
was the poorer part of Rome, not merely housing the less fortunate, but also the many prostitutes
of the city.
The narrow alleys were notoriously dangerous to any stranger, with many criminals waiting to
rob the purse of a hapless stranger.
This is not to say that the subura was dangerous to all. There was indeed some distinguished
patricians living there. Julius Caesar, for example, lived there, until he became pontifex maximus.
Though it was clear to all not be venture into certain parts of the subura, and particularly not to
go there when darkness began to set.
The subura also had a large market, where the poor and the slaves who were in charge of
households did their shopping. Vegetable stores were abound, barber shops, wool, merchants,
blacksmiths, coppersmiths and other stores essential to daily life in Rome. Tough the atmosphere
was very rough, and gangs controlled some of the streets.
All streets radiated from the centre of the city, leaving the forum they became broader and
straighter, until at reaching the gates of Rome they led away to the rest of the empire in form of
Roman roads.
A Roman's Identity and Honour
It was to others that a Roman had to look for any confirmation of his ability and identity.
In Roman society confirmation by others was sought as well as required. Be they the elders of
his family, his patron or his clients, army comrades, or even - in an election - the people of

244
Rome; no Roman could be his own judge, but could see himself only through the eyes of others.
One needs also to consider that Romans didn't know of modern day psychology and hence did
not analyze their thoughts and feelings. They looked not inwards but to others to understand
themselves. For it was the opinion of others which dictated the opinion a Roman ultimately held
of himself.
'A good man' was hence a man deemed worthy by others, a man deemed honourable. But so too,
in the Roman mind set honourable was only what was actually honoured. Glory or honour were
also measured only in the recognition it drew from others.
Great, noble deeds might be done, but without people knowing of them there was no glory, no
fame and no advantage to be gained from them.
And to Romans the only advantage to be gained from glory and honour was to use it to climb the
social ladder. Any credit among one's fellow men gained by one's ability, either in office or on
the battlefield, was immediately used to further one's political fortunes; all in the hope of finally
achieving that distant goal - a seat in the Roman senate.
Hence any achievement was blatantly bragged about to make absolutely sure everyone knew
about it. And anyone too dignified to do the bragging oneself, simply found others who would do
it for them.
And so in Rome, where nobility, military and political leadership were all intertwined, there
would be no end of bragging, showing-off and a boundless supply of flattering rumours.
But in a society in which so much depended on the light in which others saw you, their view
could not only elevate you, but so too it could destroy you.
Any news, be it good or bad, spread like wildfire in a society that spent much of the day
gossiping in the public baths, or mingling at the forum. Graffiti was scribbled on walls, and in
the inns drunken songs might ridicule the high and mighty. In the theatres actors would in their
plays praise or deride public figures of the day.
And so Rome was a city of rumours, for the entertainment of the many and for the advancement
of those whose worst fate could be, not to be talked about.
Nobility
Nobility was not simply bestowed upon an individual. It was gradually built up or torn down by
a family. 'Three fathers' was the duration required to establish a man's noble status. The father,
grandfather and great-grandfather had each to have exercised a higher magistracy. In other
words, for a child to be noble, it was essential that he had been subject solely to the authority of
relatives who were magistrates. Even the nobility of Octavian, whose great-grandfather had been
a mere freedman, was called into question. It mattered little that a man's family had been noble in
the past, an interruption of the three generations was all it took to deprive him of his noble status.
The Client System
A client was a loyal supporter to a high-standing Roman family. The head of the higher family
would be the patronus, the patron.
Clients acted as a kind of 'clan' to the patron. They supported him loyally in any venture, be it
military or political. Meanwhile the patron would aid his clients, representing their political
interests through the office he held, or even defending them in the courts as their lawyer, should
it be necessary.
This bond between patron and client was one of the very foundations of Roman society. Fides,
loyally, was a prized virtue, which held together families, as well as the social order through the
client system.
Such Roman loyalty was felt not merely to particular men, but to their families. And so, should a

245
patron die, his client would hence support his heir. Should the client die, his son would support
the same patron. Some noble families could indeed count on the support of very many people, in
the city of Rome, as well as in the countryside towns.
More so, even entire kingdoms could become clients to the very Roman commander who had
conquered them.
And it is worth pointing out just how deep the Roman idea of fides ran. Titus Labienus had been
a general of Julius Caesar's throughout his conquest of Gaul. But, whatever friendship might
have formed between Caesar and his loyal commander, once the civil war began between Caesar
and Pompey, Labienus had to change sides. For he was from Picenum, a town which was a client
of Pompey's.
this goes to show that the client system could also be very much military in nature - at least
during the days of the Roman republic.
A patron could raise an army, recruited from among his clients, if he had the means to maintain
it. Or he could, should he desire, also create his own small force as a personal armed guard.
For this one needs to consider that, prior to the reign of Augustus, there was no such thing as a
police force. A patron's armed guard might therefore be used to protect the patron as well as his
clients.
The client system truly formed the foundations of the Roman state. It created stability, as of
course the unwavering loyalty of clients could keep families in power for centuries.
But so too did it create a kind of welfare network in a state which largely hadn't the means to
support the poor and deprived.
The client system surrounding a patron would look out for its individuals. They would act as a
kind of police, making sure no harm came to their own, that nothing was stolen from them.
should one be struck down by poverty, the other clients, - and so too most likely the patron, -
would see to it that one would get a loan, a daughter might be provided with a dowry, or at least
the group would see to it that the deceased would get a decent funeral.
If the patron might not always provide help personally, it would most often be he who
orchestrated it, perhaps asking other clients to help out one of his supporters who had fallen upon
hard times. But the wealth of most patrons of course allowed him to hand out money to those
they deemed deserving of such aid.
And so, maintaining guards, organizing any help, defending people in the courts, even openly
handing out money, it is no wonder that the patrons were seen as protectors of their group.
It was for the purpose of representing their clients in court in was that most sons of high-ranking
families were trained in law. And should matters fail and one struggle to get a retrial, then a
patron might always call on some of his clients to stage demonstrations outside the courthouse,
making their 'public' outrage heard over such 'miscarriages of justice'.
It remains to be said that the word patronus later became the Italian word padrino, the
expression used to describe the godfather in the Mafia. And, on closer inspection, the Roman
client system with its loyalty and solidarity does show many similarities to the Mafia. It is also
telling that the Mafiosi refer to a common cause as 'la cosa nostra' (our cause) and regard
themselves as family, 'la familia'.
The two traditional Parties - populares and optimates
The client system meant that Rome was never really a democracy. People voted at elections in
accordance to their family loyalties. Political ideology didn't play a major role.
Though in the later stages of the republic - roughly from the days of the brothers Gracchus
onwards - there were two political parties, the populares ('people's party') and the optimates
('senatorial party').

246
The populares were for the extension of citizenship to provincials, for the cancellation of debt,
and for the distribution of land. The optimates were the opposing conservative force, defending
the traditions of Rome and the existing order.
But this contest was far from being one between the poor and the rich. For people voted for their
patrons, as they had always done. So a man might be poor but still vote as a client for the patron
who was a staunch member of the optimates.
If teh struggle between the optimates was not pitching rich against poor in Rome, then one can
perhaps portray it as a contest between the new powers and the old. The old privileged families
held sway in Rome and hence sought to prevent any change from reducing their powers.
Meanwhile the new powerful families, saw opportunities in winning more clients and supporters
by championing the cause of the less privileged or excluded. For example, to speak on behalf of
the Cisalpine Gauls or Samnites who did not enjoy citizenship meant, that, if they would ever be
granted it, their loyalty - and hence their votes - would be with you. And so the aim of the
powerful families in the populares party was clearly one of extending their own power. Any
advantage to the poor was therefore merely a welcome side effect.
The great political clashes were hence only on the surface about ideology. In reality they were
more about power than the public good. There were, to put it bluntly, no 'socialists' in Rome.
No one acted on behalf of the poor, but rather sought to gain poor votes.
If therefore the likes of the brothers Gracchus (populares) held grand passionate speeches which
enthralled their audiences, these must be seen as well crafted speeches of great orators who could
make their point brilliantly and persuasively. But one shouldn't therefore necessarily think that
they were any less class conscious and aristocratic than any member of the optimates.
Some might argue that granting social rights to increasing numbers was a gradual, natural
process, as new blood pushed into the positions of power, building and enlarging its own client
system. The great politicians might far more have been playing a part in a great theatre play,
fighting out their personal struggles for power, but playing their role as champions of a greater
cause.
Rulers of the Republic
Rome was a realm of quasi kings: magistrates and senators. The senate, made up of former
magistrates, was no doubt an imposing sight to behold, - much like the court of a monarch.
Yet the republican attitude of Rome, to an extent even under the emperors, remained utterly
hostile toward the idea of kings.
It was as though the attitude prevailed that a mere mortal on his his own could possible rule
Rome and her empire. - One might even speculate that this mentality could have been the reason
for the later deification of dead emperors.
The Roman passion for power is infamous. Latin even has two different words to describe a
person's power; potentia for personal power and potestas or political power.
But then to hold power in Rome was not comparable to political positions of a modern western
state.
Roman magistrates were not comparable to today's government offices. Their powers were
absolute. Today's governments separate the powers of the political rulers of the country
(executive), the politicians making laws (legislature), and the judges who apply the law in the
courts (judiciary). This however was not the case in ancient Rome. All such powers rested
effectively with the highest magistrates, the consuls.
Not merely did the consuls hold tremendous power, but so, too, were they surrounded by
symbols of 'royal' authority. Among them the lictors bearing the axes bound in rods, symbolizing

247
their power over life and death, their purple striped tunic under the senatorial purple hemmed
toga. And some of these symbols did indeed stem from the days when Rome had still been
dominated by Etruscan kings.
And to the ordinary people of Rome their appearance must indeed have made them appear no
less than kings.
But the consuls were not the only 'kings' in Rome. Other offices such as those of the praetors,
aediles or quaestors, allowed their holders to make their own laws, oversee their enforcement and
well as to prosecute and punish anyone who failed to abide by them. So they, too, enjoyed
absolute power, although on a lower level.
This power of office was known as the provincia and it is hence no surprise that it eventually
became the name for the 'kingdoms' Rome ruled over in its empire. For in those territories, the
governors, held the same powers as consuls over their subjects. More so, they were under far less
scrutiny when ruling over the provinces than anyone holding office within the capital. And yet,
their positions generally demanded that they had previously proven their worth in high
magistracies before they ever were entrusted with the absolute power of provincial governor.
Far away from Rome, subject to the many temptations of power, it is perhaps littel wonder that
many governors suffered delusions of grandeur. In the eastern provinces they were often
worshipped as gods by a population used to treating their rulers in such fashion.
Also of course many saw their time abroad as a marvellous opportunity to enrich themselves off
the backs of their helpless subjects.
But, if the provincia did offer immunity from prosecution then this only extended for one's time
in office. Thereafter one could be prosecuted for one's misdemeanours.
And there was many a young man ready and waiting to make a name for himself by prosecuting
a corrupt governor in the courts.
When for example the governor of Gaul, Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, returned to Rome he was
indeed prosecuted in 185 BC and expelled from the senate.
The Latin words res publica which are perhaps best translated as 'public affairs' are the source of
today's term 'republic'.
Before setting out on reading about the history of the Roman republic, please find here the
various offices and assemblies which were created in order to rule of the Roman state.
Offices
Consul Dictator Pontifex Censor Praetor Aedile Quaestor
- - Maximus - - - -

Head of Ruler in Religion Public Law Public Treasurer

State Crisis - Morality Officer Works -
Assemblies
The Senate Comitia Curiata Comitia Centuriata Concilium Plebis Comitia Tributa

Patrician Assembly Ward Assembly Military Assembly Plebeian Assembly Tribal Assembly

The Working Day

248
A Roman would usually get up early and work a six hour day.
This of course was only the case for working men. Women stayed at home. Even the task of
queuing for the tokens which granted a family its monthly grain dole was done by the men of the
house.
And so the many workers, traders and businessmen of the city, be they freemen or freedmen
would work all morning, adding to the wild hustle and bustle of the their town or city.
Trade of all sorts naturally centered around Rome. Ostia was a hive of activity, where goods
from overseas arrived and was loaded onto barges which carried them up the river to the great
capital. All kinds of jobs would be at Ostia. From simple labourers who unloaded the ships, to
bureaucrats who checked the arriving goods, wholesale tradesmen and warehouse managers.
The construction industry would also require enormous numbers. For in a time without building
machines, it would be simple manpower which would shift earth or break stones.
Architects and engineers, surveyors, foremen, sculptors, stonemasons, carpenters, bricklayers
and simple day labourers. All these were necessary to build not merely grand monuments, but
also the apartment blocks to house the masses, or the residences of the rich.
The cities and towns contained markets of all kinds, shops, inns and taverns, all in turn
consuming raw materials or requiring agricultural produce which needed to be brought in from
the countryside.
Sons usually followed in the footsteps of their fathers, inheriting their profession and their
business. The upper classes meanwhile found themselves restricted to a career in either the army,
law or politics. Other professions were deemed to be too lowly for their kind.
And so many of the other 'academic' jobs such as architecture, medicine, surgery, dentistry,
teaching and agricultural management were usually done by freedmen.
The fact that so few jobs were deemed acceptable to the upper classes meant that there was a
large group of people who were effectively unproductive.
Not all of this group need necessarily have been aristocratic - some for example might be artists
with little income, but they largely made their living as clients.
They would quite literally queue outside the house of their rich patron, dressed in their finest
clothes, waiting to be given either money or food. Such were teh responsibilities of the patron
that they, within reason, could be expect to be supported.
His 'work' done, the client would then be free to spend his day like any other Roman, heading for
the forum or the markets, perhaps to read the daily news which would be hung up in public
places. Or else he might take an early bath. For as the working day ended, the bathing began.The
women just as much as the men would head for the public bath houses. Bathing was a social
affair. Even the rich, who might have their own bath houses, would hardly do so alone, but invite
friends to join them.
It was the way the Roman working day came to a close, before one would finally retire for
dinner, cena.

Industry
Latium, the area around Rome, was initially an agricultural region. But the early influence of the
Etruscans and the Greek colonies in Italy had inspired the creation of a local industry.
Pottery was introduced from Campania and the art of bronze-casting from Etruria.

249
Rome's conquest of Italy didn't stifle industry but encourage it. It may well have been that
Roman law and order, as well as the political stability provided the reasons for trade to thrive.
Also Rome never used its authority to insist on goods from the capital be given any preference.
Its dependent territories didn't buy goods from Rome due to force, but because they chose to do
so.
Gradually, as Rome extended its power and empire with conquests, the increasing population
and demands for luxuries, as well as the construction of large public works caused many
industries to flourish.
But Rome, although important as an industrial centre, was largely a city which consumed goods,
rather than producing them.
Imports exceeded exports by far (with the exception of bronze goods which were exported all
over the empire).
As the unrivalled metropolis, Rome achieved an absolute lead in in the production of luxury
goods, particularly in articles of precious metals, such as jewelry and engraved cups.
Foreign craftsmen who migrated to the city, mostly Greeks, created refined masterpieces in their
workshops.
Meanwhile the building trade naturally became far more developed in Rome than anywhere else.
Industry though flourished elsewhere. Genoa, Ostia and Ravenna were Rome's major harbours,
providing her with warships as well as benefiting from the rise in shipping trade.
Como, Sulmona, Salerno and Puteoli were centres of the iron industry which received great
quantities of iron ore from the minors of Elba.
Campania grew rich not only on its fertile soil which grew, among other things, some of the best
wines, but also for its industrial products. Bronzes from Capua, terra cotta ware from Puteoli,
Cumae and Ischia, glass form Cumae, Sorento and Pompeii, liquamen from Pompeii. Apulia
produced the finest wool.
Northern Italy supplied bronze articles from Bergamo, bricks from Modena and amphorae from
Pola. So, too, did it boast a famous woollen industry at Istria, Padua and Parma and dye works at
Aquileia. Aquileia was further also known for its cloth making and glass industry, as well as for
its workshops for amber (sucinum) which was imported from as far away as the Baltic in
northern Europe.
Industry benefited much from the existence of a large, almost limitless empire. Technical
advances were helped by the unity of the empire which much helped the spread of new ideas.
But so too, the policing of the seas and the construction of the famous Roman roads aided trade
into the most distant countries.
And all the while the vast city of Rome and its massive standing army provided vast a demand
for goods.
The rich eastern provinces sent to Rome rare and exotic goods, fashioned in their factories and
workshops from materials from yet more far flung regions of the world. Silk from China,
emeralds from Scythia, perfumes from Arabia, glass and papyrus from Egypt (Egypt was the
oldest glass-producing country if the Mediterranean and hence had vast expertise in the matter,
producing by far the finest glassware of the day).
In the western and northern provinces, too, industries were greatly developed, entering into
competition with Italian producers. Spain already in the days of empire should produce some of
the finest steel, but also provided fine wool and the highest quality liquamen.
Gaul became famous for its bronze work, shoes, and woollen industry. Noricum produced the
finest weapons, the Rhine valley the best earthenware.

250
 Women
A famous line of Cicero, which very well describes the status of Roman women, reads as
follows;
'Our ancestors, in their wisdom, considered that all women, because of their innate weakness,
should be under the control of guardians.'
A woman's guardian would inevitably be a man. Normally, it would be first the father and then
her husband, but, in case of the early death of her father or husband, it could also be a male
relative appointed in the man's will or even by a state official.
Until the end of the Roman republic there were only the six vestal virgins who were free from
such guardianship. Then, after the reign of Augustus, guardianship was no longer applied to
women, whose father and husband had died and who had already borne three children (3 children
for freeborn women, 4 for freedwomen).
Girls enjoyed a similar, if not the same education as boys in early childhood. Though beyond
primary education it was generally only daughters of aristocratic families who continued their
education. Though such training was not one of rhetoric or law such as the young men of
patrician families would learn. Women were rather taught in the fineries Greek and Latin
literature as well as how to play a lyre, to dance and sing.
It was usual for marriages to be arranged. The size of the dowry was estimated to befit the social
standing of the prospective bridegroom.
It was the Roman custom to arranging marriages for girls when they were still very young. She
would then need to wait until she became an adult until the marriage could take place. Being
betrothed for such a lengthy time generally meant for girls to lead a very retired life. For to be
seen as flirting, or even simply being in contact with other boys or could be seen as a breech in
the marriage arrangements.
Though with marriage the Roman woman gained considerable freedom.
The early Romans did enact stringent controls over their women, though they were not as a strict
as the Greeks, who virtually imprisoned their wives at home. But the Roman attraction to family
and social life led to a more relaxed was most likely the reason for this more liberal approach
towards the weaker sex.
A Roman wife was generally understood as her husband's companion and helper. She was next
to him at banquets and parties (which would have been a scandal in ancient Greece) and shared
his authority over the children, slaves and the household.
In many households it would be the wife who would oversee the slaves.
Nobody required Roman wives to live secluded lives. They could freely receive visitors, leave
the house, visit other households, or leave to go shopping.
Though marked differences did exist in the rules for the sexes. In early republican times, women
were not to drink wine, but grape juice. Though this was later relaxed. But the Roman woman
would not recline at a dinner party, as her husband would do, but stay sitting upright. She also
did not join in any drinking parties.
Though women in Roman times, though discriminated against, could well be seen as the most
liberated in the world of that time. And they were well capable of standing up for themselves.
One of the most contentious pieces of Roman legislation was the Oppian Law, brought in after
the defeat by Hannibal at Cannae in 216 BC with the object of reducing spending on luxury
goods.
The tribunes of the people Marcus Fundanius and Lucius Valerius proposed to the tribal

251
assembly the repealing of the Oppian Law, sponsored during the consulship of Quintus Fabius
and Tiberius Sempronius by the tribune Gaius Oppius at the height of the Punic War, whereby
no women could possess more than half an ounce of gold, or wear a dress dyed in a variety of
colours, or ride in a horse-drawn carriage in a city or town or within a mile of it except on holy
days. The tribunes Marcus and Publius Junius Brutus were for keeping the law and announced
they would veto its repeal. Many representatives of the nobility rose to speak for the ayes or the
noes. The Capitol was packed with voters in favour or against. Neither modesty nor the
persuasion of their husbands could keep the women indoors. They blocked the streets and
entrances to the forum, arguing that at a time of prosperity, when men's personal fortunes were
increasing daily, women too should be restored to their former splendours. The number of
protesting women increased day by day, as they came in from the town and outlying districts.
They even grew so bold as to waylay and interrogate consuls, praetors and other officials.
Meanwhile in the senate there was a prolonged and impassioned debate, during which Cato the
Elder spoke against the motion of repealing the Oppian law.
The next day an even greater crowd of women poured out of their houses in to the streets, and
mass-picketed all the entrances to the homes of the two tribunes who had announced that they
were vetoing their colleagues proposal. The women wouldn't let up until the tribunes agreed to
withdraw the veto. There was no doubt that the tribes would vote for the motion: the law was
duly rescinded, twenty years after it had first been passed.
In such a restricted world, in which also a large part of work was done by slaves anyhow, there
was of course only few (free) women working. One knows of a few women doctors, secretaries,
teachers and hairdressers, tailor, silk merchant or market saleswoman. But these were indeed a
rarity.
There were however some female gladiators. The historian and poet Martial makes mention of
them and a relief in the British Museum depicts women fighting in the arena. From this relief one
also concludes that women gladiators did not wear helmets.
Amber jewelry, the most widespread, was only worn by women of the lower classes. By the
higher classes it was regarded as vulgar, and the women of higher standing wore only gold and
precious stones. Though, when in public, it was considered elegant to hold a small ball of amber
in one hand and to rub it occasionally to smell its delicate fragrance in order to try and disguise
any fowl smells which she might encounter.
Slaves
If modern society frowns on the use of slavery, then what needs to be considered is that Rome
followed in teh footsteps of the ancient civilizations which had gone before it and who had all
used slave labour. It was hence understood as quite a normal thing for the vanquished to be taken
into slavery, or to purchase slaves from the barbarian realms.
If ancient Egypt had used slaves at least two and a half thousand years before the Romans, then
also the Babylonians, Indians, Chinese, Persians and Greeks employed slavery as a normal part
of their societies. And the fact that slavery continued in the west for as long as the nineteenth
century on American plantations - and that in other parts of the world it still exists today - shows
that Rome was merely one period in a truly long lasting tradition.
Questions could also be asked if many 'employed' poor of 19th century Britain could perhaps be
described as little more than slaves.
However, it can be said that the Romans, from roughly 200 BC onwards, based much of their
society on the exploitation of slavery. Their economic systems became heavily dependent on the
widespread existence of slave labour.

252
Slaves laboured in the mines and in the empire's many farms and potteries. The state's public
works were largely completed and maintained by slaves. Also the government's state
bureaucracy depended very much on educated slaves to keep the administration of the empire
running. Even key institutions like the state's mints or the distribution of the corn dole to poor
Romans depended on slaves.
Other educated slaves also kept the private industries going, by functioning as their accountants
and clerks. Other vital services were provided by literate slaves who served as teachers,
librarians, scribes, artists and entertainers - even doctors.
Also in the private houses of Rome, it was slaves who were the servants of their Roman masters,
watching over their private lives.
From the man who cleaned the sewers to the emperor's scribe, slaves were an essential part of
Roman society.
In the latter centuries of the Roman empire, slavery began gradually to decrease in importance,
as the rise of Christianity demanded more benevolence, and - no less importantly - the supply of
slaves began to dwindle.
Had the early Romans been content with a small number of household slaves, these numbers rose
steeply with Rome's increasing wealth. Simple tasks, such as the master's bath, would require the
attendance of more than one slave. A slave was used to take the children to school.
In households of the rich where their was many slaves, they were divided into groups of ten,
each under orders of a foreman. The running fo the household was in some homes left in the
hands of a freed slave, the so-called procurator (in earlier days he was called the atriensis). Even
those Romans with very moderate means expected to be well served, taken at least three slaves
with them to the baths. Not to have one slave was a sign of the most degrading poverty.
Slaves used for industrial purposes were generally divided into gangs. These gangs were closed
groups of specialist workers who tended to work as a unit and were generally not split up again.
Provincial tax-collectors, especially those in Asia Minor (Turkey), often acted as suppliers of
slaves from the provinces, transporting them to the provincial slave markets from where they
would purchased by wholesale buyers who'd most likely ship them back to Rome for sale. One
of the largest such wholesale market was known to be on the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea
and possessed a capacity for as many as 10'000 slaves.
The acquiring of slaves through conquest was common practice among all the civilizations of the
ancient world and Rome was no exception. Julius Caesar, having captured a town in Gaul, sold
on the spot the entire population of a district of the place to the salve traders who accompanied
his army. Once all were counted the slavers walked away with no less than 53'000 people.
Up to the days of Augustus, a marriage between a slave needed not be recognized by its master
and enjoyed no protection in law. The children of such a couple would be born as slaves.
A slave who ran away would face branding or possibly even death. The treatment of slaves was
totally in the hands of the owner, and usually varied according to their abilities.
Some among them were trained as skilled fighters to perform as gladiators in the arena. And it
was at one of those gladiator schools in Capua that the famous revolt of Spartacus arose in 73
BC.
If the gladiators' lot was cruel, then others too had a pitiful existence. Farm slave gangs would
have to work in the fields in chains, and were locked up each night in barracks.
But not all slaves in the countryside necessarily had such a terribly existence. Herdsmen for
example, of which there was very many, were granted reasonable independence as they went
about their lives, watching over the herds they were entrusted with.

253
Some Romans would even see the raising of slaves as a form of investment. Cato the Elder
bought young slaves whom he would then have trained in various skills, so he could sell them on
later at a profit. It was also from Cato's writings that one knows of his opinion that twelve slaves
- a foreman and eleven workers - were deemed sufficient to run a farm of some 150 acres, which
would grow olives and rear sheep.
The abundance of slavery is also seen as having hampered technological advances in many
industries, not least agriculture. For with the existence of so plentiful supply of labour at almost
no cost, there was little reason to develop any forms of labour saving equipment.
Under the supervision of the aediles the slave dealers sold their wares publicly, either in the open
forum or in shops. Slaves for sale would sometimes be stood on revolving stands. Those just
brought from abroad were put on display with one foot whitened with chalk. From the neck of
each slave for sale hung a plaque with all the information required by potential buyers,
nationality, abilities, good and bad points, etc.
The best slaves were to be found in the saepta near the forum, the meeting place of the
fashionable world, where the best shops were. Naturally, prices varied with the age and quality
of the slave.
There are records of fabulous sums being paid, as well as very small prices. One evidently
particularly talented teacher of grammar (grammaticus) is supposed to have fetched 700'000
sesterces, a fortune.
But such excessive prices were rare. By general rule a slave at some skill was worth twelve times
as much as an untrained one.
Intelligence and learning were the attributes which elevated the price of a slave the most. Next
came good looks and skills at various types of work. But also mentally retarded, dwarfed or
disfigured slaves could fetch high prices by buyers seeking 'jesters' for their own cruel
amusement.
Some slaves could buy their freedom. This principle, which became fairly widespread, consisted
of allowing a slave to have a small 'part-time job' selling wares or services. The profits would be
his to keep (the peculium). And in time he could purchase his freedom. But this system was far
from being pure kindheartedness on part of the owners. Like this an old slave might buy his
freedom, allowing his master to buy a new young slave with the money. Hence the master didn't
lose his investment with the slave's eventual death.
The practice became so popular after the fall of the republic that emperor Augustus saw it
necessary to issue laws restricting it. For once freed, a slave enjoyed full citizenship except for
the right of holding public office. And some freedmen used their skills, to become richer even
than the masters who had once possessed them.
Another privilege a slave might be awarded by his master, apart from the the peculium, was the
right to choose a mate from among the female slaves and live with her in a form of marriage, the
so-called contubernium. This slave-marriage though had no legal status and any children born
from it belonged as slaves to the master of the house.
In imperial days the contubernium became legally recognized, forbidding any master to sell
partners of the contubernium separately.
Roman law regarded slaves as mere chattels. They were subject to the will of their masters,
against which they enjoyed no protection.
Punishments inflicted upon slaves were merciless. Hard labour, whippings, branding, breaking of
the joints or bones, branding of the forehead with letters denoting the slave as a runaway, liar or
thief (FUG, KAL, FUR) and crucifixion were all punishments which were inflicted upon slaves.

254
So too, being thrown to the wild beasts in the circuses or even being burnt alive in a cloak soaked
in pitch.
But in the days of the empire the unlimited power of the master over his slaves was curbed to
some extent. Hadrian decreed that a master should no longer hold power over a slave's life and
death. And Constantine the Great defined the killing of a slave as murder.
But deliberate cruelty against slaves was frowned upon by a society which did recognize slaves
as human beings. Romans generally saw the difference between the slave and the freeman as a
difference in status, not as a matter of any racial or cultural superiority and inferiority.
Naturally there are many gruesome tales of abuse and brutal punishments. But in turn there are
also reports of some slaves being utterly devoted to their masters. Some enduring horrendous
tortures and death rather than betraying their masters.
And yet still the Roman view of slaves was one of contempt. Slaves were people one looked
down upon. Kindness toward them was rare, even seen as a sign of weakness.

Education
In the early days of the Roman republic, the education of children was completely in the hands of
their parents.
Even as great and powerful men such as Cato the Elder or Aemilius Paulus took their time to
personally teach their children basic skills like counting.
In a society so centered on the family, this was the natural thing to do.
If boys were largely taught by their fathers, then girls were taught by their mothers, which was
consistent with the different roles they would play in later life. And, according to those separate
roles, boys of landowning households (and therefore required to serve in the army) would also be
introduced at an early age to some form of martial arts.
But with the growth of the empire in the third century BC the wealthier households gradually
began to send their children to schools which employed educated Greek slaves as teachers.
Towards the end of the Roman republic, with the increased wealth of a part of Roman society
education began to further improve, including also a form of higher education in subjects such as
philosophy and oratory. The children of the wealthy went to primary school from about the age
of seven. Such schools would usually be housed in a simple shop, with open access to the street.
It would be run by one teacher and the children would sit on simple benches.
Their day would begin early in the morning and last roughly the middle of the afternoon, with a
break in between for lunch. They would learn basic things such as reading, writing and
arithmetic.
If this basic education was for both girls and boys, then at the age of twelve, education would
stop for all girls and most boys. Those boys who seemed most promising - and whose parents
could afford more schooling - would now continue on being trained until they reached manhood
and received their toga virilis. Their education now would largely center on Greek and Latin
literature.
This level of education was by now far removed from the early republican Romans to whom the
basic skills of reading, writing and counting seemed enough.
There seems to be little evidence that corporal punishment was any more frequent or severe than
it was in many western schools well into the twentieth century.
The school year begun in March after the Quinquatrus, a holiday in honour of Minerva. There
were holidays on festive days and every ninth day (nundinae). There is no proof for the existence
of summer holidays, but historians assume that some such period will have existed.

255
The languages of Greece and Rome were taught in the school of the grammaticus (or in the case
of rich households by a grammaticus visiting the house). Poetry was particularly studied, and
some attention was given to the fundamentals of history, geography, physics and astronomy (at
least such necessary to understand the poetic texts).
It is in this function that the grammatici in Rome, who were largely Greek, decided much of the
fate of Roman literature. For it was to a large extent their choices of texts which influenced the
later taste and literary tradition of Rome. Texts, however refined, which were not read in schools
and were therefore not in demand went out of circulation and did not survive
The use of Greek became widespread in the Roman world through such education, particularly in
aristocratic families. Even plays were written which required from their audience that it
understood at least some of it. Even many women of noble households, despite their inferior
education, understood Greek.
Rhetoric, a subject hard to imagine being widespread at modern day schools, was introduced to
Roman schools early on. It appeared to have originated in Sicily as early as the fifth century BC
and was further developed by the Greeks of Athens and Asia Minor (Turkey).
Within rhetoric itself, there was three defined subjects; the pure art form itself, to be learned as
any other art to broaden the mind of the individual; persuasion, the ability to win an audience
over to one's point of view; and legal oratory, the ability to act as an effective speaker in a court
of law.
If rhetoric was taught from the early days of the republic onwards, then by the first century AD
there was special schools which could cater for the more advanced pupils.
The basic schools did introduce children into the traditional Roman faith, adding further to the
moral values which children would be given at home. But the older boys would also be
introduced into the basics of Greek philosophy. This led to the upper classes finding alternative,
more sophisticated world views than merely old superstitions and the Roman state religion. And
so Greek philosophy and art established itself at the very heart of Roman identity. And the
wealthy were eager to expose their offspring to the sophistication of Greece. Cicero in his youth
listened to lectures given by great Greek philosophers like Phaedrus the Epicurean and Philo of
Larissa. Horace as a young man studied in Athens, being exposed to the various branches of
Greek philosophy.
Dress
Roman ingenuity of solving problems of all sorts was not only to apply itself to engineering and
architecture, but also to the mundane matter of clothing.
Food and Drink
What must be considered when trying to paint a picture of Roman cookery, is that many basic
foodstuffs known to us in the modern western world, were simply not available to the Romans.
The Romans had no coffee, tea, sugar, liqueurs, truffles, potatoes, French beans, or even
tomatoes.
As the Romans had no sugar, sweets were made with honey or must (grape-juice).
The use of bread seems to have become general only at the beginning of the second century BC.
Previous to this grain was used as puls, a mashed up form of corn gruel.
Olives and olive oil, as still with Mediterranean countries today, stood in high esteem.
The most widespread vegetables were broad beans, lentils and chick peas, lettuces, cabbages and
leeks.
The available fruits at first were apples, pears, wild cherries, plums, grapes, walnuts, almonds

256
and chestnuts. Also dates, imported from north Africa, were widely available. But time gradually
introduced the Romans to new produce. The art of cultivating cherry trees found its way to Italy,
from the eastern kingdom of Pontus after the Mithridatic wars. From Armenia the apricot was
brought back home. Also from the east came citrus fruits. But they arrived rather late, by the
fourth century AD.
The beverage of the Roman world, as with the Greeks, was wine. It was more than a mere drink,
but a sign of civilization. For beer, though known, was seen as fit for barbarians.
Wine would also be mixed with honey to a refreshing aperitif called mulsum.
The best wines, such as Caecuban, Setian, Massic or Falernian, came from the border regions
between Latium and Campania
The Army
Apart from at the banquets of the rich, meat was rarely a part of the Roman diet.
The diet of the Roman army, shows us much about the Roman ideas of nutrition. The Roman
word for wheat is frumentum. And it was the same word which eventually came to describe army
rations itself. Generally the army ration consisted of little else than wheat. The soldiers
themselves then ground the grain they were given and made it into things such as porridge or
bread.
Whenever possible the monotonous army diet was naturally supplemented with whatever came
to hand. Pork, fish, chicken, cheese, fruit or vegetables. But the basic ration of frumentum always
formed the basis of the diet. So much so, that if in times of supply difficulties the grain would
fail to reach the troops and instead other foodstuffs (even meat !) were handed out, there would
be discontent among the ranks.
Naturally the officers of the army enjoyed a more versatile diet. Archaeologists working along
Hadrian's Wall in northern Britain discovered records for the household of a commander of a fort
from around AD 100. These records listed choice cuts of pork, even piglet, chicken, venison,
anchovies, oysters, eggs, radishes, apples, lentils, beans, lard and butter.
The Poor
The poor in the city of Rome largely depended on the corn dole to supply them with grain.
During the From 122 BC onward a grain ration was available to the Roman poor at half price,
having already previously been sold at a reduced market price, subsidized by the state. In 58 BC
it became completely free. The in AD 274 emperor added small rations of pork, oil and salt to
the meager dole.
The country poor will no doubt have had a healthier diet, than their urban counterparts. They will
have lived from what the harvest and the animals of the farms they worked on provided them
with, and what they could find in the wild. For instance, Romans, just as modern day Italians,
were very fond of mushrooms.
The Wealthy
The cuisine of a culture is largely defined, still today, by those who possess the wealth to eat
what they fancy, rather than what they can afford. And the Romans were of course no exception.
The day began with jentaculum (breakfast). This might consist of pieces of bread dipped into a
dish of wine, or with some cheese, with dried fruit, or honey.
Lunch was called prandium. It was usually a light meal. Perhaps made up of what was left of the
previous day. Dinner, cena, was the main meal of the day. It would begin toward late afternoon,
perhaps after one had enjoyed a bath. Starting early, it could last for hours.

257
The dinner parties of the wealthy were elaborate, at times gluttonous affairs.
Rather than sit, the Roman dinner guest reclined on his left elbow, picking the food off the table
with his fingers.
The dinner was made up of three main courses, which could in turn consist of any number of
dishes.
The first course, the starter, coudl consist of eggs prepared in many different ways. So too could
it be a selection of salads, vegetables, shellfish, snails or - a Roman delicacy - roasted, stuffed
dormice.
A rich host might well present his guests not with any particular of these starters, but with a
selection of all of them.
As for the main course, this would invariably consist of some meat dish. Once more, depending
on the host's wealth it could be a whole range of dishes. Many dinner parties given by Roman
grandees were meant to impress the guests. And so meats might not merely restrict themselves to
beef, lamb and pork - or fish. But almost any kind of animal might be pressed into service at the
rich man's dinner table. Veal, sucking pig, boar, venison, hare, wild goat, kid, porpoise, bream,
hake, mackerel, mullet, oysters, sole, chicken, duck, goose, partridge, thrush, turtle dove, even
crane, flamingo and ostrich !
The dinner party would end with a dessert such as fruit, cake or pudding.
When at their villa in the country, a place the rich liked to retire to once in a while, meals
naturally would be somewhat simpler and more rustic. As a starter asparagus, - most likely
grown especially for the master at his farm, as they were rare, - together with fresh eggs. As a
main course there could be chicken and tender milk-fed kid. Finally, for dessert pears, grapes and
apples.
Liquamen
If the rich host's ambition with exotic meats was to impress, then the sauces which were served
with all these dishes tended to be the same, and their strong taste invariably made all teh dishes
taste much the same. These sauces, although sounding rather gruesome today, in fact formed
much of the basis of Roman cuisine. The main such sauce was liquamen, a intense fish sauce
produced in factories. Other sauces, derived from liquamen, added variety. These were most of
all garum, but also oxugarum, muria, allec.
The means of producing liquamen are known to us. Fish entrails, mixed with finely chopped fish,
or small whole fish, were pounded and stirred into a mix. This was then placed in the sun and
was frequently stirred until it fermented. With evaporation of much of the water during the
fermentation process, the thick sauce left behind was liquamen.
Though this liquamen could be further separated. A basket could be placed into the vessel
containing the liquamen. The liquid which filtered into the basked was garum, whereas that
which stayed in the pot was allec.
Garum was the most sought after and hence most expensive sauce. But Rome's wealth allowed
for a large demand of all these fish sauces, and hence production of it was found in distant
places. For example, records suggest that the finest garum was that imported from Spain.
Though considering its production process, one must assume, that to us today it would be a most
nauseating concoction.
Holidays and the Games
The Roman working day, when compared to that of modern life, was short. But there was also a
staggering number of public holidays. Under emperor Claudius for example the Roman year had

258
159 public holidays. Roman festivals and games emerged from their once humble agricultural
origins to celebrations of empire and the shows which were held on most of them became the
stuff of legends, the gladiatorial combats in particular and of course, so too, the chariot races.
The Family
In the Roman world, the family would include everyone within a certain household. the father of
the family, the paterfamilias, the wife (unless she had arranged a marriage by which she still
remained a warden of her father), the children and the slaves of the household.
If the family centered on the paterfamilias and his genius (the spirit of the father's life force, with
which he creates the next generations), then it was indeed the oldest living father who ruled over
his family, independent from how many generations had followed his own. And so it could be
that a great-grandfather held sway over a family. The adult fathers and grandfathers would still
be subject to their paterfamilias. And it could therefore well be that they all lived under the same
roof. At the death of great-grandfather, each grandfather would then split off with his own wife,
descendants and slaves to become a paterfamilias himself.
The authority of the paterfamilias was such that in effect only his word counted. In theory an
adult son could not enter into any form of contract without agreement of his father. In practice
however, it would generally be so that the sons, once matured were granted their independence
by their father.
After all, it would have been impossible for any young man to pursue a political career, if he was
still entirely bound to the authority of his father.
If many modern people might imagine that these large families would live all under one roof
only due to poverty, then that perception would be wrong. For also rich families are said to have
lived this way. It was simply an essential part of the Roman way of life to live surrounded by
one's family.
If the amount of six generations, the best a Roman could practically hope ever to know in his life
time, was called the parentes, then the parentalia was a festival dedicated especially to those
deceased family members whom any of the living members still remembered. And so if the
parentalia is generally referred to as the 'festival of the dead', this is not precisely correct, as it
wasn't held in honour of all the ancestors (majores) but purely for those of the parentes whom
the living had once known.
The Gens
Romans, apart from belonging to a family would also belong to a gens, which is perhaps best
describe as a clan. This wider concept of relation appeared in one's name. So one might for
example belong to the Fabii, or to express this differently, one might belong to the Fabia gens.
In some cases a further surname might be added to differentiate a specially distinguished family
from other members of that gens. So for example the Cornelii Scipiones, who were part of the
Cornelia gens.
It is the gens which make us speak of the Julian or Flavian emperors and the other such
dynasties.
There was no nobility to be gained from being part of a gens. Nobility was established in Rome
by the holding of high offices over generations, not by being born to a particular gens. And since
Roman society was a mobile structure, where people could receive names not only by birth but
also by adoption or enfranchisement the gens was largely meaningless.
Although there was some ties to the gens. If a Roman died without any heir, not even a distant,
six-degree relative, then his money would be left to the gens.
Also some of these gens had rites particular only to them. The Fabii would each year perform a

259
ceremony on the Quirinal Hill. Notably, this ritual was even performed when the Gauls were
famously besieging Rome's Capitoline Hill.
Marriage
By all accounts Roman marriages appeared mostly a rather cold affair. Love had nothing to do
with it. Nor did fidelity in the modern sense of the word. Procreation was what counted.
Meanwhile Roman men would go to all kind of lengths to prove that they weren't hen-pecked,
while their wives hungered for the slightest bit of affection.

Funeral Rites
The Roman sense of family life applied also to a person's death. Ideally members of the family
were to be present when a Roman died. On the point of death he was picked up and laid down on
the bare earth and one of his closest relations would catch his last breath with a kiss, before
closing his eyes.
When he had died, those present would preform the so-called conclamatio, calling the dead man
loudly by name. (This tradition survives until this day at the death of a pope, when the dead
pontiff is called three times by his Christian name).
Next began the preparation of the body. The women of the house, or men trained for the job
(pollinctores), washed the body with water, anointed and embalmed it. a small coin was placed
under the deceased's tongue, for him to pay Charon with on his journey to the underworld. The
dead man was then dressed in his best clothes and was displayed in the atrium of the house.
The length of time for which a body was displayed depended largely on his position. A poor man
would usually be buried the same day he died, whereas the emperors were on display for up to a
week.
The corpse was alas either buried or cremated after the funeral ceremony (funus). Cremation
eventually became the more widely used practice, with burial being merely for the poor.
Funerals of the poor and of children were generally carried out by night, to attract least attention.
Meanwhile the funerals of nobles and public figures were performed during the day with great
pomp and ceremony.
Such funerals tended to be announced publicly in advance by heralds.
The funeral procession, was preceded by pipers and musicians playing various instruments, next
came torch bearers and the praeficae, hired women who wailed and cried in grief (this tradition
of hiring mourners continues in some countries today).
Such processions were by no means necessarily very somber affairs. Dancers and clowns might
even be part of the procession. More so, jokes would be made at the dead man's expense and
onlookers might even jeer and shout abuse.
Part of the procession were also masked people, playing the part of the dead man's ancestors. So,
if, for example, several ancestors had been consuls, than the same number of masked figures
would be dressed in the insignia of consuls as part of the funeral procession. In early Rome these
representatives of ancestors were carried aloft lying on a stretcher of sorts. Later though (already
from about 200 BC), they would travel in chariots.
Next in the procession came men dressed in black bearing the fasces, the little figurines
representing the spirits of the ancestors. Alas followed the body being carried aloft in a coffin or
on a stretcher.
If the dead man had been a public figure, the procession would cross through the forum, where it
halted and the dead man's son would hold a funeral speech.
The eventual last rites had to be performed outside the city limits. This dated back to the ancient

260
Laws of the Twelve Tables, which stated that no cremations or burial were to take place within
the city of Rome.
The simplest form of cremation was to dig a trench in the ground, which then would be filled
with wood, before the corpse was placed on top and all was set alight. In this form of cremation
the hole was then closed again, burying the ashes in the ground.
But more commonplace was the building of a pyre upon which the body was placed. Objects
which belonged to the dead man, or such which he held very dear might be placed with him.
An ancient custom also required that the dead man's eyes should be opened one last time before
being closed again and that he should receive one last kiss.
A relative or friend (or, in the case of an emperor, a high ranking state official) would then set
the pyre alight.
Once the pyre had burnt down the glowing ashes would be put out with wine and a relative
would collect the bones and place them in an urn. The urn might alas be placed in a niche
memorial (columbarium) with an inscription or even a bust, or, in case of rich and powerful
families, the urn might be placed in a family monument or mausoleum.
It is worth pointing out that almost all funerals were entrusted to undertakers, even those of the
poor. It was a very lucrative profession, but so despised, that undertakers were only allowed
lesser civil rights than normal citizens. Undertakers employed a number of people, the
pollinctores, who washed, anointed and embalmed the body, the vespillones who placed the
corpse in the coffin and carried it to the grave or pyre (if no relatives were there to do this) and
the dissignatores who arranged and directed the funeral procession.

The Roman House

One distinct difference between the civilized Roman world and the barbarians was their housing.
Whereas barbarians lived in primitive huts, Rome took to housing its people in sophisticated
brick-built houses, not so different from what people live in today.
Roman Addresses
In today's world we are simply used to street names and house numbers. It's a simple and
effective system, but it was not used by the Romans. In small towns, this might not have posed
very big problems to a stranger visiting a person and seeking his house. People would know and
could easily direct him. But in the large cities, most of all in Rome itself, finding people could be
a serious problem.
In Rome some major streets had names, but most didn't. Hence Romans simply described where
we state a house number. People would state that they lived near certain landmarks. These could
be statues, major roads, public baths, temples, gardens, even particular trees. Sometimes
nameless streets would be described by what points they connected, and were referred to as 'the
road to....'.
And even where streets had names, further descriptions were necessary in order to guide a visitor
or delivery man to the house.
If a public figure lived nearby, of whom many people would know his house, then this would
used to help describe the addresses of his neighbours.
In practice a person's house or flat could only be found by asking one's way.

261
All in all, the knowledge of the Romans' lack of definite addresses helps paint a picture of the
organized chaos that was the city of Rome.

262