Pax Romana

by Adrian Goldsworthy

  We who in former days, besides keeping the whole of Italy safe, were able to guarantee the safety of all our allies in the farthest coasts by the prestige of our empire . . . Delos, though set far from Rome in the Aegean sea, and visited by men of every country with their merchandise and their cargoes, packed though the island was with riches, small though it was and defenceless, had nothing to fear.32

  In 67 BC Pompey the Great was given unprecedented power and resources and swept the Mediterranean free of pirates in just six months. Punishment was tempered with generosity, and he resettled many of the piratical communities away from the coast and on better land so that they should not need to resort to raiding in the future. Piracy was not eradicated altogether, but the scale was drastically reduced, an achievement reinforced as more and more of the lands around the Mediterranean coastline came under direct Roman rule.33

  Roman dominance of a region scarcely altered existing patterns of war and other forms of large- or small-scale violence, but the establishment of provinces did change things. Within these regions, the Romans were unwilling to permit inter-state disputes to turn to conflict or to allow violent changes of power within states. Dealing with banditry, slave insurrection and other problems was still a task that fell to the provincial communities, only now this was under Roman supervision and might be backed by the far more substantial might of the legions. Allied kingdoms and states bordering the provinces were less regulated, but even so the Romans were more likely to intervene than in the past. They also gradually assumed responsibility for securing long-distance communication and trade routes, encouraging peace over a wider area. By the middle of the first century BC the provinces were more peaceful than in the past and many were prosperous, and the same was true to a greater or lesser extent of the lands around them.

  This came at a price. Roman war-making was brutal, and the period of conquest might well be marked by destruction of settlements, ravaging of farm land and the mass killing and enslavement of the population. It is hard to give precise figures for the numbers of dead and enslaved during the creation of Rome’s empire. After the Third Macedonian War, the consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus rewarded his soldiers and gave a stark object lesson in the danger of opposing Rome by the seizure of some 150,000 people from the cities of Epirus. While it is possible that some were ransomed by relatives, thus providing the Romans with cash instead of captives, most were sold as slaves. Major conflicts were rare and flooded the market with cheap slaves, but the demand was constant and had to be fed by other means, including piracy and abduction – the publicani were also known to enslave those incapable of paying taxes. None of these practices were wholly new, but the arrival of Rome, and the concentration of the profits of empire in Italy with its slave-worked estates, greatly increased demand.34

  Hundreds of thousands were enslaved in the second century BC and even more in the first century BC, paying a heavy price for the spread of Roman power. Conditions were worst for those sent to work the mines run by the publicani in Spain and elsewhere. Life expectancy was only a little better for those destined for the rural estates, some living chained in barracks, their numbers supplemented by free citizens kidnapped while travelling. Household slaves did better, but lacked legal rights and were simply property at the disposal of their owners. Slaves could run, but it was hard to escape and the punishments were severe for those recaptured. All of the servile rebellions were crushed – that of Spartacus ending with the massed crucifixion of 6,000 men along the Appian Way from Rome to Capua as a ghastly warning.35

  There is nothing to suggest that the Romans treated their slaves more brutally than the Greeks or Carthaginians, who also accepted slavery as normal. As far as we can tell, the slave rebellions aimed at personal freedom rather than the abolition of slavery as an institution. In one respect the Romans were more generous, for they freed many more slaves than any other ancient state and also granted the freedmen far more rights. By the first century BC it was believed that most of Rome’s population included freed slaves among their ancestors. Yet freedom was far more likely for household slaves, who spent more time around their owners, and for skilled craftsmen or specialists such as teachers and actors. For a few it led ultimately to a comfortable, even wealthy, life, but that should never blind us to the grim fate of the majority.36

  Conquest was often savage and its consequences terrible for many of the conquered. Yet plenty of other leaders and communities never fought against the Romans, allying with them from the start, and drawing them steadily closer to involvement in a region. After his victory in the Second Macedonian War, the proconsul Titus Quinctius Flamininus announced the ‘freedom’ of the cities of Greece. Similar declarations were made by the Romans for other parts of the Hellenic world on other occasions. This had been a frequent element in the propaganda of the Hellenistic kingdoms, and in part was intended to exclude them from the affairs of the city-states. Even so the Romans did not interfere in the affairs of these communities or tax them. When provinces were created there was still a range of legal statuses allotted to peoples, based mainly on the nature of their past relationship with Rome. Free cities were exempt from taxation, although they might be obliged to aid their Roman allies and were often subject to lesser duties such as tolls on trade. Other communities were taxed directly in money or produce.37

  The burdens placed on the provincials were more or less heavy, and subject to the abuses of governors and publicani – and of their own leaders. Rome profited from the empire and openly paraded this fact. She did not otherwise interfere greatly in the lives of provincials, who in the main continued to use their own political systems and laws. The power of governors was such that rights and privileges were sometimes ignored, although with time and effort it was possible to send envoys and persuade the Senate to reassert these, and the better governors upheld them without the need for such reminders. There was a tendency whenever a Roman official was involved for him to frame legal questions in ways familiar to him from Roman law, even if the actual decision was based on local precedents. Rome’s influence grew slowly and was surely inevitable. Near the end of his tenure in Cilicia, Cicero joked that because he adhered to his edict and let the cities resolve disputes according to their own laws with judges drawn from other communities within the province, then the Greeks could believe ‘they have self-government (literally autonomy)’.38

  Cicero knew that this was an illusion. The provinces were Rome’s, exploited for her benefit, and short of rebellion the provincials had no means of changing this situation. Revolts were rare, the punishment terrible, and under the Republic no province was able to free itself permanently by armed force. Nor did any external power prove capable of invading and holding on to any province for more than a few years. In the long run, there was simply no choice other than submitting to the military might and determination to dominate of the Roman Republic. This meant the unpredictable conduct of governors, and the activities of moneylenders and publicani which were more or less tolerable depending on circumstances. With independence also went the freedom to fight neighbours and stage coups, and instead there was a greater degree of peace and stability. On the whole this fostered prosperity, which is not to say that all benefited equally.

  Over time the leaders of the Roman Republic began to think of its imperium as not simply power, but something closer to our concept of empire. Keeping the peace within the provinces and defending these and their other allies was one of their priorities, if not always the most important. The motive was never altruistic, but pragmatic, for Rome was wealthier from its overseas territory and it was a good thing to maintain and increase this wealth. Around the end of the second century and the opening decades of the first century BC many senators seem to have felt that their imperium was genuinely under threat from enemies like the Cimbri and Teutones, and then Mithridates of Pontus. The Social War against the Italian allies was also an extremely serious and costly conflict. With hindsight and more sense of the limited strength of such ene
mies, we can see that they had little chance of destroying Rome, but that was not obvious at the time. Romans of all classes felt threatened, and it may well be that coming through this apparent crisis reinforced the sense of the empire as something to protect.39

  Then Rome’s civil wars began, and from 88–30 BC created by far the biggest threats to peace and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean world. The first war raged mainly in Italy, but spilled over into Sicily, Africa and the east, and spawned another conflict fought out for several more years in Spain. In 49 BC Caesar crossed the Rubicon and began the next prolonged conflict, with little fighting in Italy but two campaigns in Spain, two in Africa and the decisive encounter in Greece. It also sparked large-scale operations in Asia and Egypt. Subsequent conflicts which stuttered on from Caesar’s assassination in 44 until 30 BC followed a similar pattern. Provinces became war zones, and even those spared this were called upon to provide soldiers, equipment, mounts, warships, food and money for the war efforts of the rival commanders.40

  It had always been difficult to reach sufficient influential men to persuade the Senate to listen to a petition. Now it became even harder to know just who was leading the Republic, and there was always a chance that by the time a deal was done those men would have been overthrown. The career of Cleopatra is instructive. Brief joint rule with her brother ended with her expulsion and an unsuccessful attempt to reinvade Egypt. If Caesar had not arrived, become her lover and restored her to power, then the odds were that she would have been exiled or killed by the age of twenty-one. Caesar’s backing came at a price drawn from the wealth and rich harvest of Egypt, but was lost when he was murdered. Having arrived in Rome to confirm their alliance, the queen stayed there for a month after the assassination, trying to find out who was now in charge and deal with them. When Brutus and Cassius came to the east to raise armies, Cleopatra obeyed their instructions to supply them with resources, although she later claimed to have done so half-heartedly. After they were defeated, she went in spectacular style to Tarsus and won over Mark Antony, acting as a good ally to him – as well as his lover. In time this meant she was caught up in another Roman civil war which led to defeat at Actium in 31 BC. At the very end, she tried to cut another deal with the victor, surviving for some ten days after Antony’s suicide. Only when it was clear that she would not be allowed to retain her throne or pass it to her children did she take her own life.41

  Cleopatra never fought against Rome, in spite of the depiction of her in Augustan propaganda as a great threat. Throughout her career she was a loyal ally – it was just that the bloody changes of power in the Republic meant that she ended up on the wrong side. Much the same story could be told of other communities and client rulers, who did their best to prosper under Roman rule. In Cleopatra’s case clinging to power was the only way to ensure her survival in the murderous politics of the Ptolemaic court. Apart from the brother who died fighting Caesar, she murdered a younger brother and had Antony execute her sister and last remaining sibling. To stay in power she spent lavishly from the resources of her realm to satisfy the demands of successive Roman war leaders and their subordinates. Doing so kept her alive, and she was also able to add to her power by regaining territories once owned by her family. This came at the expense of other allies of Rome, such as Herod of Judaea, a man who managed to back Antony and still convince Augustus to trust him. He remained in power and survived to die of natural causes some three decades later. There were winners as well as losers among the allies and provincials in Rome’s civil wars, but all were affected.42

  In the last half-century of the Republic, the greatest enemies of peace and stability were the Romans themselves. It remained to be seen whether the last of the warlords left standing could change this.

  Julius Caesar: Caius Julius Caesar was one of the greatest conquerors in the history of Rome, overrunning Gaul between 58–51 BC, and leading raids across the Rhine and to Britain. A million are said to have died during these campaigns and as many more were enslaved. His success provoked rivals in the Roman Senate, leading to the civil war and his rule as dictator. (W&N Archive)

  Pax: This coin minted by the shortlived emperor Galba in AD 68 carries the slogan Pax Augusta on the reverse. Maintaining peace through Roman strength and success was one of the central jobs of the emperor. In Galba’s case it was brief, and his murder precipitated a civil war lasting for over a year. (Guy de la Bédoyère)

  Arles: Trade long preceded the arrival of the Roman legions in most areas. This relief from Arles depicts a barge trading on the River Rhône, carrying goods in barrels and amphorae. Vast quantities of wine from Italy went north into Gaul long before it became a Roman province.

  Puteoli flour mill: By the end of the first century BC the population of the city of Rome had swollen to around one million people. The Pax Romana allowed wheat and other staples to be brought from all around the empire, but especially Sicily, Egypt and North Africa, to feed the population. These flour mills in the bustling port of Puteoli were part of the system developed to transport and prepare this food supply.

  Trajan’s Column, Germanic chieftains: Throughout Roman history, diplomacy always accompanied military force, and many leaders and peoples readily allied with Rome. In this scene from Trajan’s Column we see a group of ambassadors from various barbarian tribes waiting to see the emperor. Several of these chieftains have their long hair tied into a knot on the side of their head, a style associated with the Germanic Suebi.

  Trajan’s Column, Decebalus: While some leaders welcomed the Romans, others refused to submit. King Decebalus created a powerful empire based around the kingdom of Dacia, raided into the Roman empire and forced Domitian to grant him generous peace terms. Attacked by Trajan, he chose to commit suicide rather than be taken alive, a moment depicted on Trajan’s Column.

  Trajan’s Column, Romans looting: Aggressive warfare could be profitable and the Romans openly boasted of the plunder gained from victory over foreign enemies. This scene from Trajan’s Column shows a Roman legionary loading looted metal vessels on to a pack mule. Gold from his Dacian victory paid for Trajan’s lavish and extensive forum complex in the heart of Rome.

  Cologne reconstructed coach:

  In all periods, a Roman governor spent a lot of his time on the move, holding assizes in the main communities of their province. Although they travelled by river or sea when this was possible, most journeys were overland, using a carriage like this reconstruction in the Roman archaeology museum at Cologne. It was well designed, and Roman craftsmen would have had little to learn from carriage-makers in the eighteenth century.

  Kalkreise reconstructed rampart:

  In AD 9, the recently created province in Germany erupted into rebellion. In a carefully prepared plot, the rebel leader Arminius led the provincial legate and three legions into a trap.

  This reconstruction in the archaeological park at Kalkreise shows the rampart his followers built to channel the Roman column and destroy it. This was the most successful rebellion ever mounted against Roman rule.

  Masada: Herod the Great built a number of luxurious fortified palaces, including this one at Masada beside the Dead Sea. Seized early on in the Jewish rebellion against Nero, a band of dissidents held out here for three years after the fall of Jerusalem. In spite of its immense natural strength, the Romans besieged and took the fortress. Famously, the defenders killed their families and then committed suicide rather than surrender.

  Xanten reconstructed city walls: Some cities in the Roman provinces did not bother to construct fortifications. Others did, but, like this reconstruction at Xanten, they were intended more to look impressive than in anticipation of any attack. In this case the towers barely project in front of the curtain wall. Walls were a mark of status, and in conditions of the Pax Romana any attack was seen as unlikely.

  Bath samian bowl with gladiators: This bowl of red samian ware from Bath is decorated with a pair of gladiators duelling. Gladiatorial games were popular throughout t
he empire, whether staged in purpose-built amphitheatres or other permanent or temporary venues. In some cases it proved necessary to legislate restricting the amount communities were allowed to spend on these entertainments as rival cities tried to outdo each other.

  Villa: The Romans were always eager to win over local aristocracies, encouraging them to adopt Roman ways and to serve the empire. Especially in the western provinces, the coming of Rome introduced new styles of building to a region, such as the luxurious country villa as centrepiece to an estate. This reconstruction at Wroxeter gives an idea of a moderately large villa. (© Martyn Richardson/Alamy Stock Photo)

  Caesarea Pontius Pilate inscription:

  This stone, later reused in the construction of a theatre at Caesarea, bears the only inscription naming Pontius Pilate, surely the most famous of all Roman governors. Somewhat clumsily executed, suggesting a man unwilling to spend too much, it records the construction of a Tiberieum – presumably a building honouring the emperor Tiberius. In the Gospels, Pilate is pressed into executing Jesus because it was claimed that the ‘King of the Jews’ was a rival to the emperor.

  Bath Sulis Minerva: The Romans rarely suppressed local religions and more often encouraged them, incorporating them into the pantheon of Rome’s gods and goddesses. This gilded statue head from Bath depicts Sulis Minerva, the combination of an old Celtic and a Roman goddess who presided over the hot springs and bath complex at Aquae Sulis.