Pax Romana

by Adrian Goldsworthy

  Gifts, perhaps regular subsidies, were one way of gaining and keeping the goodwill of important leaders outside the empire and many of the prestigious objects found beyond the frontiers arrived in this way, just as they had done under the Republic. Usually they came from representatives of the empire, although as in the past it is likely that merchants wishing to operate in an area gave similar presents to win the favour of local leaders. Other expensive items were acquired through trade in return for hides, animals, slaves or whatever else was sought from the region. More mundane tableware, metalwork and other items are likely to have arrived through commerce, although we should not always assume that things that were commonplace within the empire did not gain a far greater value in regions where they were rare. At times there were restrictions on selling weapons across the frontiers, but this was probably not always the case, especially if they were going to allies, while smuggling is also possible.20

  A sword was an important symbol as well as a weapon and marked a man out as a warrior. A good-quality Roman sword was especially valuable as well as very effective, and the quality of warriors’ equipment as well as their numbers added to the prestige of a chieftain’s comitatus. Greater availability of swords, as well as an increased supply of prestigious objects for feasting and displaying wealth, intensified competition among aristocrats far beyond the frontiers. With wealth a man could attract more followers and reward them generously. A chieftain who controlled access to goods from the empire grew rich and powerful, while those able to supply Roman traders with what they wanted attracted these to them and also profited. The slave-hunting practised by the Garamantes was probably prevalent in many areas beyond the frontiers. With expansion far less common, Roman warfare could not provide the numbers of newly enslaved captives to meet demands within the empire. The appeal of trading slaves for swords or luxuries from the empire gave an added incentive to warfare between the tribes. A Roman law code describes an episode when:

  A woman condemned, for a crime, to hard labour in the salt-works, was subsequently captured by bandits of an alien race; in the course of lawful trade she was sold, and by repurchase returned to her original condition. The purchase price had to be refunded from the Imperial Treasury to the centurion Cocceius Firmus.21

  A centurion named Cocceius Firmus dedicated several altars in northern Britain, which makes it quite possible that the capture and sale of this woman occurred on the frontier of the province. In this case the ‘bandits’ had come from outside the empire, taken this woman captive on a raid into the province, and then subsequently they, or some third or fourth party, sold her to a buyer within the empire. It was a story no doubt repeated elsewhere, and even more common outside the empire.

  Rich grave goods, especially in a long succession of burials in the same area, and large bands of well-equipped warriors raiding over long distances indicate the presence of powerful leaders, often in competition or direct conflict. Our literary sources show that the Romans supported friendly rulers with money, gifts, diplomatic and occasionally military aid. After his defeat at the hands of Arminius, Maroboduus’ prestige was fatally damaged. The man who completed his downfall was encouraged and supported by Rome, in spite of the fact that Maroboduus had always tried to be a loyal ally and avoid conflict with the empire. Yet the Romans had invaded his territory in AD 6, and it is uncertain whether the memory of his perceived threat swayed them now to dispose of him or whether they acted from a pragmatic desire to back a winner. Arminius’ brother Flavus had remained loyal to Rome, even naming his son Italicus. The boy was a citizen, educated at Rome, but was also a prince of his people. When some of the Cherusci appealed to Claudius, the young man was sent home and became the king of the tribe. Other Cheruscan leaders were less enthusiastic, although it is not clear whether they distrusted his Roman connections or simply backed rivals for power. In spite of Roman financial and moral support, Italicus was driven out, and only returned and regained power with the aid of warriors from another Germanic tribe, the Langobardi.22

  Roman diplomacy was cynical and self-serving, and thus no different to the ambitions of leaders in the tribes outside the empire. Roman backing was not always enough on its own to raise up and maintain a ruler and there were other forces at play; the history of the Iron Age communities was surely no less dynamic simply because it was never written down. Tribes and leaders flourished and declined as they had done in the past, and the presence of the empire was merely one element influencing events – a major factor close to the frontiers, growing slowly less so with distance. There is a natural if misleading temptation to see the presence of artefacts from the empire as a sign of direct contact, even though many items may have passed through a succession of hands. Gifts, trade or plunder were the likely means of transferring these objects, even if none of the parties involved were Roman.

  Excavated Germanic settlements show long-term, stable occupation. Over time the size and number of houses increased, and there are signs of greater social distinction, with one house and its compound rebuilt on a markedly grander scale than the others. Sites have been found specialising in stock-rearing and trading or in manufacture, both on a scale far greater than was needed for the local population, so intended for trade with outsiders. Commerce with the empire is probable, but so is exchange with other tribal communities. The ability to do this shows that the regions had a stable and secure environment, most likely created by force through the protection of well-established leaders and their comites. In Denmark there were chieftains capable of marshalling sufficient manpower and resources to construct a number of linear boundaries. Anchorages were protected by timber defences, while on land ditches, ramparts and stockades were built.23

  The barrier at Olgerdiget stretches for eight miles, with multiple timber stockades – on average four rows of beams – and a ditch and earth wall for around two-thirds of its length. In some ways it resembles a miniature version of the Roman limes in Upper Germany, which has led to the suggestion that someone from Denmark served as an auxiliary and brought back ideas of frontier systems. Yet we should never underestimate human ingenuity, and the locals may have come up with the idea wholly independently – there are plenty of examples of long fences or earthworks in European prehistory, their function often unclear, while during the campaigns under Augustus and Tiberius the Romans were confronted with ramparts built by the tribes. The purpose of the line at Olgerdiget and others in Denmark does appear similar to that of the Roman frontiers, as a statement of power, an obstacle to raiders and a means of channelling movement towards set crossing places. It is another indication that life outside the empire was far from peaceful.24

  CIVIL WAR AND PEACE

  In AD 211 Septimius Severus died at Eboracum (York) in northern Britain, after spending several years campaigning against the Caledonian tribes. He was succeeded by his sons Caracalla and Geta, but his dying wish that they live in harmony failed to overcome their mutual loathing. Within less than a year Caracalla had murdered his brother and ruled alone, later launching a major offensive against the Parthians. In AD 217 one of his officers stabbed the emperor to death near Carrhae, the site of Crassus’ great defeat in 53 BC, but now in Roman territory. The conspiracy was led by his praetorian prefect Macrinus, who persuaded the army to proclaim him emperor. It was the first time that a man who was not only from outside the imperial family but also from outside the senatorial class was raised to the imperial purple. His reign proved brief when other army units came out in support of a fourteen-year-old boy who was claimed to be Caracalla’s illegitimate son and was in reality his nephew. These troops defeated Macrinus’ men and he was killed in the aftermath of the fighting. Several short-lived and unsuccessful coups erupted in Syria during the next few years, but it was left to his own family to assassinate the young emperor and replace him with his cousin, Severus Alexander, in AD 222.25

  Civil wars were an ever-present threat and a frequent reality throughout the remainder of the history of the empire, until
its Western half vanished in AD 476. The middle decades of the third century were particularly disturbed, with dozens of emperors coming and going in rapid succession. Claudius Gothicus achieved the rare distinction of dying of natural causes, in this case an outbreak of plague, in AD 270, but all of the rest met violent ends. Decius was killed by the Goths in AD 251, and Valerian captured by the Sassanid Persians and died in captivity. All of the rest were killed by Roman rivals or took their own life when faced with defeat. Later, military strongmen like Diocletian and Constantine gave the empire spells of comparative stability, but the extent of this should not be exaggerated, and the former’s retirement and latter’s death were both followed by renewed violent power struggles and civil war. It is sobering to note that from AD 218 to 476 there were only three periods of ten years without a usurpation or full-scale civil war.

  In the third, fourth and fifth centuries AD the willingness of Roman leaders and their armies to fight each other repeatedly shattered the Pax Romana. The Roman army and the Roman state wasted their strength in these internal struggles. These were not conflicts fought over issues and, even more than the civil wars of the Late Republic, were purely about power, ended only by the death of one of the rival leaders. Provinces were stripped of their garrisons to muster the armies needed to make a man emperor. When opponents faced each other with the same tactics, equipment, command structure and discipline, victory tended to go to the bigger army, so numbers were vital. Soldiers on the losing side were usually willing to take an oath of loyalty to the victor, but that ignores the losses suffered in any fighting and the catastrophic dislocation of the army’s systems of recruitment, training, promotion and organisation.

  Several things stand out in this period, including something which conspicuously did not happen. Internal dissension and civil war weakened the defences of the empire’s frontiers, so that during the third century AD raiders crossed the Rhine and Danube, striking deep into the western provinces and reaching as far as Italy, Greece and Spain. In the east the Persians plundered widely in Syria, reaching Antioch in AD 253. Regions nearer the frontiers suffered even more heavily and were attacked again and again. With frontier armies depleted by the need to fight civil wars, the defensive systems were unable to cope. A few successes soon encouraged more and more raids, as chieftains and their followers returned home with glory and plunder. Some attacks were provoked by Roman leaders recruiting allies or persuading tribes to attack their rivals. The withdrawal of frontier garrisons may also have dislocated long-standing trading relations by removing the big market provided by the army and individual soldiers. Groups like the Goths become far more prominent in our sources in the third century, while new peoples like the Alamanni and Franks appear for the first time. None were politically united, and their behaviour looks no different from that of the tribes of earlier centuries. While Roman diplomacy and trade helped augment the power of favoured leaders outside the empire, there is no hint that this established broader and lasting control among the tribes, creating permanent confederations of tribes that posed a far greater threat than in the past. Men like Ariovistus, Maroboduus and Decebalus were still very rare, and the tribes were just as disunited and mutually hostile as they had been before. What had changed were the opportunities for attacking the Roman provinces and plundering their wealth.26

  During the third century AD most towns and cities without walls acquired them, while those already fortified made their defences stronger. Raiders from outside the empire were a threat over a wide area, and in some regions banditry became far more common than in the past. With the collapse of the established frontier systems, attackers were no longer faced with the need to move fast and escape before Roman forces caught them, and instead were able to settle down and plunder more methodically. Sources from the third century AD make frequent mention of the danger posed by runaway slaves, deserters and captives aiding the raiders, leading them to settlements and hiding places. Some raiders were still intercepted and defeated, as usual on their way home. An inscription found at Augusta Vindelicum in Raetia commemorates such a victory:

  In honour of the divine house, (and) to the blessed goddess Victoria because the barbarians of the race of the Semnones or Juthungi were slaughtered and routed on the eighth and seventh days before the Kalends of May [24–25 April] by soldiers of the province of Raetia, by soldiers from Germany, and by militia, after freeing many thousands of Italian prisoners, (and) in the realization of his vow, Marcus Simplicius Genialis, vir perfectissimus, acting in place of the governor, with the same army, (and), with proper gratitude, erected and dedicated this altar on the third day before the Ides of September when our emperor Postumus Augustus and Honoratianus were consuls [AD 260].27

  Emperors did not ignore the threat posed by peoples from outside the empire. Many of them campaigned on the frontiers, or chased down raiders plundering the provinces, but they were always more concerned by Romanrivals. Whenever Roman dominance on the frontiers was broken – as it had been under Marcus Aurelius – it took years of hard campaigning and fresh victories to restore it. From the third century AD onwards there were too many crises and never enough time and continuity of leadership to re-establish the dominance maintained for most of the Principate. Each time one frontier became calm, trouble would flare on another, and military resources were drawn off to cope with the new problem, weakening the security elsewhere. The advanced limes connecting the Rhine and Danube was abandoned, as was the province of Dacia, because there were no longer the resources to garrison them. In the fifth century AD core provinces in the west were lost one by one until nothing was left. The process took a very long time, and until near the end the empire was still larger and considerably more powerful than any single opponent it faced. Civil wars weakened the strength of Rome and undermined frontier systems, making the empire vulnerable, so that it was gradually worn down by its enemies.

  Yet conspicuous by their very absence from this period were revolts and resistance to imperial rule in the provinces. When the army and government turned against themselves and rival leaders battled for power, there was no sudden upsurge of independence movements within the provinces. No clearer proof could be given of the degree of consent contributing to the success of provincial rule. As far as we can tell, no province rebelled in the hope of throwing off Roman rule, nor – at least until very late – did communities welcome foreign invaders. When provincial populations did rebel it was as Romans, supporting a claimant to the imperial purple. Postumus, mentioned in the inscription from Augsburg, was a Roman emperor, although he held power only in some of the western provinces including Gaul, the Germanies, Raetia and, for some of the time, Britain. Often referred to as the Gallic Emperors, he and his successors saw themselves as the legitimate rulers of the entire empire, but had not yet been able to bring the rest under their control. Around the same time Queen Zenobia of Palmyra led armies which occupied the Syrian provinces, Egypt and Asia Minor on behalf of her son. For all the trappings of this ancient oasis city, she and her son were Roman citizens as well as Palmyrene royalty and he was proclaimed as emperor of Rome and not as king. In neither case were these leaders aiming at carving out permanently independent realms of their own, nor were they leading ethnically based separatist movements. Their successes were meant to be stepping stones on the path to control of the entire Roman Empire.

  When Roman power weakened, the subject peoples did not rush to throw off the imperialist yoke, and even in the fifth century AD there was a deep longing to be Roman. In part this was due to the sheer longevity of the empire, in which many generations had passed since conquest, and to the lack of any appealing alternative to Roman civilisation. Yet it also grew from the reality and the success of the Roman Peace. When the power of the empire weakened in the third century AD, frontier incursions became a lot more common, as did internal banditry. Like the empire itself, the Pax Romana decayed gradually rather than vanishing overnight. Maintaining it remained an ambition and a frequent boast of emp
erors for centuries, and some areas and some whole provinces were only rarely afflicted by civil war or reached by foreign raids. Life within the empire remained relatively safe and more prosperous than life outside, at least in much of the world – the difference between the empire and Parthia and Persia was always less marked. If life was less secure and comfortable than at the height of the Principate, the difference was one of degree, and as one generation followed another the slow decline was not obvious. People wanted to be Roman, and the Germanic tribes who carved up the Western Empire in the fifth century AD were desperate to share in the comforts and prosperity of Rome.

  In the fifth century AD the Western Empire fell. The Eastern Empire survived, preserving the ideal of internal peace along with many other aspects of culture, custom, ideology and ambition. Greatly reduced in size and resources, especially after the Arab conquests in the seventh century, the Eastern Empire’s influence was felt over a much smaller area than the united empire of the Principate. The world had changed.