by Amy Chua
At the same time, Trajan also implemented one of the few examples of social legislation in the ancient world, creating the famous alimenta program that lent money to farmers, with the interest going to support poor children. Trajan's legacy as a just and fair ruler formed the basis of the Senate's fourth-century prayer that the new emperor might be “better than Trajan.” In the Middle Ages, Dante imagined him as one of the pagans who would be released from hell through the prayer of Pope Gregory.
Trajan's successor, Hadrian, who ruled from 117 to 138, was a cosmopolitan with a passion for Greek culture and one of the greatest administrators in Roman history. Hadrian halted Rome's offensive wars, focusing his attention instead on the consolidation, defense, and embellishment of the empire. In addition to the eighty-mile-long Hadrian's Wall, he oversaw the construction of new cities, temples, baths, harbors, aqueducts, arches, and amphitheaters throughout the empire. A hands-on commander, and evidently an ardent sightseer, Hadrian spent more than half of his twenty-one-year reign outside Italy, touring Rome's provinces and checking on the constant readiness of his soldiers, at one point even living and training with them.
Despite Hadrian's reputation for tolerance, he is also known for an act seen by many as quintessentially intolerant. Heavily influenced by the Greek ideal of the human body, Hadrian banned circumcision, the ritual procedure required for male infants under Jewish law. (The philhellenic Hadrian probably saw circumcision as an offensive mutilation of the human body; he also cracked down on the practice of castration.) This ban, together with Hadrian's decision to build a Roman colony in Jerusalem, exploded into the Jewish rebellion of AD 131-135, led by Simon Bar Kochba. After the rebellion, according to several ancient sources, Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem, built a temple to Jupiter over the site of a former Jewish temple, and placed a statue of himself inside the temple. To add further insult to injury, a large marble pig was erected on the temple grounds. (The pig was evidently the symbol of a Roman legion that had fought against the Jews.)12
Such intolerance was the exception, not the rule, during Rome's golden age. After Hadrian died, Jews were once again allowed to practice their religion and even granted exemptions from Roman laws that conflicted with their religious duties. During the reign of Hadrian's successor, Antoninus Pius (138-161), the security and prosperity of the Pax Romana reached their peak. Unlike Trajan and Hadrian, who were known for their extensive travels throughout the empire, Antoninus Pius never left Italy after becoming emperor. Although he launched a few small wars in Scotland and North Africa to secure the empire's borders, he preferred to use diplomacy and threats of force to deter potential enemies. His successor, Marcus Aurelius, later described Antoninus Pius as follows: “His attitude to the gods was not superstitious and he did not court the favour of men—he did not try to cultivate people by gifts or flattery, but was temperate in every respect, without any mean behaviour or love of novelty for its own sake.”
More than any other emperor, Marcus Aurelius, who ruled from 161 to 180, represents the incarnation of the philosopher-king. Born into a powerful senatorial family, Marcus Aurelius caught the eye of Hadrian, who named the boy an “equestrian” at age five, and ensured that he received the best education available. When he was twelve, Marcus Aurelius opted for the life of the stoic philosopher. He wore a rough cloak and slept on the ground, until his mother finally persuaded him “to sleep on a little bed strewn with skins.” Marcus Aurelius successfully steered his empire through a variety of challenges, including a terrible plague that struck in 169 and the Germanic invasions later in his rule. When he died in 180, the Roman Empire was still in its full glory, more powerful than any empire in Western history.13
And Rome's economy? Writing in the mid-second century AD, the Greek rhetorician Aelius Aristides gives us a glimpse:
So many merchant ships arrive here, conveying every kind of goods from every people every hour and every day, that the city is like a factory common to the whole earth…Hesiod said about the limits of the Ocean that it is a place where everything has been channeled into one beginning and end. So everything comes together here—trade, seafaring, farming, the scourings of the mines, all the crafts that exist or have existed, all that is produced and grown. Whatever one does not see here is not a thing which has existed or exists.
Rome's High Empire was a pre-modern model of economic globalization, free trade, and open markets that would make a Chicago economist proud. Import taxes and earlier limits on trade between city-states fell away as Rome consolidated its power. As the borders of the empire solidified, Rome became an enormous free-trade zone, with African olive oil and the highly prized Spanish fish sauce garum being traded in markets from Scotland to Cyprus. Commerce boomed as never before, supported by the Pax Romana and an exceptional transportation network consisting of European rivers, Mediterranean seaways, and the famous Roman roads.
Rome's “global economy” extended even to the Far East. Roman merchants sailed the Indian Ocean and traveled the Silk Road to bring back exotic spices, fragrant perfumes, and all kinds of silk and luxurious cloth to the markets of Alexandria, Rome, and London. In return, Rome traded glassware, gold coins, and other goods, which have been found as far away as Vietnam and Malaysia. As early as 289 BC, the Romans had developed bronze coins to meet the commercial needs of the empire, adding a common currency to the mix of factors that made Rome an economic hyperpower.14
But it was not only goods that flowed with ease. Rome also attracted skilled and talented people from the farthest-flung reaches of the empire. It was perfectly common for a Roman military force to include “Cretan archers, Balearic slingers,” Spanish swordsmen, and sailors from the Greek isle of Rhodes. Merchants and traders—particularly Syrians, Jews, Arameans—streamed in and out of Rome, importing “gold, ivory, and precious woods” from Africa, spices from Arabia, “pearls and precious stones” from India, silks from China, “furs from central Asia and Russia, amber from Germany and Scandinavia.” With the exception of slaves and serfs, who were bound to their masters and to the land, Roman subjects across the empire enjoyed an unprecedented level of freedom of movement.
At the same time, Rome offered extraordinary opportunities for upward mobility, even to distant regions. One remarkable story of this kind is told by an inscription found in the tiny North African town of Tiddis (now in Algeria), describing the life of the second or third son of a local Berber landowner. This boy, who became known as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, left North Africa for Asia, Judea, the Danube, and the lower Rhine, rising steadily through the imperial ranks. Eventually he became governor of Britain, where he led imperial troops into Scotland, expanding the empire's borders. By the end of his life, Quintus had become the city prefect of Rome.15
“GOD'S OWN PEOPLE”
Racism in the modern sense did not exist in Rome. There is little evidence that the Romans saw light skin as superior to dark skin, or vice versa. But lest there be misunderstanding, one point must be made: The Romans were snobs. They did not consider other peoples their equals. On the contrary, the Romans saw themselves as favored by the gods, as “Heaven's representatives among mankind.” They also had an extensive array of largely unflattering stereotypes about the populations they conquered.
Thus, Ireland's inhabitants “were completely savage and led a miserable life because of the cold.” Their neighbors in Scotland, “the unclad Caledonii and Maeatae,” “lived for days on end in marshy bogs, only their heads protruding above the surface, kept alive by a diet of marsh weeds.” At the other extreme, in torrid Africa, the Ethiopians, Numidians, and Mauretanians were small, “wooly-haired,” “shrill-voiced, strong-legged,” and “burnt black by the sun.” The sun drew the blood to their heads, so they were “quick-witted,” but their resulting blood deficiency made them terrified of getting wounded and thus poor warriors.
Africans were also said to be “fickle” and “over-sexed.” Their women were unusually fertile and thus prone to bearing twins. Egyptian w
omen tended to produce triplets—the effect of drinking water from the Nile.
The supposed anatomical peculiarities of foreign peoples were a frequent theme in the Roman imagination. In India, for example, it was said that there were “people who slept in their ears.” At the same time, the Romans appeared to have considerable respect for the highest caste of Indians, the Brahmans, who were said to be “vegetarians, wearing no wool or leather, indeed often no clothes at all, men of immense physical self-control, completely celibate for thirty-seven years (after which they married as many wives as they could).”
In general, Easterners, including Syrians and the people of Asia Minor, were “sissies” in battle, clad in feminine cloaks and fighting with “unmanly” bows and arrows. Corrupted by luxury, gems, and exotic foods, these Easterners were soft, decadent, sycophantic, and overly subservient to their kings. By contrast, the peoples to the west of Rome were generally crude, uncultured, and warlike, while the Sardinians were “ferocious, unattractive brigands and congenital liars.”
The Spaniards were admired for their extraordinary military prowess. Compared to, say, the “particularly barbarous” Thra-cians, Armenians, and Parthians, the Spaniards were relatively civilized. Apart from “the infestation of their country by rabbits,” they had just one peculiar characteristic: “They cleaned their teeth in urine, and even bathed in it.”
Interestingly, the Romans had particular distaste for peoples of excessive size and height. In general, northerners were “vast and beastly” with ghastly “huge limbs.” The Britons and Caledonians were of “atrocious size.” The Germans, like the Celts and Gauls, were a “race of giants.” But their “abnormal” height was accompanied by inferior intelligence and only hindered these barbarians in battle.
Even on his own turf, the oversized northerner “did not know how to husband his strength.” He was even worse in a warm climate, where “he ate too much and, parched by thirst, he drank too much, particularly of the wine which was not easy to obtain in his own country; and so he quickly put on weight. He could not stand the heat or the dust, but ran for shelter in the shade.” The Alpine Gauls, in particular, were “superhuman in size, with the spirit of wild beasts.” “At their first attack,” a Roman explained, “they are supermen but, after that, like women. With some resemblance to the snow on their own Alps, at the first heat of battle they break into sweat and after slight action they are, as it were, melted by the sun.”
In short, the Romans regarded their own stature as a kind of golden mean. It was a blessing that their soldiers were on average probably between three and six inches shorter than the Gallic and German soldiers. “Romans were superior to northerners in intelligence, to southerners in physical strength.”16
Yet, despite such prejudices, Romans were able to draw into the empire all these diverse “barbarians,” enlisting their talents, allowing them to rise within Rome's ranks, and in general coexisting peacefully with them. According to Gibbon, Rome in the second century AD was “the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was the most happy and prosperous.”17 How did Rome bind its different peoples together and induce them all to work for the benefit of the empire?
THE ALLURE OF ROMAN CULTURE AND CITIZENSHIP
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the Roman Empire was the attraction that people felt toward it. Conquered subjects from Britannia to Arabia wanted to be a part of it—to be “Roman.” As Gibbon observed, Roman magistrates seldom “required the aid of a military force” because “the vanquished nations, blended into one great people, resigned the hope, nay even the wish, of resuming their independence, and scarcely considered their own existence as distinct from the existence of Rome.” But what was Rome's allure?
More than any other ancient power, Rome represented a com-munis patria, a common fatherland, for its diverse subjects. True, Roman civilization was understood (at least by Romans) to be superior to all others, but rather than being spurned or subjugated, the elites of defeated powers were enticed to embrace Roman culture as a means to power and privilege. Once subdued, conquered peoples went on, often within two generations, to build Roman towns and amphitheaters and embrace Roman values and lifestyles. Local elites sent their children to schools in Rome, and these children grew up to be full members of the community of Roman citizens.18
Moreover, Romans were surprisingly willing to absorb the traditions, knowledge, and practices of other peoples if they found them useful. “The main reason for the Romans becoming masters of the world was that, having fought successively against all peoples, they always gave up their own practices as soon as they found better ones.” This attitude was particularly evident when it came to the Greeks, whose cultural superiority the Roman elites generally acknowledged. Having conquered the Mediterranean, Rome proclaimed itself the cultural heir of ancient Greece. Rather than encouraging Roman nationalism or ideas of Roman uniqueness, emperors such as Hadrian would often talk of membership in an overarching Greco-Roman civilization.
Like the Greek civilization on which Rome modeled itself, the Roman Empire was centered around the city, or polis. Everywhere the empire expanded, Romans built new cities, many of them with Roman names and Roman architecture. While drawing heavily from Greek literature, painting, sculpture, and architecture, Roman culture also created some popular features of its own, such as gladiatorial shows and wild beast hunts. Roman civilization was a cultural fusion—typically combining not just Greco-Roman but provincial and local elements as well—that proved deeply attractive to the elites from across the empire.
All educated Romans were fluent in Greek as well as Latin and grew up reading the great Greco-Roman epicurean and stoic philosophers. As a result of this shared education, by the second century AD the upper classes of Africa, Italy, and Spain had much more in common with each other than they did with the slaves and peasants who farmed their food and tended their flocks. Over time, the empire ceased to be stratified across ethnic lines; cultural and ethnic divisions were replaced by socioeconomic ones.19
Significantly, while successfully exporting Greco-Roman culture, Rome did not try to extinguish local languages or traditions. On the contrary, the reality on the ground was enormous linguistic and cultural diversity. Although Latin was the official language throughout the empire, Greek, Coptic, Aramaic, Celtic, and Berber dialects all continued to be spoken. In Africa, Punic could still be heard until the time of St. Augustine. The empire's great cities, such as Rome or Alexandria, were as polyglot and pluralistic as New York or London today.20
A critical piece of Rome's cultural formula was the enticement of Roman citizenship. To pacify its defeated enemies, Rome held out the olive branch of citizenship, and for centuries this strategy helped hold the empire together, allowing it to expand to the edge of the known world.
At its core, citizenship signified that someone was a member of the elite, and it guaranteed a certain level of protection, both from imperial officials above and from the masses below. The rights accorded citizens changed over time, but in general Roman citizenship meant the right to vote; the right to hold property and make contracts; freedom from torture; special protections from the death penalty; and equal treatment under Roman law. The Greek orator Aelius Aristides observed, “[Y]ou have divided into two parts all the men in your empire…and everywhere you have made [Roman] citizens all those who are the most accomplished, noble, and powerful people,…while the remainder you have made subjects and the governed.”
One telling story about Roman citizenship comes from the New Testament. As recounted in the Book of Acts, Roman magistrates ordered the flogging of the apostle Paul in Macedonia. After Paul revealed that he was a Roman citizen, the magistrates “feared” and released him, issuing him an official apology. Later, in Jerusalem, when he was again arrested, Paul declared, “Can you legally flog a man who is a Roman citizen, and moreover has not been found guilty?” Although Paul was eventually executed by Roman officials, his citizenship appar
ently earned him the “right” to be beheaded (rather than tortured or crucified).21
The Romanization of local communities began with the aristocracy. Public officeholders were typically granted Roman citizenship as a matter of course, regardless of their race or ethnicity. This citizenship grant resulted in the gradual Romanization of the local elite, who came to identify themselves with Roman rule and to see their interests as aligned with the preservation of the empire. As Aristides wrote, “There is no need for garrisons to hold their citadels, but the men of greatest standing and influence in every city guard their fatherlands for you.”
Roman citizenship was not limited to the upper classes. Many among the lower classes were incorporated into the ranks of citizens through service in the army. Both tradition and Roman religion decreed that the legions of the Roman army—its prestigious core—had to be composed of Roman citizens. When the legions were low on recruits, the commanders would accept foreigners and simply grant them citizenship. This happened en masse in extreme circumstances, as when Caesar created his famous Gallic legion, and even in ordinary times, especially in the East, when numbers were low and citizens were not turning out for the army.
It was much more common, however, to become a Roman citizen by joining the auxiliary forces. Although these forces were mainly comprised of noncitizens, twenty-five years of service in the auxiliary army entitled one to citizenship. Ten thousand people annually became citizens via this route. Soldiers in the Roman army were generally not allowed to contract into marriage during their tenure; it was thought that this would distract them from their duties and reduce their ferocity. Nonetheless, most soldiers did have relationships that resulted in offspring, and those children were granted citizenship at the end of their father's service. This practice contributed greatly to the Romanization of the lower classes.
