Empires: Rome - The Playboy & The General Part One

Gaius Marius had a very fierce competitor in the person of one of his former officers, Lucius Cornelius Sulla. What was more, not only were the men competitors-but they despised each other. Gaius Marius was the epitome of the loyal Roman general. He had come from the backwater of Arpinum and had no nobility whatsoever in his background. He rose through the ranks on sheer ability alone. By the time of our story here, Marius had won election to the highest magisterial office of consul an unprecedented six times. Most men -both by precedent and circumstance alone, were lucky to attain the office of consul once in their lives. Marius had also married into the Julian patrician lineage, which was in a state of decline at the time, but still very proud. The Julian line claimed it had its origin with the goddess Venus. This family will also become very important later. Marius, with his provincial upbringing and lack of pedigree, was a great example of what glory an outsider could achieve in the Republic.

Sulla, by contrast had a noble birth, however, when his father died he was left in poverty. In the days of Sulla's wild youth his means were incredibly small compared to his ambitions. He had been going downhill for awhile, living in forlorn quarters and in the company of some wild companions-comics, prostitutes and drag queens were all part of his retinue in those days. Sulla would display a lasting affection for drag queens all his life. "Metrobius, the female impersonator, had seen better days, but Sulla never ceased to insist that he was in love with him all the same."(Plutarch, Sulla.36). Sulla may indeed have loved drag queens-but as we shall see-he wasn't very in touch with his own feminine, nurturing side at all. Sulla was a heavy drinker. In him, some could see the barroom philosopher combined with the abilities of a gigolo. Sulla did have a kind of magnetic sexual appeal-according to most accounts of him. He had a good physique, stunning blue eyes and golden colored hair. As handsome as he was, his physical appearance was marred by only one thing-he had a violent, purple complexion and when he became angry odd white spots would appear all over his face.

This flaw did not seem to matter in the least to one of two women who would come to have a huge impact on the trajectory of his life. One of Rome's wealthiest courtesans had become so enamored of him that she left him everything she owned in her will. About the same time Sulla's wealthy patron died, his stepmother also died, also appointing him as sole heir to her estate. Sulla was thirty years old, an age when many in the aristocracy of Rome had already been climbing the precarious moutain slopes of fame and glory in Rome, when he at last had the money he needed to launch his political career. The office Sulla needed to attain to challenge Marius-was the consulship-the office Marius had achieved six times already. If Sulla could only win election to this office, then he would have enormous authority.

A consul was not a dictator or king, but was the closest thing the Republic had to one. The consul wore a toga bordered with the same purple associated with royalty and a special chair of state. The consul would also be accompanied by twelve men called lictors, each carrying on his shoulder, the fasces -symbolizing his authority not as a dictator, but as an elected official of the people. Rome did have a fasces associated with the office of dictator (I will talk about this later too) that had an axe attached to the regular bundle of scourging rods. Of course, even if Sulla were to win election to this office he would have to move fast. The fasces of a consul was not a symbol of tyranny, as it would come to be known, but of an authority bestowed freely by the people. The consul served a one year term only, and was joined in office by colleagues who were his exact equal. There was a great tension in the competitive ideals of the Republic, which were cut-throat in their intensity-and the way magistrates of the Republic had to act in office-with a great deal of attention paid to being -or at least looking as if they were acting with propriety. But it would be the only chance Sulla would have to get the eastern command in the Mithridatic war. If he could get this position he hoped to use it to get power and glory that would eclipse that of his hated rival, Gaius Marius.

For anyone who reads this blog-I very much appreciate you sticking with me here. Lately I have been struggling with health issues and insomnia. I do hope to have the next post here very soon, as it is ready to go. The image is a bust of General Gaius Marius. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome - Pandora's Box Part Five

Corfinium, in the heart of Italy, was the location that their leaders had chosen to be the new capital. Both Corfinium and the new state itself had been given the name "Italia", to further strengthen the point that this to be a united conglomeration of all states of the peninsula. A progenitor government had been formed and coins had even been issued. The establishment of Italia bore witness that for the vast majority of Italian leaders, the revolt against Rome had been one less of defiance, than of discouraged veneration. In the early years of the war the rebels had defeated Rome's main army in central Italy. After this the survivors were fighting a fierce holding action against men who had equal arms and training. During the summer of 90BC, they fought an exhausting trench warfare, and little by little pushed back the rebels front. The war kept going this way until the time of the harvest, when military campaigns would end. When the two armies lined up each other for the final battle, each one's soldiers began recognizing friends on the other side. The men began to call out to one another and layed down their arms. The atmosphere of war turned into that of a festival and the Roman commander and the rebel commander also met to discuss "peace and the Italian longing for citizenship." (Diodorus Siculus 37.15).

The talks failed, the Romans of course could never grant concessions on the battlefield. Many Romans sympathized with the Italians demands and of great importance, as a hope for the future, the general of the Roman side, Gaius Marius, was admired by the rebels and was himself not originally from Rome-in fact, Marius was from a tiny backwater town known for its poverty. Sadly-the argument between more openness and exclusion had grown dangerously more polarized. Many Roman politcians feared that their city was in danger of being flooded by the sudden enrollment of millions of new citizens. By the time Marius began to negotiate terms with his Italian opponent, he had reversed the catastrophic series of defeats that had startled Rome at the beginning of the war. The rebel cause began to falter a few weeks later. The savagery at Asculum had started the revolt, and it was also at Asculum where the Romans could celebrate their first decisive victory. Perhaps the most hated man in Rome, Gnaeus Pompeius "Strabo", the nickname given to him because of his perpetual squint, had led the Roman forces to victory there.

With victory for Rome seemingly on the horizon, politicians who had always favored granting citizenship to Italians, convinced the most staunchly conservative politicians that there was no other way, in the long run, to enfranchising the Italian allies. In October 90 BC a bill was proposed and passed. It stated thaat the Italian communities that had stayed loyal were granted citizenship immediately, and the rebels were promised it as long as the layed down their arms. Many men found the offer tempting and soon most of northern and central Italy was at peace. When Mithridates came upon the scene, and in 89 BC when Roman rule in Asia collapsed, the economy throughout the Meditteranean was thrown into a perilous dive. Originally the rebel leaders had asked their compatriots with business ties in the East to beg Mithridates to ally with them in their common cause against Rome. Ironically, now that Mithridates had opened up the war, it was these businessmen who were hardest hit economically by the troubles in the East. There was a great contrast to this in Rome, as many in the Senate welcomed war with open arms. They thought there was no way Rome could lose a war with him and of course the Asians were all thought by the Romans to be incredibly wealthy, which in many cases was true.

Marius regarded his command in a war with Mithridates as his by right. Ten years before, Marius had confronted the king face to face, telling him more or less-be stronger than Rome or submit to her. Mithridates wisely backed down from a fight then. It could not have been sheer coincidence that when the king did at last choose to fight that he was provoked by Manius Aquillius, who was a close ally of Marius and had served as his deputy and consular colleague. Perhaps this would explain Aquillius's plunging of Rome into troubles in the East, while back home Rome was fighting for its very survival. Maybe he had been trying to provide his patron with a glorius Asian war. However, even if there was a plot, it would be played out badly and have fatal consequences for Aquillius himself, for Marius and for the Republic. An eastern command was a prize so treasured that Marius had rivals who were also ambitious -one hugely so-and would soon show how far they would go to get it.

The autumn of 89 BC should have been a reasonably happy one for Rome-with a terrible war between the Italian rebels drawing to a close. However, there was only a sense of foreboding and doom. Yet again it seemed that there were omens of the Republic's doom. The worst of all was the sound of a trumpet, heard ringing out from a cloudless, blue sky. Its note was so fearsome that those who heard it were agitated to the point of being half-crazy with fear. The Sibylline oracles were once again consulted. The prophecies appeared to state, to the augurs terror, that such a sign could only foretell a great convulsion in the order of events. One age would pass away and another would begin. This would happen during a revolution fated to ravage the whole world.

I hope to have the next post here Thursday or Friday-and am looking forward to the next series of posts-as I think the events and personalities are fascinating-and will also eventually lead back to the story of Caesar, Cleopatra, Mark Antony and Octavian. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome - Pandora's Box Part Four

When Mithridates crossed into the province of Asia, he found it protected weakly. The Greek cities were eager to see him as a saviour and rallied to his side. Within a small matter of weeks Roman power in the province had disappeared. Normally, the King of Pontus would not be thought of as someone the Greeks would see as a hero and follow so vigorously. However, Greek hatred of the publicani was so overwhelming that they were more than happy to pledge allegiance to a matricidal maniac who saw a lot of himself in Alexander the Great, and even used intentional Alexandrian style images of him on things such as coinage. If there was any time to throw off the hated Roman yoke it was now. In the summer of 88 BC, after Roman oppression had already been broken, the Greeks would show just how bad they had come to hate the publicani and everything Roman. With the goal of uniting the Greek cities to him for good, Mithridates wrote to them-ordering the slaughter of every Roman and Italian left in Asia. In total secrecy and with perfect coordination the Greeks adhered to his instructions with a brutal and savage efficiency. The victims of this massacre were rounded up by hired assassins, many hacked to pieces. Some of the victims were killed as they attempted to escape by way of the sea. It is estimated that eighty-thousand men, women and children were killed on that horrific night of revenge.

The effect on the Roman economy from the night of revenge was tremendous. However, the humbling of Rome in the eyes of the world wasn't over yet. Always a genius in the use of propaganda, Mithridates not only used the Sibyl's prophecies, but made some of his own; this in order to make himself as a great 'king of the East' that had been predicted. A king who would humble the greedy superpower, so filled with hubris and arrogance. The mass slaughter of the Roman businessmen and their families was only one way Mithridates set out to show the world that he could take on Rome. Another statement was made with the execution of Manius Aquillius, the Roman who had prodded Mithridates into war in the first place. Aquillius had become sick at the most unfortunate time, for himself anyway, this allowed him to be captured. The soldiers of Mithridates brought him back to Pergamum. Aquillius was tied to an ass and paraded through jeering crowds. After this, Mithridates ordered some gold to be melted down. When this had been done, Aquillius's head was jerked back, his mouth forced open and the molten metal poured down his throat. Manius Aquillius died choking on gold. "Warmongers against every nation, people and king under the sun, the Romans share only one abiding motive-greed, deep seated, for empire and riches." This was the prounouncement Mithridates had made against the Republic. In Manius Aquillius, the Republic's legate in Asia, he had exacted symbolic revenge.

Rome's trouble's in the East were not the only ones that vexed her during this time. Late in 91 BC, the Samnites, a rustic mountain people had also started to fight Roman oppression. There was a history between the Samnites and the Romans. In 321 BC the Samnites had humiliated a Roman army, and this had been a fatal misunderstanding of the Roman enemy. Peace was not understood by Romans unless they were the ones dictating the terms of it. Despite the peace treaty between Rome and Samnium, the Romans found a way to break it and returned to attack and conquer Samnium. The Romans also never forgot that the Samnites were the last people to challenge them for control of the Italian peninsula. This rebellion was taking place in extreme proximity to Campania, the jewel of Italy. Campania was literally the playground of Rome's wealthy and influential citizens. Also in close range of the rebellion were the spendidly luxurious cities of Naples, Capua and Nola.

The Romans had been caught completely off guard by the fury about to be unleashed and had only the slightest military presence in the area. The biggest prize of all was Nola, due to the city's strategic location. After a very brief siege, the commander of the garrison was invited to join the rebel forces. The invitation was refused and those inside the garrison were starved to death. The city was strengthened and provisioned and soon Nola became a mighty bulwark of the rebel cause against Rome. The cause was not isolated to the Samnites alone. The forces that had delivered Nola into the Rebels hands, also gave them Pompeii, a city only a few miles from Naples and along the slope of Vesuvius (the same Pompeii made famous in later history when Vesuvius erupted). In many other towns and villages in Italy, people and tribes were taking up arms against Rome. The last time these same peoples had warred against Roman was so far in the past that it seemed like a hazy legend. The main focus of the rebellion was along the Appenines. This mountainous territory was poverty stricken and its peoples, like the Samnites, were considered backwards and barbaric by the Romans. There was a level of viciousness in the attacks by the rebels that was attributed to living under brutal poverty.

However, the hatreds of the peasant would not have amounted to anything if they had not had the blessing of the oligarchies that ruled over the different Italian states. These wealthy rulers had their own reasons for going against Rome. For centuries it had been Roman policy to flatter and bribe the ruling classes of her allies. This policy had been extremely successful in the past, and it was this policy more than any other that ensured Italians' loyalty to the Republic. However, with the passage of time those who had the power to influence their cities had started to find themselves at odds with Rome. Their problems with the Republic came in many forms. They had an inferior position in regard to Roman law. A higher proportion of their men had to fight in wars Rome started. The largest grudge against Rome came from the fact that the Italians had not only helped to build Rome's empire, but they had lent their whole-hearted support into exploiting its wealth also. In the provinces the Italian allies had rights and privileges almost indistinguishable from full Roman citizens. Now they were wanting these full rights of citizenship and self-determination at home. However, the leaders of this revolt had no wish to turn back the clock to the small divided city-states of the Italian peninsula ages before. They wanted to produce a new, powerful centralized state of their own.
I hope to have the next post in this series here very soon. I have been working hard to get to the point to discuss not only interesting events and people in Roman history -but others as well. It may still take some time as I feel Rome is so important in so many categories of imperial histories. I will definitely keep trying to work on posts of different subjects. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome - Pandora's Box Part Three

It would also be wrong to say that every ideal of the Republic was dead. Some administrators were so shocked and disgusted by what was happening that they tried to take a stand against it. This could be very dangerous if the business consortiums found their interests seriously undermined, they weren't shy about taking aim at the whistleblower. Rutilius Rufus was the most prominent of the victims of the publicani. He was a provincial administrator known for his honesty. Rufus had wanted to defend his subjects against the voracity of the tax collectors. In 92 BC he was brought to trial on trumped-up charges before a jury packed with supporters of the publicani. The charge--which must have been the ultimate slap in the face to such an honest man was extortion. After his preordained conviction Rufus, who also sought to slap is tormentors in the only way he could, chose as his place of exile the very province he was supposed to have looted. When he arrived at his place of exile he was greeted warmly with honors and scattered flowers. The province that welcomed him: Asia, formerly the kingdom of Pergamum, and the foundation stone of the Roman empire in the East.

The provincials took the conviction of Rufus to mean that Roman greed would never be capable of controlling itself. These victimized peoples, looking back on the devastation of Corinth, must have wondered many times, "What can possibly be done to fight a power as great as Rome's?" Not only taxes, but hopelessness smashed the spirits of the Greeks of Asia. In one of the many events that happen in history where a small matter snowballs to become a history changing affair, a 'saviour' to the Eastern Greeks did appear, three years after the conviction of Rufus. In the summer of 89 BC, Manilus Aquilius, the Roman commissioner in Asia, invented a reason to invade the Greek kingdom of Pontus. For awhile, Roman business interests had been looking at the kingdom, on the Black Sea coast, in the north of modern Turkey, with hunger. Perhaps Pontus could be the next imperial milk cow?

Aquilius miscalculated very badly in underestimating the opponent he faced in Mithridates, the King of Pontus. Manilus Aquilius's first mistake was in using troops from a client kingdom to do the fighting instead of Roman troops. Mithridates had a special genius for espousing a grandiose propaganda. Indeed his childhood had similiarities to many fairy tales. As a young child, Mithridates had been persecuted by his wicked mother. The young king had to take refuge in a forest for seven years. During his seven years of exile, he supposedly outran deer and fought lions to the death! Mithridates was so obsessed that his mother might try to have him killed, he developed an interest in toxicology. He took antidotes to become immune to specific poisons. Mithridates eventually returned to the capital in command of an army. Once his army secured his throne for him, he ordered his mother killed and to make sure no family 'issues' would come back to haunt him, he also ordered the deaths of his brother and sister. Twenty years after these events took place Mithridates remained as ruthless as ever. Upon his own life, he would fight to the death not to become a Roman puppet.

Now Mithridates had to make a much more fateful decision. Should he attack Rome herself? He knew this would be a fearsome contest, Rome was the superpower in the region-the world and seemed invincible to many, especially the poor, over-taxed, over-burdened Greek kingdoms of the east. A possible war with the Republic was something Mithridates had been preparing for all through his reign. Mithridates liked to think of himself as a second Alexander the Great, and worked to improve the offensive capacities of his military. His newly minted army literally shone like the sun, with its polished weapons and breastplates that were embossed with gold and bright jewels. Traveling incognito in Asia, it seems Mithridates also had a flair for spycraft. He had an up close and personal look at how deep the hatred for Rome had become--this was a factor more than any other that convinced him to make war with the Republic.

Just for a quick summing up before the next post-I hope that it is getting across how imperial overstretch and hubris can have a terrible effect-on even the most powerful of nations-in fact maybe on them moreso than others. I also hope the horrid corrosive effect of money and treasure on a nation when its government and business interests start becoming intertwined-and then actually working together is being brought out in these posts-if it isn't -I am not doing a good job! It seems to me that business and the inevitable corruption of bought influence and bribes have no place in the councils of any government -be it ancient or modern. I hope in the next post about our story about Rome, Pergamum, Mithridates and Pontus to continue showing how when military-industrial-financial axes begin to have an effect on the lawmaking bodies of a nation how terrible the results can be. I am still looking for posts to do to get away from the ancient era for a bit-and because I am overly tired and not feeling the greatest I haven't had much luck so far-although I would definitely not want to break up the current story with Rome, Asia and Mithridates anyway. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus

Empires: Rome - Pandora's Box Part Two

In 123BC, after a decade of pushing for it, Gaius Gracchus succeeded in passing a law that would have some unintended and terrible consequences. By the terms of this law, Pergamum was finally subjected to organized taxation. The Republic had to turn to the private sector to tax the subjects of the bequeathed kingdom, because it did not have the huge bureaucracies that the kings of the east relied on, to not only tax-but over-tax their subjects. This led to tax-collecting contracts being publicly auctioned, with those who bought them paying in full the tribute owed to the state. Even the wealthiest of contributors could not afford to pay these, as the sums were enormous. Instead, the wealth of many investors would be pooled, and the resulting companies administered like the huge financial concerns they were. Just like in modern finance, shares could be offered, meetings held and directors elected to the service of the board. Pergamum had become a Roman province by 129BC, and the 'tax-collecting' staff in the province might include soldiers, sailors-even postmen, besides the regular staff itself. Publicani was the name given to the businessmen who ran these cartels. The rape of the newly minted province was now in full swing.

The name publicani, referred to these men as agents of the state. There was however, nothing public in the quality of the 'service' they provided in Pergamum. Profit was all that mattered-the bigger the better. The ultimate goal of these men was not only to collect the tribute owed to the state, but also to bully the provincials in paying extra for the 'privilege' of being bled dry. Of course, by the laws of the Republic, subjects on paper did have some appeal against the torments of the tax predators. The taxation system may have been privatized, but the provinces administration remained in the hands of the Senate. In other words, with the men supposedly imbued the most with the values of the Republic. These ideals were supposed to have obliged governors to provide their subects with the benefits of security, peace and stability. However, in the case of Pergamum, the bribes offered to look the other way were so gainful, that even some of the most law abiding men were taken in. Roman rectitude and uprightness were becoming values lost to the gold rush in the province. To the benighted provincials, there appeared to be little difference in the publicani and the senators sent to govern them. The rape of Pergamum's wealth was an in-your-face spectacle of pure greed overcoming any sense of decency and honor that the Republic was supposed to stand for.

The highways that were originally built for commerce or war now just brought the Roman tax predators to their victims faster, pack animals literally strained under the weight of the tribute they carried along these roads as they were guarded by legionaires. Ships across the Meditteranean sailed for Italy, loaded with plundered treasure from imperial extortion. Rome was becoming a nightmare behemoth whose innards were becoming clogged with gold. The more Rome became over-laden with silver, gold and other treasure, the harder she closed her massive fists to attain more. The lust for more and more mineral wealth actually began to alter the landscape of her western provinces. Almost as if the giant fingers of the Roman behemoth had dug for hidden mineral wealth, the scarred terrain of the provinces in the west bore witness to the Republic's lust for silver and gold. In the east cities were plundered for treasure of any kind, be it money, works of art-even foodstuffs. In the west it was the earth itself that fell victim to imperial greed. The result of this was mining on a scale that would not be seen again until the industrial revolution! Spain bore witness to the worst of the excavation devastation. Many observers talked in awe of what they had seen there.

A century previously, the publicani had taken over the mines that Rome had annexed from Carthage. They bore and dug there with their exemplary flair for turining a profit. A single network of tunnels might extend for more than a hundred square miles. Forty thousand slaves had a nightmare existence working in just one of these networks. For people who think pollution and smog started with the industrial age; the cloud of pollution that hung over the devastated landscape from the smelting furnaces through giant chimneys in Spain was so toxic that birds would die if they flew through the exhaust. Originally, large areas of Spain were thought to be too remote and dangerous to dig for mineral wealth. However, by the second century BC, all areas except the north of the Iberian peninsula had been used for mining (the Iberian peninsula was not brought under Roman control completely until 23 BC). The measurement of concentrations of lead in the ice from Greenland's glaciers, show an extremely marked increase during this time. These lead concentrations are a stark reminder of how huge the mass of poisonous fumes that the Roman mines were emitting must have been. The ore that was being smelted was silver and it has been estimated that for every ton of silver extracted over then thousand tons of rock had to be quarried.

By the first century BC, it has also been estimated that the Roman mint was using fifty tons of silver each year. The immense scale of these operations, both in Asia and in Spain could not have come to fruition without the public sector working hand in glove with the private sector. The Roman authorities in the provinces began to look for partners in crime in the ranks of Roman officialdom, for providing such handsome pay-outs, safe roads, good harbors and natives who were kept under the imperial thumb. It was the height of hypocrisy to watch senators show such an uppity contempt for all matters financial--and yet at the same time making loads of money from these 'arrangements'. There was even a law that a publicanus would not be allowed to join the Senate, just as no senator was permitted to have anything to do with trade beyond Rome's boundaries. However, in real life these laws did not work hardly at all. Both the entrepreneur and the senator or governor needed each other to become wealthy. The actions between the private sector and public sectors in ancient Rome, very much became what might be thought of as an archetypal military-industrial complex. It had all started with the willing of the kingdom of Pergamum to the Republic. In the years after this, motives for profit, status and Rome's traditional values had become more confused than ever.

To the two or three people who read this blog:-) Usually you will never see me type the amount that I did in this post because I am such a horrid typist (not that it was a lot of material)-I was just very anxious to show the corrosive effect on the government -even back to ancient times-when money is allowed to cloud people's minds-and also thought some of the other information was good to know-as the info about mining and the like was completely new to me(as to the extent of pollution etcetera). I would have kept on going -but came to the end of information I had on paper-back pain is horrid right now-but when you are doing something you love it doesn't matter as much. I am really excited about the continuation of the story here and hope to have it here as soon as I can. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome - Pandora's Box Part One

The bequest of Pergamum to Rome must have ignited some fires of an almost all-consuming greed in the hearts of men in the Republic. Pergamum was known for the collossal majesty of her monuments, and also the wealth of the cities under her rule, indeed this was the most magnificent bequest in history. However--the wealth of Pergamum posed a huge question for Rome. How was the enormous wealth of the kingdom to be handled? The Senate was supposed to have responsibility for the way the wealth of Pergamum was to be appropriated. Membership in this body of three hundred of Rome's best and brightest was not guaranteed by birth, but by achievement and reputation. The Senate's deliberations carried enormous moral and guiding authority, however its decrees did not have the technical force of the law. Even so -only a very brave or foolish magistrate would ignore them. It was the Senate that cemented the foundation of the Republic together with the people. "Senatus Populusque Romanus" or "SPQR" was the shorthand that referred to the constitution of the Republic. This phrase or its abbreviation was stamped on everything from the smallest of coins to the most majestic official buildings and temples, that described the bond between the Senate and the people.

However, the bequest of Pergamum was about to open up a Pandora's Box of troubles for the Senate, the people and Rome herself. First of all, news of the new wealth from the East, literally seemed to appear as a gift from the heavens for the previously mentioned Tiberius Gracchus in his quest to help the poor of Rome. He wanted the treasure to be spent on funding his ambitious reforms. Of course, the people agreed with him, but his fellow senators did not, and ended up being partly responsible for his murder. Some other things showed just how paradoxical this 'gift' from the East were: Romans had long associated gold with moral corruption and the idea of inheriting a fabulously wealthy kingdom was anathema to ancient Roman values. The matter of governance was a more pragmatic and immediate concern to Rome than the lofty upholding of ancient values. The Republic had always considered provinces bothersome to administrate. Rather than impose direct rule on the kingdoms of the East, the Senate practiced a delicate maneuver of exploitation, but from a distance preferrably-only intervening when absolutely necessary.

This policy was practiced in Pergamum, until the kingdom started to disintegrate into anarchy, which threatened the stability of the surrounding areas. Rome sent in an army. It took several years before the region was brought back under control, and even then, the Senate didn't establish Rome's first province in Asia until 129 BC. The commissioners sent to oversee the kingdom were told to enforce the laws of the kings they were replacing. This was part of the unique 'isolationism' Rome practiced. Respect was what the Republic truly demanded from the people it conquered and ruled over. As long as there was sufficient deference in the way the ambassadors from the East came to learn of the Senate's every desire; as long as the barbarians of the West feared any military engagements with the legions in Gaul or Hispania, everything was fine. It was all fine and good for the senatorial elite, who already had more than their fair share of wealth and status to feel this way about respect offered to Rome. But what of the people of lesser status in Rome, to say nothing of the vast mass of the poor-they wanted their share of the Pergamene loot too, and they found a spokesman for this in none other than Gaius Gracchus.

To anyone who reads this blog-I am going to be posting information to it as soon as I can. I have a long way to go before I have anything remotely resembling what I wanted this blog to look like.I am working on a very large project for my other blog-and I hope it does not 'die' as I get things together. My health is becoming an issue again, and I had to finally decide to concentrate on the 3 things that most interest me. The 3 things being history-as I feel we can still learn from it-the second being my major subject (topic) for my other blog which I have no clue how long it will take to get together-and also the new 'book' :-) I have decided to write-and keep my personal life story to myself-although having said this, I agree with a dear friend overseas who I have never met-but feel I have known him all my life-that everyone should write "their" story-whether for public or private. The thing I most had to discard was constantly doing 'little subjects' constantly in between at my other blog-although this is not to say anything against them as I think the study of paranormal phenomena is of immense value-what I had to do was slow down the speed over there with always getting into a new subject so quickly-I would love to be able to do it-but I know longer have the energy to juggle that much at one time-I may have another post here by the am-as I have to do an all-nighter tonight-providing connection holds and my back pain is at a tolerable level. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires:Rome- The Sybil's Prophecies & The East

The prophecies of the Sibyl were a carefully guarded state secret in Rome, kept in the Temple of Jupiter. However, the Romans were not the only people in the world to receive a visit from her-perhaps multitudes of 'hers' (likely a lot of hims using the name, Sibyl as a pseudo-both for anonymity and their own personal safety). The prophecies she had given the Greeks and the Jews had been told far and wide. In a very sinister prophecy, she had told of a time when Roman would take up arms against Roman, and in these prognostications the violence would not be confined to the capital: "Not foreign invaders, Italy, but your own sons will rape you, a brutal interminable gang-rape, punishing you, famous country, for all your many depravities, leaving you prostrated, stretched out among the burning ashes. Self-slaughterer! No longer the mother of upstanding men, but rather the nurse of savage, ravening beasts!"

Scholars and historians have dated this and other prophecies to times near the 140s BC. An interesting sidebar to these prophecies is that the ones kept by the Romans seemed to suggest the future could be altered if certain actions were taken, while the prophetic books in the East appeared to have had a very deterministic view of the future. Everything was set in stone and nothing could be changed. Of course, with the times that these prophecies of Rome's destruction were dated, it would not have taken a true prophetess to describe Rome's hegemony over the world of the time. Also, the way some of these prophecies were worded seemed to have been written by someone who could only imagine Rome being brought down by internal strife-as her power in regards to other nations seemed invincible.

Before the catastrophes for the cities of Carthage and Corinth in 146BC; the Greeks had been somewhat confused by Rome's guarantees of freedom. The Greeks tended to think of the Romans as barbarians (behind their backs) and the Romans thought of the Greeks as contentious children who needed a strong hand to keep them in line. Until the destruction of Corinth, the Greeks had interpreted Roman guarantees of 'freedom' in a much larger sense than the Republic had intended. No reading between the lines of diplomatic language was needed after 146 BC. The treaties of friendship between Rome and her allies were now as sharply defined as a razor blade's edge, and as ill-advised to play with. The lessons Rome had so brutally taught had not been lost on anybody throughout the Meditteranean and to the east, far beyond the Greek kingdoms into Asia Minor. Monarchies throughout the region were always trying to ponder what Rome's true intentions were and made sure they were in perfect harmony with the tune the Republic was singing. The last king of Pergamum, Attalos III, who ruled over a Greek city controlling most of what is modern western Turkey, went as far as one could go in this new era of 'friendship' and 'cooperation'. In 133BC he left his entire kingdom to Rome in his will! As obsequious and benevolent an act as this may have seemed, it started a chain of events rolling (some involving the Gracchi brothers) that were to have some very horrific consequences for Rome.

Empires: Rome -Winners and Losers Part Four

Twelve years after Tiberius was clubbed to death in a violent brawl, Gaius in 121 BC, was also killed by assassins allied with the aristocracy. His corpse was decapitated and lead was poured into his skull. Shortly after his brutal murder, three thousand of his followers were executed without a trial. These explosions of civil unrest were the first to see bloodletting on Roman streets since the expulsion of the kings. The grotesque and obscene overreaction showed how great the ruling classes suspicions and fears ran of any would be reformers, who would also help the 'mob'. The Gracchi brothers had raised more concerns than tyranny in the minds of their peers. By taking refuge at the location most sacred to the plebian cause, the Aventine, Gaius's attempt to provoke a class struggle, even though it failed, evoked strong negative reactions in the minds of the nobility. Indeed it was thought by many of them to be a terrifying act of irresponsibility. However, the lead-weighted skull of Gaius Gracchus also provoked a sense of foreboding.

Many in the aristocracy had felt the reprisals against Gaius Gracchus and his followers had gone too far. It didn't take much imagination to see what could be the future if the social norms and conventions of the Republic were trespassed and its foundations crumbled. Perhaps this was a warning more suited to Roman temperments to pay attention to. What was the Republic after all, if not a community bound together by its culture, traditions, precedents and glorious past? To deny this inheritance was to gaze down a chasm that led into Hades. Tyranny or barbarism-these would be the only two outcomes if the Republic were to fall.

A few more things need to be said about the horrific fate of the Gracchi brothers and Rome herself. The tragedy of the brothers has to be looked at through the ideals of the system and society they came from. Roman society bred into its citizens, a hunger for wealth and status. This laid the foundations for a society where competition was so aggressive that it overwhelmed all who had come up against it. However, along with this same hard-driving and cut-throat dynamism, this also provoked paralysis. The brothers had been concerned about their own fame and fortune--they were Romans after all. But they had also had a very genuine desire to improve the lives of their fellow citizens, especially the poor. The fate of the Gracchi had proved, without a doubt, that any attempt to propose or impose very serious and new reforms on the Republic would always be interpreted as tyranny--whether this really was the case or not. Any policy of radical change-no matter how idealistic its origin and inspiration would always disintegrate into internecine rivalries. The idealistic and unfortunate Gracchi brothers put an effective stop to the very reforms which they had died for. The tribunes who came after them would be much more careful in the causes and proposals they championed. Social revolution and real reform in the Republic would be put on permanent hold. I hope to have the next post here either tonight or Thursday, after my 'offline' day to get caught up on research and other things. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -Winners and Losers Part Three

There were even times when he would go to the point of affecting the accent of a plebian from the slums. The Romans called politicians with a gift for the common, folksy touch, "Populares." Some of the more conservative elements of the nobility were suspicious of the office of the tribunate. It required great skill for a tribune to not only look after the interests of the common people, but also to respect the wishes and interests of his own class. For the elements that had some fear of the powers of this office, they felt that a true populare might be tempted by the lure of easy nobility-becoming a leader of what they felt was a 'mob'. The risk of this situation grew as time went on and the condition in Rome's slums worsened and their population was almost overflowing.

In one of ancient Rome's more fascinating historical moments-both as a republic and an empire, two brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, the Gracchi brothers did indeed make attempts at massive reforms that would have benefitted Rome's poorest citizens. I found the tale of the Gracchi brothers to be very sad in many ways. It almost seems to me that the Gracchi could have been the ancient equivalent to many different kinds of men and women in the modern industrial age who have tried to help the condition of the poor, hungry and homeless in nations around the globe. The brothers were both well connected with the ruling elite, and descendants of Scipio Africanus who was famously known for defeating Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. It was Tiberius, in 133 BC and then Gaius, ten years later that used their tribunates to push for reforms to help the poor. Some of the radical measures they called for were that publicly held land be divided into allotments and handed out to the common folk; that corn be sold to them below the market rate; even, that the Republic should provide the poorest of its soldiers with clothes! The arisotocracy, predictably, was outraged. To most noblemen, there appeared to be something ignoble and sinister about the devotion of the Gracchi brothers to the people.

Tiberius was not the first among the aristocracy to be concerned with land reform, however his social class thought that his reforms went too far. Gaius Gracchus, more disturbingly, had a very revolutionary vision. This vision was of the Republic instilled with the values of Greek democracy. If Gaius' vision were to come to pass, the balance of power between the classes would be completely transformed, and the people, not the aristocratic nobility would be guiding the ship of state. The nobility of their time was left to wonder: How could any noblemen propose reforms such as these, unless their true goal was to establish themselves as a tyrant who ruled through the power of the mob? One of the events that hit them with particular alarm was the fact that Tiberius, having finished his year of office, had immediately sought re-election, and that Gaius, in 122 BC, had actually succeeded in obtaining a second successive tribunate. His peers could only wonder where the illegalities would end-if they were to end at all. The person who occupied the office of tribune was considered sacred in many ways, however the office of the tribunate or the person occupying that office was not as sacred as the preservation of the Republic itself. I hope to have the next post here very soon-Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -Winners and Losers Part Two

Polybius, the Greek historian stated: "The Romans themselves, find it impossible to say for sure whether the system is an aristocracy, a democracy, or a monarchy." In the Roman republic, whatever the true nature of their 'system' of government, one thing was for sure; if you were a citizen you 'mattered.' One thing that could make life a bit difficult for any politicians seeking public office was that the Roman electorate knew they counted for something. The most illustrious candidates for magistracies had to court the voters. It is a credit to the Republic that these canidates for magistracies did not feel any embarrassment in doing so. A strong component that many Roman voters shared was voting for nobility that had strong name recognition. The practical effect this had on many men who were elected to office was of the electorate voting for a particular nobility's whole lineage. A son would be elected after a father, a father after a grandfather and so on. In fact, the Republic's voters fed the nobility's dynastic pretensions time and time again.

The goals of the most downtrodden and poverty stricken citizens were not to change society, but to become a wealthier and more status laden member of it. Roman citizens appeared to have no problem with the inequalities of their society. The class struggle that had made the plebians equal to the patricians (in the area of attaining office and voting) was a memory of an almost forgotten past. This was an irony that was typical of the Republic. The plebians, with the abolition of legal restrictions on their advancement in 367 BC, had in effect castrated their own movement. When this decree was passed, wealthy plebian families had lost all incentive to side with the poor. In one of the continued turnabouts we see when history is examined, the wealthy plebian families were not much different at all to the poor plebian when compared to the former patrician oppressors. In fact, to a large degree, the wealthy plebs now ran the show. Magistracies that before 367 BC could only be held by members of the patrician class were now used to advance the careers and ambitions of plebian noblemen. The office of the tribunate was one in particular that afforded spectacular opportunities for grandstanding.

The tribunes had the renowned power of the "veto" over bills they disliked and added to that, they could convene public assemblies to pass bills of their own. As with all political offices it could be very unwise for a tribune to overstep the bounds of his office. The tribuante was a very paradoxical office in some ways. The office itself presented enormous opportunities for underhandedness. However, the unwritten rules of the office made it an almost sacred institution. Since ancient times the person of a tribune was inviolable, and anyone who crossed over the line and did lay their hands on one, was considered to have laid hands upon the gods themselves. In exchange for his much vaunted status a tribune was obliged never to leave Rome during his year in office, and always to keep an open house. The tribune had to pay close attention to people's complaints and hardships. He would have to listen to them whenever they stopped him on the street. A tribune was even obliged to read the graffiti on public monuments that either encouraged or discouraged him from passing new laws! No matter how ambitious at heart a man might be who chose to run for election to the tribunate, he could never afford to appear snobbish or uppity.

For anyone who stops by to read this blog-I still have more information that is ready to post-I am a lousy typist and just had to stop typing for the eve. I am still trying to come up with other information from other eras to post here-there are several other historical eras and questions of the hows and whys of empires I would like to do-I just dont have it all together yet. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -Winners and Losers Part One

Anyone stopping by might want to read the post below-I did that post in the early evening yesterday and it did not update on MFMs page and the posting time is wrong-just wanted to let anyone reading this blog that it is there. The divisions of class and status in Rome had roots in the myths of the city's beginning. The Aventine Hill, on the far side of Rome's southernmost valley was where the immigrants to the city lived. Facing the Aventine was a second hill called the Palatine. The differences between the two hills were like night and day. The Palatine, was by far the most exclusive of Rome's seven hills. In the midst of this most expensive of the world's real estate of the time, stood a humble shepherd's hut. This little hut was said to be the childhood home of Romulus, Rome's first king, and Remus, his twin. The ancient legend of the brothers said that both of them had decided to found a city. Romulus had decided to stand on the Palatine Hill, Remus on the Aventine. Remus had seen six vultures flying overhead, but Romulus had seen twelve. Romulus took this as a sign that the gods approved of his spot, and fortified the Palatine and name the new city after himself. Remus was overcome with jealousy and rage, and had ended up being murdered by his brother in a fight. From this time on the two hill's destinies were unalterable. The Palatine Hill was for winners, the Aventine for losers.

The polar opposites of success and failure were made manifest in the very geography of the city. These were also the poles around which Roman life revolved. There was nothing remotely like a modern middle class in ancient Rome. There were not the socioeconomic divisions that we see in many countries in the modern world in the ancient Republic. However, despite the vast chasm that divided the rich and the poor; the patrician and the plebian, there was a unique quality that Rome had. This ideal or quality could be symbolized by the Circus Maximus. The Circus Maximus ran the length of the entire valley between the Aventine and Palatine hills. The site had been used for chariot races since the time of the kings. Two hundred thousand citizens might fill this enormous place, its capacity is not equalled by any arena to this day. The spectacles viewed in this immense arena gave a sense of shared community to the citizens of Rome. Because of the nature of the two hills surrounding it, a senator might look down at the Circus from his sumptious villa and a shopkeeper from his humble shack and be reminded that whatever their differences in wealth and status, they were still citizens of the same republic.
I hope to have the next post here very soon, the information is actually ready to go-so it is more a question of computer connection-I also have a post at my other blog I would like to start today also, so I will see how time goes. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -The Background History Part Six

Already by the years 192 to 188 BC Rome was getting involved in Asia. The Republic had gone to war with Antiochus III, who had forced the Egyptians out of Syria and Palestine, after re-establishment of Seleucid rule in the campaign in Bactria. He was allied with the Aetolian League and wanted to obtain the Ptolemaic possessions in the Aegean and landed in Thessaly. After the defeat of Antiochus at Thermopylae in 191 BC, Rome won the battle of Magnesia over Antiochus. The Aetolian League was defeated in 189 BC by the seizure of Ambracia. In 188 BC, the Peace of Apamea required Antiochus to pay 15,000 talents in 12 annual installments and to surrender all warships to Rome. The possessions in Asia Minor, north of the Taurus were given to Rhodes and Pergamum, making them, as client states to the Romans, factors that extended her influence and provided a balance to the power of the Seleucid kingdom. Syria and Egypt, the two local powers, after witnessing this defeat quickly learned to put up with meddling Roman ambassadors and recognized Roman hegemony.

The extent and speed of Rome's rise to power was astonishing, although Rome's formal empire was still limited, being largely to Sicily, Macedon and parts of Spain. However, the actual extent of Rome's power by the 140s BC was in some new and strange lands, of which not many Romans had even heard of. There were many citizens of the Republic who felt a great sense of pride in Rome's achievements. However, many citizens also felt a sense of unease. Roman moralists, who had a history of always comparing Rome's present unfavorably with her past (as most moralists do), did not have to search far and wide to see the corrupting effects of empire. Anything from the plundered treasures of the East being bought and sold in Rome's marketplaces to the foreign languages and philosophies coming to her streets could evoke distress as well as pride. The salt of the earth peasant values that had helped Rome to become an empire never seemed more admirable, as when they were being neglected. "The Republic is founded on its ancient customs and its manpower," stated Cicero quoting Ennius in The Republic. This had been said with pride after the triumph against Hannibal. The startling transformation of the little city-state, from backwater to empire had unsettled some Romans and made them fearful of the jealousy of the gods.

There was an uncomfortable ambiguity with the Republic's interactions and empire building, as it seemed to be both a measure of Rome's success and decline at the same time. There were no lack of omens relating to Rome's possible destruction. As great as she had become, wonders-both natural and supernatural were said to have disturbed her citizens. If the omens were very troubling, the Sibyl's prophetic books would be consulted. For a long time it seemed that the proper interpretations and remedies were found in the oracular book. The Republic would be saved and the ancient customs of their ancestors would be preserved. Citizens could wonder-Would this always be the case? Was Rome really an 'eternal' city? The times-they were a changin, and soon some crises appeared that could not be averted or healed by ancient rituals. Rome's introduction to the stage of world history had set a chain of events in motion that were not easily slowed down or dealt with, even by consulting the ancient books of the Sibyl.

In a foretaste of what was to come, it was said that with the destruction of two of the greatest cities of the Meditteranean, Corinth and Carthage, that the Sibyl thought a curse put on Rome. This curse was born in the smoke and ruin of the two cities annihilation. It was said that Scipio had wept as he watched the fires in the midst of the crumbling walls of the once great city of Carthage-those fires burned for seventeen days. Perhaps, even at the time of the vanquishing of Rome's most feared enemy, when the world seemed like the Romans for the taking, Scipio could sense how fickle the hand of fate could be.

I had hoped to do more with this blog today-but time constraints really got to me. I do hope to be able to have the next post here very soon. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -The Background History Part Five

Slowly, Rome brought herself back from the edge of destruction. They held on to Sicily and eventually took over Carthage's empire in Spain. 15 years after Cannae, Hannibal fought another Roman army on North African soil. This time Hannibal was finally defeated. Hannibal urged his compatriots to accept Rome's terms of surrender. Hannibal had no wish to see Carthage destroyed utterly. Rome never forgot Hannibal or Carthage. Even after Rome had taken her naval fleet, her provinces and her much immortalized war-elephants, Rome still feared a Carthaginian revival. Centuries later statues of Hannibal were still standing in Rome. Hatred and fear such as this, was in a strange way, the highest compliment Rome could pay to a foreign competitor. Romans saw a lot of themselves in the strength and fighting spirit of their greatest foe.

Rome would never again let another power rise that could threaten her survival. Competition was not welcome and Rome felt perfectly within its rights taking offensive measures against other city-states and kingdoms. Before the war with Hannibal, Rome had started to project its influence in places where it could show who was the 'boss' so to speak. The occasional clashes between the Greek city-states seemed to be one area of the world that confused the Republic. This confusion was understandable considering the constant infighting between the Greeks. Rome did not act like a typical imperial power in its dealings with the Greek states. It would spring like a deadly cobra at times with its legions. For all the force of these unpredictable interventions, there were times when Rome seemed to have lost interest in its Hellenic neighbors completely. When Rome did interfere in Greek affairs, her interventions were represented as peacekeeping missions. The result was not the subjugation of the Greek states and the addition of territory, but the confirmation of Rome's preeminence and the prevention of any of the Greek states and kingdoms becoming too powerful in the region.

Macedon was the kingdom that had to deal most with Rome with Roman intervention in the Balkans. The country's king was heir to the throne of Alexander the Great and Macedon had dominated the peninsula for two hundred years. Macedon continued to try to assert herself in spite of bruising encounters with the Republic's armies. In 168 BC, Rome had enough of what it viewed as Macedonian provocations. At first Rome abolished the monarchy in Macedon and dissected the country into four client republics. Rome transformed itself from a 'peacekeeper' to an occupying power in Macedon in 146 BC, when it made Macedonia a Roman province. This happened after the Fourth Macedonian War or revolt. This revolt was led by a man who pretended to be the son of the last king, and was smashed by the Roman praetor Mettelus Macedonius. The Republic destroyed the city of Corinth, one of the leading cities of the revolt and put an end to the Greek resistance. With the destruction of Corinth, Rome could no longer be pretending it was on peacekeeping missions or subjugating the world in self-defense.

During the civil wars of the late Republic, Macedonian rule was thrown into doubt again. In this time period, while the Greek world was still under the control of the Romans, control of Macedon would see-saw between Pompey and then Caesar, and later Antonius and Cleopatra. It was only at the famous Battle of Actium in 31 BC, off the shores of Epirus, that Octavian, later to be known as Augustus Caesar, would return Rome's dominance of the Greek world under a single Roman leader. For anyone reading this blog I hope to return soon with more posts-I was able to get more work done on the history part of my work than I thought-here my lousy typing skills really have an effect. If I were a better typist I could have gone on in this post at least one if not two more paragraphs-although perhaps it is for the best as there was another change of nations Rome was dealing with. I am also continually trying to think up topics that do not involve Rome-but I think are very interesting and crucial to the discussion of empires and their rise and fall. One area among many that I would like to talk about is the competition between the Soviet and American empires after World War II-so if I can ever get this information together I hope to post it in between the posts about Rome. I tend to always come back to Rome -because-and I know it is cliche to say this-of its comparisons to modern day America. I am really shocked at some of the similarities and synchronicities. Well I have rambled quite enough-as I say I hope to post again very soon-in all likelihood it will be a continuation of Rome-but as I say I am trying to build information to talk about other nations and eras of history. Thanks for the wonderful comments and peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -The Background History Part Four

In order to do just this, Hannibal in 218 BC led a Carthaginian army from Spain, through southern Gaul and over the Alps. This in itself was an incredible feat and perhaps worth a post or two in this blog later on. Hannibal demonstrated a brilliance in military tactics and strategy that was far greater than his opponents. He brought three Roman armies to a stunning and horrific defeat. In the third of his victories, at Cannae, Hannibal completely wiped out eight Roman legions. This was the worst military defeat, by far, in the Republic's history. In the world of the time, by every expectation and custom of contemporary warfare, Rome at this point should have accepted Hannibal's victory and attempted to sue for peace. However, showing true Roman grit and absolute refusal to lose face with an enemy-even in the face of this utter catastrophe, the Republic refused to surrender or accept defeat.

In times of great crises, the Romans always looked for guidance in the prophecies of the Sibyl. The story of the Sybilline prophecies goes back in time before the Republic when Rome was ruled by kings. The story begins with the visit by an old woman to the tyrannical Tarquin, the last king of Rome. The great polymath of the late Republic, Varro, stated that the Tarquin visited by the Sibyl was Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of Rome, instead of the Tarquin mentioned here, who would be the seventh king of Rome and also the last. I thought this should be mentioned although it is not a crucial detail to the story here. The woman carried nine books with her. When she offered to sell these to Tarquin, he laughed in her face, as the price she was asking for them was so high. Making no attempt to offer a lesser price, the old woman simply left without a word. She burned three of the volumes and returned to the king, offering the rest at the same price as before. The king refused her offer once again, although this time with less assurance than before, and once again the old woman left without a word. The legend has it that by this time Tarquin was becoming anxious, as to what might be in the books. When the mysterious old woman came back a third time with only three books, the king bought them, even though he had to pay the same price she had asked for the original nine books. The old woman took her money and disappeared, never to be seen again.

Who was this woman? We will never know. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies in the three books, Romans thought she could have been only one person-the Sibyl. The legends of the Sibyl are not very helpful. Going by the belief that the Sibyl had foretold the Trojan War people thought that maybe she was made up of ten prophetesses, immortal and some doubted she existed at all. One thing we do know is that her books, inscribed with an antique Greek style of writing definitely existed. We also know that the Romans felt that the prophecies in them were so accurate that they consulted them in times of great distress and with the utmost respect. The prophecies of the Sibyl, at least the way the Romans read them, described a very curious 'solution' to the problem of Hannibal and Carthage. Two Gauls and two Greeks were to be buried alive in the cities marketplace. This act of barbarism affirmed that there was no length the Romans would not go to, to preserved Rome's freedom. To the Romans of this era the only alternative to liberty was indeed death.

I hope to have the next post for this blog here pretty soon-the next couple of days are going to be tough schedule wise and I am not feeling so great, but I am determined, as long as I have a net connection to never get so behind with this blog again-although I am not making any promises. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -The Background History Part Three

The alliances with other city-states in Italy and the mostly non-brutal, yet ultimately self-serving way in which they were done helped Rome grow dramatically in military and economic strength. By 275 B.C., Rome had become the largest state in Europe. Its area was 50,000 square miles from the Rubicon in northern Italy, to the straits of Messina off Italy's southern coast. 10 years after this, Rome began to reinforce its control of the entire western Meditteranean. The next phase in the building up of Rome's empire was a very rough one. To me it seems that Rome's rise rise from when it was a tiny city-state up until the time I am going to talk about now had been a comparitively easy road to become the dominant power of the surrounding areas. Indeed, by the 260s B.C. with surprising speed they had mastery over the entire Italian peninsula. However, the 'easy' days of Rome's conquests were about to end-in fact Rome would soon be engaged in a battle for its very survival. The wars with Carthage were the most devastating it ever fought. Carthage was a city of Semitic settlers on the North African coast. Carthage was mostly a maritime power and dominated the trade routes of the western Meditteranean. Carthage possessed resources as great as Rome's. For centuries Carthage had bouts of warfare with the Greek cities of Sicily. By this time Rome was poised beyond the Straits of Messina. This factor led to the Greeks on the island of Sicily getting the Romans involved with their continual disputes with Carthage.

Finally, in 264 B.C. Rome went to war with Carthage over a minor disagreement over treaty rights. Rome had no naval tradition to speak of and lost many fleets to the enemy and storms. Despite this, Rome tolerated more than twenty years of huge numbers of casualties to finally achieve victory over Carthage. The terms of the peace treaty imposed on Carthage required them to withdraw from Sicily. In 227 B.C. Sicily was made a Roman province. I think this action is very important, as others of this type because it relates to one of my major questions about empires-Do some empires arise accidentally? When Rome took over Carthage and made Sicily a province, she found herself the beginnings of an overseas empire without ever planning it this way.

This was by no means to be the last Rome would hear of Carthage. With Sicily lost, Carthage next turned her attention on Spain. The Carthaginians began to mine for the riches in precious metals Spain possessed. It wasn't an easy go for the Carthaginians, as they had to brave bloodthirsty tribes who were encamped all over the mountainous regions of Spain. The venture turned out to be worth its weight in gold (no pun intended) for Carthage. The flow of new wealth from the Spanish mines led Carthage to think about resuming its conflict with Rome. This time Carthage's generals and military strategists were suffering from no illusions about the strength and indomitable will of the enemy they faced. If they were to contemplate making war with Rome, victory would be impossible unless the Republic was destroyed.

Empires: Rome -The Background History Part Two

Rome was over 700 years old when the Republic died. By this time Rome was already an empire by the time the first emperor took the purple. In spite of the calamity of the civil war, Rome's confidence in dealing with the outside world remained unshaken. The idea of appeasement and passivity when dealing with other nations and city-states was alien to Roman thinking. Over the years the Roman Empire had grown dramatically. There were some very interesting paradoxes and inconsistencies with the way Rome grew from a tiny backwater under a king, then a small republic, then a republic that managed an empire and of course an empire ruled by imperial caprice. Some of these Roman Emperors were truly horrible human beings. There is a period of imperial history, roughly from 98 AD to 180 AD, sometimes called the time of the "Five Good Emperors" that I would like to talk about in this blog eventually. The story of Hadrian, one of the 'good' Emperors and Antinous is posted on my other blog. Had I known I would try to manage two blogs, I would have posted about Hadrian and Antinous on this blog, although even though I want to have a lot about fascinating people in history on this blog, I can't possibly go into the depth of their personalities and personal lives that I did in that series and still keep the focus on the main things I want to talk about here.

Getting back to some of the anomalous ways that Rome grew from a tiny city-state to hyperpower status. Romans could be utterly barbaric in their conquests and wars they fought as their power grew. In fact, the Roman military machine was feared, eventually- as few if any others of its time were. One could tell if an uppity province or kingdom had chosen to fight Rome rather than acquiesce to her might. The decapitated heads and limbs of not just every living human being in some towns and villages would be found, but also the headless and limbless bodies of cows, horses, dogs, sheep and pigs. The Roman death machine killed every living thing with a brutal and chilling efficiency. However, Janus-like, there was an entirely different face to Roman imperialism in many cases. Rome became known for its generosity, especially towards refugees from the Italian peninsula. There is a historical legend that the early Romans agreed to incorporate the neighboring Sabines into the city in order to avoid a conflict over Roman kidnapping of Sabine women. In 56 B.C. Cicero wrote, "What is most responsible for the establishment of the Roman Empire and the fame of the Roman people is that Romulus, the founder of the city, instructed us by his treaty with the Sabines that the state should be increased even by the admission of enemies to the Roman citizenship. Our ancestors through his authority and example never ceased to grant and bestow the citizenship."

Sometimes instead of annihilating the cities and towns of conquered peoples, Rome offered them peace treaties, that were wisely almost never refused. Largely, the terms of the treaties were quite simple. The conquered cities or nations could keep their own leaders and live under their own laws. The two basic conditions the defeated peoples would have to follow were: 1) They could trade freely with Rome, but not with each other. With this condition in place the smaller city-states quickly became economically dependent on Rome. 2) The second condition, which was a very important one also, that fed Rome's military machine and Roman imperialism was that the conquered states had to provide Rome with troops. The image is of a Roman mosaic in the British Museum in London. Keeping on keeping on here, I so wish I had started this blog differently-with more of an outline to go by. I think I should have had so much more background information posted before attempting a series about a group of people, but its too late to start again-unless there is some way I can save the Cleopatra series to drafts. I think I will just leave it the way it is and hopefully as time goes by everything will come together. In this blog I would like to discuss many different great powers, empires, hyperpowers in all different historical eras. Hopefully the internet will remain a free place long enough to get to these different epochs. In some ways I would like to compare various powers from different eras of time and the way they dealt with the states they absorbed or conquered-and in the case of the Soviet empire and a few others-neither situation really happened completely. So perhaps I will find a way to do some posts comparing major powers from all different eras in a series of posts. I would also like to focus on a lot more than how major powers and empires dealt with conquered territories-with posts about economics and all of the other issues I mentioned at the beginning of this blog. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Hyperpowers & The Rise to Global Dominance

Every nation or society that has become dominant on a global scale throughout history, no matter what other great differences between them, have one thing in common: tolerance, to put it simply. Here I am not talking about the 'Great Powers' or even 'superpowers', but those few times in history when a state achieves global dominance.

With the collapse of communism and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new word came into being, hyperpower, to describe the preeminence of the United States in world affairs. Hubert Vedrine, France's foreign minister, coined the word. When Vedrine stated that France "cannot accept a politically unipolar world, nor a culturally uniform world, nor the unilateralism of a single hyperpower", he was being a very upfront critic of the United States. In the foreign minister's view, and that of many others, America had achieved not only military, economic, and also technological superiority, but also a "domination of attitude, concepts, language and modes of life."

In the world of 2009 America's being "dominant in all categories" is not as true as when these words were spoken by foreign minister Vedrine in 1999. The United States is still the predominant economic and military power on the planet. However, the great ship United States of America is starting to take on water on many fronts, not sinking-or maybe even flooding yet, but massive problems are starting to plague the U.S. The economy started to tank badly in the last half of 2008 and as of the date of this post things are only getting worse, with massive layoffs and joblessness adding to the already huge problems of the financial crisis. The United States is running huge deficits and pouring billions of dollars into a 'war' it may not win. American prestige and its reputation around the globe is badly damaged. As of the date I began to write this post, 5 Feb 2009, it seems each new day brings more bad news to the United States.

I think the question of whether America continues to try to dominate global affairs and can retain its 'hyperpower' status is one of huge importance, for not only Americans, but people the world over. Are some of the actions America is taking around the world threatening global peace and stability? I often wonder in a strange twist of fate or destiny, if America's hugely powerful role in the world as its only 'hyperpower' is going to be the cause of its bankruptcy-both moral and fiscal and the ultimate cause of its downfall. I also wonder about what a future global order will look like. While America struggles, other nations and power blocs are emerging-although these powers have massive problems of their own. Taken as a whole, the European Union has a gross domestic product almost equal to that of the United States and a larger population. After centuries of quiescence, China is booming economically (although with the current global financial crisis this may slow a bit) and starting to assert herself more in world affairs. The 2008 Beijing Olympics showcased the 'new' China to the world. China also has a fifth of the world's population. Perhaps China, the European Union, India and Russia in cooperation with other smaller nations and power blocs could begin to form the basis for a multi-polar world again. In the case of the EU or China, maybe one or both of them could become the new hyperpower on the planet.

I also think it would be helpful to have as exact a definition as possible of what s hyperpower is. For the purposes of this blog I largely if not completely agree with Professor Amy Chua, author of Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance and Why They Fall. Mrs. Chua is the John Duff Jr. Professor of Law at Yale Law School. She is also the author of World on Fire and an expert in the fields of international business, ethnic conflict and globalization. Later in this series I would like to say a few things about why Professor Chua is the 'perfect' author for a book like Day of Empire and also why she would have an excellent take on why 'tolerance' and the acceptance and even assimilation of other peoples, religions and philosophies is the critical ingredient for a state to become a hyperpower. When Amy Chua talks about 'tolerance' in the sense she does in her book, she does not mean tolerance in the modern human rights sense of the word. Tolerance in her view on the rise of a state to hyperpower status just means "letting very different kinds of people live, work and prosper in your society-even if only for instrumental or strategic reasons."

The three conditions Professor Chua proposes for a nation or empire to have hyperpower status are: 1) Its power clearly surpasses that of all its known or known to it, as of course in the world of the day Rome had almost no contact with another great empire of the time, Han dynasty China,contemporary rivals. 2) It is not clearly inferior in economic or military strength to any other power on the planet, known to it or not. 3) It projects its power over so great an area of the world and over such a large population that it breaks the bounds of local and even regional domination.
The image is of Professor Amy Chua. Thanks again for anyone reading this blog to stick with me! I have so many varied interests that I do not seem to be able to keep up with everything and everybody at once. I do hope to start using the extra time I have-as my other faster moving blog has a lot of future work done for it-to continue getting this blog caught up. I may seem to be going in several different directions with this blog-but I am keeping it all about Empires and Hyperpowers. I definitely want to come back to Rome very soon and would like to do more studies of Amy Chua's book-I think this book is just what I needed to get my thinking going with a lot of questions I had for this blog. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -The Background History Part One

To anyone reading this blog-thanks so much for bearing with me. I could not have been more clumsy with the way I have handled this series and should have had more of an outline of things drawn out, as far as what I wanted to accomplish with this blog. For a figure as pivotal as Julius Caesar, I should have had much more background on Roman history before introducing him in the Cleopatra series. The Roman Republic was never a true democracy where all were equal. Only slaves were truly equal in Roman society. Equality and freedom were very different things to Romans. The things that were dear to most Roman citizens in the Republic were competition to get wealth and status. One's success in life was measured by money and votes. The Republic was also a superpower. Its influence and extent was new in Western history. The history of Rome, I think is very telling, especially with regard to the United States-perhaps now more than ever, as we seem to be stumbling quite a bit and seem to have lost our way in regards to what we stand for and where we want to go. History, to me anyway, has this strange way of seeming so alien and utterly foreign-yet suddenly a person or an event or a series of events and a group of people will come along that cause me to examine historical events in a new light. I often find myself thinking, 'Yes this has happened before.'

Ronald Syme, the great Oxford classicist, saw parallels in the "Roman revolution" of the age of the Caesars and how it foretold the age of the fascist and communist dictators. There is a long tradition in people who study history of putting ancient Rome under the microscope. Perhaps this started with Machiavelli, who saw in the history of his native city of Florence and the namesake of its evil menace, Cesare Borgia, a certain repetition of history when he wrote, "Prudent men are wont to say-and this not rashly or without good ground-that he who would foresee what has to be should reflect on what has been, for everything that happens in the world at anytime has a genuine resemblance to what happened in ancient times."

Rome was also the first and until very recently, in historical terms the only republic to become a world power. When the Republic fell it had a rather garish, disturbing and yet at times heroic face. Only a short time after Rome became and empire, scribes and historians of that time could only ask longingly about what had happened. The time of the giants or "great men' had already begun to seem like a long ago golden age. Velleius Paterculus, the panegyrist of the Emperor Tiberius, wrote, "It seems an almost superfluous task, to draw attention to an age when men of such extraordinary character lived." More than 2,000 years after the death of the Republic maybe we can come to a better understanding of our modern 'age of empires' by taking a look at the astonishing cast of characters and events that make up most of what we can know about ancient Rome. I hope to be back soon with more about Julius Caesar and the background history of the world from which he came. I think for the next post or two I would like to break up this series with some posts that are still very relevant to our story and the overall purpose of this blog. I am actually quite happy with this new information and look forward to having the first post of the new series here tomorrow if nothing prevents me from posting it. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Cleopatra and the Romans Part Six

Many writings are attributed to Cleopatra and with her intellectual prowess and knowledge of languages it is very probable that she wrote treatises, opinions and other documents that show her wide knowledge of the world around her. Other works attributed to her are essays on weights and measures, coinage, alchemy, medicine. The works she is said to have authored about gynecology and cosmetics reflect her femininity. The treatise on cosmetics was widely quoted by Roman writers. This is very interesting because of an archaeolgical discovery at En Boquet near the Dead Sea. This discovery was of a cosmetics workshop that was originally constructed in the time of Herod the Great, and the area it was in came under Cleopatra's rule when it was presented to her by Mark Antony. Although a lot of work attributed to Cleopatra witnessed her femininity, many other things also attributed to her show that she was more than capable of competing with the men of her time. It doesn't matter much in the light of history whether she wrote them or not-just the fact that these attributions were made tells us that her intellect and expertise in a great variety of subjects were recognized by powerful people in the world of her day. It could not have escaped Cleopatra's attention that 'men who mattered' such as Julius Caesar, recorded their deeds for posterity and I think she most likely did the same thing.

Continuing on with our story here, I would like to examine Julius Caesar and the Rome of his day. Crossing the Rubicon is still a phrase that is used after 2,000 years since the event that gave birth to it. When Gaius Julius Caesar crossed that unremarkable river with soldiers from his 13th Legion in 49 B.C., he not only caused war, but also started the ending of Rome's ancient freedoms and began the transformation of Rome from a Republic to an Empire. With this event, an era of history came to an end. At one time there had been free cities throughout the Meditteranean. In the Hellenic world and Italy also, these cities wee inhabited by men who identified themselves as free citizens, not as the subjects of a king, king of kings, or a pharaoh. These men proudly talked of the values and rights that distinguished them from slaves. Free speech, private property and rights before the law were all treasured. Over time, however, with the rise of empires, first those of Alexander the Great and his successors, and then of Rome, the freedom and independence of people like these had been extinguished. In the first century before Christ, there was only one free city left-that was Rome. After Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Republic died and no free cities existed at all.

With the death of the Republic a thousand years of civic self-government were brought to an end, and it would be over a thousand more years before it would live again. During the 1920s and 1930s when republics everywhere were collapsing and dying, parallels with ancient Rome were brought up by those commenting on the spectacle. To point out how history seems to continually repeat itself I would like to share this quote by Adolph Hitler: "The brown shirt would probably not have existed without the black shirt. The march on Rome was one of the turning points of history." In this quote Hitler was referring to Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome which Mussolini propagandized as the myth of a 'heroic' Caesar-like attempt to bring back the glory of the ancient regime.
To anyone who reads either of my blogs-I am sorry this blog is moving so very slow. I have so many varied interests that keeping everything going is a bit rough sometimes. At my other blog, I already have the next two series of posts written out and hope to start the next series Thursday at MFM, hopefully this will give me some time to catch this blog up. I will try not to stray to far from our immediate story here, but do not be surprised if you see posts about other eras of history in between this series. I am definitely keeping this blog only about historical subjects-and mainly about the rise and fall of empires, power blocs and nations. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!