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 -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 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!

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 Four

In one of the many great ironies of history, it was Cleopatra who supported Pompey the Great in his war with Julius Caesar when she began her political alliance with Rome. Caesar pursued Pompey and attacked Ptolemy XIII (Cleopatra's brother) for harboring him. Ptolemy expelled his sister, Cleopatra, because his position was made more fragile by these attacks and he did not want to give Cleopatra a chance to take advantage of his weakened position. Cleopatra tried to raise an army during her exile in Arabia and Palestine. Contemporary coins minted at Ascalon (a coastal city in what is now modern Israel) show this. However, before anything could happen, a clash between Caesar and Pompey became the focus of attention. Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalus in Thessaly in 48 B.C. Caesar then restored Cleopatra to Egypt's throne. By this time they were already lovers. Cleopatra, very smartly, used this personal and political alliance with Julius Caesar and Rome to expand her sphere of influence outside of Egypt. Cleopatra's power was greatly reinforced when she became the mother of Caesar's only son, Caesarion, in 47 B.C.

When Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C., Cleopatra then entered into a political alliance with Mark Antony that had even greater consequences. Again she extended her power by becoming the mother of Mark Antony's twins, Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios in 41 B.C. and whom he recognized in 37 B.C. Yet a third child, Ptolemy Philadelphus was born in 36 B.C. During this personal and political alliance Mark Antony returned part of the old Ptolemaic empire, including Cyrenaica (the eastern coastal region of Libya) to Egyptian rule. In 34 B.C., Antony and Cleopatra received additional 'donations', which consisted of all the lands once ruled by Alexander the Great. Antony appointed Cleopatra and her children to rule over them. This made Cleopatra "Queen of Kings" and her son Ptolemy Caesar (Caesarion) "King of Kings". Their domain now included not only Egypt, but also the entire empire east and west of the Euphrates, including Cyrenaica.

These generous 'gifts' to Cleopatra put Mark Antony's loyalty to Rome in doubt. The Roman Senate even refused to approve of them. Octavian (Augustus Caesar) was able to make use of Antony's autocratic style and a vicious propaganda war ensued between them. Perhaps the couple thought that Cleopatra's vast wealth, army and naval fleet would protect them. Antony also had a few senatorial friends left in Rome. However, when the contents of Antony's will were made known, first by former allies, then read by Octavian to the Senate himself, the balance of power shifted greatly in favor of Ocatvian. It is not known if the contents of the will were even true and may have been fabricated by Antony's enemies. The Roman people already had suspicions about Mark Antony. Yet when they heard about the will giving Roman land to Egypt, Antony recognizing Caesarion as Caesar's son and that Mark Antony intended to be buried in Alexandria rather than Rome, they claimed to be shocked and demanded war. When the populace demanded war this played right into Octavian's hands. The result of this was Octavian meeting Mark Antony and Cleopatra on the seas near Actium. This led to a great victory for Octavian and the double suicides of Antony and Cleopatra in Alexandria. These are the broad facts of the story. Now I want to go a little further by examining Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian's personalities and interactions in a little more depth. I hope anyone stopping by has enjoyed this small series. I hope to have the next post about it here very soon. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Cleopatra and the Romans Part Three

Cleopatra was born to Ptolemy XII in 69 B.C. In the old tradition she married her two brothers Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV in succession. These were marriages in name only. The boys were younger than Cleopatra, and were not in very good health. We wonder if Cleopatra realized early on that her brothers lacked her strength and that she would have to find a completely different type of man to make Egypt an even greater kingdom than it already was.

Rome and Egypt had interacted before Cleopatra's reign. Sulla had a great deal to do with Ptolemy XI being installed as Egypt's king. However, he was overthrown. The father of Cleopatra, Ptolemy XII was chosen by the Alexandrian court to replace him. Ptolemy XII and his wife, Cleopatra V appeared to have continued the Ptolemaic tradition of living the good life which drained Egypt's wealth. They made good relations with Rome one of their highest goals. The royal couple's extravagant spending and their love of Rome was not welcome to the Alexandrians, who then proceeded to remove them from power. However, considerable effort was put in trying to put them back on their thrones by Rome. Three Romans were trying to make Egypt a Roman possession at this time. Pompey the Great who had just had a major victory over the Seleucids thought that if he was able to achieve victory over the Ptolemies, that his usurpation of Egypt and it's enormous treasury would give him a great power base. Pompey's fellow triumvirs, Crassus and Caesar had the same ideas. As the three me tried to make Egypt a Roman province or possession their attemps ended up effectively nullifying each other's striving for victory. Cato the Younger, also an ambitious Roman, defeated Ptolemy XII's younger brother, also called Ptolemy, who had ruled over Cyprus, and then proceeded to commit suicide after his loss.

Ptolemy XII was blamed for losing Cyprus. He then fled to the island of Rhodes and left most of his family behind. Cleopatra VI of Tryphaena was appointed queen. However, Ptolemy XII's second daughter, Berenice IV was considered to be in control in some areas of Egypt. This situation was good for the two sisters only for a small time. Cleopatra, while all of this was going on enjoyed seeing the world with her father in exile. I wonder if this is part of what began her fascination with other nations and languages. The royal exiles eventually mad their way back to Alexandria. Ptolemy XII's wife seems to have died of natural causes; he ordered the murder of his eldest daughter for trying to take his throne. This did gain Ptolemy XII back the throne of Egypt, however it bankrupted both his authority and wealth. Ptolemy XII began a personal decline from which he never recovered.

These events led to a power vacuum and a power struggle behind the scenes for the throne of Egypt. It is believed that Ptolemy XII wanted to be succeeded by his eldest living daughter (Cleopatra VII-'our' Cleopatra) and his eldest living son. The reality of this situation was far different than he would have hoped. The daughter and the son were competing for power and supported by different factions. Cleopatra was more competent than her brother, but the tendency towards patriarchy in Ptolemaic society led to co-rule. Ptolemaic society was not as tilted towards patriarchy as other societies and nations of the day were. The image is of Ptolemy XII, Cleopatra's father. I hope to have the next post here very soon, tomorrow if all goes well. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Cleopatra and the Romans Part Two

The Ptolemies ruled over a nation of vast wealth. The production of grain in Egypt alone, made it the largest producer of grain in the Meditteranean. Egyptians also produced papyrus, wool, salt, cloth, perfume and oil. These were made in royal factories. However the local merchants, artisans and tradesmen benefited from Egypt's becoming a nation that circulated substantive coinage. Egypt would not have had coinage without Greek leadership because Egyptians believed gold belonged to the gods, not to commerce and industry. The Ptolemies inherited a splendid harbor at Alexandria which they enhanced with a magnificent lighthouse. The Ptolemies established the world's largest and most comprehensive library at Alexandria. This was next to a museum for teaching and learning. Each new generation added a new part to the Ptolemaic palace, resulting in a structure that seemed to twist and turn endlessly.

The Egyptian priesthood gave its members status and a leadership position in Egyptian society. The Ptolemies put considerable effort and resources to building a re-building temples. The priesthood was also hereditary and under Cleopatra the high priests of Memphis were influential. The priests performed their duties at cult sites honoring the traditional Greek divinities, Alexander the Great and the Ptolemaic dynasts. Cleopatra and her brothers were regarded as the intermediaries between the Egyptian gods and the Egyptian people. But it was the priests who had the duties of maintaining the order and sanctity of the Egyptian universe. These gods were not only worshipped in temples, but also in private guilds, clubs and homes. Because the Ptolemies were seen as gods themselves there was a very close relation between them and the Egyptian priesthood. The Ptolemies were right alongside the pantheon of Egyptian gods. Cleopatra was a genuine goddess and shared this status with other family members.

The royal burial ground was near the palace in the reign of Ptolemy I Soter. It would of course be used for the interment of the remains of the newly minted dynasty. Ptolemy I, showing the good mind for business that almost all of his family seemed to possess planned to make it into a tourist attraction! His plan was bold. He must have been thinking, "Wouldn't having Alexander the Great's body buried within Alexandria's city walls make it a wonderful attraction." However, Alexander's body was on it's way to his homeland in Macedon. Ptolemy pirated the corpse and had it taken back to Alexandria. Having the remains of Alexander the Great inside the city made it a stopping point for untold numbers of people. The interest in it continued into Roman times. Octavian (Augustus Caesar) himself made a pilgrimage to see it and one wonders if his own inclinations towards starting a dynasty began with seeing how the Ptolemies carried out their plans. The image is of Apollodorus unwrapping Cleopatra before an astonished Julius Caesar. There is a very interesting story behind this that will come later. I should point out that it appears that not all historians are convinced of its veracity. I hope to have the next post here very soon, maybe even tomorrow if all goes well. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Cleopatra and the Romans Part One

A lot of my thinking about empires and the study of the personalities behind them always seems to return to Alexander the Great and the empire he forged during his very short time on earth. He seems to me to be a kind of archetype, when I think about the men who would build empires in later times. Many of the later Roman emperors tried to emulate him. To start this new series I do not want to begin with him, although I do want to talk about him later, but I do want to start with a group of people, one of whom ruled a nation aas a direct result of Alexander the Great's conquests. This person was Cleopatra who was the most powerful woman in the first century before Christ. The Ptolemaic dynasty that she had been born into traced it's history back to Alexander. After Alexander's death in 323 B.C., his empire was divided between his loyal generals. Ptolemy I Soter was a childhood friend of Alexander, a great general and also a writer who helped record the life of Alexander as well as his own. Thus the Ptolemaic dynasty he began in Egypt was not Egyptian, but Macedonian. In the 50 years after Alexander's death, Macedon and the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires were the most succesful. The three were rival empires and vied for Greece, Syria and Palestine. However, it wasn't in the art of war that their competition reached its peak. These empires tried to outshine each other in the cultural and artistic realms. There was fierce competition to have the more ostentatious palaces and libraries. The Ptolemies had no peer in luxurious living and conspicuous consumption. Alexander founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt in 323 B.C. and this was also where the unparalleled Library of Alexandria was.

The Ptolemaic dynasty established in Egypt brought considerable stability. Not only did the city of Alexandria grow, but other regions in Egypt as well. The Ptolemies did base the structure of their rule on the previous 30 centuries of Pharahonic governance. This was a large bureaucracy that had to be run at both the small and large levels as a great deal of government and bureaucratic work was totally involved with what the annual flooding of the Nile would bring. The Ptolemies were very smart in the way they governed Egypt and did not take down succesful, pre-existing structures, but only made slight changes when they were called for. It was a very inflexible and hieratic dynasty thay placed Cleopatra and her brothers at the top. They were viewed in the same way as their pharaonic forebears.

The Macedonian Greek heritage of the Ptolemies made Egypt a very important part of the Hellenistic world. Egypt was the richest and longest lasting of Alexander the Great's decision to divide his empire between his loyal generals. When Egypt fell to Rome, Egypt was considered to be too precious to be governed by the Roman Senate. Egypt to a large degree became Rome's bread basket and was made an imperial province. Augustus kept his watchful eye on Egypt and entrusted his new possession to only equestrian leadership. The equestrians were a distinct order of Knights between the Senate and the plebs. The people picked by the Emperor to run Egypt had only him to answer to and not the Senate.

The rule of Ptolemaic Egypt was a family run affair. In Ptolemaic Egypt brothers married their sisters. This could have been inspired by the ancient Egyptian mythology of Isis and Osiris. This practice gave the Ptolemaic princesses authority that few ancient women had. The brothers were always named Ptolemy and the sisters were named Cleopatra, Arsinoes and Berenices. Royal titles emphasized family relations. Philometor and Philopator meant mother and father loving respectively. Philadelphus meant brother and sister loving. The ruling father always named his son as his successor and also married their choice to their sister. The incestuous way this was carried out ensured predictability during times of succcession. But it didn't always guarantee loyalty between family members, as we will see in Cleopatra's case. The image is a mosaic of Alexander the Great. I hope to have the next part to the story here very soon-perhaps tomorrow if time permits. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Rome: Republic to Empire

For some background to the posts that I hope to have here in the very near future, I thought it would be good to talk about a little Roman history. Rome was initially similar to other Meditteranean cities. It became a state by absorbing the surrounding areas of Italy. Rome grew into an empire by expanding its reach to the limits of the known world at the time. The political center of that empire grew, and for the ancients was the greatest city ever known. Greek commentators like Polybius and others praised the excellences of it's constitution and the cohesiveness of it's social order. In Rome, all of it's citizens served in the legions, paid taxes, elected the magistrates, made the laws and even decided on such questions as peace and war. Politics was everyone's business it was the res publica.

The reality of the situation was that it was easy to see that a certain class of privileged individuals held more political power than the mass of the citizenry. This class would have excluded foreigners, women and slaves. The censors kept an eye on the fortune and honor of each citizen; regulated his role in political life along with his military and fiscal contributions. The wealthiest citizens and those fortunate enough to be born into Rome's aristocratic families formed an oligarchy which split among itself the offices of magistrate, military commander and priest. The power struggles between patricians and plebeians in the early years of the republic had led to an expansion of this 'nobility'. In the later republic it was very rare for this class to open itself up to 'new men'. These were usually men who had shown great military talents and sometimes political ones.

The Roman city-state was first and foremost a community of warriors. The existence of universal military service meant that citizens could be mobilized between the age of seventeen and sixty. This distinguished Rome in a very important way from Carthage and the Hellensitic kingdoms who only had mercenaries. The defeated powers also provided soldiers for Rome's further conquests.

The Senate intially controlled Rome's expansionist tendencies, which were bound up with it's desire to ensure it's own security. The Senate during the republic was sort of a permanent council made up of former magistrates. The Senate's duties also included receiving ambassadors and ruled over allocation of the budget. Rome's early conquests were confined to Italy. Through the elaboration of a variety of diplomatic contacts with thee Italian peninsula's ethnically and culturally heterogenous communities, and in organizing the Italian geographical area by building roads and founding colonies, Rome laid the groundwork for unification which Hannibal's political strategy did little to damage. When Hannibal presented himself as the liberator of Italy, he was only able to win the support of a section of the Campanians. More than a million Italians acceded to Roman citizenship after the Social War. This revolutionized the structures of the city for good.

When Rome attacked Carthage, which controlled the western Meditteranean, it was entering a conflict with incalculable consequences. It was the first military intervention as a sea power and it's first outside of Italy. The Second Punic War extended the field of battle to Sicily, Spain, Africa, parts of the Greek world and Italy. The Third Punic War showed that Rome was capable of destroying anyone who fought her power. Rome conquered Carthage and also established her power over the Hellenistic kingdoms. The profits from these conquests were so great that after 167 B.C., Romans no longer paid any direct taxes. However, social tensions were growing. Rome had to modify it's conditions for recruiting soldiers under Marius, and the way in which Rome allocated important military commands were also changed in the first century B.C. The economic and social system began to come under a great deal of strain and the cohesion of the political system diminished, despite attempts at reform such as those of the Gracchi. The clash of ambitions between the military leaders who had dominated parts of the East(Sulla,Pompey) and the West (Julius Caesar) led to the Empire. This was just a very, very short bit about Roman history. I want to do a lot more with Roman history in the future and the coming series touches on quite a bit of it. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!