The Jewish War Josephus: Book Review

January 28, 2024 by Tim Robson in Ancient Rome, Roman Empire

In which Tim discusses this detailed record of one of Rome’s most hard fought campaigns in the first century AD. 21st Century relevance alert!

The destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem in AD70 was the climax of a bitter siege by the Romans under Titus as they sought to end the Jewish rebellion. It is a seminal episode in history that started the process of scattering the Jews away from their own homeland. This had a mournful effect throughout the following two millennia. Those echoes still reverberate today.

The author, Josephus, was a Jewish priest who turned rebel general in the uprising against the Romans in the AD60’s before switching sides, eventually working with the Romans against the Zealots holed up in Jerusalem.

The Jewish War is a detailed book which traces the origins of the first century Jewish rebellion against their Roman masters. The first part deals with the history of the Jews from the second century BC. Lots of Antipaters and Herods (there seem to be about only three names in Judea!) back stabbing each other. On top of the palace intrigues, overlay Roman general Pompey who conquers Judea as a side hustle in his battle to defeat Mithridates in the 60’s BC. The Romans impose their own dynasty onto the Jews and now we have Herod the Great and his family added to the mix. Over the next hundred years or so, there’s more backstabbing, incompetent and venal Roman governors, lots of Jewish in-fighting - both political and religious - until we hit the mid 60’s AD and the whole thing kicks off.

Rome had a major rebellion on its hands.

Nero appointed Vespasian to command the Roman forces to put down the insurrection. His force consisted of four regular legions supplemented by local levies from the allied kingdoms around Judea. Vespasian was supported by his son Titus. When Nero was overthrown in 68AD, Vespasian left the conflict to pursue his own imperial ambitions (he became emperor in 69AD) and it was Titus that conducted the final stages of the war including the climatic siege of Jerusalem.

Like Caesar in his Gallic Commentaries and Civil War books, Josephus is a participant in the events but - in the main - prefers to write about himself in the third person. It’s a literary device that tends to obscure bias but, that aside, the narrative is gripping as the Romans slowly, slowly, bring the province to heel. There’s sieges and battles, ambushes and massacres on both sides. It’s brutal. There’s zealotry (yes, the religious fanatics are indeed called Zealots!) there’s stupidity, venality amidst the chaos as well as great feats of organised warfare from the Roman legions as they close in on the Temple.

The Temple is burnt - according to Josephus - by accident, by the stubbornness of the zealots, against the wishes of Titus and the Romans moving in for the kill as the siege gradually comes to an end. The people of Jerusalem are main victims; hemmed in between the Zealots who won’t let them leave and the Romans who have to take the city. Innocents always suffer when the dogs of war are let loose.

For anyone interested in Roman history, I would recommend this book. You will be immersed into a small corner of the empire, how the army operated as well as constantly being reminded that the cities and provinces where the action takes place so long ago are still very much part of an evolving history.

What do I conclude?

The over-riding feeling I got from reading this book, is the unchanging aspect of human nature. The Jews and Romans of 2000 years ago are no different from ourselves. These days we blithely tend to follow the maxim that the past is a foreign country and that they do things differently there. However, I’m tempted to disagree; the actors may change but the play remains the same. The people who inhabited the Roman world are all too recognisable.

So my takeaway from this detailed book - which gives really useful information about the two hundred years around the birth of Christ (and yes, Jesus seems to be a common Jewish name too!) - is that for all our progress materially since the first century AD, we are just one small step away from brutality always.

It’s a sobering thought.

A gold Aureus struck by Septimius Severus in 193AD. Due to their rarity, gold coins were less debased.

Inflation - Roman Style

September 03, 2022 by Tim Robson in Ancient Rome, Economics, Roman Empire

On his deathbed in York, Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (193-211) gathered his two sons and co-heirs around him to give them some advice about running the vast empire when he was gone:

"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn all others"

A bit harsh but Severus had been a successful Roman soldier/emperor – leading the imperial armies to defeat multiple foes both internally and externally whilst expanding the Empire in Africa, Persia and Scotland (1). He’d enlarged the army during his reign and given them a substantial pay rise. But where did the money come from to pay for this?

Answer: He debased the currency by reducing the silver content in the Roman coinage – the denarii – from 78.5% to 54%. This enabled him to cheaply expand the money supply to meet his priorities (pay the troops). In the years that followed his death, the Roman Empire was, predictably, racked with inflation.

Let’s pause here and ask a question…

Is there anything instructive to be learnt now - in 2022 - from the example set by Septimius back in 211? Something that perhaps addresses the issue of governments thoughtlessly expanding the money supply to meet some perceived emergency need?

My contention is, whether you wear a toga or a smartly tailored suit, the lessons of economics apply equally and always. The same rules apply. There is nothing new under the sun. And yet in our arrogance and ignorance, we forget. “Things are different now,” we bleat pathetically as the waves - commanded to cease - roll remorselessly past our gilded thrones. (2)

To meet increased expenditure all governments - ancient or modern - have the same list of choices to finance that expenditure. The options are as follows:

Don’t do it
Cut expenditure elsewhere
Raise taxes
Borrow the money
Debase the currency

The order I put these five options is - of course - often inverted by politicians. The first three are hard and have real time accountability. The latter two postpone the pain and push it into the future. Guess which options politicians increasingly favour? (3)

Back to the Third Century

Septimius unwittingly set in motion a series of disasters for the next seventy years as short-lived Roman emperors grappled with both inflation but also with invasions, plague, and endless civil wars. Whereas English historian Edward Gibbon might say the mid second century AD was the best time in history to be alive, the third century most certainly was not (4).

The 3rd century story is a depressingly familiar one.

Following Septimius’ death, his two sons didn’t live harmoniously together, quarrelled, and Caracalla killed Geta going on to become one of Rome’s worst emperors. His decision to expand citizenship to all peoples of the empire – sometimes painted as a noble and liberal move – was brought on by his excessive spending. More citizens equalled a larger tax base. (5)

And so, with wearying predictability, emperor followed emperor, crisis follow crisis, rebellions drew troops from frontier defences which, in turn, allowed multiple barbarians invasions through the gaps this created. At one point the empire even split into three. And all whilst inflation wrecked the economy.

The third century’s equivalent of a central bank was the Imperial Mint where the empire’s coins were created. Whereas modern day governments Quantitive Ease billions into existence at the touch of a button, their ancient predecessors debased the currency by adding increased amounts of base metals to the coinage. The consequence of this was the same as QE; lots of inflation caused by a prior expansion of the money supply. Same as now.

So how did the Romans deal with this issue? Badly, to be honest.

Extract from The Edict on Maximum Prices

Enter Diocletian (though hat tip to Aurelian)

Militarily, the Emperor Aurelian (270-75) put the empire back together with a series of lightening victories from East to West before he was tragically murdered (5). He started the process of dealing with inflation by producing higher value and higher worth coins not affected by debasement. However, it was his eventual successor Diocletian (284-305) who really tried to get to grips with inflation.

His most famous economic policy was the Edict on Maximum Prices of 301 where he laid down the maximum prices for over 1000 goods and services. However, like the Labour government’s Prices and Incomes policies of the 1970’s or the Tory government’s disastrous energy price cap from 2017 onwards, artificially holding down prices never works. As a wiser UK Prime Minster once said “you can’t buck the markets.”

Despite a harsh penalty for transgression (death), the price controls collapsed quickly into a heap of shut shops, food scarcity and rioting. How can businesses or agriculture survive if the input costs are higher than the costs of sale? There was also a strong element of misdirected blame in the Edicts’ preamble that labelled high prices immoral and unpatriotic and that people who sold at high prices were enemies of the Empire.

Obviously, Diocletian confused the causes of inflation with its results. The causes - debasement and a flooding of currency - were not addressed but the consequences - increased prices - were instead blamed. In the modern parlance, Diocletian claimed businesses were ‘gouging’ their customers. Yes, governments distancing themselves from the consequences of their own actions was alive and well back in ancient Rome.

But there was a second policy of Diocletian that is also relevant here; inherited jobs leading to forced labour immobility. The economic activity of the empire had reduced markedly over the dismal third century. If land was depopulated and unworked, not only did the food supplies decline but so did the tax yield. Tie people to the land and make them work in their father’s professions, then yields - both agriculturally and financially - would, in theory, go up. What was the loss of liberty for the individual if the greater good of the empire was served?

Practically speaking, the citizens of the Empire weren’t allowed to move and were compelled to follow in the footsteps of their parents for jobs. Thus if your father worked on the land, so you did too. If he was in the army, you also had to join. Ditto shopkeepers, tanners, blacksmiths, bankers etc. Arguably, this marked the beginnings of serfdom in Europe and the Middle Ages. (6) Michael Rostovtzeff, writing in 1926, put the tolerance of this loss of liberty down to a general weariness with the proceeding years of lawlessness and destruction, years where armies (internal & external) had taken crops forcefully and commerce had dried up as the Empire’s internal networks became dangerous to traverse.

“Force and violence were both the motto and the practice. Law and order were dreams. Besides, by a long evolution... the population of the Roman Empire had lost the habit of self-help and initiative, and had become accustomed to be ruled, and to be directed. It was no wonder then that in such conditions as these the residents of the Roman Empire had no force of resistance left and submitted blindly, though reluctantly, to the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine...”

— Michael Rostovtzeff The Problem of the Origin of Serfdom in the Roman Empire (1926)

So the liberty to move around and pursue one’s own course in life was severely curtailed. Life became smaller and meaner for the general population as Diocletian and his successors grappled with inflation & taxation using regressive and authoritarian means. Interestingly enough, as the population at large became less free, the fourth century emperors (though not Julian) became more remote, their courts more formal and the Emperor more unapproachable. This marked the moment when the empire switched from a Principate form of rule to what became known as The Dominate. The Emperor was no longer first among equals, he became a godlike figure. Naturally, the bureaucracy increased exponentially, as did the army. The wider elite solidified their position. Inflation didn’t affect them too much as they often managed to evade paying taxes. (7) Payment in kind - food for the army, services - was always an option in those inflated times.

So, what are the parallels - or warnings - from then to now, from the economic woes of the later Roman Empire to 2020’s style inflation?

The first point is an obvious one; don’t debase the currency. It doesn’t end well. Secondly, efforts to manipulate prices have a bad habit of failing and lead to supply issues. Thirdly, be aware of those who threaten to trade your liberty in order to meet some perceived emergency. Travel restrictions, a creeping control over freedoms and appeals to the collective over the individual are all potential signposts on the road to authoritarianism.

The Roman Crisis of the Third Century is traditionally dated 235-285. The Empire in the West lasted until 476. In the East 1453. But the Empire - of both East and West - was radically different following the crisis. It was still the Roman Empire but the compact between citizen and state had changed completely. Inflation hasten this change.

References

1) After his death, all of these gains were later lost.

2) This of course references King Canute - proving to his courtiers in the 11th century that nature will not bend to the will of kings. "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and the sea obey eternal laws." One might also add the eternal laws of economics.

3) There is a sixth option which is plunder. To be fair, this was a more acceptable option back in Roman times. An equivalent today might be a special ‘one off’ tax on corporations (oil companies / pension funds / banks). Basically a fiscal raid.

4) Decline and Fall - Part One. I’m currently reading this epic tome.

4) More citizens also meant - in theory - more people to join the army, engage in civic activities sand share the responsibilities of the Empire. But taxes too. However, one of the perversities of universal citizenship was a decline in army recruitment. Previously citizenship was the reward for twenty years service in the auxiliaries. That inducement was now gone.

5) Aurelian’s achievements were legendary; all the more so due to the brief time period he achieved them. The Goths were repelled, Zenobia and the Palmyrian Empire were defeated and the East reabsorbed back into the Empire and the breakaway Gallic Empire was similarly demolished and reabsorbed. He also took the time to commission - yes you guessed it - the Aurelian walls in Rome.

6) These policies were reinforced and built on by Diocletian’s eventual successor Constantine.

7) Diocletian also reorganised the administration of the empire into more numerous but smaller districts. He split the control of taxes and administration from army command for the local governors. One consequence of this was that large local landowners were able to more easily evade taxes by bullying or ignoring these less important adminstrators.

Acting more wooden than the Teutoburg Forest

Review by Tim Robson

Barbarians - Netflix Review

June 25, 2021 by Tim Robson in Roman Empire

Probably about ten years after the rest of the population, I got Netflix last week. So much to watch, so many cultural references to finally understand. But what to watch first?

The first series to grace that special hour between bottles one and two, was not Breaking Bad or The Crown but Barbarians the new(ish) German six parter detailing the road to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest massacre 9AD where three whole legions were massacred by assorted German tribes under Arminius (see my blog on this battle, and the Roman follow up here).

My overall verdict? About five out of ten. Six maybe.

I thought the Latin for the Romans and German (dubbed English) for the Germans was a good idea. Nice to hear what the Romans actually sounded like. To be fair though, unless they said status quo, vini, vidi, vici or carpe diem, I wouldn’t have a bloody clue what the actors were declaiming. Could have been Tahitian.

The actor playing Arminius - an actor called Laurence Rupp was the major weakness. His idea of showing his character’s conflict at being torn between two cultures was to a) look as though he was going to cry b) imitate a plank of wood. He mainly went for the wooden style. I couldn’t see him rallying a stag party with free booze at the Munich bierfest, let alone coalescing together the internecine hatred of the German tribes to attack the might of Rome.

HIs overlong, intercut and frankly gibberish soliloquy to the severed head of Varus disrupting the climatic battle scene was a particular low point. What should have been the dramatic climax of the series turned into a real life conflict between me fast forwarding and the writer jerking off platitudes.

The armour and period detail looked correct which makes Roman army pedants like myself happy. To be fair, it was hard to get this wrong as, in 9AD, the Roman army looked pretty much exactly as you’d picture them - all lorica segmentata and curved helmets. But it was all so small scale! We’ve been spoilt with the grandeur of movies like Gladiator or even Spartacus as casts of thousands of extras duly trooped back and forth into gigantic battles. Here they were clearly on a budget. Arminius’ auxiliary cavalry command was basically him and six other hairy blokes.

There was the usual Woden, will of the wisp, dress up the shaman in a funny costume, old gods shite that seem to populate these sorts of series (I think it shared some of the same production staff as Amazon’s lamentable Vikings). The main female character, played by Jeanne Goursaud, flipped between naked romps with the two main male leads and wearing a funny sub-Marvel outfit whilst slicing one her eyes out with a stone knife. A ‘wise woman’ apparently.

To summarise: The Romans were bastards. The tribes liked fighting each other. Some of the acting was as wooden as the Teutoburg Forest itself. The period detail looked okay. It was very small scale. Some of the history was off but not annoyingly so. I fell asleep twice and had to spool though the episodes trying to remember where I’d dropped off. Could have been the wine.

Anyway, bring on Germanicus and Tiberius in series two to give these tribes a good kicking in the lesser known, but just as devastating, Roman response to the loss of the eagles at Teutoburg.

Click here, for my review of Sky’s Domina…

For my series on Roman Battles, click here…

Domina - TV Series Review

May 16, 2021 by Tim Robson in Ancient Rome, Roman Empire

Uncharacteristically for me, I binged watched the first six episodes of Sky Atlantic’s Domina over the course of the last couple of nights.

The main character is Livia, wife of first Roman Emperor Augustus. For students of I, Claudius - the book or series - Livia is well known as the evil manipulating matriarch of the Julio-Claudian imperial family, forever bumping off relatives that stand in her way. Of course, Robert Graves got his dirt from Suetonius in his scurrilous Lives of the 12 Caesars (Published around 100AD).

So she’s a well known literary & TV figure already.

We haven’t had decent Roman historical drama since HBO’s Rome Series 1 and 2, years ago. The BBC did a crap series on the Roman conquest of Britain a while back but that mainly seemed to be the writer and director wanking themselves in a frenzy of self-conscious weirdness. Didn’t watch it.

Domina is a more traditional series - historical characters, rendered historically with a good grasp of the available sources. I’m currently up to about 23BC the year Augustus was very ill and the whole experiment into an imperial system could have ended.

What’s good about the series is that it shows the uncertainty and the potential for missteps as the Roman world transitioned away from the republican form of government. Too many histories tend to gloss over the transitional period of, say, 39-23BC. In retrospect, you might get the impression that Augustus’ 41 year reign was all sweetness with nary a challenge or hiccup along the way. In reality, it was very different to this.

I read Appian’s Civil Wars last year. The transition from Republic through the dictatorship of Caesar, the 2nd Triumphant, Octavian v Anthony, Actium and then the settlements of 27 and 23 BC were not smooth. Augustus could have fallen at anytime; history puts it stamp on the past but the counter factuals could have been just as easy.

So I like this series in that it shows the struggles Augustus faced in this early Imperial era. Nothing was writ in stone. He was a man. Not the god he became. And Livia was right by his side, counselling urging and plotting. She is in many ways a very ahistorical figure, modern perhaps, in that, even at the time, it was acknowledged that she impacted on the great counsels of state. Unusually for this period, Augustus took his wife’s advice.

Like any series that covers a long period of time (the first 6 episodes cover 44-23BC), the casting director faces a choice of what to do about the characters ageing. With Domina, the decision was made to have two separate casts - young actors playing Livia and Augustus, Agrippa etc and then wheeling in the older variants. This is will known and a typical device. It was initially slightly jarring however that not only did Livia change faces between episodes 2 and 3 but she also changed nationality - Kasia Smutniak may be a polygot but the character Livia goes from a posh English accent when young to a weird nondescript European mash up.

I soon got over it.

The series has the bonking and orgies you’d expect as per the HBO Rome formula. The dialogue was replete with fucks and cunts. I suppose people do talk like that but, in places, it was a little overdone and for effect rather than to convey realism (especially in the first couple of episodes). The acting in the main was good, both Livias were convincing - being both attractive (she was meant to be a reputed beauty in her day) and believably strong characters. Young Augustus was perhaps a trifle too crude and boorish. Of course Augustus was arrogant and known for his cunning and playing the long game but the enfant terrible seemed a little trite. The older version of him seems to have got it right.

Best line? Livia to two wedding guests: “I’m younger, prettier and richer than you two. You’re lucky to be invited.”

And now? Well, I face a race to get my Galla Placidia screenplay off the ground. It amazes me that this remarkable woman - 400 years after Livia - who actually held power as regent - has been totally ignored by dramatists. Especially for those looking for strong female characters. Well, tap tap tap.

For further Roman reading, click here. I also reviewed the Netflix series Barbarians about the Teutoburg massacre.

Whatever happens, happens rightly.

February 18, 2021 by Tim Robson in Philosophy, Roman Empire

Recently I've been reading my long-neglected copy of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. For those of you who are not familiar, Marcus Aurelius was the Roman Emperor between AD 161 - 180. He was the last in the series of 'The Five Good Emperors' - Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pious and himself. This time (96-180) is often considered the height of the Roman Empire, where the borders reached their fullest extent, the exterior walls were built and the citizens within enjoyed relatively long years of peace and good governance.

Marcus fitted the Platonic ideal of a philosopher-king. Invested with supreme power he was also a thoughtful and mediative man. He wrote Meditations whilst on the campaign trail fighting the Germanic tribes as a stoic guide to life and as a personal diary to himself. Stripped down, his philosophy was that life is essentially inconsequential, but what determines a worthwhile life is acting rationally and for good and not to be emotional about temporary highs or lows for they are as nothing in the broad sweep of history.

The above quotation - Whatever happens, happens rightly* - piqued my interest. It summarises in just four words, a whole philosophy and is thus a very powerful sentence. It appears on the surface to embrace a form of karma; that we are unwitting actors within a cosmic Fate of which we have no control but I think it goes a little deeper than this.

One has to understand where Marcus was coming from in order to do this full justice. I think the following quotation helps clarify a little more:-

Many grains of incense fall on the same altar: one sooner, another later - it makes no difference.**

Like the wisdom of Solomon I'm so fond of in Ecclesiastes, Marcus details the outward futility of man's actions. In this example, incense falling on the altar being a metaphor for successive waves of human generations, Marcus points out the folly of human vanities. The short term seeking of pleasures, accolades, profit, will be all be forgotten in the grand scheme of things.

A gloomy message, yes? And yet no - a realistic message, for Marcus discerns patterns and repetitions in human drama. Let's look at another quote to demonstrate:-

Reflect often how all the life of today is a repetition of the past; observe that it also presages what is to come. Review the many complete dramas and their settings, all so similar, which you have known in your own experience, or from bygone history... The performance is always the same; it is only the actors who change. ***

Anyone who has lived a few years can see the truth in the above and smile in recognition. This is even more emphatic for students of history. In politics, war, economics, human relations, there is, as I quoted previously in different article, 'nothing new under the sun'.

So far so rational. But what about the 'happens rightly' part? Doesn't this suggest some moral agency in what happens in life? Some 'good' pre-determined outcome? I would be equivocal about this. I suspect Marcus is using the word 'rightly' in a mechanicalistic manner, that universal laws of nature and humanity will always reassert themselves - like some cosmic regression towards the mean. For example, a forest may be cleared but, left to itself, it will grow again.

However, despite this, Marcus also believes in being rational, humane and good. In fact he believes that this is the only point of life; to live a 'good' life. And whilst one can only control oneself, the more good in the world, the better the outcomes and the higher the level of, temporary, human happiness. Nothing is perfect, everything has to re-won, the lessons of history always have to relearnt but, given a reasonable and sympathetic character, then things can be made better. And, that is what is important in life.

My quibble - if I have one - is that whilst I agree with much of Marcus' gloomy observation about each generation having to relearn the lessons of the past, is that I have a stubborn belief in the Enlightenment's idea of progress. Although each generation does have to relearn history and human relations, it does so not from some ground zero each day but 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

Knowledge, inventions, the rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech, transparency, capitalism, food production, cheap transport, fast communications, the universalisation of knowledge via the internet, better health, drugs, sanitation; these are things that are spreading at the fastest rate ever in human history. We - pace Marcus - living only in the present - tend to ignore these advances but they are there and they are real. ****

So, what are we left with as base material concerns are stealthily obliterated? How can the sentient person avoid spiritual degradation, a creeping ennui? By doing good. Personal kindnesses. Rationality. Reason. Thoughtfulness. Curiosity.

The real battle, as suggested by Marcus Aurelius and other ancients texts, is, and always has been, individual and internal. And this is a fight that has to be won every day.

Firstly, avoid all actions that are haphazard or purposeless; and secondly, let every action aim solely at the common good. *****

Normal service resumed in the next article where I discuss the latest series of The Voice.

Laters

Tim

NOTES

* Meditations - Book IV, 10

** Meditations - Book iV, 15

*** Meditations - Book X, 27

**** One of the problems with a 24 hour media and - dare I say it - ignorant journalists with no understanding of history - is that the sensational, the temporary, the critical always wins the battle for attention against the long term, the underlying trend, the comparative. We are, as a world, empirically, more free, richer, healthier, better fed than EVER before. That is not to say that there aren't problems nor that there aren't temporary set-backs but, if you compare the world with 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, let alone 500, there is no comparison that we are better off in so many ways. Whether we are happier or more spiritually fulfilled is a completely separate issue, however.

***** Meditations Book XII, 20

Originally published 2016

The Romans face the Caledonians at Mons Graupius, Scotland AD 83. @Seán Ó'Brógáin

ROME: The First Century in Five Battles

January 01, 2021 by Tim Robson in Ancient Rome, Roman Empire, Rome in 5 Battles

(In which Tim maps the Roman Empire in the first century AD through five battles)

“Varus, give me back my legions!”

So the ageing Emperor Augustus is said to have shouted, driven mad by the loss of three legions at The Battle of The Teutoberg Forest in AD 9. Quinctilus Varus was the Roman commander who led those legions into the dark German forests, never to return. This is the first battle of the first century. Rome’s devastating response following the campaigns of the aptly named Germanicus shall be my next focus as exemplified by The Battle of Idistaviso in AD 16.

The invasion of Britain under the Emperor Claudius in AD 43 merits a mention. As does the defeat of Boudicca at the Battle of Watling Street in AD 61 where Rome firmly put down her revolt. The Battle of Mons Graupius in AD 83 finally consolidated Britain (minus Caledonia) into the Empire.

The siege and destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is an obvious landmark battle. The Jewish revolt was a major uprising and occurred during one of the few periods of outside instability the Roman Empire faced in the first century. Its impact is probably still felt today.

Whilst Titus was dealing with the Jewish revolt, his father Vespasian had marched on Rome to throw his laurel wreath into the ring to become Emperor. The ‘Year of the Four Emperors’ in AD 69 was the first Roman civil war in 100 years. Previously Emperors had just been assassinated, poisoned or committed suicide. This violent transfer of power though was limited to the unfortunate Emperor and his immediate supporters and didn’t lead to a full-scale civil war as had been the norm in the late Republic. Although, Rome soon came back to normalcy - and indeed the Emperors improved - this respite would be only temporary and civil wars would come back in a big way towards the end of the second century.

A note on the army itself: The Roman army of the 1st Century AD looked exactly like the Roman Army in popular imagination. They wore curved helmets protecting the back of their necks, segmented armour, carried long curved rectangular shields, held short thrusting swords and threw devastating volleys of weighted spears. A legion consisted around 5120 men divided into 10 cohorts (the 1st being double sized). There were 28 legions in Augustus’ time, later increased to 30. Auxiliaries assisted the legions (archers, calvary, skirmishers etc) and their number was around the same. Therefore, a reasonable assessment of the size of the Roman Army of this period is 300,000 men under arms.

The first century began with Augustus in the 28th year of his principate. Unlike much of the previous century, The Roman world was pretty much at peace with itself. The civil wars were over. Augustus stealthily added nations that were protectorates - like Egypt - to the Empire avoiding outright conquering. However, his sons-in-law - Drusus and Tiberius - added Raetia (modern Switzerland). But this Caesar - unlike his famous uncle - was content to be imperator in name if not in deed.

However, one recurring trouble spot in the Empire was the Germanic tribes beyond Gaul. Could Augustus add Germania to the Empire and, if not, where was the defensive line of the empire to be drawn? It was going to be the river Elbe but - following the loss of the legions in the forests - Rome pulled back to the Rhine where it stayed for the next four hundred years.

The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was the shock that caused this retrenchment. Three legions (plus assorted auxiliaries and camp followers) operating beyond the Rhine, were betrayed by a supposed friendly German ally, Arminius, and massacred. Arminius led Varus into the dense forest and then sprang his trap. The army was wiped out and their totemic eagles taken.

At this point in time, Rome had just 28 legions. The loss of three meant a sizeable chunk of the available forces had just disappeared. No wonder Augustus was upset. Revenge came slowly and - as was the wont at these times - through a member of the Imperial family.

Germanicus was nephew to the new Emperor Tiberius and was sent to the Rhine to sort out the mess left after Arminius’ triumph. Fighting many battles and chasing many tribes into many forests, Germanicus skirmished and harassed the Germans time after time over three years until he finally tempted them into an open pitched battle. This was at the Weser River and became the Battle of Idistaviso AD 16. The result was a massacre of the German tribes. Arminius survived only to be beaten again that same year at The Battle of the Angrivarian Wall. (He was later killed by members of his own tribe. He is still celebrated as one of the founders of the German nation. His massive 19th has century statue stands above the Teutoburg Forest to this day.)

Rome had won the conflict but Tiberius, ever cautious, withdrew Germanicus to Rome and the Empire’s frontier was settled back at the Rhine.

Julius Caesar had come across the Channel to Britain a couple of times but he never made a serious invasion attempt - he was too busy conquering Gaul. These incursions provoked a few fights, garnered some tributes and alliances, but Caesar didn’t stick around to conquer Britain. One hundred years later though, in AD 43, the unwarlike Emperor Claudius - another nephew of Tiberius - launched the invasion of Britain.

The conquest was a slow process taking over 40 years. The south of the country was relatively passive, having interacted with the Romans for years. However, the North and West and Wales proved much more difficult. Whilst the Romans were distracted subduing the Welsh tribes in AD 60, the Iceni under Boudicca rebelled back in the conquered south. The rebellion was short, violent with the rebels burning and massacring the Roman towns of St Albans, Colchester and a little town called Londinium.

The governor, Seutonius Paulinus, gathered up a force centred around one and a half legions and met Boudicca and her army somewhere along what became known later as Watling Street. He chose his battlefield well, funnelling the Britons into a narrow front. As had happened many times previously in Roman history, well-trained legions overcame a larger but undisciplined horde. The rebels were massacred - hemmed in by their own carriages - and Boudicca committed suicide not long after.

Twenty of so years later, the Romans had turned their attention to the north of Britain. Up in Scotland, the Caledonian tribes were causing problems. However, the usual rules applied; tracking a tribe into an open pitched battle was difficult and whilst traipsing around the wet and cold of Scotland, the Roman army was prey to ambushes and lightning strikes. Governor Agricola finally lured the Caledonians into battle somewhere in the mountains of Scotland (the precise site is unknown). The Battle of Mons Graupius AD 83 was unique in that the Romans won it using only their highly trained Germans auxiliaries with assistance from the cavalry.

Tacitus, who wrote the account of the battle, famously put words into mouth of the Caledonian leader, Calgacus, “They make a desolation and call it peace.” All Britain was conquered. For now.

The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem, by David Roberts (1850) — *The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem*, by David Roberts (1850)

Back a few years, and we have the brutal Siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 part of the First Jewish-Roman war. Pompey had added Judea to the empire back in the Republican days. He’d even successfully laid siege to Jerusalem. This time though, the struggle was more bitter as a hardcore sect of rebels within the city - the Zealots - refused to surrender. As Vespasian had left for Rome, his son Titus (later emperor too) led the four legion assault on the city. Starvation, disease and the terrors of war were meted out to the inhabitants of the city, bolstered as they were by hundreds of thousands of refugees escaping the wider war. The end was a massacre:-

“They poured into the street sword in hand, slaughtering indiscriminately all they came across and burning houses with those who had fled there still inside… Since the troops had run out of victims to kill or property to loot, Caesar ordered the army to raze to the ground the whole city and the temple…” Josephus, The Jewish War (Book 6:404 / Book 7:1)

Jerusalem and its population was destroyed. This was quite a consequential siege in history.

Rome: The 4th Century in Five Battles

January 01, 2021 by Tim Robson in Roman Empire, Rome in 5 Battles

(In which Tim discusses the five most important battles within the wider history of the 4th Century Roman Empire)

The fourth century was bookended by two famous ‘Christian’ battles - The Milvian Bridge in 312 and The Frigidus in 394. They mark - apocryphally - both the entry point of Christianity into the Roman Empire and its ultimate victory. Each led to climatic events; The Milvian Bridge led directly to the Nicene Council of 325 which formalised the Christian creed. The Frigidus began the series of events that ended with Alaric’s sack of Rome just sixteen years later.

So we have our beginning and end. What in between? Adrianople, of course. The defeat of Valens and the Eastern Roman Empire’s army at the hands of the Goths in 378 is popularly associated with the eventual downfall of the empire itself. Can’t argue that it’s important.

For me, Julian is the most interesting fourth century Emperor. His metamorphosis from bookish princeling to ass-kickin’ Caesar began in Gaul. The most famous battle in his journey to pacify the province was his victory over the Alamanni in the Battle of Strasbourg 357.

Our fifth battle is The Battle of Mursa 351 where the forces of Constantius II defeated those of the usurper Magnentius in the biggest and bloodiest battle of the century. As an exercise in damaging futility this was the daddy of them all.

*****

The Empire at the beginning of the fourth century was a very different animal to that ruled over by Septimius Severus one hundred years earlier. The crisis of the third century had brought about chaos, short lived emperors, and the temporary division into three mini empires. The gradual restoration of control was brought about by the Illyrian emperors Claudius Gothicus, Aurelian, Probus and finally Diocletian.

Diocletian instituted the tetrarchy - a system where two senior Augustii and two junior Caesars ruled quadrants of the Empire. It was a neat idea. It didn’t last. Diocletian, who resigned along with his co-Augustus Maximian, lived long enough to see not only his fine cabbages grow in his retirement home in Split, but his system of government fall apart as his successors squabbled amongst themselves to gain and maintain power.

Constantine (The Great), son of one of Diocletian’s successors Constantius I, was chief amongst those squabbling. He was annoyed that he was left out of Diocletian’s succession plans and, on the death of his ailing father in York in 306, declared himself emperor. This led ultimately to the first battle of our series - The Milvian Bridge.

In this battle, Constantine marched into Italy in 312 - then under the rule of one of the many post-Diocletian claimants - Maxentius. With a smaller army, Constantine’s troops feared losing the climatic battle outside Rome the next day. That night Constantine dreamed of a cross in the sky. So the story goes, he had his army paint the Christian symbol on their shields and, with God on their side, they routed Maxentius and his army the next day at The Milvian Bridge.

The Arch of Constantine was completed to mark this famous victory. The fact that it was originally going to be the Arch of Maxentius and repurposed bas reliefs from earlier monuments, is now somewhat forgotten. He who wins writes the history and gets the arches. It still stands today under the shadow of the Colosseum.

The next twelve years were a history of Rome fighting itself as Constantine gradually consolidated his power to become sole emperor in 324 with his defeat of Licinius. Famously, Constantine left three legacies to the Empire when he died - after converting on his deathbed to Christianity - in 337:

The Council of Nicene which produced a unified - though disputed for many years - Christian doctrine still in use today,
The founding of Constantinople as the ‘new Rome’ on the site of the Greek city of Byzantium,
An utterly chaotic carve up of the Empire between his three sons and two nephews which set the scene for nearly twenty years of civil wars.

The intrigues between the three sons of Constantine deserve a blog of all their own. The imaginatively named Constantine, Constans and Constantius battled it out for years until only the latter remained standing as Constantius II. The second of our landmark battles occurs in this period when Constantius - in the East - took on his brother Constans’ murderer, Magnentius at Mursa in 351.

Mursa was a triumph for Constantius but a tragedy for the empire. Crack units of the East and Western Roman armies fought each other in a bloodbath in Pannonia (modern day Croatia). The battle saw the flowering of the late Roman cataphracts - heavily armoured cavalry - as they mowed down Magnentius’ legions. It was a victory but a pyrrhic one.

One of the consequences of Rome turning in on itself was that units were inevitably withdrawn from the Empire’s borders. The tribes living beyond took advantage of this and increasingly began to run amok amongst the frontiers. Constantius proved Diocletian’s theory that the Empire was too big for just one ruler and so appointed first his cousin Gallus, and then his other cousin, Julian, as junior Caesar. Gallus proved himself unfit to rule and so was executed. Julian however, proved himself quite the opposite.

Bookish, sceptical and a lover of philosophy, Julian was an unlikely warrior Caesar. Sent to Gaul to restore order, Julian did just that. And more. Let down by his supporting army (who may have been acting on the orders of Constantius) Julian was left facing a much larger force of Alamanni near Strasbourg in 357. The battle was a complete rout with the Alamanni destroyed by Julian’s infantry and then chased all the way back to the Rhine where many survivors drowned. Over the following years, Julian followed up by a process of forward-defence - raids into enemy territory whilst repairing and reinforcing the border.

Inevitably the two last descendants of Constantine The Great squared off against each other in 361 (see previous blogpost). Luckily for the Empire, Constantius died on the way to confront Julian allowing the latter to become the undisputed ruler of the whole empire. Julian met his ‘spear of destiny’ just two years later fighting the Persians and bringing to an end Constantine’s line and any anti-Christian fight back. Rome was henceforth a Christian empire.

The Empire now fell into the hands of Valentinian who appointed his brother Valens Augustus of the East. This proved a fatal decision as Valens allowed a massive Gothic migration into his lands in 376. The Goths crossed the Danube to escape the growing power of the Huns expanding and terrorising from the east. Stupidity, betrayal and pride (Valens refused to wait for the army of his nephew Gratian - now Emperor of the West) led Valens and the Eastern Roman army to take on the Goths alone at Adrianople (now part of European Turkey) in 378.

Adrianople was a disaster for the Romans. Their army was destroyed by the Goths and the emperor himself allegedly died after been burnt alive in a peasant house while attempting to flee the battlefield. The defeat left the Eastern empire defenceless and leaderless and at the mercy of the Goths who now rampaged at will throughout Thrace and Greece.

Slowly, piece by piece, Roman general and later emperor Theodosius (The Great) put the East back together. He fought defensive actions and eventually made peace with the Goths in 382 allowing them to stay within the empire’s borders. Once inside the Goths became a combustable element, fighting for the Empire when it suited them but, equally likely to go marauding and looting.

Over in the Western half, Valentinian’s younger son Valentinian II - now Emperor - allegedly hanged himself. His all-powerful advisor and military commander Arbogast was more than implicated. Arbogast was a Frank by birth and so ineligible to take the throne himself and so he chose Eugenius, an obscure Roman official to be the new Emperor in the West. Over in the East, Theodosius bided his time. But when Arbogast and Eugenius started to favour the old Roman gods over Christianity, Theodosius reacted. The showdown took place at The Battle of The Frigidus (modern day Slovenia) in 394.

This two day battle was notable for several things.

Theodosius won the battle becoming the last sole Emperor of East and West. Not for long though as he died in 395.
The battle marked the final victory of Christianity over paganism. Much is made of the high winds that allegedly blew at Arbogast’s forces on day two of the battle rendering their missiles useless. A divine wind, it was claimed.
Theodosius’ use of Gothic auxiliaries (foederati) was controversial. He put them in the front line and used them as cheap cannon fodder. It allowed him to win the battle but incensed his surviving allies. One of the Gothic leaders fighting for Theodosius that day was a young noble named Alaric. Sixteen years later, Alaric led the Goths into Italy and sacked Rome for the first time in eight hundred years. It wasn’t the end of the Roman Empire but it marked the beginning of the last stages of the Western half.

The fourth century ends with the young sons of Theodosius - Honorius and Arcadius - in charge of the West and East respectively. Both of them were weak, dominated by advisors and unfit for their times. It was a sad end to such a lively century.

So what have learnt in this brief canter through the years 300-399?

First, and most obvious, the rise and rise of Christianity. A persecuted sect at the start of the century - the worst repression occurred under Diocletian for example - it was the undisputed religion of the Empire by the end.

The Roman military was still powerful throughout much of the century. Although the legions were no longer the primary unit, it still packed a punch. Borrowing from Palmyra and Persia, the military incorporated heavy calvary units alongside smaller vexallations of infantry. When it worked, armies could criss-cross the empire and successfully see off threats. Under strong leaders - Constantine, Julian - the army could be formidable.

The increased use of foederati - allied non Roman troops. By the end of the century, the traditional auxiliary units - trained and led by Romans - had largely been replaced by unincorporated bands of barbarians who fought under their own banners and leaders.

Civil wars were as deadly to the empire as attacks by outside forces. Roman v Roman battles were as common and - pace Mursa - could be much more deadly.

The idea of a single emperor ruling the whole empire was the exception rather than the rule throughout the fourth century. It was a rare period that saw just one ruler.

Read other Rome: In Five Battles here.

(I attach David Bowie’s Velvet Goldmine. When I was younger, reading about the later Roman Empire, I always associated this song with the heavily armed Cataphracts riding East to West, West to East, protecting the Empire. I misheard a line so it read “I’ll be your faithful prince who will ride for you again and again.” Unfortunately I now know that’s not the lyrics!)

Gold Roman coings: https://www.ancient.eu/image/5954/corbridge-hoard--jug/

The crash of 33AD

September 20, 2020 by Tim Robson in Ancient Rome, Roman Empire

In these days of no history, where everything is apparently unprecedented and has never happened before throughout humanity’s countless years on this planet, where we have reached peak morality as a species and can pronounce on the past with a lofty distain, it’s worth plucking out some embers from the smouldering fires of our collective history. Who knows? Might be instructive!

Over-leveraged financial houses, external shocks, a run on banks, shortage of credit; the financial crisis of 33AD - which shook the Roman world - had them all. Throw in a first century version of quantitive easing and the picture is complete.

The Emperor Tiberius (14-37 AD) is popularly remembered as a miserly old pervert whose one redeeming feature was that, whilst far worse than his predecessor Augustus, he was inestimably better than his successor, Caligula.

Tiberius, wearying of the stresses of Rome’s day-to-day administration, went off to live in Capri leaving his Praetorian enforcer Sejanus in charge back in the capital. Ambitious and unscrupulous, Sejanus arrogated so much power during his master’s absence that Tiberius had him and his allies executed. Once executed, these rich persons’ estates reverted to the Imperial Treasury. This had the concomitant affect of withdrawing large sums of money from the economy. Money was already circulating at a low level in the economy as, fiscally, Tiberius tended towards hoarding and not spending. For example, he cut back on Augustus’ lavish public building policy and avoided, if possible, costly military campaigns. He withdrew from Germania even after the revenge-spanking of Arminius at the battles of Idistaviso and Angrivarian Wall.1

But these savings came at a price. The Roman economy was pretty much a cash economy “thus, when the state ran a budget surplus (as it did under Tiberius) it caused a direct contraction of the money supply.” 2

But now we come to the proximate causes of the credit crunch…

An Egyptian banking house - Seuthe and Son- invested in some ships carrying cargoes of spices which - unfortunately for them - sank during a hurricane in the Red Sea. Think Lehman Brothers. The interconnectedness of the Roman finance world was proven back on Rome’s Via Sacra** - which was equivalent to the the ancient world’s Wall Street (with added temples and hookers). Financial houses in the capital now went bust as a result of lending to Seuthe and Son. One by one they closed up, calling in loans which caused more and more pressure on liquidity.

Timing is all in a financial crash. Two other factors - perhaps small in themselves - ratcheted up the pressure.

Firstly, this was just the moment when a longstanding edict of Tiberius’ came into force: all senators had to invest a third of their wealth in Italian land. They needed money to purchase property and so created a rush on the stricken financial houses (3) and debtors who either couldn’t or wouldn’t pay up the required capital. Secondly, a rebellion amongst the Belgae in Northern Gaul, out on the fringes of the empire, had meant those investing in that high risk but high reward area had lost their money. In the modern world, think of Argentina reneging on her debts and dragging down those eager-for-profit institutions who had lent them the money.

Demand for liquidity far exceeded supply. Rumours of instability exacerbated the fast growing crisis. Banks wouldn’t trust each other. Money was hoarded. The empire’s financial and trade worlds froze. A classic (and classical) credit crunch! Oh shit!

The relevant quaester (essentially finance minister) passed the problem onto the Senate who, long used to being ineffective, passed the problem onto Tiberius over in Capri. Taking time out from his paranoia and perversions however, Tiberius acted quickly. His response was emphatic; the liquidity crisis was to be met by a massive injection of imperial funds into the Roman financial world. Yes, quantitive easing in a toga! One hundred million sestertii from the imperial treasury was released into the banking system at zero percent rate of interest. Additionally, collateral for these loans was accepted at twice market rates which stabilised the property market and brought confidence back to the credit market.

Tiberius’ swift response - creating both liquidity and shoring up confidence in the finance markets - meant that the crisis worked itself through quickly. He was dead within four years and bequeathed his successor Caligula, a full Treasury. Caligula, did not have a problem spending money but that is another story!

The parallels with financial crashes that we may be familiar with are striking but the underlying factors - unpredictable events, state fiscal and monetary policy, financial contagion, and confidence in the system - are also well known to us. The crash of 33 AD however, is not.

I suppose that it is at this point that you would expect me to deliver a worthy homily about history repeating itself or that it rhymes or that it’s all been done before. I could but I won’t. That would be too easy and - in its way - overly trite.

What is more interesting is not the repetitive nature of history but that each age tends to believe it is unique. Each individual is of course unique and unless you believe in reincarnation, a belief in uniqueness is a forgivable fault. But still a fault when history is weighed in the aggregate. As I’ve tried to demonstrate with the crash of 33 AD, give or take a few togas and a lack of internet, the crisis wasn’t too different from our recent credit crunch of 2007/2009.

It’s not the forgetfulness that gets you, it’s the unknowing arrogance. From wars to diseases, from monetary crisis to the venality of politicians, ‘now’ is - perhaps inevitably - judged to be the only time in history these things have ever happened and so we blunder around marvelling at the wheel we’ve just reinvented. Sadly the past is not only a different country, but an increasingly forgotten place. I would argue - and do - that a little humility goes a long way and brings that rarest of all qualities - perspective.

Perspective adds depth and moderates over-reaction. From our own personal experience, we all know this to be true.

When we were young - and knew nothing and had experienced less - we carried the twin curses of ignorance and certainty. We didn’t know anything but - by God! - were we sure of our opinion. But we gradually matured as individuals, adding experience to assessment, judgement to decision. It’s part of life’s journey.

I wish we matured as a society in a similar way but, each generation is ever reborn as a teenager. Certain. Ignorant. Fated to be more wrong than right.

Next week I’ll carry this thought process into a ham-fisted look at Justinian’s reconquering of the Italian peninsula and how it was stymied by the plague. Masks are most definitely optional!

NOTES

1) Following the massacre of three legions in the Tueoburg Forest in 9 AD, the battles of Idistaviso and Angrivarian Wall by Tiberius’ nephew Germanicus, did much to restore Roman pride. Tiberius still pulled the troops back to the near side of the Rhine.

2) How Excess Government Killed Ancient Rome - Bruce Bartlett. The Cato Institute 1994

3) Ancient Rome did have a primitive banking system - though ‘banks’ and ‘banking’ is not a term they’d have recognised (though for convenience I may use these terms - the latin is argentarii). Depositors placed their money with reputable firms who, in turn, lent it out to those needing capital, principally to finance goods being shipped around the empire. The interest was set by the state (12% being the norm). These financial firms were clustered around the Forum along the Via Sacra which has been described as Rome’s Wall Street. It was also the site of many temples - temples being in ancient times often linked to banking (people deposited money there for safekeeping). To facilitate trade across the empire, banking centres were present in many other major cities across the Empire which foreshadows a modern sense of interconnectedness.

The First Century in Five Battles

July 21, 2020 by Tim Robson in Ancient Rome, Roman Empire, Rome in 5 Battles

(In which Tim maps the Roman Empire in the first century AD through five battles)

“Varus, give me back my legions!”

Rome had won the conflict but Tiberius, ever cautious, withdrew Germanicus to Rome and the Empire’s frontier was settled back at the Rhine.

Tacitus, who wrote the account of the battle, famously put words into mouth of the Caledonian leader, Calgacus, “They make a desolation and call it peace.” All Britain was conquered. For now.

Jerusalem and its population was destroyed. This was quite a consequential siege in history.

The 4th Century in Five Battles

June 06, 2020 by Tim Robson in Roman Empire, Rome in 5 Battles

(In which Tim discusses the five most important battles within the wider history of the 4th Century Roman Empire)

*****

The Council of Nicene which produced a unified - though disputed for many years - Christian doctrine still in use today,
The founding of Constantinople as the ‘new Rome’ on the site of the Greek city of Byzantium,
An utterly chaotic carve up of the Empire between his three sons and two nephews which set the scene for nearly twenty years of civil wars.

This two day battle was notable for several things.

Theodosius won the battle becoming the last sole Emperor of East and West. Not for long though as he died in 395.
The battle marked the final victory of Christianity over paganism. Much is made of the high winds that allegedly blew at Arbogast’s forces on day two of the battle rendering their missiles useless. A divine wind, it was claimed.
Theodosius’ use of Gothic auxiliaries (foederati) was controversial. He put them in the front line and used them as cheap cannon fodder. It allowed him to win the battle but incensed his surviving allies. One of the Gothic leaders fighting for Theodosius that day was a young noble named Alaric. Sixteen years later, Alaric led the Goths into Italy and sacked Rome for the first time in eight hundred years. It wasn’t the end of the Roman Empire but it marked the beginning of the last stages of the Western half.

So what have learnt in this brief canter through the years 300-399?

Civil wars were as deadly to the empire as attacks by outside forces. Roman v Roman battles were as common and - pace Mursa - could be much more deadly.

The idea of a single emperor ruling the whole empire was the exception rather than the rule throughout the fourth century. It was a rare period that saw just one ruler.

The Porta Nigra, the Roman Gate at Trier

Trier - Roman Imperial Capital

September 11, 2018 by Tim Robson in Ancient Rome, Roman Empire

Augusta Treverorum (Trier) was one of the principal cities of the later Roman Empire. During and following the period of the Tetrarchy (284 AD onwards) - when the Empire was often divided between various Augustii and their Caesars - the need for an imperial capital close to the German border was of strategic importance. Constantius I, Constantine the Great, Constantius II, Julian, Valentinian I all lived in in Trier at some point. The city has some of the best preserved Roman architecture outside Rome. I was there recently.

My hotel overlooked the Porta Nigra, one of the original 2nd Century Roman gates into the fortified city of Trier. It's a massive stone structure that guarded one of the entrances to the ancient capital. Unlike many other Roman buildings, it was saved from medieval scavengers harvesting its stone by the expedient of being converted into a church in the 11th Century. This protected it for 800 years until Napoleon ordered that it be stripped of its religious overtones and revert back to being a gate in 1804. So we still have a standing stone structure that is 1800 years old looking almost as it did when the Romans used it.

“There are many forms of defence. Sometimes it is best to allow your opponent to take the initiative, wait for an opportunity, and then lay them out with a devastating counter-punch.

The later Roman Empire was a prime example of this. Struggling to manage the repeated waves of barbarian invasions, Rome adopted a strength-in-depth defensive strategy. The marauding hordes could pass through the lightly protected borders of the empire but, once inside, they would be trapped between frontier units and fortified cities. There they would remain until crushed by the overwhelming might of the emperor’s hastily summoned mobile field army.” (@Tim Robson - The Betrayal of Aurelian)

A 4th century legionary - notice the mail coat, round shield, longer sword and thrusting spear. Much different from the ‘classic’ image of a Roman legionary with segmented armour, short sword and large curved shield*.

The Roman army of the 4th century was very different to the classic images of lorica segmentata wearing legionaries depicted on Trajan's column in Rome (or the movie Gladiator). It was much larger in number due to conscription, divided into frontier troops and imperial mobile armies, contained more cavalry, and the legions themselves, made up of conscripted barbarians, were reduced in size and used different equipment - longer swords and round shields for example. The Empire had switched from offence to defence. However, the army could still be a fearsome beast when commanded by a Constantine, Aurelian or Julian. But Rome was not what it once was and so other factors - other than crushing force - came into play to prevent the overrunning of the frontiers.

The cities and buildings and civic amenities (churches, ampitheatres, heating, sewers, bath houses, bridges, aqueducts) - 4th Century soft power - also played a part in subduing those who wished to enter. Trier has fine examples of all of these. Rome was not only superior in arms but look at the levels of civilisation and richness of our cities! Who but the Romans could build and live like this? Shock and awe.

The sheer scale of the ancient city of Augusta Treverorum astounds - Trier was an imperial city built to garrison soldiers and protect the citizenry but also house Emperors and instil awe and compliance from the local mud-hut dwelling, forest-hiding barbarians. One could only imagine their shock and astonishment as they were summoned to meet with - say - Valentinian I - and shepherded through the Porta Nigra, past bustling streets of commerce and finally into the great Emperor's presence in the Aula Palatina (now Constantine's Basilica). This palace, built around 310, is impressive even now. What must the Barbarians have thought as they shuffled uneasily, gazing up at the God-like Emperor in front of them, clad in the finest robes sat impassive on a raised dias in the apse at the far end of this mighty building? This was an Empire indeed to be revered and feared, was it not?

On your knees, barbarian, you are in the presence of the God-Emperor himself!

Wherever the Romans went you found amphitheatres and bath houses. Trier has both. Although suffering the ravages of time more than the gatehouse, they are still today impressive structures, made more interesting by the fact that both have complete underground corridors showing the inner workings of both.

Underground tunnels - for heating, for maintenance, in the Imperial Baths Trier

The Imperial baths are a MASSIVE complex (never finished). Underpinned by tunnels which provided the water - hot and cold - to the citizens as they washed, socialised and exercised. The sheer engineering feat - in the heating, the building, staggers the mind even now. It’s a large site and well worth the ridiculously low entrance fee the City of Trier charges you. My 14 year old got into everything for free. Danke!

“For those about to die, we salute you.”

But no Roman city is worthy of its name without its own colosseum. Trier’s is impressive, still bowl shaped with ruins on all sides and several underground chambers cages (for wild animals, gladiators, actors). I went on a gloriously warm day, the Mosel wine vine-yards shimmering in the distance - as they did in Roman times - but no-one can ignore the fact that although the Romans were civilised in many ways, in others, well not so much! Walking around the lower halls, underneath the arena, you get some sense of what it was like to be amongst the condemned waiting for your time as a lion’s snack or sword thrusting practice for a gladiator.

There’s more, much more (2nd century bridge across the Moselle anyone?), churches, squares, German architecture, food and drink (Bitburger being the local beer) but, for those of you who love seeing Roman ruins, Trier is a great place to go. Maybe try the local Mosel wine from the open air standing wine bar in the main square! Hot dogs, cakes and pretzels of course. Yum!

As JFK said: Ich bin ein Augusta Trevororumer. And that is possibly the worst pun, joke or piece of writing on this website ever. I apologise meine volk or Leute (Google translate ain’t specific here).

“Bitte ein Bit!” says Tim Robson. Reading his beer mat.

Image of 4th century legionary courtesy of : http://www.u3ahadrianswall.co.uk/wordpress/the-roman-army-in-britain/

Happy St George's Day!

April 23, 2018 by Tim Robson in History, Roman Empire

Whilst undoubtably a great Emperor, Diocletian (284/305), has a couple of historical black marks against his name.

1) The Tetrarchy (a system 2 senior emperors and 2 junior emperors). Diocletian saw the problem of one man ruling such a vast empire and also observed the chaos created by usurping generals in the mid third century. The system was supposed to provide stable government with senior emperors bringing on juniors who in turn would have Caesars to support them. It failed however as soon as Diocletian resigned and the renewed civil war was only finished when Constantine eliminated Licinius in 324 and became sole emperor (though he in turn, left the empire to his three sons and two nephews and so created a another bout of civil wars after his death).

2) His persecution of the christians in 303. Diocletian - prompted by his anti Christian junior Caesar Galerius, imposed strict restrictions on Christians, banishing them from civil service and the army, making them hand over their scriptures and, most tellingly, perform a pagan sacrifice. Many Christians refused and were killed in a variety of awful ways. It is here that St George comes in. A top general in the army, but a Christian, George refused to recant his Christianity and so was martyred by having his head chopped off after torture. Hence St George.

This story is probably a bit more likely than some nonsense about a knight slaying a dragon and rescuing a princess. The persecution did take place and many martyrs were created. To be honest, this is a better, more interesting story than the dragon rubbish. Why is it we were never taught this at school? It combines classical history, the early birth of christianity and - yes - fables.

Anyway, whatever, Happy St George's Day.