Rome
Page 41
It was not needed – not yet. The Romano-Gothic army was traumatized by its grim struggle. Its assaults on the second day of the battle were repulsed, and Attila was allowed to extricate his army and escape eastwards. Perhaps, indeed, Aëtius wished it so. Roman power, reduced largely to a matter of bargains and bribes, had come to depend on a balance of power among the barbarian polities that now dominated Europe. With Attila so diminished, perhaps it was better that he survived as a counterweight to the Romans’ victorious Visigothic allies. In the event, however, Attila died two years later, and his empire, which had formed so fast and covered such a swathe of Europe, fell to pieces as its subject peoples rose in revolt against their masters.
Aëtius too died soon after the battle. The butt of much jealousy at court, where many spoke against him, the mighty general was suddenly accused of treason and murdered by the emperor (AD 454). The emperor himself was shortly afterwards assassinated in a revenge killing by Aëtius’s retainers (AD 455). There followed a rapid succession of undistinguished emperors, nine (more or less) legitimate rulers in 21 years, of whom no less than six died violently. The dominant figure, Ricimer, the last of the great generalissimos of the Late Western Empire, was, like Stilicho half a century before, a barbarian. Making and unmaking emperors, embroiled in endless court intrigue, constantly shoring up the rickety edifice of power that supported him, Ricimer presided helplessly over the final collapse of the Western Empire. He represented a wafer-thin carapace of military strength hollow beneath: a court, several capital cities, some thousands of armed men, an historic claim to world empire – but, lacking any real economic, social or political base, liable to crumble to nothing at the slightest blows.
These fell swiftly. Diplomacy and carefully controlled projections of such military force as remained allowed the Western Empire to preserve fragments of authority across its former domains for a time. But gains were momentary. When Vandal raiding was extended into the Eastern Mediterranean, it provoked a joint operation by both Eastern and Western Empires in AD 468, but it ended disastrously, and Vandal power in the Mediterranean was further entrenched. There were energetic Roman campaigns in Gaul in the late 450s AD, but within a few years the expanding Visigothic kingdom had taken Arles, an imperial capital, the principal seat of what had remained of Roman authority in Gaul, one of the greatest centres of classical culture in the West. More often than not, territory was absorbed rather than conquered. Gallo-Roman landowners agreed, through force of circumstance, to divide their estates with barbarian ‘guests’. Germanic kings converted, became patrons of the Church, and entered into alliance with local bishops. The infrastructure of estates, churches and urban-based administration and tax-collection were appropriated by the new rulers. A classic reversal took place: once the empire had sought to ‘Romanize’ the barbarian chieftains it conquered; now the barbarian conquerors of the empire helped themselves to the Romanitas of their new subjects. Before long, Germanic kings were busy at the game of making and unmaking Roman emperors.
The death of Ricimer, the last of the great strongmen of the West, in AD 472 heralded the end. The Western throne was disputed between the remnants of the Roman aristocracy, the Germanic kings and Constantinople. There were five emperors in as many years. The last was Romulus Augustulus (AD 475–476). His authority over Italy rested on the support of King Odoacer and his Germanic federate army. When the king demanded for his followers the same treatment as had been granted to their compatriots in Gaul – a one-third share in estates – he was rebuffed. He responded by removing the emperor and seeking to place himself on the throne. When his appeal to the Eastern Emperor for recognition and legitimacy was turned down, he restyled himself ‘King of Italy’. The Western Roman Empire had ceased to exist. Its territories had become a patchwork of barbarian kingdoms.
The Vandals ruled Africa, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Odoacer ruled Italy, Illyricum, and what was left of Raetia and Noricum. The Visigoths ruled a huge area centred on south-west Gaul. The Burgundians held most of the rest of Gaul, except for Brittany, which had been settled by British exiles, and the lower Rhine, which was Frankish. A small Romanized enclave controlled by Syagrius in northern Gaul was absorbed by the Franks in AD 486. The Visigoths ruled most of Spain, except for the north-west, where there were Suevian and native Vascon territories. Britain was divided into numerous, obscure petty-states, some British, some Anglo-Saxon. In many places, a Romanized elite culture survived under the authority of new rulers. But even this was gradually transformed – given new shapes and meanings in a changed and changing world. And elite culture is not the same thing as Roman imperial power and a social order based on cities, villas, and a municipal oligarchy of landowning gentry. The Roman Empire defined in these terms had been in decline since expansion ended in the 2nd century AD. If it survived beyond the 5th century in some form in the East – a much-mutated form – it did so only because the West had been cast adrift. Once, Rome had been powerful enough to conquer the East and take possession of its riches. Now, without those riches, Rome could not stand, and the Western Roman Empire was consumed by its barbarian enemies amidst the indifference of its people. The story that had begun at Rome in 753 BC ended there in AD 476.
Timeline
Dates, authorities and events which are uncertain or mythical are given in square brackets. Dates which are approximations only are marked ‘c.’ for circa. Names of legitimate rulers are given in italics. Names of usurpers and de facto rulers are given in round brackets. Major period subdivisions are given in bold. Approximate modern geographical equivalents for ancient regions are given in brackets.
References
The list of references is divided into two parts. I first list the translations actually used, then give page references for the direct quotations that appear in the text. Where secondary sources are cited, the full reference will be found in Bibliographical notes.
Classical sources
Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire, AD 354–378, trans. W. Hamilton, 1986, London, Penguin.
Anonymous, Lives of the Later Caesars, trans. A. Birley, 1976, London, Penguin.
Appian, The Civil Wars, trans. J. Carter, 1996, London, Penguin.
Apuleius, The Golden Ass, trans. R. Graves, 1950, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Caesar, The Civil War, trans. J.F. Gardner, 1967, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul, trans. S.A. Handford and J.F. Gardner, 1982, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Horace, The Odes of Horace, trans. J. Michie, 1967, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Livy, The Early History of Rome (Books 1–5), trans. A. de Sélincourt, 1960, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Livy, Rome and Italy (Books 6–10), trans. B. Radice, 1982, London, Penguin.
Livy, The War with Hannibal (Books 21–30), trans. A. de Sélincourt, 1965, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Livy, Rome and the Mediterranean (Books 31–45), trans. H. Bettenson, 1976, London, Penguin.
Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans. B. Radice, 1969, London, Harmondsworth.
Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, trans. J. Dryden, revised by A.H. Clough, undated, London, Dent.
Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, trans. I. Scott-Kilvert, 1979, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Sallust, The Jugurthine War and the Conspiracy of Catiline, trans. S.A. Handford, 1963, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, trans. R. Graves, 1957, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania, trans. H. Mattingly and S.A. Handford, 1970, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, trans. M. Grant, 1977, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Tacitus, The Histories, trans. K. Wellesley, 1986, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. R. Warner, 1972, London, Penguin.
Virgil, The Aeneid, trans. W.F. Jackson Knight, 1958, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Primary source collections
; N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Volume I: Selected Readings: the Republic and the Augustan Age, 1990, New York, Columbia University.
N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Sourcebook II: The Empire, 1966, New York, Harper & Row.
London Association of Classical Teachers (LACTOR 4), Inscriptions of Roman Britain, ed. V.A. Maxfield and B. Dobson, 1995 (3rd edn), London.
London Association of Classical Teachers (LACTOR 11), Literary Sources for Roman Britain, ed. J.C. Mann and R.G. Penman, 1985 (2nd edn), London.
Quotations
Prologue
Virgil, The Aeneid, 172–173.
Virgil, The Aeneid, 149.
Virgil, The Aeneid, 223.
Virgil, The Aeneid, 338.
Livy, History of Rome, Book 1, 17–18.
Quoted in Crawford 1992, 9.
Livy, History of Rome, Book 1, 18.
Chapter 1
Virgil, The Aeneid, 175–176.
Horace, Book 1, Ode 7, 31.
Plutarch, Romulus, 36.
Livy, History of Rome, Book 1, 79.
Cary 1935, 77.
Polybius, History of Rome, Book VI, 312–317.
Quoted in Cornell and Matthews 1982, Atlas of the Roman World, 41.
Chapter 2
Livy, History of Rome, Book 8, 177.
Cornell 1995, 367.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book 2, 147.
Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 55.
Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 58.
Finley 1968, 74.
Finley 1968, 87.
Polybius, History of Rome, Book 1, 61.
Polybius, History of Rome, Book 1, 65–66.
Polybius, History of Rome, Book 2, 140.
Livy, History of Rome, Book 21, 23–24.
Harris 1985, 205.
Livy, History of Rome, Book 21, 41–42.
Livy, History of Rome, Book 31, 27–28.
Polybius, History of Rome, Book 18, 511–513.
Polybius, History of Rome, Book 18, 516.
Quoted in Crawford 1992, 59.
Harris 1985, 225.
Chapter 3
Brunt 1986, 2.
Pliny the Younger, Letters, 105–106.
Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 132.
Appian, Roman History, Book 1, 5.
Apuleius, The Golden Ass, 169–170.
Brunt 1986, 92.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1966, 353–354.
Cary 1935, 312–313.
Plutarch, Gaius Marius, 100.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1990, 396.
Plutarch, Pompey, 385–386.
Quoted in Cooley and Cooley 2004, 21.
Quoted in Cooley and Cooley 2004, 53.
Plutarch, Pompey, 425.
Plutarch, Pompey, 432–433.
Sallust, The Conspiracy of Catiline, 178.
Parenti 2003, 87.
Sallust, The Conspiracy of Catiline, 219–220.
Appian, The Civil Wars, 87–88.
Cornell and Matthews 1982, 70.
Suetonius, Augustus, 57.
Cary 1935, 442.
Virgil, The Aeneid, 222.
Chapter 4
Suetonius, Augustus, 66.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1966, 9–19 passim.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1966, 19.
Suetonius, Augustus, 62.
Tacitus, Annals, 226.
Levick 1993, 148.
Tacitus, Agricola, 64.
LACTOR 4, 88.
Tacitus, Agricola, 72–73.
Tacitus, Agricola, 91.
Tacitus, Agricola, 91.
Suetonius, Domitian, 297.
Quoted in Connolly 1988b, 25.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1966, 507.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1966, 509.
Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 1.
Chapter 5
Quoted in Jackson 1995, 174.
Quoted in Jackson 1995, 174.
LACTOR 11, 38.
Quoted in Birley 1999, 35.
LACTOR 11, 38.
Quoted in Parker 1935, 90.
Quoted in de Ste Croix 1981, 477.
Quoted in de Ste Croix 1981, 478.
Quoted in de Ste Croix 1981, 478.
Quoted in Raven 1969, 140.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1966, 429.
Quoted in Lewis and Reinhold 1966, 430.
Ammianus Marcellinus, History of Rome, Book 30, 406.
Bibliographical notes
The scholarship on the history of Rome is vast; it would take many lifetimes to read it all. The rate of output, moreover, despite a long-term decline of the classics in schools and universities, has continued to rise: more new books on ancient history and classical archaeology now appear each year than ever before. This is not necessarily unalloyed progress. While knowledge of the ancient world certainly increases, understanding may not. Old texts are read more critically; new ones are unearthed in the desert; more settlements, cemeteries and hoards are revealed by archaeology. But while mastery of a growing body of evidence is one thing, the ability to fit it into a wider historical context is quite another. The first is mainly a matter of specialist scholarship; the latter requires social theory, and this, in the last generation, has been under sustained intellectual attack. Much recent secondary literature reflects the current postmodernist fashion for deconstructing unitary grand narratives and proclaiming instead a multiplicity of voices and discourses. While understanding of some aspects of the past has been advanced, our ability to fit all the pieces together into meaningful patterns has actually regressed.
The following notes, therefore, both because the literature is so vast and because so much is of limited value, are far from a comprehensive bibliography. I have restricted myself to the texts which I know and have found useful. The result is that readers are given a good indication of the sources of information and ideas mined for this book. They are also provided with some strong recommendations for further reading.
Books relevant to the content of more than one chapter are discussed in the general sections. Those used only in relation to one chapter – even if they in fact cover a longer period – are discussed in the relevant chapter sections. The editions cited are those actually used – the copies on my bookshelves.
General history and analysis
I still rate M. Cary’s A History of Rome, down to the reign of Constantine (1935, London, Macmillan) the best narrative history (and, as it happens, the original better than Scullard’s revised version). H.H. Scullard’s A History of the Roman World, 753 to 146 BC (1980, London, Methuen) and From the Gracchi to Nero: a history of Rome from 133 BC to AD 68 (1959, London, Methuen) are detailed traditional narratives, though, unlike Cary, interpretation is weak. E.T. Salmon’s A History of the Roman World, 30 BC to AD 138 (1968, London, Routledge) is also sound. M. Le Glay, J.-L. Voisin and Y. Le Bohec’s A History of Rome (2001, Oxford, Blackwell) is a well-established, though somewhat eccentric, textbook. T. Cornell and J. Matthews’s Atlas of the Roman World (1982, Amsterdam, Time Life) is more than its title implies, being a sound narrative history with good use of archaeological evidence. M. Grant’s The Routledge Atlas of Classical History (1994, 5th edn, London, Routledge) and C. Scarre’s The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome (1995, London, Penguin) are also useful. M. Crawford’s The Roman Republic (1992, London, Fontana) and C. Wells’s The Roman Empire (1992, London, Fontana) are valuable companion volumes, offering concise, up-to-date scholarly overviews. Encyclopaedic coverage is provided by The Cambridge Ancient History, volumes 7 to 12. Essentially a series of extended essays by leading specialists, some providing narrative, others discussing themes, the CAH is an exceptionally comprehensive reference. Interesting for their materialist analysis, though very dated, are M. Rostovtzeff’s Rome (1960, Oxford, OUP) and Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (1926, Oxford, Clarendon). C.G. Starr’s The Roman Empire, 27 BC – AD 476 (1982, Oxford, OUP) is a
nother stimulating overview. G.E.M. de Ste Croix’s The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (1981, London, Duckworth) is a superb and seminal Marxist analysis of classical antiquity. P.A. Brunt’s Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (1986, London, Hogarth) is a concise yet penetrating analysis of both the Struggle of the Orders and the Roman Revolution. L. Keppie’s The Making of the Roman Army: from Republic to Empire (1984, London, Batsford) is a sound account of the evolution of the army up to the 1st century AD. P. Connolly’s Greece and Rome at War (1981, London, Macdonald) uses archaeological evidence to trace the history of the Roman army from its origins to the fifth century AD. D. Williams’s The Reach of Rome: a history of the Roman imperial frontier, 1st–5th centuries AD (1996, London, Constable) is excellent on the history and archaeology of the frontiers. P. Matyszak’s The Enemies of Rome: from Hannibal to Attila the Hun (2004, London, Thames & Hudson) provides a handy set of narratives, but without any real understanding of the forces at work. E.N. Luttwak’s The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, from the 1st century AD to the 3rd (1979, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins) is an analysis of Roman imperial defence policy.