When news reached Nero near the beginning of his reign that the Parthian king Vologeses had established his own brother Tiridates on the throne of Armenia (p. 251)29 Nero prepared for action. Cn. Domitius Corbulo, who had shown his ability on the Lower Rhine under Claudius, was appointed to Cappadocia and Galatia and was empowered to take over two legions and auxiliaries from the governor of Syria. But troops stationed in Syria tended to become slack (p. 210) and Corbulo, a stern disciplinarian, had first to toughen up his men (A.D. 55): he was given the chance because Vologeses was embarrassed by a rebel son and by a revolt in Hyrcania. After wintering (57/8) in northern Armenia amid snow and ice (Armenia is a land of great climatic extremes), Corbulo advanced against Tiridates who refused terms; he then captured the Armenian capital, Artaxata (probably 58). As Tiridates had fled, Corbulo in 59 marched 300 miles south-west to capture Tigranocerta. This victory, as the previous one, was celebrated by Nero being saluted as imperator. After a vain attempt by Tiridates to get back to Armenia, the Roman government decided to establish a Romanized prince on the Armenian throne and chose a certain Tigranes, a great-grandson of Herod the Great and of the former Cappadocian king Archelaus. After this settlement, which did not please the Armenians, Corbulo retired to Syria, of which he was appointed governor.
Tigranes, however, soon provoked Parthia by attacking Adiabene; Corbulo, who feared a Parthian attack on Syria, could only spare two legions to help Tigranes and urged Nero to send out a separate commander to aid Armenia. Nero chose one of the consuls of 61, L. Caesennius Paetus who arrived in Cappadocia in 62. It is usually supposed from the boastful words that Tacitus put in Paetus’ mouth that this move represents a change in imperial policy and that Nero had determined to annex Armenia at last: it is just possible, however, that Paetus was only instructed to defend Armenia. But whatever his purpose, he proved incompetent. In an advance towards Tigranocerta, he encamped at Rhandeia for the winter. When the Parthian army appeared he sent for help to Corbulo who did not hurry, perhaps because he thought that Paetus’ forces were sufficient to withstand any attack on their camp. Paetus, however, panicked and surrendered to the Parthians when Corbulo was less than fifty miles away. Rhandeia was not so serious a loss as Carrhae, but the disgrace was even greater: cowardice had combined with incompetence. Corbulo then reached an agreement with the Parthians that he would withdraw west of the Euphrates, if they would withdraw from Armenia. When negotiations for a final settlement were protracted, Rome decided on a great show of force. Paetus had been recalled and Corbulo was entrusted with a maius imperium over all the Roman forces in the East. After he had demonstrated beyond the Euphrates he agreed to meet the Parthians at Rhandeia. Here a final settlement was negotiated: Rome agreed to recognize the Parthian Tiridates as king of Armenia, and he in turn agreed to go to Rome to receive his diadem from Nero. This coronation ceremony was held with great splendour in 66. Thus friendly relations were established between Rome and the two eastern kingdoms which, helped by some readjustments made later by Vespasian, lasted half a century. In Armenia Artaxata was, temporarily, renamed Neroneia, while in Rome the temple of Janus was closed and the coinage that advertised the fact urbi et orbi proclaimed ‘pace populi Romani terra marique parta Ianum clausit’.
The incorporation of eastern Pontus into the province of Galatia, which has already been mentioned, was occasioned by the retirement, nominally voluntary, of the King Polemo II. At the same time Rome took over the royal fleet and kept a squadron of some forty ships, based on Trapezus, on patrol in the Black Sea. Nero also planned an expedition in the Caucasus area towards the Caspian Sea, perhaps a drive to hold back Sarmatian tribes (the Alani) from advancing to the Danube or to occupy the country of the Iberians in the Caucasus, thus following in Pompey’s footsteps. But these further plans to strengthen Rome’s hold in the East were not carried out.30 Nero also had some plans for Africa, though their exact nature is uncertain. In 61–3 a detachment of praetorian soldiers was sent up the Nile past Meroe to the marshes of the White Nile. This was perhaps a scientific expedition, designed to discover the source of the Nile, or it may have been a reconnaissance for a campaign against the king of Axum (Abyssinia). In any case no Ethiopian war ensued: on military and probably on economic grounds it was unnecessary, though a victory in such distant and mysterious lands might have appealed to Nero’s vanity.31
The great revolt that flared up in Palestine in 66 was the result of old grievances and protracted disturbances. It was not a happy land. It suffered from internal stresses, both economic and religious: there was tension between rich and poor, between Sadducee and Pharisee, between Jew and Samaritan, between Jew and non-Jew, especially Greek, and between Jew and Christian. Little wonder that some men had turned to a less complicated life like that of the Essenes and, a landmark in history, established the monastic community at Qumran on the Dead Sea, whose scriptures now partially survive, the famous Dead Sea Scrolls.32 Above all, there was a common hatred of Rome, although this was moderated among the upper class which looked to Rome to protect its interests. This sentiment naturally was nationalistic in aim and sought to throw off the yoke of the unclean and idolatrous Gentile. Feelings were often further aggravated by Roman lack of tact, since Roman policy towards the Jews in general had tended to fluctuate between great generosity or undue harshness (see pp. 121, 211, 234, 241, 247). True, there had been no religious persecution as such, and the Jews had been granted freedom of worship and association. The mad folly of Gaius had been counteracted by Claudius’ re-establishment of a native ruler, but the reversion to provincial status after Agrippa’s brief rule (41–44) will have re-emphasized Judaea’s dependence on Rome. His son, Agrippa II, was well treated by Rome: in 50 he was given Chalcis, the kingdom of his uncle Herod who had died (p. 251), and in 53 he received in exchange for Chalcis, Philip’s tetrarchy (Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, etc.) and that of Lysanias (Abilene), to which Nero added part of Galilee and Peraea.
The Roman procurators obviously had no easy task with so recalcitrant a people, but they were too often incompetent. Cuspius Fadus in 44 had killed a prophet and agitator named Theudas; his successor, Tiberius Alexander, was a renegade Jew;33 and his successor, Ventidius Cumanus (48–52), crushed some fighting between Jews and Samaritans with such rigour that he himself was later court-martialled and exiled. The next procurator was Antonius Felix (52–60), brother of the freedman Pallas and husband of a Jewess Drusilla, the sister of Agrippa II. He had to face increasing social unrest, from bands of fanatical robbers (Sicarii or ‘Men of the Knife’) who plundered the rich and pro-Romans, and also from a violent group of Zealots, led by Eleazar, son of the High Priest. He had to deal with rioting between Greeks and Jews in Caesarea and it was he who tried St. Paul whom he kept in confinement as he judged that release would be politically dangerous. Like other governors, he had only some 3000 local troops at his disposal, although in grave difficulty he could appeal to the governor of Syria for legionary help. The next governor, Porcius Festus (60–2), was relieved of the problem of St. Paul when the latter ‘appealed to Caesar’, but he had other difficulties. When Festus died and before his successor Albinus arrived, the Sadducee High Priest took the chance to crush some opponents, including James, the brother of Jesus, who was stoned to death. Finally, under Gessius Florus (64–6) the storm broke.
The immediate cause was some rioting at Caesarea and in Jerusalem where the High Priest refused to sacrifice to Jehovah on behalf of the emperor and where, despite the intervention of Agrippa, the small Roman garrison was massacred. Faced with a spread of disorder, Florus called in the legate of Syria who arrived with some 30,000 men but winter was approaching and he dared not assault Jerusalem but withdrew (66). As the rebellion was extending to the whole of Palestine, Nero appointed a new governor of Syria, C. Licinius Mucianus, and put a tried soldier, T. Flavius Vespasianus, in command of the expedition against Judaea. Vespasian’s plan was to use his three legions to reduce Palestine district by district and thus isolate Jerusal
em before the final attack. In 67 he reduced Galilee which was defended by Josephus, a philo-Roman Pharisee who managed to survive and to pass over to the winning side: he gained pardon and friendship from Vespasian, whose elevation to the throne he prophesied. In 68 Vespasian reduced Samaria and Idumaea, but when news came of the death of Nero he slowed down operations. During all this time Palestine had been far from united in its opposition to the Romans and there had been much fighting between Jews and Gentiles, while Jerusalem became the scene of bitter fighting between three Jewish factions. Thus when Vespasian went off to seek the Principate and left his son Titus to conduct the final siege of Jerusalem, Titus invested a city divided against itself. Nevertheless the resistance was fanatically heroic, but in August 70 the city fell and was sacked. The sequel is soon told. The temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin and High Priesthood were abolished, the annual contribution paid by every pious Jew to the temple was diverted to Juppiter Capitolinus. The Jewish State ceased to exist as a political entity, but Judaism as a religion continued and was even protected as in the past, its followers being allowed their Sabbath, freedom from military service and exemption from the Imperial cult. Judaea remained a Roman province but the equestrian procurator now became the subordinate to a senatorial legate who commanded the Tenth Legion which henceforth garrisoned Jerusalem. When after the reign and death of Titus (81) a commemorative arch was erected in his honour, all Rome was reminded by its sculptures of the end of Jerusalem.34
12. THE STORM BREAKS
The course of events in Palestine and reports of growing discontent in the West persuaded Nero to listen to the appeals of Helius, the freedman whom he had left in charge at Rome, that he should return from Greece. He left reluctantly and reached the city early in 68. Here he found the populace angry because of a cornshortage; the aristocracy hated him, and the armies were becoming restless at his lack of interest and angered through his murder of commanders like Corbulo and those of the Rhine armies. His reception befitted an opera star more than a Roman emperor: the victor of the sacred games of Greece hung up his 1808 crowns for the public to admire. But he still longed for a Greek setting and so by March he had gone to Naples. Here news reached him that C. Julius Vindex, the governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, was in revolt.
The objectives of Vindex, a Romanized Gaul, are uncertain, beyond that of getting rid of Nero: he probably had no intention of restoring republican authority nor is it clear how far he may have championed a Gallic nationalist movement which sought autonomy, or at least more freedom, for Gaul. He probably merely wanted a better emperor. He won the support of some Gallic tribes, but others opposed him; Vienna in the Rhone valley declared for him, but Lugdunum remained loyal to Nero. Nevertheless Vindex raised a force said to number 100,000 men. All would depend on the reaction of the army commanders in the West, with whom he got into touch. Servius Sulpicius Galba, the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, responded and proclaimed himself the ‘legatus senatus populique Romani’, that is, presumably, no longer a servant of Nero. In Spain he was supported by M. Salvius Otho, governor of Lusitania, and by A. Caecina, the quaestor of Baetica. L. Clodius Macer, the legate in Africa, also revolted. He, Galba and Vindex all issued propagandist coins and began to build up their forces.
The attitude of the armies on the Rhine was critical. The legate of Upper Germany, L. Verginius Rufus, advanced against Vindex and the armies met at Vesontio (Besançon). What happened is obscure: the two leaders conferred, but Verginius’ men are said to have insisted on fighting; possibly they regarded the Gauls as dangerous nationalists. In the battle that followed Vindex was defeated and committed suicide. Verginius Rufus was immediately offered the principate by his victorious troops, but he refused, perhaps less out of loyalty to Nero than because he was of equestrian origin. Meantime Galba in Spain was left in a dangerous position and even thought of taking his life, but in June a message reached him that Nero was dead and that the Senate and Practorians had chosen him as emperor. In two famous phrases of Tacitus, ‘a secret of empire was revealed that an emperor could be made elsewhere than at Rome’, and Rome gained a ruler who was ‘omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset’.35
Resolution in this crisis might have yet saved Nero; the Praetorians were loyal and he still had troops on whom he could rely. But he hesitated and beyond making himself sole consul he did little. Tigellinus fled, and the other Praetorian Prefect, Nymphidius Sabinus, bribed the Guard with 30,000 sesterces a head to support the Senate and proclaim Galba emperor. Nero, who was hiding in the villa of his freedman Phaon near Rome, heard the news that he had been proclaimed a public enemy by the Senate. While steeling himself to strike the fatal blow he is said to have bemoaned the loss to the world of such an artist (‘qualis artifex pereo’), and when his pursuers were at last on him his freedman Epaphroditus helped him thrust his sword home. So died the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty on 9 June 68, aged thirty.
The promise of his early years had been unfulfilled, and on his way to open absolutism and tyranny Nero had incurred great hatred in the West. In the East, however, he had been popular, except with Jews and Christians who regarded him as the anti-Christ; indeed two pretenders who emerged in the East in 69 and 79, claiming to be Nero, easily gained some temporary following. But his death did not immediately solve all problems: the lack of an heir
Genealogical tree of the chief members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty
undermined the hereditary principle of succession. This was decided by the army groups in mutual rivalry. In 69, the ‘year of the four emperors’, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian succeeded each other in quick succession, but in the end the will of the armies of the East and of the Danube prevailed and Vespasian’s claims were vindicated. Since he had two sons, Titus and Domitian, Rome might look forward to a period of peace in which the succession would not again be contested in bitter civil war, and in fact the new dynasty of the three Flavian emperors served Rome well. Though the principate advanced a little farther along the path to absolutism, stable government and sound administration were again established and Rome could once more believe in herself and her future: she was given a new lease of life. Not without hope could the legend of a coin of Vespasian proclaim the promise of ‘The Eternity of the Roman People’.
XV
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIFE IN THE EARLY EMPIRE
1. AGRICULTURE
Economic life in the early Empire did not differ essentially from that under the late Republic.1 Augustus neither introduced a new economic policy nor sought to establish State controls or monopolies: the old laissez-faire continued. Taxation was not used as a direct means of controlling trade or industry and its incidence was not heavy enough to hamper private enterprise. As earlier, there was little competition between the State and the individual, but rather competition was allowed to develop freely between all those who interested themselves in industry or trade. The essential difference was the establishment of the pax Romana: no longer were wars or civil strife to be allowed to strike crippling blows at the economic life of the community. By developing the political unity of the Mediterranean world, Augustus thereby created the conditions for its economic unification. Given peace, the economic prosperity of the Empire would take care of itself.
Italy became increasingly prosperous and dominated the economic life of the Empire. In agriculture no sudden changes took place. Latifundia continued and perhaps even increased in some parts, as Etruria, S. Italy, and in parts of Latium and Campania, but medium-sized farms held their own. Some of the latter in central Italy, as Horace’s famous Sabine farm, would be owned by city-dwellers, run by bailiffs, and worked in part by slaves but in part leased out in plots to tenants (coloni: a term that only later came to mean renters tied to the soil, or serfs). In Campania, in the farms around Vesuvius at Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae, a higher proportion of owners lived on their estates which were worked by slaves rather than by coloni; many owners, however, probably a majority, also had town-houses. The
main changes were in labour and produce: the independent peasant farmer was tending to disappear and to be transformed into a tenant, while wine and oil became the main products. Since grain came as tribute from Egypt and Africa, the cereal culture of Latium declined, but provincial grain probably did not seriously affect cornproduction in the rest of Italy. The population of Italy was increasing and therefore much wheat must have been grown: if its production declined, this will probably have been because viticulture often proved more profitable.
Features which became more noticeable as time passed, included the declining number of slaves, provincial competition, and the concentration of land in fewer hands. The cessation of wars and piracy naturally caused a diminution of slaves. This was offset to some extent by an increase in the number of home-bred slaves and by better treatment. Columella, the agricultural expert of Nero’s day, shows that the work of slavewomen was lightened in proportion to the number of their children and that the mother of three was entitled to her freedom. Though he implies that slaves were often bound, Pliny a little later says that he never used chained slaves. Whether farm slaves received the customary five denarii a month that was given to town slaves remains uncertain. More humane treatment might increase efficiency to some extent and thus help to compensate for the difficulty of obtaining slaves, but Columella gives the impression that efficiency was rare without constant vigilance. Another aspect of the Julio-Claudian period was that marketing conditions were changing: the economic development of the western provinces was progressing; Gaul, Spain and Africa were producing more wine and oil. Again, during the reigns from Tiberius to Nero imperial confiscations of land, both in Italy and the provinces, increased, while the emperor received much property by inheritance. He thus became the greatest landowner, and in general there was a tendency to concentrate land among fewer owners (Seneca, for instance, secured great estates after the murder of Britannicus), but this does not prove the truth of Pliny’s famous observation that ‘latifundia Italiam perdidere’. Some of the medium-sized and smaller estates may have been absorbed while in face of changing conditions an increasing number of large landowners may have let out more land to tenants and turned more over to cereal production. But there is enough evidence to show that the concentration of land to which Roman satirists and moralists often refer, did not occur everywhere: many small farmers in the central Apennines continued to work their own plots, and estates of moderate size flourished in Campania.
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 43