CHAPTER THREE -
THE DECLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
One of the
remarkable features of the Roman empire was
how long it lasted. This longevity meant the empire had a dramatic impact on
the development of Mediterranean and European
peoples. From the middle of the second century BCE until the second century CE,
the empire kept expanding. Even when that long period of expansion ended,
the Roman empire lasted for another two
hundred years. However, recognize, the problems that ultimately
led to the fall of the Roman empire became
visible long before the 5th century CE. We discuss what went wrong
with the Roman empire in this chapter.
POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
After
defeating Carthage, Rome
continued to annex Mediterranean peoples and cultures and began its movement
into Europe. The increase in power and the
wealth that resulted, however, had some negative effects for the home state of
Rome/Italy. The wealth flowing to Rome
was not distributed equally; it was primarily the patricians who benefited. In
fact, many of the plebeian class (the backbone of the Army) actually suffered.
For many families, the many years of warfare with Carthage and the stationing or sending of
troops to far flung provinces for a long period of time meant that family farms
were not adequately cared for. In addition, the rise in the state's wealth
resulted in inflation and higher taxes on land. The combination was crushing
for small land holders. Many Roman soldiers finished their period of service
only to come home to a run down property burdened with debt. Many had to sell
their lands - usually to opportunistic elite patricians who built up huge
estates called latifundia. The resulting increase in class
differences and tensions continued to grow for the next several centuries.
This increase in social/class divisions contributed to the weakness and
collapse of the empire.
Another problem was the increasing
distance of soldiers from the Republican government. For one thing, the
Republican governmental system was designed to run a city-state, not handle the
pressures of running a far flung empire of millions of subjects. More
dangerously, the political connections and loyalty between elected leaders and
soldiers weakened and eroded as troops fought for years far away from Italy.
Increasingly, solders felt that the distant leaders of the Republic (and in
particular the patrician Senate) did not take sufficient care of soldiers or
veterans, especially those falling into debt as described above. As a
result, a dangerous shift emerged. Soldiers became more loyal to their
commanders in the field - who were right there, taking care of them - rather
than the unseen and unpopular civilian leaders in Rome. Once this shift in loyalty occurred -
from civilian to military leadership - (and it is clearly evident by at least
110 - 107 BCE) a military coup by a general, supported by disaffected soldiers
was inevitable.
In fact, the beginning of
the end for the Republic occurred in 88 BCE. Sulla, a popular
general, marched into Rome
at the head of a supporting army and took power. This initiated a long period
of generals intruding into political power. Sulla did keep up the appearance of
the Republic; the Senate still met, however it did not have any real
power. Sulla's rule (88-79 BCE) represented the end of rule by law and
representation, and the beginning of rule by force and military power.
Sulla did ultimately retire voluntarily and Roman writers such as Cicero desperately
advocated the return to the Republic. The problem was, once the idea and
example of military based power was established, there were other
generals who wanted to follow Sulla's example. Between 88 - 31 BCE, Rome endured a number of
civil wars in which generals fought each other for power. During this period,
the rule of law and the Republic died.
One famous struggle during
the period of civil wars was the three way competition between Crassus, Pompey, and Julius
Caesar between 59- 45 BCE. Julius Caesar ultimately won this struggle,
achieving sole executive power by 45 BCE. Like Sulla, Julius Caesar maintained
the facade of Republic rule and institutions, but the fact is that his power
did not come from the law or a representative mandate; he ruled based on his
command of military forces. Julius Caesar continued Rome's imperial expansion by pushing deep
into European territory - his power was based on continued military
achievements and fame.
Interestingly, even though
Julius Caesar was accumulating personal power, he did indicate his intent to
confront the social and economic problems in Rome. This helped feed the Senate's hostility
to Caesar, due to his diminishment of their power and because of potential land
reform measures that would detract from their wealth. Ultimately, Julius Caesar
was assassinated in 44 BCE --- by a group of Roman Senators. This was clearly a
*very* dangerous indication of the decline of political leadership; political
violence increasingly became the norm in Roman political life. It is a
problem inherent in a military based leadership; if one cannot remove a leader
through legal, elective methods, violence becomes the only way to achieve
political change. This is a dangerous and destabilizing shift - and it
represents the end of rule by law.
Caesar's death set off
another period of warfare. Two generals loyal to Caesar - Marc Antony and
Octavian - pursued and punished the senators who assassinated Caesar. Once this
was accomplished, the competing ambitions of Octavian and Antony led to yet another civil war. Marc
Antony allied himself with the Ptolemaic leader of Egypt - Cleopatra. The forces of
Anthony and Cleopatra were decisively defeated by Octavian at the battle of
Actium 31 BCE. With the defeat of Antony and
Cleopatra, Octavian was the unchallenged leader of Rome. In 27 BCE, a subservient and weak
Senate voted him the honorary title of Augustus
(the great and noble one.)
RULE BY
CAESAR
The accession to power by
Augustus marked the final end of the Republic. Although some refer to Augustus as
a "constitutional" monarch, the fact is that his power was not
legally based. He came to power and ruled until his death solely on the
basis of the loyal support of the army. After his death, Rome continued to be ruled by military
dictators, and the remnants of the Republic continued to fade. Rome had shifted from
rule by a Republic to rule by emperors; these emperors were often termed
Caesar - (Julius' name became a title). Rule by law was replaced by rule
by force and military might; this proved FAR less stable for the Roman world
This political change set
in motion the forces that ultimately led to Rome's decline. Caesar/emperor rule was much
more unstable than the flawed Republic for a number of reasons:
1. There was no
accountability or legal way to get rid of a bad leader; in fact most
Caesars ended their reigns only when they died, either a natural death or
more often through assassination.
2. There was no clear
way to designate the next ruler - new leaders came to power usually through
violent methods: military coup, assassination and overthrow, or civil war. Even
worse, political power was sometimes based on bloodline. Family line as a way
of picking a ruler is a lottery - one can have a great leader or a terrible
leader. Recognize, these problems of unreliable leadership or violent
changes in power are critical to our discussion. Who was leading the Empire
determined how well it was run – and thus its underlying stability and
longevity.
If this was an entire
semester course on Rome,
we would trace the different Caesars and dynasties that followed Augustus to
see their effects. Here, however, we can only mention a few examples to show
the political difficulties Rome
experienced. Roman rule became a roller coaster ride. There were very able and
moderate emperors such as Augustus and his successor Tiberius. However, these
effective emperors were often followed by inept, or worse, cruelly repressive
men, such as Caligula and Nero. Caligula, in fact, was such an erratic and
bloody ruler that he is believed by most to have been criminally insane. The
problem is, of course, that the fate of the Empire and the responsibility of
holding together the complex system of alliances, military usage and tolerance
was now in the hands of ambitious, sometimes murderous men incapable of or
unwilling to continue these 'enlightened', certainly successful policies.
DECLINE OF
THE EMPIRE
The reign of Augustus (27
BCE - 14 CE) was a fairly constructive time for the empire. Augustus, despite
the fact he was accumulating personal power was an intelligent and effective bureaucrat.
He attacked problems of corruption and mismanagement and repaired some of the
damage done by the Civil Wars. Almost as soon as his reign was over, however,
the more enlightened policies of tolerance and extension of benefits started to
disappear. During the later years of the reign of Tiberius (14-37 CE) and
certainly under Caligula (37-41 CE) the danger of an unrestrained leader became
clear - people were imprisoned or killed at the whim of the emperor. This
regime also terrorized subjects throughout the empire. Not surprisingly,
Caligula was removed in the only way possible with the collapse of law - he was
assassinated in 41 CE.
Caligula was succeeded by a
"good" emperor - Claudius. However after Claudius' death, Nero,
another incompetent and cruel leader, took power. After Nero's death in 68 CE,
there was a period of one year in which there were four emperors - a
return to the civil strife that existed before Augustus. Temporary stability
was achieved during the "Period of the Five Good Emperors" (96 - 180
CE.) It tells you something about Roman imperial leadership that they gave this
time period such a distinctive name! The last of the "good"
emperors was Marcus Aurelius - his more enlightened period of rule was replaced
by the abusive tyranny of his son - Commodus, and the cycle of repression and
instability reasserted itself. (go to
detailed description of early emperors)
Recognize, even under these
"good" emperors, the power of the Caesar and the state was increasing
- and repression of subjects of empire also increased. For example, all those
under Roman rule were forced to worship Roman gods; the policy of leaving
other religious traditions alone was abandoned by these dictatorial Caesars. In
time, it even became a mandatory duty of Roman subjects to worship the
emperor as a god - to increase loyalty to the state. These kinds of
dictates obviously created tremendous religious resistance.
In fact, the beginning of
emperor rule and thus more authoritarian policies resulted in an immediate
increase in resistance and rebellions. Not just the traditional "hot
spots" but areas that had been traditionally obedient and reliable now
became unstable regions displaying unrest or outright rebellion. Now the army
had to be sent in to put down brewing dissent all over the empire.
The Roman
Army was simply not large or reliable enough for this task; in fact the Roman
leadership was having difficulty filling the ranks of soldiers. In the first
and second centuries CE, Caesars were forced to hire mercenaries (soldiers for
hire.) In some cases they even hired those "barbarian" tribal
warriors from conquered areas of Europe (they
were very good fighters - but not the most reliable soldiers!) The
discipline and reliability of the old Army, built on loyal citizens, was lost.
This decline in the effectiveness of the Army is often referred to as the
"barbarization" of the Roman Army. So at the same time the Army
was urgently needed to suppress an increased number of rebellions under
dictatorial rule, the Army was declining in numbers and ability. The end
result was that the empire had to stop expanding for the first time in several
centuries, and ultimately had to begin retreating. This retrenchment the Romans
called "defense in depth" - a not very subtle euphemism for retreat
and lost territory!
This caused further
problems. As the Roman Empire shrank, this
meant a decline in the number of tax payers - and thus income for the state.
The only way to attempt fiscal balance, and to continue to pay for an even more
expensive military budget, was to increase taxes on remaining subjects -
which of course led to even more rebellions! This cycle of rebellion, loss of
territory, increasing fiscal problems, and thus more retreat, continued until Rome finally did collapse
in the middle of the 5th century CE. Although a few emperors were
able to stall the decline, the end of Rome,
once set in motion, could not be stopped.
SOCIAL
TENSIONS
One final area of pressure
on the Roman Empire was social division at
home. Class differences continued to grow and create tensions; in many cities,
especially Rome,
there number of urban poor exploded. Unable to make a living on the land,
unable or unwilling to serve in the military, there were few opportunities for
those who then flocked to the cities in desperation. Cities grew
dramatically, dominated by slum areas, overcrowding, full of filth, disease and
crime. The danger for Roman leaders was that these conditions could easily
ignite into revolution. In attempting to deal with this threat, the Roman
emperors, however, did not deal with the underlying problems of land
distribution and poverty. Instead, they relied on a policy known as "Bread
and Circuses" to prevent social upheaval.
Roman emperors kept hunger
from reaching the level of starvation (and thus bread riots) by doling out to
poor citizens enough bread, oil and wine to prevent desperate
hunger. The second component of the policy was to distract or entertain
the angry and suffering poor, to keep this group from erupting into riots and
rebellion. Roman leaders funded the elaborate "games" that are
such a part of our cultural imagery of Rome.
Blood sports carried on in public in arenas such as the Coliseum
of Rome
included chariot races, gladiator
battles (men fighting to the death) and fights between animals (and animals
and condemned people) that were imported from all over the empire. These blood
sports were funded by the state or key wealthy/aristocratic families - with the
intent of distracting an unhappy populace from their problems. Some
social historians also argue that these blood sports and public demonstrations
of violence and death were also to instill some sense of connection and unity
with the Roman Army and its military culture.
This solution of
state-funded "bread and circuses"
did not solve the
underlying social problems - all that resulted were even more expenditures by
the state, adding to the debt and escalation of violence in the society.
Cultural and historical images of violence and bloodshed remain in our
historical memory, legacies of this social policy. The games are in fact
effectively symbolic of the Roman empire - the
martial culture that made possible its successes, as well as representing a
clear symptom of its decline.
In addition to these
problems, emperors also faced the rise of religious resistance to the state.
This came not just from the traditionally hostile Jews, but also a new religion
emerging in the hotbed region of Palestine
- Christianity.
Interesting Related Web
Sites
Online
Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers
GO
TO CHAPTER
FOUR
BACK TO CHAPTER TWO
