1. Eastern Mediterranean and the genesis of Antiquity.

The origins of the Classical World are those of humankind. These lecture
notes, however, will only deal with the beginning of History, already outside
Africa.

It is conventionally agreed that History starts with the invention of writing in

the so-called ‘Bronze-Age’. This period comes straight after a prehistoric
Neolithic in which humans abandoned nomadism to settle and cultivate areas
where permanent social structures were developed (no.2). The transition
towards History is not homogenous. Some territories developed writing
systems as early as the 3rd millennium BC. By contrast, there are some
peoples such as the Inuit in the Arctic, the Aboriginals in Australia, or the
Hmong in southeast Asia who have remained largely oral cultures until the
19th and 20th centuries AD. Therefore, the adoption of writing does not explain
in itself the transition between two fundamental ages of humankind. This
process needs to be understood as part of a broader phenomenon in which
communal villages were transformed into cities, cities became states, and
states turned into empires. Two regions particularly witnessed this
fundamental transformation: Mesopotamia and Egypt (no.3).

Mesopotamia – meaning the land ‘in the middle of rivers’ – is bordered by the
Tigris and the Euphrates. These two rivers have their births in the mountains
of the Anatolian peninsula (modern Turkey) and they flow south towards the
Indian Ocean. The river mouths create a humid area of delta and marshlands.
The middle course goes through a region with extremely hot and dry weather,
the fertility of which mostly depends on the water brought by these two rivers.
The case of Egypt is even more notorious. The Nile, the longest river on earth,
starts running in the tropical mountains of Africa and crosses the Sahara desert
bringing vegetation and life to a narrow strip of land in which the population
concentrated in ancient times (and today).

Archaeology has identified different settlement cultures throughout the

Neolithic in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Their development certainly influenced
the precedents of the 4th millennium BC. Such a common origin, however, led
to different urban and ruling structures that need to be studied independently.

History in the Near East began in the southern area of Mesopotamia, which is
conventionally known as Sumer. This region was characterised by the
presence of multiple independent settlements with small surrounding
territories under their control (no. 4). These city-states were constantly at war
with each other or forming coalitions. Despite such circumstances, the
economic development of the area led to the creation of a system to
permanently record accounts and words in the language of the region:

1
Sumerian. The earliest surviving example of a writing document is the Kish
tablet dating to ca. 3500 BC. The format is still purely pictographic but served
as an ancestor of the writing system known as cuneiform (no.5). As the name
indicates, cuneiform involves inscribing wedges (cunei in Latin) and was used
both for Sumerian and other languages in the near East over a long time span
(no.6). With the appearance of writing and the creation of city-states in
Mesopotamia, the region developed self-governed and economically sufficient
entities with hierarchical societies, administrations and common religious and
cultural communities.

The best representative of this period was Uruk. A walled city of almost a
hundred hectares (no.7), this excavated site has provided us with monumental
public architecture, workshops and cultic structures (no.8). Probably, the most
famous of these religious buildings were the ziggurats, terraced compounds
dedicated to the varied pantheon of Mesopotamian deities (no.9). These gods
also appear in what is usually considered the earliest piece of literature, the
Epic of Gilgamesh that took place in Uruk. Its superhuman protagonist was
said to have built the walls of the city after the Great Flood, a theme recreated
by many ancient cultures and, most famously, recorded in the Bible too. After
establishing colonies and outposts in the periphery, the culture of Uruk came
to an abrupt end at the beginning of the 3rd millennium. This vacuum led to
the emergence of various local cultures until a new phase of urbanisation
started between 2800-2000 BC during the so-called ‘Early Dynastic Period’.
While Mesopotamian influences started reaching areas outside Sumer such as
the Levant, Anatolia and Iran, the southern city of Ur became the most
important settlement with splendid architectural developments. The royal
palace acquired a separate political role, with religious temples controlling
both cultic and some economic activities. This was a period of expansion for
the dynasty following the model shown by the ‘Standard of Ur’ (no.10). Soon,
surrounding cities started to imitate this successful model of administration
and competition grew for trade networks (no. 11).

When Enlil [the god], king of all lands, gave to Lugalzagesi the kingship of
the nation, directed all the eyes of the land (obediently) toward him,
put all the lands at his feet, and from the east to the west made them
subject to him: then, from the Lower Sea, (along) the Tigris and the
Euphrates to the Upper Sea, he (Enlil) put their routes in good
order for him. From east to west Enlil permitted him no [riv]al;
under him the lands rested contentedly, the people made merry, and
the suzerainty of Sumer and rulers of other lands conceded
sovereignty to him at Uruk.

2
Then (also) under him, Uruk spent its time rejoicing; Ur, like a bull, raised
high its head; Larsa, the beloved city of Utu, made merry, Umma,
the beloved city of Shara lifted its huge horns; the region of Zabala
cried out like a ewe reunited(?) with its lamb; and Kidingir raised
high its neck. (after J. Cooper 1986: 94 no. 7.1)

Such conflicts in southern Mesopotamia contributed to the rise of a new

power coming from the middle course of the Tigris and Euphrates: Agade
(Akkad). Its first ruler was Sargon I (2254–2218 BC) and he conquered what
it is considered the first great empire in history (no.12). Even though the
language of the Akkadians belonged to the Semitic branch –different to the
isolated Sumerian linguistic family– it was still inscribed in cuneiform
(no.13-14).

Sargon the king of Akkad, the [. . .] of Innana, king of Kish, anointed of Anu,
[king] of lands, governor of Enlil, conquered the city of Uruk and
destroyed its walls. He challenged (the man of) Uruk in battle and
took Lugalzagesi, the king of Uruk, prisoner in the course of the
battle; he led him in a wooden collar to the gate of Enlil.
Sargon, king of Akkad, challenged (the man of) Ur in a battle and defeated the
city and destroyed its walls. He defeated (the town of) E-Nin-kimara
and destroyed its walls and destroyed its land from Lagash to the
sea. He washed his weapons in the sea. He challenged Umma in a
battle [and he defeated the city and destroyed its walls].
To Sargon, king of lands, Enlil gave no rival; Enlil gave him the Upper Sea
and the Lower Sea. From the Lower Sea, citizens of Akkad held the
government. Mari and Elam were subject to Sargon, king of lands.
Sargon, king of lands, restored Kish and made (its fugitive
inhabitants re)occupy the city. (after Kuhrt 1995: 49)

The rule of Akkad disappeared rather quickly and led to the creation of a new
state in Ur, normally referred to as Ur III, founded by Ur-Nammu (no.15). He
is credited with the creation of the first law code (no.16):

Then did Ur-Nammu, the mighty warrior, king of Ur, king of Sumer and
Akkad, by the might of Nanna, lord of the city, and in accordance
with the word of Utu, establish equity in the land (and) banish
malediction, violence and strife. By granting immunity in Akkad to
the maritime trade from the seafarers’ overseer, to the herdsman
from the “oxen trader,” the “sheep taker,” and the “donkey taker,”
he set Sumer and Akkad free. (ANET II: 31–4, lines 104–24)

3
In the period following the fall of Ur III, new cities established themselves as
powerful states and the most important of these was Babylon. One of its
kings, Hammurabi, ruled between 1792–1750 BC and expanded his empire
to the south coast and the eastern region of Elam (no.17). Hammurabi is best
known for a law-code inscribed on a stele with his image standing before the
sun-god (no.18). This object is now displayed in the Louvre Museum of Paris
and contains one of the earliest testimonies of the law of talion, that is “an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”.

Ex. Law #196: "If a man destroys the eye of another man, they shall destroy
his eye. If one breaks a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one
destroys the eye of a freeman or breaks the bone of a freeman he
shall pay one gold mina. If one destroys the eye of a man's slave or
breaks a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price.

Under Hammurabi’s successors, the influence of Babylon in the region

decreased. At the same time, other regional powers grew in importance. From
the Zagros mountains the Kassites immigrated to the northern Tigris area. In
Anatolia, the early Hittite empire was initiated by Hattusili I, who founded a
city, Hattusa, between 1590 and 1560 BC (no.19). Hurrian mercenaries also
started to develop the Mittani kingdom. Soon the Hittites began to be
threatened by the military strength of Mitanni who also competed against
Egypt for the Levant. Internal problems, nevertheless, weakened this power
and Mittani was reduced to a client state in 1370–1330 (no.20-21). In this
period, people inhabiting the middle of Mesopotamia managed to establish the
kingdom of Assyria, while the control of the Levant remained in Hittite
hands until the Battle of Kadesh was won by the Egyptian king Ramses in
1274 BC (no.22-23).

Egypt:

The history of the upper Nile valley was not determined by a series of rival
cities becoming states and then turning into ephemeral empires (no.24). From
the earliest written accounts of Egypt, the territory appears united under the
rule of kings. Accordingly, the study of this region must rather focus on the
succession of different dynasties that can be divided into three main periods:
Old, Middle and New (no.25).

Ruling structures were also united by the use of an isolated language such as
Egyptian that survived many millennia and today continues to be used for
liturgical purposes by the Coptic Christians. Like Sumerian, this language
developed a writing system based on pictograms from a very early stage and

4
gave origin to the hieroglyphs (no.26-28). The development of this
pictographic script almost coincided with the beginning of the Old kingdom
and the first known ruler of a united Egypt, Djoser, sometime around 2686
BC (no.29-30). The monarch was to receive the denomination ‘Pharaoh’ that
originally designated the royal palace. The king embodied divine and human
authority in himself, and was thought to merge with the god Osiris upon his
death. The city of Memphis became the kingdom’s capital and the period is
characterized by the construction of pyramids, the first of which was built in
the Memphis necropolis of Saqqara (no.30-31). Under the 4th dynasty (2613–
2494 BC), the famous great pyramid and the sphinx of Giza were completed
(no.32). Military expeditions reached Sudan (in the south) and Canaan (in the
east). In the 5th dynasty (2494–2345 BC), more texts began to be inscribed on
the pyramids and the cult of the solar god Ra also increased (no.33). Trading
routes were connected with the Red Sea, although a series of obscure reasons
brought the period to an end with the 6th dynasty. This opened a transitional
era of instability that continued until the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC
with the establishment of the ‘Middle Kingdom’.

Under the 11th dynasty of Mentuhotep and his successors, Egypt was reunited
again from the middle city of Thebes (no.34). Many aspects of the Old
Kingdom were kept, the Pharaohs were still buried in pyramids but these were
equipped with fine decorations and complex interiors. The ‘Middle Kingdom’
was regarded by the Egyptians as their Classical period. Art combined
elegance with austerity and new forms such as block statues were developed
(no.35). Language also became canonical and it produced some of the most
precious papyri, the vegetal support on which hieroglyphs and, later, the
cursive demotic script were written (no.36). The Story of Sinuhe is
recognized as one of the key works of this period (no.37). In spite of this
cultural flourishing, the Middle Kingdom was a period of political instability
and many rulers resorted to co-regents. For example, Sesostris I ruled together
with his father Amenemhat I (no.38). At the end of the 13th dynasty, the period
terminated and initiated a new transitional epoch leading to the establishment
of the so-called ‘New Kingdom’ (1550–1050 BC).

After several local powers declined, Ahmose, first king of the 18th dynasty
defeated the Hyksos (or ‘Rulers of Foreign Lands’ in Egyptian). Major
campaigns were also waged in Sudan and even in the Mediterranean,
introducing colonies (no.39). The culmination of the Egyptian military
success came with the battle of Megiddo (c.1450 BC), won by Pharaoh
Tuthmosis III against the Mitanni. The 18th dynasty saw some of the better
known monarchs of Egypt. For example, Tuthmosis III was preceded by
Hatshepsut, the queen who built one of the most spectacular architectural

5
complexes surviving today (no.40). On her obelisk at Karnak, the seat of the
Theban god Amun, she recorded her monumental legacy (no.41):

Those who shall see my monument in future years, and shall speak of what I
have done, beware unless you say, “I know not, I know not how this
has been done, fashioning a mountain of gold like something self-
created” [. . .] Nor shall he who hears this say it was a boast, but
rather, “How like Hatshepsut this is, how worthy of her father.”

The cult of Amun of Thebes inspired envy as well as adulation, and its older
rival, the sun worshippers centred around Heliopolis, fought back. There are
clear signs of this process in the reign of Tuthmosis IV and his son Amenophis
III (c.1390–1352 BC). Everything culminated in the remarkable reign of
Akhenaten in which the worship of Amun was first marginalised and then
proscribed. Instead, a sole creator god was introduced and profusely
represented in the official media, art and literature (no.42). The revolution of
Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti was short-lived and, among their successors,
the name of Tutankhamun needs to be particularly highlighted. A young and
not very long ruler (1332-1323 BC), his tomb was discovered in 1922 by
Howard Carter and has provided us with some of the finest funerary art
surviving from the Ancient world. The following two dynasties, the 19th and
20th, are normally referred to as the ‘Ramesside period’. Its most important
ruler was Ramses II who, as previously mentioned, clashed with the Hittites
in Qadesh around 1275 BC.

2. The Aegean cultures in the Indo-European sphere.

The Aegean Sea constitutes the origin and centre of the Greek World. This
area of the Mediterranean is bordered by an appendix of the Balkans in the
west, the coast of Anatolia in the east and a series of islands in the north,
centre and south, from the Dardanelles Strait to Crete (no.2).

As in the Near East, Aegean history starts at the onset of the ‘Bronze-Age’.
This period emerging from the end of the Neolithic is conventionally dated
between the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 2nd millennia BC in the
Aegean Sea. The establishment of a universal chronology from this point in
time remains very difficult because of the lack of sources, the fragmentation
of the evidence and the absence of a strong scholarly consensus. Likewise, it
is particularly difficult to write the history of a period that the Greeks placed
in their mythical past. Greek mythology famously sought to narrate the
genesis not only of divine pantheons, but also of human communities.
Different generations of gods, heroes and founders succeeded and their stories
have profoundly influenced our understanding of the Classical World. Almost

6
since the beginning of Classical literature, authors have sought to connect
such colourful myths with historical reality through imaginative chronologies.

Indeed, mythical accounts precisely guided the pioneers who discovered and
excavated two places that are essential for the modern study of the ‘Bronze
Age’ in the Aegean: Knossos and Mycenae. The first site is located on the
island of Crete where mythology narrates that the king Minos ruled from his
labyrinth (no.3). It was not until 1900 that Sir Arthur Evans began to unearth
the remains of the palace in which the subsequently named ‘Minoan
Civilization’ both flourished and perished (no.4). Mycenae, on the other hand,
was the seat of another celebrated king called Agamemnon who led the
Greeks in a war against Troy. Following the geographical notes written by
Homer, the German businessman H. Schliemann discovered in 1876 the
spectacular tombs of Mycenaean monarchs on the Peloponnese (no.5). Such
ground-breaking events necessarily transformed our knowledge of the Aegean
‘Bronze Age’ and opened a new era in modern Archaeology.

Multiple artefacts came to be known and, with them, the necessity to create a
chronological framework in which they could have historical significance.
Three areas can be differentiated according to the geographical provenance of
the material: Helladic (for the Greek peninsula), Minoan (for Crete) and
Cycladic (for the islands). Each of these categories is subdivided into three
periods – Early, Middle and Late – following the conventions used for
Egypt. Such divisions enable the establishment of a relative chronology, that
is sequences based on archaeological evidence distributed in distinguishable
layers (no.6). The key issue is to transfer such sequences into years of our
calendar and create an absolute chronology (no.7). There are two principal
ways in which this difficult process can be undertaken. One is the appearance
of Aegean objects in archaeological contexts that are more securely dated such
as those of the Near East. For example, direct trading routes and material
exchange existed between Crete and Egypt (no.8-9). The second possibility
is provided by technology-based methods such as radiocarbon dating or
dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) which, unfortunately, are neither
infallible nor always precise (no.10).

Despite such difficulties, it has been concluded that the transition between the
Neolithic and Bronze Ages in Crete saw the birth of a distinctive culture
conventionally referred to as Minoan (no.11). In the same period, interactions
between the Cyclades islands –in the centre of the Aegean– and the
neighbouring lands became more frequent. The production of distinctive
figurines with slender figures also peaked in this area (no.12). On the Greek
peninsula, contacts with the Aegean islands and Minoan imports increased
after the Early Helladic period (no.13). The emergence of the first palatial

7
structures in Crete is dated to around 1900 BC (or Middle Minoan). These
palaces were structured around a central court (no.14). Several other rooms
could be added and gave the impression of a labyrinthine layout which may
have inspired mythical episodes such as those of Minos and the Minotaur.
The palaces were also decorated with wall paintings depicting animals,
landscapes and geometric compositions (no.15). As already demonstrated by
Evans in his early excavations of Knossos, these structures acted not only as
royal residences but also as economic centres. Such activities gave rise to a
system of organisation for which the development of writing systems was
fundamental. The earliest written testimonies in Crete are attested on seals that
aimed to identify ownership. These decorated seals were inscribed with two
different scripts, one purely pictographic called ‘Cretan
hieroglyphics’ (no.16), and the second with a syllabic nature known as
Linear A (no.17). The language behind both systems of writing is unknown
and, therefore, they cannot be successfully deciphered.

In Mycenae, the development of an autonomous civilization did not

crystallise until the Late Helladic period (i.e. Late Bronze Age). Mycenaean
culture was also based on palatial structures dominated by a hall called
megaron (no.18) to which fortifications such as the Lion’s gate (no.19) and
circular tombs called tholoi could be added (no.20). As in Crete, these palaces
headed by a ruler (or wanax) were centres of economic activity and
encouraged the development of adequate methods of accounting and
recording. A new syllabic script largely based on the forms of Linear A
appeared on the Greek peninsula around 1500 BC. Known as Linear B, this
system of writing could be deciphered by the architect Michael Ventris in
1952 and, together with the linguist and II World War code breaker, John
Chadwick, they could determine that the Mycenaeans used an ancestral form
of the Greek language (no.21).

Greek belongs to the Indo-European family of languages (no.22). Linguistic

analysis mostly developed throughout the 19th century AD showed that many
languages spoken in Europe and Asia had a common origin (no.23). The birth
of this universal ancestor is most commonly located in the central steppes of
Eurasia and several waves of migrations would have given rise to the different
language branches (no.24). Hittite is the earliest written Indo-European
language attested and the Mycenaean documents provide us with the second
oldest testimony. By contrast, other famous Indo-European families such as
Germanic – English belongs to it – are only attested since the 4th century AD.
In addition to language, Indo-European descendants are supposed to share
common features such as cults and societal organisations which influenced the
evolution of the Ancient World. In the case of Greek speakers, scholars mostly
agree that they first arrived from the northern Balkans and then moved south

8
interacting with the indigenous population. Mycenaean culture was
consequently the result of this process of hybridisation with significant
Minoan influences, as emphasised above. While the settlements in Crete
dominated the early Bronze Age in the Aegean Sea, the Greek speaking
Mycenaeans took over after the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (no.25).

Traditionally, this change of power was linked to the catastrophic eruption of

a volcano in the island of Santorini – ancient Thera – (no.26). More
recently, however, archaeological excavations have shown that the early
stages of the Late Minoan period (when the eruption would be dated) still
present traces of a flourishing network of palaces. It is only at a later stage that
fires and general destruction can be observed in the excavations. From this
period of unrest, only Knossos seems to have survived but the records of the
palace were neither written in Cretan Hieroglyphs nor Linear A, but instead on
tablets inscribed with Linear B. In the same period, the previously Minoan
influenced writing systems developed in the island of Cyprus began to show
a Mycenaean influx too (no.27). The Mycenaeans also expanded towards the
coast of Asia Minor and Hittites sources referring to them as
‘Ahhiyawa’ (Achaeans) report that they took control over Miletus (no.27). In
other words, the Mycenaeans already occupied most of the territories that
would later constitute the Greek World during the Archaic and Classical
periods. As a strong power in the Mediterranean, the Mycenaeans naturally
entered in conflict with surrounding territories competing for supremacy. Such
confrontations at the end of the ‘Bronze Age’ seem to have given origin to the
War of Troy on which the famous epic poems, Iliad and Odyssey, attributed
to Homer were based (no. 28).

Together with the volcanic explosion of Thera, the historicity and dating of the
Mycenaean campaign against Troy is one of the most debated issues in the
Aegean ‘Bronze Age’. While it is clear that the compiler of the The Iliad
mixed in his account many elements pertaining to his lifetime – as will be
studied in our next classes –, there are other pieces of evidence supporting the
presence of an important settlement in Troy during the period in which
Mycenaean culture spread across the eastern Mediterranean. First, the
aforementioned Hittite sources report insurgent movements in Wilusa, the
region that may correspond to the Troad peninsula. One of these famous
texts is the ‘Milawata letter’, probably dating to ca. c. 1237–1209 BC (i.e.
Tudhaliya IV’s reign, no. 29).

Second, and most importantly, the same Schliemann who first excavated
Mycenae conducted aggressive archaeological prospects on the hill (Hisarlık)
which, according to Homer’s information and the later tradition, would
correspond to Troy (or Ilion as it was called in Classical times). These

9
excavations showed that the level called Troy VI was most likely destroyed
by human agency around 1280 BC. Likewise, fine materials and jewels named
‘Priam’s Treasure’ were found, indicating a wealthy settlement in which the
expansionist Mycenaean civilization could be interested (no.30).

Such a period of prime for Mycenaean kings and palaces was abruptly
interrupted around 1200 BC. This collapse was not an isolated phenomenon of
the Aegean, but actually affected the entire eastern Mediterranean. Following
the accounts coming from Egypt, these episodes of turmoil are attributed to
the so-called ‘Sea Peoples’ (no.31).

Greek mythology also reports movements of peoples after the Trojan War in
what is commonly referred to as the ‘Dorian invasion’ or the ‘Return of the
Heraclids’. Modern archaeological research has shown that, even if foreign
incursion may have existed, they could not have brought the entire system of
Mycenaean states to an end. Instead, a larger cultural swift must be
envisaged in which tensions escalated across different regions. This chaos
would be best evidenced by the fires affecting the same palaces in which the
Linear B tablets happened to be preserved. Again, this profound transition is
not exclusive to the Greek peninsula and the Aegean Sea. The Hittite Empire
collapsed, the Ramsessian dynasty in Egypt began its decline towards the
end of the ‘New Kingdom’ and many of the city-states in the Levant
ceased to exist (no.32). This change of epoch, nonetheless, also signalled the
beginning of a new period in the Aegean, the Archaic Age, during which the
foundations of our Classical civilisation were laid and consolidated.

II. THE ORIGINS, CONTEXT AND EVOLUTION OF THE GREEK

WORLD

3.1. From Homeric myth to alphabetic logos: The birth of the political city-
state.
The Iliad narrates a war between the Achaeans and the Trojans. The Odyssey
recounts the adventurous return of Odysseus (Ulysses), one of the victorious
Greeks, to his home palace on Ithaca where his wife Penelope, his son
Telemachus and the royal throne awaited. Both literary works belong to the
epic genre and Homer was believed to have composed them at the beginning
of the 8th century BC (no.2-4). Gods, myths, kings and peoples are intertwined
against a historical context which, as explained in the previous lecture,
corresponded to the Mycenaean dominion of the Aegean Sea between the 14th
and 12th centuries BC. Fantasy and reality therefore coexisted in the creations
of a poet that was/is considered the basis of the Classical civilisation. In many

10
ways, Homer marks the beginning of Greek culture and allows us to explore
its earliest period commonly referred to as Archaic.

Like many other regional powers in the eastern Mediterranean, the

Mycenaean civilization collapsed around 1200 BC at the end of the ‘Bronze
Age’ 8 (no.5). Important settlements continued to exist but without the ruling
structures that developed a writing system and records facilitating historical
interpretation. Accordingly, Greece and the Aegean region entered in what has
commonly been described as a ‘Dark Age’. Direct accounts of these centuries
are lacking and only archaeology provides us with materials on which a
chronology can be based. Pottery was one of the most distinctive products of
this period and, as such, modern scholars have distinguished two phases:
Proto-Geometric and Geometric. The first style used simpler models and
shapes which can be dated between the 11th and 10th centuries BC (no.6). The
Geometric phase started approximately in the 9th century and continued with
important oriental influences until the development of the Red and Black
Figures typical of the Classical age (no.7).

Despite the lack of other direct sources, this period was fundamental for the
establishment of the geographical framework in which Classical Civilization
later flourished. Very significant migrations occurred during this obscure age
and these can mostly be detected in the different Greek dialects which are
attested. Essentially, an analysis of these linguistic varieties shows that the
Mycenaean Greek spoken by the Achaeans was confined to Arcadia – in the
middle of the Peloponnese – and the island of Cyprus (no.8). On the rest of
the peninsula, the Dorian dialect was adopted and the Attic/Ionian variety,
while spreading across the Cyclades islands and the middle coast of Asia,
survived around Athens. From Boeotia to Thessaly, dialects belonged to the
Aeolic branch that was also spoken along the northwestern coast of Asia.

When this movement of populations was taking place in the Aegean, a new
regional power gained prominence in the Near East. Egypt and Mesopotamia
had been weakened on the onset of the new ‘Iron Age’. Such circumstances
contributed to the resurgence of cities populating the upper Levant. The
inhabitants of this region were called Phoenicians and spoke a Semitic
language (no.9). They developed a particular system of writing in which each
symbol corresponded to a single sound (no.10). Cities in Phoenicia such as
Biblos, Sidon or Tyre also began a colonising enterprise that reached from
Africa to Iberia and made them the biggest merchants in the Mediterranean
(no.11). In Greece, the Mycenaean naval power had disappeared but contacts
with these trading foreigners resumed in the ‘Iron Age’. Indeed, Homer
referred to the Phoenicians as “renowned seafaring men” (Od. XV.403-284).
The adoption of the new script developed by the north Semitic peoples was

11
one of the most revolutionary imports of this early exchange (no.12). The
historian Herodotus even states that the Greeks called their script “Phoenician
letters” (Histories 5.60). And yet, their writing model needed certain
modifications. Most importantly, Semitic languages do not normally represent
vowel sounds that are very predominant in the Indo-European family.
Consequently, the Greek alphabet has 24 letters, from alpha to omega
(no.13). Furthermore, each region adapted its own particular script versions
that survived on inscriptions until the Roman Age (no.14). The earliest
examples of the Greek alphabet are epigraphic and date from approximately
750 BC. With exceptions such as the Nestor’s Cup (no.15), these texts are
short and only in the latter part of the 7th century do we start to get examples
of several lines. Most of these longer inscriptions were public, in the form of
laws or honorific decrees produced by local scribes. In other words, the
establishment of a writing practice in the Greek world is deeply tied to the
development of a civic culture (no.16).

The transition between ‘Bronze and Iron Ages’ experienced a stark population
decline in the Aegean. Archaeological excavations show that settlements were
small and, hence, it is concluded that just a subsistence economy was
possible (no.17). It was not until the 8th century and, especially, in the 7th
century that a demographic boom gave rise to larger towns. As mentioned
above, this was the period in which Homer is supposed to have lived and,
therefore, the information contained in his works becomes particularly
relevant. In the Iliad and the Odyssey farmland was owned by households of
the elite located near or within settlements, with enough fields to be divided
between heirs (Il. 14.208–10). Itinerant professionals are also recorded and
trade is mostly restricted to foreigners such as the aforementioned
Phoenicians. In this world, reciprocity is a principle which is essential to the
functioning of Homeric societies as a whole, not only of their elites. The
services of a leader could be rewarded by the community with a plot of land
or a special gift. The elders could also convene in council to drink wine placed
at their disposal by the community in exchange for their advice. As for the
urban layout, the best description provided by Homer appears in the Odyssey
when the centre of the imaginary island of Phaeacia is described (no.18-19):

But when we come to the city, and around this is a towering wall, and a
handsome harbour either side of the city, and a narrow causeway,
and along the road there are oar swept ships drawn up, for they all
have slips, one for each vessel; and there is the place of the
assembly, put together with quarried stone, and built around a fine
precinct of Poseidon. (Od. VI.262–7)

12
City, territory and inhabitants are thought to constitute an inseparable
unity. Such communal organisation actually distinguished humans from
barbarians as exemplified by the description of the Cyclopes’ society (no.20):

These people have no counselling or law-establishing assemblies, rather they

make their habitation in caverns hollowed
among the peaks of the high mountains, and each one is the law for
his own wives and children, and cares nothing about the others.
(Od. IX.112–15)

These cavemen “neither plough with their hands nor plant anything”, but lived
the life of hunter-gatherers and shepherds. Homer knows that cities cannot
prosper without a countryside. This idea is even more prominent in the second
most important Greek writer of the early Archaic period: Hesiod. He also
composed hexameters, the rhythm of epics, but his Theogony and Works and
Days set a different tone. The first work justifies the reign of Zeus and the
Olympian gods in an attempt to systematise the multitude of religious ideas
existing amongst the Greeks. As for Works and Days, it depicts the daily life
of a middle farmer stripped of heroism. The underlying theme is that order
based upon justice must prevail. (no.21)

O Perses (Hesiod’s brother), put these things in your spirit and do not let the
evil-rejoicing Strife hold your spirit back from work, while you
closely watch and listen to the disputes of the agora. Little concern
has he with disputes and agoras
whose seasonal sustenance does not lie stored up
in abundance indoors, what the earth bears, Demeter’s grain.
(Works and Days 27–32)

In the poetry of both Homer and Hesiod, the term polis evokes an image of the
city as a whole, often in conjunction with its wall. Asty, on the other hand, is
the city viewed from within; the focus is on its inhabitants. In the epics, politai
refers to all the free inhabitants of a polis, including women and children. The
term demos designates a well-defined territory and all the free people who
inhabit it. After the collapse of the Mycenaean rulers (wanax), many local
monarchs (or basileis) proliferated; but the early ‘Archaic Period’ is
characterised by economic and demographic intensification and expansion
that required social reorganisation (no.22).

Even if the precise forms of 8th century BC political models varied, there was
a general trend toward converting the old regional kings into annual officials
elected from an aristocratic college. This redefinition of community was the

13
core of the 8th century revolution. During the 7th and especially in the 6th
century, a deeper conflict dominated Greek history; the struggle between
tyranny and self-determination, between a monarchical and communal
order. The response of many communities to these critical developments was
legal regulation; laws recorded in writing and sanctioned by religion.
Meanwhile, permanent sanctuaries began to be set up instead of the
previous open-air religious spaces. In them rituals similar to the double
sacrifices performed by Nestor for Poseidon and Athena in Pylos most likely
took place (Od. 3.1–67, 404–72). Athletic and musical competitions (agones)
could also be held in these sacred spaces and, indeed, the first Olympic
games are dated to the year 776 BC. During the Archaic age, other three
panhellenic games – Delphic, Isthmian and Nemean – were founded creating
a cyclical circuit (periodos) that survived until the beginning of the Middle
Ages (no.23). Such events also stimulated the creation of gymnasia in the
cities where the youth trained naked and was intellectually instructed.
Together with the symposia, all these elements became central in the
progressive creation of a Hellenic identity (no.25). Such a favourable context
inspired not only the proliferation of epic masterpieces and victory odes such
as those of Pindar (no. 24), but also the discovery of other literary genres such
as the elegy. In principle, this style – despite its later evolution – was designed
to be performed to the accompaniment of the flute for descriptive and
hortatory discourse. Lyric poetry, by contrast, suited solo performers with
their lyras and offered more personal themes. For example, the Archaic period
witnessed the most important pieces ever penned by a woman in the Greek
world. Sappho focused on love and desire instead of the masculine ideals of
warfare and public life celebrated by another poet from the island of Lesbos
called Alcaeus. (no. 26-27)

I, poor wretch, live with the lot of a rustic, longing to hear the assembly being
summoned, Agesilaidas, and the council: the property in possession
of which my father and my father’s father have grown old among
these mutually destructive citizens, from it I have been driven, an
exile at the back of beyond, and like Onomacles I settled here [...]
where Lesbian women with trailing robes go to being judged for
beauty (Alcaeus, fr. 130)

Some say a host of cavalry, others of infantry, and others of ships, is the most
beautiful thing on the black earth, but I say it is whatsoever a
person loves. It is perfectly easy to make this understood by
everyone: for she who far surpassed mankind in beauty, Helen, left
her most noble husband and went sailing off to Troy with no thought
at all for her child or dear parents, but (love?, Aphrodite?) led her
astray... (Sappho, fr. 16)

14
Outside the control of absolute empires, the ‘Archaic Period’ in the Aegean
saw an era of true intellectual achievements, which is best represented by the
birth of philosophical and scientific thinking around the 6th century BC
(no.28). Like the earlier Homer, most of these pioneers came from the shores
of Asia where Greek culture, Indo-European pasts and Anatolian kingdoms
(particularly, Phrygia and Lydia) came in close contact with Near East
influences (no.29). Moreover, societies evolved towards more egalitarian
forms and ideals such as freedom and communal justice crystallised. One of
the best representatives of this trend was Miletus, an Ionian city famous for its
prolific colonisation in which the mathematician and astronomer Thales was
born (no.30). As one of the ‘Seven Sages of Greece’, he proposed water as the
principle of all things, and insisted on physical rather than religious
explanations for natural phenomena (Arist. Met. 1.983b). After him, the earlier
philosophers were primarily interested in the natural world (physis), its
origins and features. For the contemporary Anaximander the undefined
apeiron originated everything and the same intellectual also drew a world map
and a representation of the sky. Later, Anaximenes postulated air as the
primordial element and Heraclitus of Ephesus believed that the universal, all-
penetrating logos structured and ruled the world. His views on nature,
contrary to those of Parmenides, were closely tied to his theory of constant
change (“In the same river we both step and do not step, we are and we are
not,”; hence the saying attributed to him: panta rhei, “all is in flux”).
Pythagoras, on the other hand, was born on Samos in the mid-sixth century
and emigrated to southern Italy ca. 530 where he founded a cultic group of
sages that left no writings but is credited with essential mathematical
innovations. Naturally, the roots of early science went back to Egyptian
medicine or Mesopotamian astronomy, for example, but ancient Greeks
created a genuine system paving the way to Classical Civilisation. Such
external influences are also visible in art pieces such as kouroi and korai,
statues that were inspired in eastern Mediterranean sculpture but transformed
human representation into something new (no.31). This Archaic period of
transition is therefore fundamental for understanding the precedents and
innovations of the Greek world prior to a subsequent age of political
revolution, military triumph and intellectual culmination in the 5th century
BC.

3.2. Aristocracy, tyranny and colonisation in the Archaic period

Hence it is evident that a city (polis) is a natural

production, and that a human (anthropos) is naturally a
political animal (politikon zoon), and that whosoever is
naturally and not accidentally unfit for society, must be

15
 either a beast or a god: so was the man in Homer (Il.
9.63), criticised for being “without society, without law,
without family”

Aristotle, Politics I. 1253a

Aristotle, one of the great Greek philosophers living in the 4th century BC,
reached the conclusion that human beings were social animals and, naturally,
they needed a political organisation (no.2). The polis, as a city-state, fulfilled
this necessity and an entire book on Politics was devoted to analysing the
forms of government available; with its pros, disadvantages and evolutions.

In Aristotle’s Politics, six forms of government are described and divided

between true and perverted (no.3). Tyranny could be born from a wronged
monarchy, oligarchy from an aristocracy, and democracy from a
constitutional rule (no.4). These models of political organisation seemed
clear enough to the philosopher at the end of the Classical Age. Still in the
Archaic period and with the emergence of city-states, it is important to analyse
how Greek history evolved and such a multitude of political regimes
originated. The control of a single ruler characterises monarchy and tyranny.
Kings dominated the mythical time of heroes and this also seems to be the
case at the beginning of the historical ‘Iron Age’ following the collapse of the
Mycenaean civilisation. Progressively, however, the demographic expansion
of the 8th century BC witnessed a new sense of community among the
inhabitants of growing urban centres with a more productive countryside. This
change would be reflected, for example, in the description of Achilles’ shield
contained in the Iliad (18.478–608). The Homeric text describes two cities,
one in war and one in peace, in which collective activities prevailed over
individual rulings (no.5).

Meanwhile the people were gathered in assembly, for there was a quarrel, and
two men were wrangling about the blood-money for a man who had
been killed, the one saying before the people that he had paid
damages in full, and the other that he had not been paid.

The men of the city would not yet consent, and armed themselves for a
surprise; their wives and little children kept guard upon the walls,
and with them were the men who were past fighting through age

Homer also presents a series of heroic values that had to be shared by the
elite. Episodes such as the exchange of armour between Diomedes and the

16
Trojan Glaucus (Il. 6.119-211) show the importance of hospitable manners
among military leaders. The heroes of Homer needed to honour the
reputation (time) of their lineages and, for this reason, Achilles and
Agamemnon are implicitly criticised for their wrath and disrespect. Warriors
were to act with virtue (arete) and to gain fame (kleos) through meritocracy.
We can therefore see a process through which members of the elite were
regarded as the best men or “aristocrats” (no.6). Moreover, their increasing
control over productive land provided them with wealth and prominence. As a
result, early law codes sought to translate the influence of rich men into public
institutions and magistracies that managed the political life of cities still
summoning assemblies. The problem of this system – ideal for many ancient
philosophers – came when the aristocracy lost its superior values and decided
to concentrate power among a selected group against the poor majority. Hence
oligarchy (or “the government of the few”) was created and the common
inhabitants of the city oppressed.

The causes for the emergence of tyranny in the archaic period were more
varied (no.7). Aristotle identifies different reasons: demagogues attracting
popular support, individuals responding to the abuse of the powers of a
regular office, rulers resulting from the deterioration of traditional kingship
and customs, oligarchy... All in all, tyrants essentially began as leaders of the
people in their struggles against a certain elite. The issue arises when this
type of rule was exclusively concerned with the interests of the ruler. Tyrants
try to become richer; suppressing enemies, conspiring against rivals and
surrounding themselves with mercenaries protecting their survival. In such a
way, the phenomenon of archaic tyranny provides the best illustration of the
profound polarity between the aristocratic individual and the polis
community – a polarity that must be considered one of the basic structural
patterns of the cultural and political life of the archaic Greek city-states.
Examples of this trend are historically reported in many places such as
Corinth, Samos and Megara. In fact, the Athenian historian Thucydides
(1.13.1) claimed that: “as Greece turned more powerful and acquired more
wealth than it had previously, tyrannies were established in nearly every city”.
A well-documented case is available from Mytilene in Lesbos (no.8). Here a
tyrant called Melanchros was killed by Alceus’ brothers, whom the poet
praised as worthy of respect towards the polis (fr. 331). Strife and civil wars
ensued and the female poet Sappho was forced into exile in this period (c.
604–591 BC). A new tyrant called Myrsilos rose to power and Alceus,
member of a local aristocratic family, attempted to murder him with the
assistance of some companions.

Once we swore, cutting [the throat of an animal for sacrifice?] never [to
abandon?] any of our companions, but either to die at the hands of

17
 men who at that time came against us . . . or else to kill them and
rescue the people (demos) from its griefs. (fr. 129)

The dangerous situation was only resolved when a man called Pittacus, one of
the “Seven Sages” (together with Thales), was given the task of drafting new
laws during 10 years. Law-givers consequently proliferated at the end of the
Archaic period and instituted the constitutional rule that led to the Classical
Age of the Greek world. Personalities such as Draco, Solon and Lycurgus laid
the foundations of the Athenian and Spartan systems of government, for
example, and their activities will be discussed in our next lecture.

Such fundamental changes turned cities into political states and need to be
understood in conjunction with Greek colonisation; another phenomenon that
transformed the Archaic Period. In contrast to the migrations in the so-called
‘Dark Age’, this model of settlement is quite well documented as it reached an
unprecedented geographical extension. The causes for such movements of
population after the 8th century are commonly attributed to the demographic
prosperity of cities outside the rule of absolute empires. Some natural
phenomena such as seasonal droughts or famines could have contributed as
well. Yet it neither constituted a mass exodus nor left the urban centres empty.
Greek colonisation normally followed some patterns involving a mother-city
(or metropolis), a founder (oikistes), a visit to an oracular sanctuary and the
permanent establishment of a new polis with access to the sea.

This model was precisely followed by the Therans when they founded the
colony of Cyrene. According to Herodotus (Histories IV.150-163), no rain fell
on the Aegean island for 7 years (no.10). The inhabitants consulted the oracle
of Delphi, a panhellenic sanctuary in the centre of Greece dedicated to
Apollo. The god responded with an old prophecy that encouraged them to
colonise Libya in Africa. After some geographical research, they decided to
sail first to the island of Platea, off the Libyan coast (no.11). The first
explorers returned to Thera in order to communicate the establishment of the
new settlement among their compatriots and organise a larger contingent that
was to be led by the notable Battus. The founder received another oracle from
Delphi announcing that he would become king if he migrated to Libya. The
first two years did not go very well and the Pythian Apollo replicated that the
colonists had failed to reach Libya as they were just occupying an island.
Thereafter, they moved to the African continent and, after several encounters
with the local population, they finally founded Cyrene. The local Libyan king
with the assistance of Egypt attacked the Greek settlers but they resisted. A
constitutional arrangement could then provide Cyrene with permanent civic
institutions and sacred precincts were dedicated to Battus. A mixed population
of Therans, Greeks from the peninsula and other islanders mixed with the

18
local population and in this way the colony remained in place for many
centuries. The case of Cyrene is particularly interesting because an
inscription found in the Libyan city and dating to the 4th century BC claims to
record the oath that the original settlers swore prior to their expedition.
Battus is indeed designated as leader and king, and the settlers are given five
years to return to Thera in case their mission was unsuccessful. In addition to
this epigraphic testimony, other evidence from the city confirms the close
connection between Thera and the African settlement. The Greek dialect
spoken on the Aegean island was still used in the public documents of Cyrene
even after the Hellenistic age. In the Roman period, the sanctuary of Apollo
was still maintained and this god preserved the epithet Karneios which was
also worshipped in the metropolis. Consequently, Greek colonisation brought
not only new settlers but also language varieties, institutions, cults and
social structures originally stemming from the mother-cities. The
maintenance of these features became a mark of identity for colonies which,
nonetheless, also evolved autonomously as city-states. Such a degree of
independence is better understood against the broad geographical
framework in which Greek colonisation took place during the Archaic
Period.

The first Greek colony established overseas is traditionally attributed to the

people of Chalcis (a city on the Euboea), who founded Cumae on the Italian
peninsula around 740 BC. Soon thereafter they founded Naxos on Sicily and
more Greek settlements such as Syracuse (by Corinth) ensued creating what
we know as Magna Graecia. From the Asian coast, Miletus promoted many
foundations along the Black Sea including Sinope and even some on the
Crimean peninsula. The Ionian city of Phocaea became interested in the
western Mediterranean and it is credited with the foundation of Massilia c.
600. These colonists also continued southward and c. 575 founded the
settlement of Emporion on the Spanish coast, near modern Girona (Strabo,
Geography 3.4.8). The name of this city means “trading-post” in Greek and
shows the commercial prospects and strategic importance of a
phenomenon that opened ports from the Caucasus to the Pyrenees, in
competition with the previous maritime dominance of the Phoenicians. In
sum, the expansion of independent city-states, provided with robust political
communities and institutions, gave way to a Classical age in which Greeks
prevailed and Sparta and Athens became protagonists.

4.1. Sparta vs. Athens

The Greek world was a web of many city-states that emerged in the Archaic
age, developed autonomous governments and continued to claim their
distinctive identities until the end of Antiquity. Two poleis, nonetheless,
played a protagonist role among this multitude and the study of their

19
characteristics proves fundamental for understanding the Classical Age in
connection with the opposition between Sparta and Athens.

Sparta was a very important settlement of Laconia (or Lacedaemonia), a

region on the south of the Peloponnese encircled by mountains on the east
and west, crossed by the river Eurotas and with access to the sea on the south
(no.2). Athens is located on Attica, a peninsula close to the Isthmus of
Corinth and surrounded by the Saronic gulf and the island of Euboea. The two
settlements are reported to have existed during the Mycenaean period, either
by archaeological excavations showing typical palace structures or by
Homeric accounts of kings such as Menelaus (no.3). The ‘Dark Ages’ are also
obscure in both territories and the emergence of these city-states can be better
studied only from the 8th century BC onwards. In Athens, a centre of the
‘Ionian migration’ and mythical founding city of Ephesus and Miletus,
oriental influences increased during this period (no.4). At an early stage,
Attica was mostly settled in coastal areas and the inner promontory of the
Acropolis was not monumentalised until the time when many other
sanctuaries were set up on the peninsula (no.5). Homer alludes to a house or
temple on the rock shared by Erechtheus and Athena (Il. 2.554; Od. 7.81);
two divinities later becoming patron cults of the city. A large amount of late
Geometric pottery, bronzes, and kouroi statues were also discovered in the
Acropolis and the surrounding lands, so central Athens became the main
urban hub of Attica in the course of the Archaic period (no. 6).

The archaeological materials from Sparta are much more limited. Not only
were the monuments of this city less spectacular, but also the modern
settlement superseded most ancient remains (no.7). Excavations, nevertheless,
have been possible at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia and the material
wealth in the form of votive objects made of lead shows the importance of the
site already in the early Archaic period (no.8). Despite the lack of other
sources, we know that another very significant event in the history of southern
Greece occurred around this time. Sparta took control of the region of
Messenia (no.9). The area, formerly controlled by the palace of the mythical
king Nestor, fell into Spartan hands and this incident determined the
organisation and character of the inhabitants of Laconia (or
Lacedaemonians). Genuine Spartans were only a minority who needed to
subject foreign people (or helots) both surrounding and sustaining them. In
order to prevent revolts, the people of Sparta had to inspire fear and such a
bellicose attitude is evident in the earliest written accounts from the city
provided by the poet Tyrtaios.

Young men, fight keeping steadfastly by one another. Don’t start shamefully
running away and don’t start to panic. Be stout-hearted and great-

20
 hearted, and when you are fighting against men don’t dwell on how
great life is. Don’t flee and desert your seniors, the old men, whose
knees are not so nimble. Tyrtaios frg. 10, 15–20

This martial character was supported by the good government that

Herodotus (1.65.2–66.1) attributed to a law-giver named Lycurgus (no.11).
The many traditions about this figure make it impossible to certify his
historicity. Yet the tradition was rooted in Spartan society and, in this way, it
was transmitted by many Greek authors (no. 12). Two different versions of the
episode existed. In one, Lycurgus went to the panhellenic sanctuary of
Delphi and the oracle revealed to him a new form of government guaranteeing
law, order, and enduring stability. Others said that the Spartan law-giver
copied these institutions from Crete. The ruling system was headed by two
kings; a duality that was attributed to the descendants of Heracles who
originated the so-called ‘Dorian invasion’ (no.13). Both monarchs held
supreme command over the military and could also influence foreign policy.
Their powers, however, were constrained by a council of elders (or gerousia)
who served for life and were elected by acclamation. The popular assembly,
composed of the male citizens of Sparta, does not seem to have had much
initiative but elected five annual magistrates called ephors. They were present
in both the military campaigns and the discussions of the elderly council. The
ephors likewise fulfilled some religious and judicial functions, proclaimed
war, could determine the expulsion of all foreigners from the city and, perhaps
most importantly, supervised the Spartan education (ἀγωγή / agogé). In
Sparta the community controlled the right of children to live. All babies
were examined by the elders to determine whether they were strong enough,
otherwise they were thrown off over a cliff (no.14). As soon as they became
seven years old, the children were taken away from their families and
trained in age groups where they developed physical endurance and
intellectual skills (no.15). When the boys were 20 years old, education
culminated and they married girls who had also followed training but
continued to live with their parents. The point of these marriages was
procreation and descendants who could guarantee the Spartan superiority
over the large population of subjects under their control. Male adults were
consequently obliged to join groups of comrades or syssitia with whom they
had communal meals and went to battle together (no.15). This ideal of
homogeneity helped to promote collective solidarity and values such as
courage leading to the famous Spartan saying: “with the shield, or on the
shield”. In other words, Spartan soldiers were educated never to retreat from
combat and flee without weapons or their notorious red cloaks (no.17).

The history and society of Athens was far from being homogenous in the
transition between the Archaic and Classical ages. From an early stage the

21
Attic peninsula was opened to export and trade instead of favouring local
purity (no.18). This attitude is best exemplified by the development of a
pottery industry which saw the adoption of the Black Figure technique
substituting the previous geometric style (no.19). As for the political evolution
of the city, the only relevant detail is provided by the author of the
Constitution of the Athenians that places the creation of the annual office of
archon (or magistrate) in 683/682 BC. The next significant step is attributed
to Draco who allegedly produced the first written record of Athenian laws and
set particularly severe punishments for crimes; including the death
penalty (no.20). Such regulations do not seem to have substantially
contributed to social equality. Politics, justice and economy were dominated
by the oligarchic elite. The rest of Athenian free men remained also members
of clans (genos) linked by a common ancestor and belonged to
brotherhoods named phratria. As in other Ionian communities, the
population was divided into four tribes (or phylai), each providing a
contingent for the army. This context created social distress, so a man called
Solon was given the power to legislate and tackle failures denounced in his
poetry (no.21).

From 594 BC, Solon tried to construct a vision of community which could
override individual or sectional interests. He was principally concerned with
the enslavement generated by property debt. Accordingly, he prohibited the
borrowing on the security of one’s own body (no.22). He also removed the
boundary stones marking the lands of those enslaved. And yet, popular
disappointment with Solon’s regulations resulted in competition for political
power among elite leaders. The ultimate victor was Peisistratus, who became
tyrant of Athens between 546-528/7 BC (no.23). Upon his death the power
was transferred onto his sons Hippias and Hipparchus. The latter was
assassinated in 514/3 by the notables Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who came
to be remembered as the ‘Athenian Tyrannicides’. Hipparchus’ murder did
not lead to liberation but to a harsher regime, executions, and exiles carried
out by Hippias. The aristocratic Alcmaeonid family was forced into exile that
they automatically began to organise the removal of the tyrant. One member
of this family called Cleisthenes claimed support from the oracle of Delphi
and convinced the Spartans to remove Hippias. Cleisthenes’ family could
return to Athens and competition for political prominence started again. After
another brief exile, Cleisthenes reached a position of power in 508/7 BC;
initiating a series of reforms backed by strong popular support. Most
importantly, Cleisthenes rearranged the organisation of the Athenian people.
He divided the population into c. 140 demes and the territory of Attica into
three regions: paralia (coast), mesogeia (inland) and asty (city). Each of the
regions had 10 districts or trittyes (no. 24-26). By lot, one district of each of
the regions was chosen and, together, the triad formed tribes (or phylai) which

22
did not share any familiar relation or kinship. Any male who registered in their
district would automatically become a citizen and, so, could participate in the
new council of 500, the boule, where everyone had an equal right to speak.
Indeed, all political and military groupings would now be based on these new
divisions. Such changes offered access to several offices previously reserved
to members of the elite. Furthermore, Cleisthenes is also credited with the
creation of ostracism (no.27), that is the expulsion of any citizen by the
assembly after writing his name on pieces of clay (or ostraka). For all these
reasons, Cleisthenes at the end of the 6th century BC laid the foundations of
the democratic system that Athens culminated in the Classical Age.

4.2. Persia and the Defence of Greece

Like many other peoples between the Bronze and Iron Ages, the nomadic
Persians probably migrated from the Iranian highlands around the late 2nd or
early 1st millennia BC. Mesopotamian sources report their existence by the 9th
century BC and, in the 7th, their heartland was already located in Persis
between the delta of the Tigris/Euphrates and the Indus valley (no.2). In
this period, the Near East was dominated by the so-called Neo-Assyrian
Empire. Its last great ruler was Ashurbanipal and he was defeated by the
Babylonians, who established a powerful kingdom until the 6th century
(no.3). Kings such as Nebuchadnezzar, claiming descent from the old
Mesopotamian dynasties, initiated a period of revival, monumentalised the
imperial capital and expanded the territory with the famous conquest of
Israel and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple recorded in the Bible
(no.4). Soon after, the Persian king Cambyses expanded his realm in Iran and
his son, Cyrus II (559–530 BC), defeated the Medes, another major Iranian
power. In 540, Babylon was captured, the Jewish captives could return and
Cyrus already controlled a considerable amount of territory including western
Anatolia which was enlarged by his successor Cambyses II (530-522 BC), the
conqueror of Egypt during the declining 26th dynasty (no.5). The king
Darius I acceded to the throne in 520 BC and, after some internal revolts,
military campaigns ensued in central Asia and Cyrene (no.6). In this way, he
could install the ‘Achaemenid Empire’ with a government characterised
by a strong central power (under the ‘Great King’) which depended on
regional entities organised as satrapies. Aramaic progressively became the
lingua franca while coexisting with other near Eastern languages written in
cuneiform as reflected in the trilingual inscription of Behistun (no.7).

As part of the western expansion of the Persian Empire, the Anatolian

territory of Lydia fell. Even though his notoriously rich king Croesus
consulted the oracle of Delphi for guidance, the Iranian troops took the capital
Sardis c. 546 BC and, after just four years, they also subjugated the coast of
Asia Minor (no.8). While Greek cities were obliged to pay tribute and

23
provide troops, a considerable degree of autonomy was granted. Some
members of the local elite were incorporated into the administration and the
Persians also tried to gain the favour of important sanctuaries. Under the rule
of Darius and the control of the regional satrap, the situation did not change
considerably until 499 BC. A revolt broke out in Ionia and, according to
Herodotus, “it constituted the beginning of evils for Greeks and barbarians”
(no.9). The tyrant of Miletus instituted a government based on equal rights
and sailed to Sparta and Attica in order to seek support and alliances. Sardis
was assaulted, but soon the Persians sent reinforcements and suppressed the
uprising. Darius I, however, could not forget the Athenian involvement in
these events and began threatening with an expedition against Greece. In 492,
Achaemenid envoys were sent asking for ‘earth and water’, but both Athens
and Sparta rejected such signs of subjection and even killed the
messengers. By 490, Persian naval forces sailed into the Aegean and
captured island after island reaching finally Euboea. From here, they
launched an attack on Athenian territory, landing on the beach of Marathon.
The former tyrant Hippias assisted the Persians, but the troops of Athens and
Plataea led by Miltiades emerged victorious:

Miltiades said: “it now rests with you, Callimachus. Either you enslave Athens
or, by keeping her free, you leave a memorial to yourself that will
last as long as men will live, a memorial unmatched even by
Harmodius and Aristogeiton. For the Athenians have now come into
the greatest danger they have known since their beginnings, and if
they buckle before the Medes it is clear what they will suffer when
they are put into Hippias’ hands. If this city survives, however, it
can become the foremost of the cities of Greece.
[Herodotus, Histories 6.109.3]

According to a later tradition, the victory was announced to the citizens by a

long-distance runner that died after covering the 42.195 km between the
battlefield and Athens (no.11). In Marathon itself, a large mound served to
commemorate the glory of the many soldiers killed (no.12). The Persian fleet
retreated to Asia Minor again, but still controlled most islands in the Aegean.
Darius I died in 486 BC and disturbances in other parts of the empire against
his successor Xerxes hindered the Achaemenid retaliation until 484/83 BC. In
the meantime, Athenian political leaders such as Themistocles tried to
convince the city to complete the fortification of the harbour in the Piraeus
and he also spared no effort in defending the creation of a powerful navy (no.
14). The three-deck rowing ships (or triremes) were further developed and
all segments of the Athenian population were required to man them.
Consequently, not only an effective military power was created but also
communal sentiments aroused in the increasingly democratic state of the Attic

24
peninsula. Xerxes, on the other hand, built two pontoon bridges over the
Hellespont and crossed with his army from Asia to Europe in 480 BC. For
the Persian navy, even a channel was dug across the Mount Athos peninsula
and, soon, northern Greece surrendered. In opposition, Athens, Sparta,
and twenty-nine other states met together in Corinth to form what is normally
referred to as the “Hellenic League”.

The first line of defence for the Greeks was formed in Thessaly, but it was
soon abandoned as not enough troops could contain the Persian strength.
Instead, they tactically retreated towards the Thermopylae, a narrow pass
connecting northern and southern Greece (no.15). The fleet was stationed
nearby, by the Cape Artemision. When Xerxes and his army approached, most
of the Peloponnesians proposed another withdrawal to Corinth. Only the
Spartan king Leonidas rejected this plan for dishonouring the
Lacedaemonian valour and decided to stay. In this sense, Herodotus reports
that the Spartans had received an oracle from Delphi warning them that
Laconia would be destroyed unless “a king descended from Heracles died”
(no.16). Together with his compatriots and very few local contingents,
Leonidas tried to contain the Persian attack and never fled, even when his
position was exposed and betrayed by a native that opened alternative ways
to the foreign invaders. As the epitaph of Leonidas claimed, the Spartans
obeyed their orders and “only 4000 thousand men fought against three
million” (no. 17). Despite the total (even if honourable) defeat, the Greeks got
more time to organise a counterattack, especially after the Persian fleet
suffered heavy losses caused by storms next to the island of Euboea. The
Athenian ships had time to return to Salamis where Themistocles advocated
for defending Greece against the enslaving Persians (no.18).

The citizens of Athens were evacuated to other nearby islands or the

Peloponnese, and the Persian ruler showed no restraint either when he ravaged
Attica or when he decided to enter naval battle hastily (no.19). The
outnumbered Greek fleet tricked the enemy offensive around Salamis and
inflicted a blow famously celebrated by Aeschylus in his tragedy The
Persians. Xerxes returned to his realm and the remaining Achaemenid
contingent was defeated in the pitched battle of Plataea and the naval victory
of Mycale in 479 BC (no.20). A huge external threat had been expelled, a new
era of Greek civic culture was about to flourish, but the Greeks never put an
end to internal conflicts which also brought the end of their hegemony.

5. Peloponnesian Wars and Greek Civic Culture.

Right after the end of the war against Persia, Sparta resigned from the
leadership of the ‘Hellenic League’ and, one year later, Athens became the
hegemonic power in the Aegean sea when the ‘Delian League’ was

25
founded (no.2). This modern name designates an alliance of cities that
initially kept its treasury on Delos, an island famous for a panhellenic temple
of Apollo. Fear for the Persian power had not disappeared and Athens
presented itself as the prime defender of Hellenism against the Barbarians.
This protection entailed the payment of a tribute which sustained Athenian
imperialism for fifty years; the period called pentecontaetia by the historian
Thucydides. Athens rebuilt its walls and, under the leadership of Cimon –
son of Miltiades – initiated a campaign of expansion. Agricultural
settlements along the coasts of Thrace and Macedonia were founded and
several islands conquered. Sparta, on the other hand, had no ambitions to
become a maritime power and was not concerned about Cimon, a friend of
the Lacedaemonian city-state. Moreover, the Peloponnese suffered grave
episodes of instability. Most significantly, a revolt broke out in Messenia
following an earthquake, probably in 464 BC. Messenian helots were joined
by other Laconian subjects and Sparta needed to seek assistance from
Athens. The assembly voted favourably but the Athenians troops were
rejected by the Spartans when they reached their territory. Partly in retaliation,
Cimon was expelled through ostracism in 461/0 BC and the new leader
Ephialtes began his radical reform of the democratic system (no.2).

Ephialtes most notoriously deprived the Areopagus of governmental

influence. This institution was composed of former archons coming from the
wealthiest classes who sat for life with extensive judicial powers. Its role
was defended by Aeschylus through the tragic trilogy of the Oresteia.
Ephialtes, instead, empowered the council (or boule) chosen from the
Cleisthenes’ tribes which started to supervise legislative procedures and dealt
with crimes against the state. Legal proposals were therefore discussed
previously and formulated as a decree for the assembly of citizens (ekklesia).
At the same time, the assembly controlled office holders and even members
of the council who needed to be examined before their tenure. In 457, the
highest magistracy of archon was also opened to classes of median and low
income. During the 450’s, the reforms were carried on by Pericles, a member
of the Athenian aristocracy but considered a man of the people. He instituted a
salary for jurors which brought poor people to examine cases for the first
time in Athenian history. Such payments also extended to other civic activities
such as the army and, consequently, removed the control of rich oligarchs
who did not need to work and could spend their time litigating in the city. In
451/0, Pericles changed the law of citizenship in Athens, most likely to
defend the privileges of the selected group inhabiting Attica. Even though
women were outside the political class, only sons with both Athenian
parents could become citizens.

26
The victory over the Persians and the hegemony over the Aegean Sea
brought the development of civic actions that contributed to the reaffirmation
of Athenian supremacy. Classical Athens represents one of the most celebrated
paradigms of a military power, backed by a political community, which left an
incommensurable legacy for humankind. Such achievements need to be
closely linked to the democratic leader of the city after the successes of
Salamis, Plataea and Mycale. Pericles surrounded himself with the best artists
and thinkers of his age while initiating an ambitious programme to
monumentalise Athens after the Persian destruction of the territory.
According to Plutarch, a well-informed Greek author living in the Roman age,
not everyone in the city shared Pericles ambitions (no. 4). Some critics
regarded the plan as wasteful, but Pericles was looking for landmarks to fulfil
civic pride, increase the prestige of Athens and occupy as many of the
inhabitants of Attica as possible. The most significant of these constructions
was the Parthenon, an innovative temple on the acropolis hill, which was
completed between c. 447 to 432 BC (no.5). The financing of this grand
enterprise is supposed to have benefitted from the tributes that the members
of the ‘Delian league’ were to submit yearly. Once the Athenian power had
been cemented and the Persian threat controlled, the treasury of the group was
transferred to Athens. According to Plutarch’s account, Pericles defended that
the money should belong to the Athenians because they were fighting against
the Barbarians and on behalf of the entire league. Indeed, this motif of Greeks
versus Barbarians was very present in the iconography promoted after the
Athenian victory over the Persians. For example, the elaborated freezes of the
Parthenon recorded in marble – among other episodes – the gods fighting the
monstrous Giants and the Greeks against the Centaurs (no.6). The temple also
enhanced Athenian identity with lavish symbols such as the gold and ivory
statue of the founding goddess of the city, Athena (no.7). Although Phidias
– the sculptor of the statue of Zeus in Olympia – seems to have gotten into
trouble for depicting himself and Pericles on Athena’s shield, the monument
was still visible to the author Pausanias, who travelled around Greece in the
2nd century AD (no.8). The entrance of the Acropolis was also embellished
with the construction of the so-called Propylaea (no.8). The marble walls of
the building were decorated with mythic themes and, on the hill, the pass-byer
could equally admire the representation of the new robe that the Athenians
presented to Athena every four years (no.10).

The ‘Panathenaic Procession’ was one of the main cultic celebrations of

Athens and exemplified the intimate relationships between religion, culture,
and civic spirit in the Greek city. The ‘Great Dionysia’ was another very
important festival organised by the Athenians; honouring the god of wine,
fertility and religious ecstasy. For Dionysus, performance contests were held
in a theatre located next to the Acropolis (no.11). The production of comedies

27
and tragedies in Athens was the responsibility of the state and its citizens.
Comedians had to present one piece and the tragic writers a trilogy of three
works plus a satyr play. While they needed to be Athenian citizens,
performers (male only) could come from overseas. Foreigners could also
attend and, indeed, the festival coincided with the beginning of the sailing
season in the eastern Mediterranean. Yet, the majority of the approximately
15.000 spectators were Athenians of all classes that represented the social
composition of the city’s democracy. Accordingly, the mythically inspired
texts dealt with current political issues mostly from a local perspective and
seeking a “cleansing” of emotions (or katharsis), as described by Aristotle in
his Poetics (no.12). The most important tragic writers were Aeschylus,
Sophocles and Euripides and many of their productions such as Oedipus
Rex, Electra or the Oresteia should be considered masterpieces of world
literature. Comedy authors and, most famously Aristophanes, took
advantage of the freedom of speech (or parrhesia) guaranteed by the
democratic regime and openly criticised the state and the attitudes of some of
its figures. The play Lysistrata is particularly subversive, for example, with
women proposing to impose abstinence so that men could stop the war
(no.13). In the case of the Wasps, Athenian jurors are ridiculed for the little
pay received and their annoying behaviour (no.14).

This text naturally needs to be read against the background of Pericles’

reforms. Poor classes seeking easy money could monopolise tribunals and
democratic justice would consequently not deliver fair verdicts. In such
circumstances the success of a new intellectual movement called sophism can
be better understood. Sophists were itinerant speakers who, instead of
complex physic questions, preferred to discuss issues more prevalent in
political societies; most importantly law and rhetoric (no.15). They could
teach how to deliver speeches and use the power of words to persuade and –
arguably – misled people in litigation. Unlike philosophers, they charged a
fee to their students and figures such as Protagoras and Gorgias were
criticised by Plato for being solely interested in making money. In Classical
Athens, nonetheless, sophists were popular and they contributed to the
development of Greek letters and techniques for writing speeches that are
still followed today. Moreover, their concept of justice as something
arbitrary and determined by the ruling party influenced intellectual debates
in the city, with echoes in works such as Sophocles’ Antigone (no.16).

In Euripides’ Suppliant Women, for example, the conflict between

democracy and tyranny also underlies the mythical clash of the Achaean
monarchs and the Athenian Theseus (no.17).

28
HERALD: “Who is the tyrant of this country? To whom must I report the
words of Creon, who has been ruler of the land of Cadmus since the
time that Eteocles died at the hands of his brother Polynices near the
seven-mouthed gates?”

THESEUS: “First, stranger, you were in error at the start of your speech when
you asked for a tyrant here. For the city is not ruled by one
individual – it is free! The people [demos] reigns here, taking turns
in yearly succession. They do not give preference to wealth, but the
poor man has equality.”

In his funeral oration, Pericles claimed that everyone benefitted from

democratic equality and freedom (no.18). But, already in Classical times,
critics such as the writer of the Constitution of the Athenians disagreed and
opened his work in the following way:

(1.1) With regard to the Athenian constitution, this is the reason for my lack of
approval of this form of government: in choosing it they have also
chosen to give the worthless precedence over the competent.
(1.2) So, first of all, I will say that in Athens it does seem fair for the poor and
the people to take precedence over the well-born and the rich, for
this reason: it is the people who are the driving force behind the
navy and who give the city its power.

Such conflicts inside the Athenian society became particularly evident at the
end of the 5th century BC when the hegemonic rule of the city and its
regime came to an end. Without powerful opponents, Athens had engaged in
more aggressive policy abroad, reaching even Cyprus and Egypt. At home,
the city also built the impressive ‘Long walls’ connecting the Acropolis with
the Piraeus harbour. Around 450, the ‘Peace of Callias’ was probably signed
with Persia and hostilities stopped until the end of the 5th century BC.
Although a Peloponnesian army invaded Attica in 446, Pericles bribed the
Spartans to cease the attack and the so-called ‘Thirty-Year Peace’ ensued.
Athens, who had not been an active metropolis in the Archaic period, began
to colonise too. The rule of the Athenian Empire became even more evident
when, for example, the treasury of the league was transferred from Delos to
the Attic capital and was used for the monumental projects backed by
Pericles. Rebellions against Athens such as the attempt in Samos were heavily
punished with higher taxes and, perhaps, even crucifixions (no.19). As a
result, a sentiment of hostility grew across Greece and the Aegean which
ended up in the military conflict conventionally known as ‘Peloponnesian
Wars’ (no.20). The Athenian historian Thucydides is our main – and almost
single – historiographical source of these events for which he famously

29
distinguished between pretexts (or alleged reasons) and “the truest cause” of
the confrontation. Many Greeks feared absolute Athenian control over the
‘Delian League’ and the Corinthians claimed that Athens had illegitimately
interfered in their colonies on the Ionian Sea, the most important of which
was Corcyra (modern Corfu). At the same time, Sparta emerged as the most
powerful military power and, with its approval, the league of the
Peloponnesians decided to declare war and invade Attica in 431. Under
Pericles’ leadership, the Athenians voted to rely on their naval superiority
and the constant revenues from their subjects. The first period of the war
began and it was named ‘Archidamian’ after the name of one of the Spartan
kings. The second Peloponnesian incursion occurred in 430 and the
Athenians remained covered under their ‘Long Walls’ between the
Acropolis and the Piraeus. This defence, however, could not protect the
urban centre from the effects of a 4-year plague that killed many
inhabitants. The more conservative Athenian strategy changed after 425
when a fleet of ships sent towards Sicily landed before Pylos in Messenia and
sparked Sparta’s fear for a helot uprising. The Spartan king Brasidas replied
by attacking the most vulnerable possession of Athens, its northern colonies
which could not be defended under the command of Thucydides. The
historian was exiled, new politicians such as Nicias advocated for peace and
an armistice was finally reached in 421 BC.

Despite minor confrontations, the ‘Peace of Nicias’ was not definitively

broken until the Athenian Alcibiades instigated another naval expedition
against Sicily in 415. After the armada disaster, the formerly charismatic and
youthful leader, who had even sponsored an Olympic victory with his
chariots, was summoned by the city but Alcibiades ran away to Sparta. The
Lacedaemonians decided to renew their war in 413 and, most significantly,
they engaged for the first time in naval confrontation against Athens. A
base on Attica was occupied, many Aegean members of the ‘Delian league’
changed sides and, very significantly, the support of Persian was actively
sought. In this difficult context, the negotiations of Alcibiades with members
of the Athenian elite led to a change of regime when the so-called ‘Oligarchy
of 411’ was installed. Even though democratic institutions were restored after
just one year, Athens could not recover again. In 406/5, its navy was
crushingly defeated. The Spartan kings met in Attica and demanded the
Athenians to surrender and demolish their defensive walls. Democracy was
again dismantled and a group of 30 oligarchs ruled the city, reinstating
powers of the aristocratic elite such as the Areopagus. The citizenship
body was reduced to just 3000 members and many others were forced to
leave. Scapegoats for the Athenian defeat were sought, arrested and executed;
a witch-hunt which famously killed the philosopher Socrates, despite the
defence of his pupil Plato. An iconic figure of Athenian civic culture died

30
and, with him, Greece signalled the end of its Classical Age in the 4th century
BC.

6.1. The 4th Century BC, Alexander the Great and the Expedition towards the
Hellenistic Age.

At the end of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta enforced its rule over
Athens, dissolved the ‘Delian league’ and became the hegemonic power
during the first quarter of the 4th century BC. An agreement with Persia was
reached and the Achaemenid Empire underwent a period of turmoil when
Cyrus attempted to usurp the throne from his brother with the assistance of
Greek mercenaries. This expedition was experienced by Xenophon, author of
the Anabasis. Spartan control under the leadership of the king Agesilaus
continued until 395/4 when a coalition of Greek cities engaged in the so-called
‘Corinthian war’. Greece entered a period of instability that characterised the
following decades until the final victory of Macedonia, its king Philip II and
his son Alexander (no.2).

The 4th century BC must be understood in connection with the strengthening

of forms of regional organisation called ‘Leagues’. In general, two types can
be distinguished. First, a union of autonomous cities, with one of them acting
as leader (or hegemon) and having a prominent role in the common council.
The most important examples were the aforementioned ‘Delian League’, the
‘Peloponnesian league’ led by Sparta and, particularly in the 4th century, the
‘Boeotian league’. The second type was structured as a union of federal
estates normally sharing ethnic identity or rights, with an assembly, coinage
and army. At the end of the Classical age, the most important were the
Thessalian and Phocian leagues. The balance of autonomy and subjection
between all these regional powers and Sparta was very fragile and several
confrontations in central Greece led to a coercive response by the
Lacedaemonians. Only diplomatic activities supported by the Persian satrap
and king put an end to these episodes in 387 with the so-called ‘Peace of
Antalcidas’. The Achaemenids recovered the control of western Anatolia
and Sparta became again the enforcer of freedom and autonomy in the Greek
world. Some politicians in Athens, however, criticised the agreement as
another humiliation perpetrated by foreign powers once the oligarchic
regime of the ‘Thirty Tyrants’ had been deposed. This position was most
significantly defended by the orator Isocrates, who proclaimed the necessity
to defend panhellenic values against the Persian “barbaric” interference.

31
We must push aside these schemes and embark on such projects as will make
living in our cities safer and our interrelationship more trustworthy.
What is to be said about this is simple and straightforward. A lasting
peace cannot be re-established without our joining forces to combat
the barbarians, nor can the Greeks be united until we derive our
gains from the same peoples, and also direct our hazardous ventures
against the same peoples. [Isocrates, Panegyricus 173]

Under the pretext of the peace treaty, Spartans demanded the Boeotian
league to dissolve but the measure did not prove very effective. When a
military garrison was sent to Thebes, some citizens fled to Athens and
prepared to effectively regain the Boeotian capital in 379/8. Soon thereafter,
Athens itself took the cue and established a new league in the Aegean sea.
Another period of confrontation ensued and unsuccessful negotiation talks led
to the battle of Leuctra in 371. The Spartan defeat marked the end of its
hegemony in Greece; more than 400 Lacedaemonian citizens lost their lives
and the restrictive regulations of Lycurgus prevented the generation of
sufficient descendants. Accordingly, the Theban leader Epaminondas
controlled the central Greek peninsula while Athens consolidated its influence
over the Aegean area. Both powers progressively became more
authoritarian and, again, regional opposition forced clashes and instability.
In one of these battles (Mantinea, 362 BC), Epaminondas died and the
Boeotian league waned. Likewise, Athens was affected by the rapid and
successful expansion of the new power coming from Macedonia.

Macedonia is located in northern Greece. Until the mid-4th century, the

territory was mostly regarded as a peripheral and underdeveloped state
providing numerous resources (no.5). Even its Hellenic identity was
contested prior to the rule of the Argead dynasty (no.6). The Macedonian
royal house claimed Heracles as its ancestor, but only emerged as a strong
military power when Philip II took the throne in 359 BC. His army consisted
of infantrymen, recruited from the local peasantry, and of cavalry,
dominated by the nobility (no.7). Some of these nobles formed a group of
companions that gave advice to the council and commanded military units. As
for the infantry, the Macedonian formation (or phalanx) used a powerful
technical improvement, the sarissa pike which measured around 5 metres and
served as a defensive weapon too. The shields were tied to the necks and the
advances of such lines could not be stopped on the field by the traditional
hoplite formations of the rest of Greece. In 357, Philip captured
Amphipolis which Athens considered its own colony. War was declared but
the Athenian assembly failed to assess the risk and a real campaign was never
waged. The conflicts in central Greece, commonly known as ‘Sacred Wars’
contributed even more significantly to Philip’s success. In this context, the

32
Athenian orator Demosthenes tried to show the serious nature of the threat
through a series of speeches named Philippics (no.9). However, his first
warnings were not taken into account even when the Macedonians declared
war on Olynthus in 349. Only in the 340’s an alliance between many cities
including Athens and Thebes reacted and, eventually, met Philip in the Battle
of Chaeronea (338 BC). Macedonia won and, so, many historians consider
that the Greek Classical Age and its achievements ended. After Chaeronea, a
new ‘Hellenic League’ with Macedonia was agreed by all the Greeks, except
for Sparta which was punished and lost its territory. The ‘Oath of Corinth’
was pronounced in 337 BC (no.10) and, with it, a peace ensued in which an
audacious campaign against Persia could be envisaged. Unexpectedly, Philip
was assassinated, his son Alexander succeeded and the Macedonian legacy
reached levels unprecedented in the Greek world. The Royal tombs of
Vergina evidence this power as well as the panhellenic aspirations of a
dynasty that sponsored its own building – the Philippeum – in Olympia
(no.11).

As a member of the Macedonian royal house, Alexander received a

comprehensive education. The philosopher Aristotle became his tutor and
established a durable relationship that influenced his pursuits as leader of the
Greeks (no.12). Alexander also started participating in the military
campaigns of his father from an early age and even commanded a wing in the
victory of Chaeronea. Despite some initial problems, his claim to the
Macedonian throne prevailed after eliminating potential rivals. He also
made a quick march into Greece to ensure that both Thessaly and other Greek
states recognized him as the heir to Philip. By 334/3, Alexander had arranged
a force of several thousand soldiers and cavalrymen with whom he
announced the mission to liberate Greece from the Persian enslavement.
The military expedition started in western Anatolia where the pro-Persian
oligarchies were generally substituted for more democratic regimes (no.13).
With the Greek world under control, Alexander initiated an even more bold
enterprise and advanced across the Anatolian peninsula where he famously
cut the Gordian knot (no.14). At Issos, on the narrow border with Syria, the
Macedonian army faced Darius III and his royal armies for the first time as
depicted on a famous mosaic of Pompeii (no.15). Darius fled and Alexander’s
troops moved south towards the Levant reaching Egypt in the autumn of
332. Here, the Macedonian king presented himself once more as a liberator
who would remove Persian taxes from the old Egyptian nation. He paid his
respect to local deities and ended up being considered a pharaoh by the local
population. During his Egyptian stay, Alexander visited the oracle of Ammon
in the oasis of Siwa and founded a city under his name: Alexandria (no.17).
From Egypt Alexander marched to Mesopotamia where Darius and a large
number of troops was waiting for him in 331. The Battle of Gaugamela

33
ended with Darius’ second flight (no.18). The rivers Tigris and Euphrates were
open to the Greek invaders who ravaged the capitals of Babylon, Susa and
Persepolis.

The conquest of the Persian heartland did not stop the campaign. Alexander
the Great aimed to conquer the entire Achaemenid Empire and soon the
march continued towards central Asia. Local resistance was fierce and some
conspiracies tried to overthrow the Macedonian leader who adopted foreign
customs such as kneeling; a privilege previously reserved to the Persian
monarch. In 328/7 Alexander even married Roxanne, daughter of the
Bactrian king who contributed to quell revolts against the Greeks. The next
steps are shrouded in mystery, but our sources (mostly late historiographers
such as Arrian writing in the Roman period) report that the Macedonian army
reached the Indus valley (no.20). The Greek troops defeated the local king
Porus, but refused to advance any further. In the autumn of 325, Alexander
led the return of the army through the hostile desert of Iran, suffering
enormous losses. The great campaign ended in March 324 with a mass
wedding between Macedonian soldiers and Persian women at Susa; the
symbolic inauguration of a new age, that of the ‘Macedonian-Iranian
Empire’. The ruling of Alexander’s unprecedented empire proved more
difficult than its conquest. Many mercenaries left their posts in remote areas, a
campaign towards Arabia could not be organised and, eventually, Alexander
the Great, aged 32, fell suspiciously ill and died in 323 BC.

6.2. The Egypt of the Ptolemies and the Seleucid Near East.

Alexander the Great died unexpectedly, in Babylon, in the middle of his

gigantic and rapidly conquered territory, but without a designated heir. This
lack of dynastic continuity led to a period of disputes between the chief
generals of his army. They are designated ‘Successors’ (or Diadochoi) and,
initially, agreed to install Philipp III, Alexander’s incapable brother, on the
throne until Alexander IV, the yet unborn son of Alexander and Roxanne,
could reach maturity. The realm was divided between Antipater in Greece,
Lysimachus in Thrace, Antigonus in Phrygia and Ptolemy in Egypt, while
Perdiccas remained in Mesopotamia (no.2). In this context of weakness, some
cities of Greece –including Athens– revolted and the so-called ‘Lamian war’
ensued. Antipater was first defeated at the Thermopylae but could eventually
reorganise the army and quell the revolt; imposing harsh punishments to
instigators such as Demosthenes who was forced to commit suicide. In 321,
Perdiccas proclaimed himself ruler of the entire empire and caused a coalition
of all the other generals against him. The ‘First war of the Successors’
finished when Antipater was designated guardian of the king and another

34
general, Seleucus, became satrap of Babylon. Antipater’s regency came to
an end in 319 when he died. His son Cassander, however, claimed to be the
true successor of the Macedonian royal house because of his marriage with the
last daughter of Philip II. At the same time, Antigonus with the support of
Ptolemy and Lysimachus, advanced to the east and occupied the Anatolian
and Levant satrapies (no.3). Soon, it became evident that Antigonus aimed
to have a hegemonic power and an opposing coalition of the other generals
was formed once more. In the ‘Third War of the Successors’, Ptolemy
attacked Asia Minor, Seleucus the eastern Mediterranean, but Antigonus
managed to retain Syria. A truce was agreed but the murder of Alexander IV
reignited the fight for succession.

In 302 a new coalition was formed against Antigonus. In the meantime,

Seleucus had reinforced his control over the easternmost provinces, reached
a treaty with the Indian king, returned to Asia Minor in 301 and assisted
Lysimachus in the battle near Ipsos where Antigonus died (no.4). The end of
the ‘Fourth War of the Successors’ allowed the remaining generals to
strengthen their monarchical claims and establish the kingdoms of the
Hellenistic age in which Graeco-Macedonian ruling structures cohabited
with significant influences of the indigenous population.

The rule of Ptolemy over Egypt illustrates this process. At the end of the
New Kingdom in the 11th century BC, a new intermediate period started
until the Persians finally conquered the upper course of the Nile valley in
525 BC. A satrap ruled the territory before Alexander defeated the
Achaemenid Empire and personally visited the oracle of Ammon in Siwa
and the region of the Delta. Here a new city called Alexandria was founded
while the Egyptian local population came under the rule of Macedonia.
Significant changes of administration, however, do not seem to have happened
while Alexander continued its campaign in the East. After the latter’s death,
Ptolemy took his corpse and transferred it to Egypt where he established
himself as satrap (no.5). In the first stages of the wars of succession, Egypt
remained more stable than other territories even when some of the
campaigns abroad did not turn out very successfully. Indeed, this context of
volatility allowed Ptolemy to integrate the region of Cyrene and, later, to
proclaim himself king in 305 BC. The Ptolemaic influence over the Aegean
increased significantly too. As a result, Ptolemy received the title of
‘Saviour’ (or Soter) and moved the capital of Egypt from Memphis to
Alexandria. At the same time, hieroglyphic inscriptions and statues
presented the Macedonian king as a Pharaoh, the ‘King of the two Lands’
who was placed as founder of the 30th dynasty following the Egyptian
chronology kept by the priestly class. This cohabitation of cultures is
fundamental for explaining the nature of Ptolemaic Egypt and the evolution of

35
one of the most important powers during the Hellenistic age. In this sense, the
Rosetta stone provides us with a very graphic example; a document
containing Ptolemaic decrees written in Greek and two Egyptian scripts
(hieroglyphs and demotic) which could actually be deciphered as a result of
these equivalent texts (no.6).

Old Egyptian centres such as Thebes or Memphis did not disappear and
local temples played an important role as guardians of the old traditions;
especially language and a religion which saw the development of syncretic
cults such as Zeus-Ammon and Sarapis (no.7). Likewise, all the land of
Egypt was still considered ‘king’s land’ and remained run as a state
monopoly following the Pharaoh’s practice (no.8). The lack of local revolts
at the beginning of the kingdom, together with the stable control of
millenary structures, provided the first Ptolemies with great financial
means. The city of Alexandria was the biggest beneficiary of the economic
surplus provided by the biggest exporter of grain in the Mediterranean. The
harbour was enlarged and the magnificent lighthouse on the island of Pharos
became one of the wonders of the Ancient World (no.9). As for the
population of Alexandria, it was divided into several districts that did not
enjoy the same rights. The most privileged class were the Greeks who
formed the civic community and surrounded the royal compound (no.10). All
the Egyptians were confined to the same quarter and Alexandria also
received a significant contingent of Jewish settlers who established their own
community and are well-known for providing the first Greek translation of
the books of the Hebrew Bible: the Septuagint. Ptolemy I also contributed
to the maintenance of Greek culture through strategic and large-scale
projects such as the construction of the Museum, an institution dedicated to
the Muses. Its most famous initiative was the preparation of a Library that
could rival the previous Athenian hegemony over Classical intellectual life.
Indeed, much of the available Ancient Greek literature and philosophy
survives today thanks to this arduous work of documentation, archiving and
philology with the thousands of manuscripts kept in this Library (no.11).
One of the most famous librarians was Eratosthenes, who also calculated
the circumference of the earth and developed geography. Other scientists
connected with Alexandria were Aristarchus, who proposed a heliocentric
model of the universe, the ‘father of geometry’ Euclid and even Archimedes,
who visited Egypt from his fatherland in Sicily before discovering one of the
principles of physics and, allegedly, exclaiming Eureka! (“I have found (it)”).
Alexandria also became a literary centre and many of the great authors of
the Hellenistic age are known to have spent time in the city. Celebrated poets
such as Callimachus received the sponsorship of the Ptolemaic regime in the
3rd century BC. The end of the long Ptolemaic dynasty would come with the

36
queen Cleopatra and the conquest by Rome at the end of the 1st century BC
(no.12).

Seleucus also managed to found a new city under his name – Seleucia –
located in Mesopotamia from where he managed to re-organise the
easternmost section of Alexander’s conquered territory (no.13). A war against
the new Indian king Chandragupta turned into an advantageous deal
providing Seleucus with a powerful weapon, elephants, which became one of
the symbols of his rule (no.14). Seleucus increased his imperial ambitions,
broke his pact with Demetrius (regent of Macedonia), designated his son
Antiochus I as royal heir and initiated a march towards the west. In this
context, one of the sons of Ptolemy I asked for Seleucus’ assistance against
the king of Thrace, Lysimachus, who was eventually killed in the Battle of
Corupedium near Sardis in 281 BC. Seleucus then transferred his troops to
the European continent but was betrayed and assassinated near Lysimachea
(no.15). This unexpected death was exploited by the former treasurer of
Lysimachus, Philetaerus, who secured the independence of Pergamum, a
stronghold on the north-west of the Anatolian peninsula. With the help of the
Ptolemies, Eumenes I and Attalos I established the Kingdom of Pergamum
and the Attalid dynasty (no.16-17). The Seleucid rulers, on the other hand,
struggled with resistance not only from Pergamum but also from other native
Anatolian monarchies such as Bithynia and Cappadocia which adopted
Hellenistic manners. From central Europe, Celtic tribes crossed the
Hellespont after plundering Greece and had to be resettled in the area
subsequently known as Galatia. In the East, the Seleucid control did not
manage to be particularly tight in this period. The plateau of Iran suffered the
incursions of a new ethnic group, the Parthians, while Bactria received
Indian support to act autonomously. In a sense, the Seleucid Empire in such
territories depended on the loyalty of autonomous satraps who did not feel
threatened by the power of Seleucus I’s successors unable to control a
territory stretching from the central Asian steppes to the Mediterranean
shores (n.18).

Despite such issues, the Seleucid Empire played a fundamental role in

preserving many of Alexander the Great’s ideals during the Hellenistic
age (no.19). Unlike all the other successors, Seleucus kept his indigenous
wife Apama from whom Antiochus I was born. Natives also served in the
administration and filled the army. At the same time, migrations of
Macedonians were promoted and the settlement of new colonies was
particularly abundant (no.20); setting a fundamental framework for the
spread of Greek culture beyond the Aegean Sea. Political councils and
assemblies were established, gymnastic institutions and civic virtues such as
euergetism or philanthropy got promoted and cults could be either

37
imported or adopted as far as Ai Khanum in modern Afghanistan
(no.21-22); from where even the history of India was influenced (no.23-24).
Greek education became a mark of distinction and a common Greek
language (or koine) commenced to challenge the previous lingua franca
status of Aramaic in the Persian Empire.

The Seleucid kingdom was the most populated of all the Hellenistic
monarchies. In contrast to the shortage of Macedonian soldiers in Egypt, the
Seleucids promoted a demographic policy that filled the royal military
ranks. Moreover, the army could always be supplemented with specialised
forces coming from more indigenous areas. Such a military asset is
fundamental for understanding the revival of the Seleucid kingdom under the
rule of Antiochus III (no.25). After his accession in 223 BC, he spent the next
decades quelling rebellious territories and tightening imperial control. He
made an expedition against the Parthians and Bactrians, renewed the
treaty with the Indians and even reached the Arabian coast while defeating
Ptolemy V and gaining southern Syria in 198. The failure of Antiochus III,
however, consisted in challenging the authority of the Romans who, as will
be discussed in later lectures, were in the course of making the
Mediterranean their own sea (Mare Nostrum). The Roman Republic
considered the Kingdom of Pergamum almost as a protectorate. Antioch
III overlooked such a powerful support and was famously defeated as a result
of the Battle of Magnesia in 190. The Seleucid king was humiliated,
Pergamum took almost the whole of Asia Minor and a huge war fine was
imposed. Yet the Romans were not yet interested in complete annihilation
after the Treaty of Apamea in 189 BC. Antiochus III died just a couple of
years later with his western realm reduced to Syria and the Levant (no.26).

Against this background, the Jewish revolt against this king Antiochus IV
must be read. Hellenistic inferences were not well received in Judea by
segments of the population for whom Jerusalem remained their most sacred
place. Antiochus IV equally despised the Jewish high-priest and these
circumstances ignited the local revolt narrated in the 2 Books of Maccabees
collected in the Catholic and Orthodox Bible (but not in the Protestant).
According to this source, Antioch IV banned all Jewish practices, including
circumcision. He would have issued orders to burn even the Torah and to
defile the Great Temple. In response, the revolt leader Judah Maccabee
organised guerrilla tactics that weakened the Seleucid army and allowed the
recovery of Jerusalem (no.27). The Jewish temple and traditions could be
restored as celebrated in the Hanukkah festival. Jonathan Maccabee was
later designated high-priest and, in this way, an autonomous rule under the
Hasmonean dynasty dominated Judea until 63 BC, when the Roman
general Pompey put an end to a civil war.

38
III. THE HISTORY OF ROME AND ITS EMPIRE

7.1. From Trojan Wolf to Etruscan Monarch

Rome was a city that became an empire, a power that conquered the
Mediterranean and managed to control the western world for centuries
(no.2-3). A history of this Italian settlement therefore needs to explain its
origins, rise and development. The problem in the Ancient World is that later
successes do not always correspond to well-documented beginnings. For
example, it was not until the 4th century BC that Philip II dominated Greece
and the corresponding Macedonian evidence allow us to know more details
about his royal dynasty. The situation in Rome is somehow analogous.
Roman documents and surviving historians are not numerous before the
1st century BC, when the city had already completed the most important
phases of its territorial expansion. Unlike Greece, the Italian peninsula was far
from the Near Eastern cultures which developed early writing systems
shedding light on the Bronze and early Iron Ages. This lack of direct and
external sources becomes particularly problematic when the tradition affirms
that Rome was founded in 753 BC. This date was indeed chosen by Livy,
the author of Ab urbe condita (or ‘From the foundation of the city’) who
flourished under Augustus, the first ruler of the Roman Empire (no.4). The
historian consequently delivers a chronological series of books which, while
exploring the past, were clearly intended to celebrate the achievements of
his current times. A similar problem can be encountered in Vergil, another
writer of the Augustan age, who composed the epic poem Aeneid narrating
how the hero Aeneas settled in Italy after the Trojan War (no.5). Even for
contemporary Greeks such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writer of the
Roman Antiquities, it was clear that Rome had already prevailed and its
history was necessarily bound to this success (no.6).

If the foundation of Rome occurred in 753 BC, the beginnings of this city
date to the same period in which Greece experienced the first stages of its
‘Archaic Age’ —remember that 776 BC was the year of the first Olympic
games. Unfortunately, no Homer or Hesiod is known to have existed in Italy
around this time and literacy was equally undeveloped, with no inscriptions
and coins available. As a result, our information mostly depends on the
biased and late works mentioned above. As customary in the Ancient World,
these sources did not clearly distinguish mythical stories from
documentary evidence, and this results in mixed accounts from which
historical facts cannot be easily extracted. Hence only Archaeology
provides us with relevant materials from which the origins of Italy and its
peoples can be clarified.

39
The Italian peninsula is surrounded by the Adriatic on the east and the
Tyrrhenian Sea on the west. It extends from the Alps in the north to the strait
with Sicily in the south. In the middle, Italy is crossed by a range of
mountains. The archaeological excavations conducted in these areas have
shown a significant degree of uniformity in the materials dating to the
Bronze Age. Hence scholars refer to a unitary ‘Apennine culture’ that lasted
from around 1800 to 1200 BC (no.8). At the end of the Bronze Age, however,
the appearance of cultural variations in Italy can be detected. By 900 BC –
already in the Iron Age– it is evident that populations can be distinguished on
the basis of their funerary practices; either cremation or inhumation. The
best attested tombs dating to this period were located around the modern
region of Emilia-Romagna and belonged to the so-called ‘Villanovan culture’
(no.9). The variety of archaeological contexts is also reflected in the
multitude of languages that can be identified in Italy (no.10).

The languages attested on the Italian peninsula can be distinguished in two

big groups: Indo-European and non-Indo-European. The latter are
supposed to be the native languages spoken prior to the arrival of waves of
Indo-European migrants. The most important in this group is Etruscan, which
scholars cannot relate to any known linguistic family and, consequently, its
origins are still debated. As for the Indo-Europeans languages, these can also
be divided into two groups: Italic and non-Italic languages. Latin, which
was initially spoken in a small region of central Italy (Latium), became the
most important Italic language. The family of Italic languages is supposed to
derive from the migrations that left central Asia and crossed the Alps
probably before the Bronze Age. The same migration model would also
apply to the later arrival of the Celts who occupied northern Italy along
the valley of the Po river and, naturally, to the colonisation carried out by
Greek cities in southern Italy and Sicily from 800 BC onwards (no.11). As
has previously been discussed, this area came to be known as Magna Graecia
and gave rise to resourceful cities such as Cumae, Naples and Syracuse which
played a prominent role in the transformation of central and northern
Italy. Indeed, Greek pottery styles were imported, funerary customs were
largely imitated and, very importantly, a writing system based on the
alphabetic model was adopted (no.12).

This connection between the Greek world, Italy and Rome is not solely
present in the material evidence coming from field excavations. As mentioned
above, one of the masterpieces of Latin literature, Vergil’s Aeneid, recounted
epically the flight of Aeneas from Troy, an eventful voyage across the
Mediterranean and, finally, his arrival in Italy (no.13). The Trojans met the
indigenous king Latinus and, after his death, Aeneas became the leader of

40
the Latins. His son Ascanius was later king of Alba Longa, another nearby
settlement in Latium. The Julian family called Aeneas’ son Iulus and
considered him the founder of the lineage. Augustus, who supported Vergil’s
production, was a member of this family, so the emphasis placed on this
mythical episode during his rule is not accidental. That said, there is earlier
evidence indicating that Aeneas was worshipped as a hero in Italy already in
the 6th century BC and, for example, the father of Latin epic poetry, Ennius,
also wrote about him in the 2nd century. In the Greek world, we saw that such
foundations myths –even if unhistorical– were fundamental for understanding
the way the Ancients reflected upon their origins.

In the Roman mythical tradition, the most noteworthy element is that the
foundation of the city was the result of mixture, chance and survival. This
contrasts, for example, with the foundation of Athens where the inhabitants
considered themselves autochthonous (i.e. native to the land). Rome, instead,
did not even exist when Ascanius/Iulus ruled Alba Longa. The dynasty
continued and, only later, one of the descendants, Rhea Silvia, had twin sons
who threatened the power of the king Amulius. He ordered Romulus and
Remus to be drowned in the river Tiber, but the couple survived and
appeared at the foot of one of Rome’s hills, the Palatine (no.14). A wolf fed
them until some shepherds rescued and brought the pair up. Romulus and
Remus lived a life of subsistence and banditry until they discovered their
true identity, attacked Alba Longa and overthrew Amulius. Then they decided
to found a city exactly in the place where they had been saved. Soon
conflicts arose about the limits (pomerium), and Romulus eventually killed
his brother Remus. The first king initiated in this way his rule over Rome,
but Romulus needed subjects. He declared the Capitoline hill a sacred place
with the right of asylum which attracted mostly criminals. Progressively,
the seven hills of Rome were occupied but wives were still lacking (no.15). A
raid to take the women of the neighbouring Sabine territory was organised.
Romans therefore did not present a glorified past full of noble heroes and
actions. They acknowledged their mixed origins and mostly emphasised
their intimidating power from the beginning.

Still according to the (most accepted) mythical tradition, Romulus ruled for
some years although his death was obscure and unexpected. In any case, the
political system did not change after him and Rome still saw six more kings
before the establishment of the Republic regime (no.16) Again, it is
impossible to certify the historicity of these figures even if scholars generally
agree that Rome was at some point ruled by monarchs. The main problem
arises from the fact that these rulers represent archetypical features that fit an
organic evolution of the city. For example, the successors of Romulus were
Numa Pompilius and Tullus Hostilius, and portrayed two contrasting

41
stereotypes. Numa was a pacific and devout king who organised the major
religious institutions of the state, including the calendar and priesthoods
such as the pontifex maximus. On the other hand, Tullus Hostilius was
responsible for the war against Alba Longa in which the episode of the
Horatii and the Curiatii allegedly took place. Ancus Marcius was the fourth
king and he was credited with the construction of the first bridge across the
Tiber and with the expansion of the Roman territory as far as Ostia, by the
sea. His successor was Tarquinius Priscus, who enjoyed a successful reign as
a warrior, constitutional innovator and civic benefactor. Most importantly, the
king came originally from Etruria.

This area was located in the modern provinces of Tuscany and Umbria and, as
mentioned above, saw the development of a culture which did not write a
language recognisable as Indo-european (no.17). Their origins were already
contested in Antiquity and Herodotus even claims that they were descendants
of the Anatolian Lydians. Archaeological studies show that the Etruscans
emerged from the ‘Villanovan culture’ and reached the zenith of their
civilisation and city-states between the 8th and the 5th century BC. In this
period, their contacts with the Greek colonies and world was very intense
and, indeed, Athenian pottery has been discovered in burial sites while the
writing system was also based on the alphabet. The legend even said that
Tarquinius Priscus was descended from a Corinthian man. As for his rise to
the Roman throne, the story goes that he convinced the patricians of his
qualities instead of those of Ancus Marcius’ descendants. This episode
illustrates the particular process through which monarchs were supposed
to be chosen. Upon the death of a king, a period of one year was declared
and the heads of the Roman families (the patres) elected the successor. The
new king coming from this interregnum also needed to have good omens,
that is the gods had communicated his approval with signals interpreted by
inspired men (or auspices). This process, however, seems to have been
subverted in the election of Servius Tullius –perhaps of slave descent– who
succeeded Tarquinius Priscus thanks to popular support according to Livy.
The historian also reports that Servius Tullius initiated a series of profound
reforms such as the expansion of voting rights beyond the patricians which
would ultimately lead to the establishment of the Roman Republic. Prior to
this transformation, however, the son of Tarquinius Priscus plotted against
Servius Tullius and instigated his violent murder. Tarquinius Superbus
acceded to the throne in this way and started a tyrannical rule in which the
temple of Jupiter Capitoline was completed and further territorial
expansions attempted. During one of them, the episode of Lucretia unfolded
(no.18). According to the legend, she was the wife of Collatinus, governor of
one of the conquered territories. While Collatinus was away, the son of
Tarquinius Superbus tried to force the virtuous Lucretia, promising her to be

42
the woman of the future king. Otherwise, he would kill her and place her body
on the bed with a slave as a sign of adultery. Lucretia could not preserve her
dignity that night but in the morning, dressed in black, she revealed the crime
right before killing herself with a dagger. Collatinus was enraged and swore
vengeance. A revolution against Tarquinius Superbus ensued and the last
king of Rome was finally overthrown. The Etruscan dynasty was banned
from the territory and the patricians decided to put an end to the monarchy
by appointing Collatinus as consul together with Brutus. The start of the
Republic was consensually placed in 509 BC and, soon, the Roman legends
would become a historical reality with government, triumphs and, eventually,
an Empire.

7.2. The early Republic and the conquest of Italy

The Roman Republic began in 509 BC. This new regime, however, did not
automatically transform the elite who remained in control of the state. The
Patricians, heads of the aristocratic families of Rome, had previously
participated in the election of kings during the transitional interregnum. This
group also occupied the top positions in the first years of the Republic. The
period is again obscured by the lack of direct sources and its study needs to be
based on the same accounts of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus recording
the Roman Monarchy. And yet, the foundations and early evolution of the
Roman Republic are key to understanding a system of government which
was still structuring Rome when its power can be historically attested
(no.2).

One of these fundamental elements defining the Roman society and its
institutions was the division of the population into classes. The tradition
attributed this system to Servius Tullius. The king was supposed to have
acceded to the throne thanks to popular support instead of the patrician
designation. In response to this support, he is credited with creating an
assembly that supplemented the ancestral separation of the Roman families
in groupings (curiae) composed of approximately 200 families (gentes)
represented in Senate (no.3). Such a system naturally neglected those with a
humble origin, that is the majority of the common population referred to as
plebs. The Servian reforms, instead, added age and property qualifications
to nobility (no. 4). In order to determine the wealth of the families, Servius
Tullius was also believed to have prepared the first census. According to their
possessions, the Roman people (or populus Romanus) were assigned to
different classes. The top class was reserved for those with enough money to
pay for full armour and weapons. Those who did not have any lands and
could not afford military equipment belonged to the bottom class and were
named proletarii because they could only contribute to the state with their
children (proles). Each of the classes was composed of a varying number of

43
centuriae, which were not distributed proportionally. The 1st class had 80
centuriae, 40 for the elders (seniores) and 40 for the youngsters (iuniores).
The 2nd class, however, had 20 centuriae and only 1 centuria corresponded to
the poor proletarii. Altogether, they formed an assembly, the comitia
centuriata, in which the patricians still held most power; indeed, they only
needed the support of those with horses (equites) to pass their decisions with
an overall majority (98 out of the 193 total centuriae). This system logically
caused inequalities which would impact the first steps and transformations of
the Roman Republic.

After Tarquinius Superbus was removed from the throne, the leadership of
the state was given to Collatinus – Lucretia’s husband– and Brutus. They
were designated consuls and this magistracy remained on top of the political
administration of the Republic until the Roman Empire, when their powers
were subject to the emperor (no.5). The consuls served terms of one year and
were first elected in comitia centuriata. Then, the curial assembly conferred
upon them a power called imperium. In peacetime, the consuls remained in
the pomerium –the sacred and original territory of Rome– and were in charge
of several aspects of the judiciary and legislative administration. In times of
war, they became the commanders in chief of the Roman army. Their dual
nature – as in Sparta– allowed the consuls to head two different armies
surrounded by a guard of lictors marking their superior status with rods and
axes, the so-called fasces (no.6). When the Senate declared foreign
expeditions licit, they were also in charge of conducting the levy of the troops
in a field dedicated to Mars (Campus Martius), outside the city, where the
males of Rome trained. The military role of this top magistracy together with
the martial character of the Roman centuriae is better understood from the
risks faced by the Republic from an early stage.

As soon as 505/4, Rome suffered the attacks of Etruscans trying to retake

the city and the throne. In 499, several Latin peoples revolted and were
defeated in the battle of the lake Regillus (no.7). Rome became the head of
the Latin league even if the institutions of the city were not yet very stable.
During these military confrontations, the plebs noticed its importance and
began to claim more rights. In the year 494, the poorest classes refused to
continue fighting and retreated to the Aventine. The revolt only finished
when the patricians conceded the creation of magistrates called tribunes
who defended the interests of the plebs with an inviolable nature (no.8).
Moreover, the right of veto was part of this tribunician power (or potestas
tribunicia). Soon other two magistrates called aediles were added and they
were in charge of the temple hosting the so-called ‘Plebeian Triad’ of Ceres,
Liber and Libera on the Aventine, instead of the Capitoline Triad of
Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. According to the tradition, members of the

44
humblest classes could also organise their own council in 474 BC on the basis
of the districts in which they lived. In the middle of the Republic, the
decisions of this council (or plebiscites) had a binding nature.

During the early Republic, nevertheless, the control of the political life of
Rome was still in patrician hands. Once Rome managed to defeat the
neighbouring Samnites, the Aequi and the Volsci with mythical episodes such
as that of Coriolanus –the traitor who repented in the last moment– access to
the top class became more restricted. Most importantly, the patricians could
only have lawful marriages with other patricians. The Senate maintained
its authority (or auctoritas) and could sanction public measures and
magistracies. Only the patricians had the right to interpret the divine signs
(or auspices) and they also controlled the tribunals while their wealth
increased from further military actions such as the capture of Veii in Etruria
in 477. Not surprisingly, the plebeians continued to complain about the
unfairness of the judicial system. A commission of ten men had to take over
the state with a mission to record in written format the laws previously
transmitted by oral customs which were subject to arbitrary
interpretations. Livy says that the group even sent a delegation to Greece
where they studied the works of Solon (no.10). Their work concluded with
the redaction of the XII Laws that became the basis of Roman law (no.11).
Despite such reforms, the patricians still controlled the military commands
(or tribuni militum) and instituted the magistracy of censor, who was in
charge of drafting the registry and property qualification of everyone
belonging to the Roman people. Gradually, they also became the guardians
of the state resources and the morals which could be upheld through the
power of censorship. The institution of praetorship was also developed. The
urban praetor was in charge of issues affecting citizens and the peregrine
praetor controlled the foreigners. Later in the Republic, they played a
prominent role in the tribunals of Rome. They also substituted the consuls in
the city when they were fighting abroad and could even call assemblies and
pass legislation in their absence. Such major positions were supplemented by
inferior magistracies such as the curule aediles supervising local aspects
(e.g. water supply and roads) and the quaestores, who were elected
administrators. The hierarchical tenure of these positions from bottom to
top was called cursus honorum and needed to be completed by the Romans
with political aspirations (no.13).

By the end of the 5th century BC, Rome had virtually completed the
conquest of Latium and Etruria. The beginning of the 4th century was not
so promising. The Celtic peoples occupying northern Italy along the Po
valley started moving further towards the south; not to migrate but rather to
raid and plunder. Around 390, the Gauls met the Romans in the Battle of

45
Allia and inflicted a crushing defeat. Then they moved to Rome and sacked
the city with a big booty, with only those on the Capitol resisting. Only
Camillus, who had previously been designated as dictator (i.e. commander
in chief and politician with all powers) by the Senate and was away, could
gather enough forces to defeat the Gauls when they were distracted and
retreated according to tradition. As part of Rome’s recovery over the
following decades, several fundamental laws were adopted such as the
legalisation of mixed marriages between patrician and plebeians and the
access of the latter to the consulship. The most important of these laws were
called the Leges Liciniae Sextae which improved the management of the
public lands (ager publicus) and resolved some problems generated by the
increasing debts. The social peace brought by these reforms allowed the
further expansion of the Roman control over Italy. Between 343 and 298
BC, three wars were waged against the Samnites (no.15). These people
occupied the central Apennine area and started to threaten Campania
where native settlements such as Capua and Greek colonies such as Cumae
and Naples were located. The battles fought by the Romans during the lengthy
confrontation proved fundamental for the improvement of the Roman
military organised in legions.

The Roman legions of the early Roman Republic were composed of 4000
soldiers articulated in centuriae of 60 soldiers, each led by a centurion. Two
centuriae formed a manipulus with men distributed in three different lines.
The first two infantry lines were armed with heavy armour, shield, javelins
and a short sword called gladius. The third line was filled with those
carrying light weapons. The 5 additional cavalry units were called turmae.
The Romans did not have problems adopting technical and equipment
advantages from the people they conquered. In this way, they managed to
accelerate the expansion of its military power by surpassing the previous
hoplite tactics. As mentioned above, only members of the classes who could
afford weapons belonged to the army and, for this reason, they were all
Roman citizens instead of mercenaries, between the ages of 17 and 60.
Even if a payment (or stipendium) was introduced from an early stage, the
proletarii were still excluded. Military training played a prime role in
Roman education and guaranteed the availability of able soldiers. War was
likewise part of civic life. Ceremonies such as the purification of the weapons
were performed in March (Martius) when the military season started. The
nexus between religion and armed campaigns remained also sacred. The
declaration of war, for example, was preceded by a series of rites. A fetial
priest had to present the Roman conditions to the enemy. If these were
rejected, the people voted and the priest returned to throw a spear in the
hostile territory while invoking the gods. The commander also presented
vows and consulted the divine signs in the movements of the birds and their

46
entrails prior to the battle. If such a lawful and divinely sanctioned war was
won, he was hailed as imperator and had the right to celebrate a triumph,
parading with Jupiter clothes and a laurel crown. The enemy of Rome could
only be spared if he surrendered without conditions and trusting Roman
good-faith (fides).

At the beginning of the 3rd century BC, the northern Gauls were confronted
and defeated again in central Italy. The eventual conquest of the South also
occurred in this period. The Greek colonies in Magna Graecia never
managed to gather the forces necessary to oppose the Roman military
superiority, despite the efforts of some tyrants such as Dionysius of Syracuse,
who famously hosted Plato. These poleis felt also threatened by the
surrounding Italic peoples and could see Rome as a potential ally protecting
their interests. This happened in the city Thurii when the people inhabiting
Lucania tried to attack them. In 282, Rome sent troops and a garrison was
stationed. This movement was opposed by Tarentum –a former Laconian
colony– which had normally acted as the defender of minor Greek settlements
in the area. A Roman military delegation approached Tarentum (allegedly
when they were assembled in the theatre) and this led to intervention of the
king of Epirus, Pyrrhus (no.19). The Hellenistic monarch who had
managed to control the north-eastern part of Greece after the death of
Alexander the Great entered Tarentum in 280. The first battles against the
Romans were favourable to him but without decisive results –hence the
expression Pyrrhic victories. The king of Epirus then moved to Sicily where
the Greek cities asked for his collaboration against the new Carthaginian
power which had occupied western parts of the island. While Rome made
a treaty with Carthage in 278, Pyrrhus was forced to leave the island after
several drawbacks. In 272, the final battle of Beneventum took place and
thereafter the king decided to return to the Greek peninsula. From this
moment, the whole of Italy was left exposed to the confrontations between
the Carthaginians and the Romans which defined the fate of the middle
Republic.

8. Mare Nostrum or the Roman Triumph over the Mediterranean.

By the middle of 3rd century BC, Rome had become the hegemonic power
on the Italian peninsula. The Hellenistic king Pyrrhus had retreated and
former Italic peoples such as the Samnites and the Etruscans were already
subdued (no.2). The Roman Republic had also reached a certain degree of
internal stability, within an institutional framework of magistracies, Senate,
assemblies and laws which eased the original conflict between patricians
and plebeians. Italy could be controlled, but the Romans were not yet the
masters of the entire Mediterranean. Other rival powers were ready to
challenge their hegemony and generated military confrontations that shaped

47
the transformation of Rome from an Italian city to an international
empire.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony on the north-east coast of modern Tunisia

(no.3). According to local tradition – on which Virgil also based his account in
the Aeneid– it was founded by people from Tyre who followed Queen Dido
in 814/3 BC and benefitted from the favourable harbour and fertile
hinterland of this area of Africa (no.4). Soon it became a fundamental
trading post between the western and eastern Mediterranean where, for
example, the gold and silver of Spain was exchanged. Attic vases can also be
found in the archaeological record of the city from an early stage. At the
beginning, Carthage was ruled by a representative of Tyre but, later, the city
developed its own political institutions with two magistrates on top called
suffetes who were elected annually on the basis of birth and wealth. A
council of several hundred members controlled civic life, together with their
appointed judges. War commanders were elected for each of the
campaigns but military service was not obligatory as it was in Rome, and
the army heavily depended on mercenaries. After the successful expansion
of Greek colonies across the western Mediterranean in the Archaic period,
the influence and trading activities of Carthage were affected. In the 6th
century BC, the Carthaginians fought to conquer Sicily, but failed to
completely control the island. Wars were also waged against the Etruscans
and many Greek poleis. In this period, they also increased their dominions in
Africa over the native Numidian and Libyan populations. With Rome,
however, two treaties were agreed in 508 and 348. The Carthaginians would
dominate the maritime routes while the Romans completed the Italian
conquest. Eventually, the contested status of Sicily ended up breaking this
fragile truce (no.7).

From its western positions on the island, Carthage aspired to conquer the
whole of Sicily and continued to fight against resourceful Greek colonies
such as Syracuse which was led by the tyrants in the 4th century BC. When
Pyrrhus disembarked in southern Italy to support the people of Tarentum, the
Greeks in Sicily also requested the assistance of the Hellenistic king.
Between 278 and 276 BC, Pyrrhus organised the defence against the
Carthaginians, but the results were not satisfactory so he left the island
before the Battle of Beneventum and his final retreat to Epirus. Rome was
now closer than ever to Sicily, while tensions between the local settlements
continued to escalate.

In the midst of this conflict, a group of former mercenaries called Mamertini

appealed for the protection of the Roman army to defend the city of
Messina. The Roman Senate accepted the request and the consul got his

48
army across the strait in 264. His successor Valerius Maximus Messala
besieged Syracuse and forced its tyrant Hieron to surrender and become an
ally of the Romans. The Carthaginians considered this interference a threat
and sent a large contingent to Sicily as a response. The first Punic War thus
started and the first significant battle took place in Agrigentum in 262. The
commanders of Carthage soon noticed the infantry prowess of the Roman
legions and decided to focus on naval confrontations in which their
thalassocratic expertise was advantageous. Indeed, the Romans had not yet
developed a large navy and they were initially defeated in the Battle of
Lipari. Almost immediately thereafter, a fleet of at least 100 of ships with five
decks of soldiers (quinqueremes) was furnished and the naval forces
balanced. Likewise, the Romans developed a ladder with hooks that could
be attached to the ramming opponents and allowed the legionaries to
overpower the light Carthaginian troops on the decks (no.7). The battles in
Sicily lasted for two decades that depleted the Punic resources and saw the
appointment of Hamilcar –of the prominent Barca family– as admiral. In
241, a peace treaty was reached but the conflict between Rome and Carthage
did not finish. Hamilcar was put in charge of the expansion of Punic colonies
on the Spanish peninsula and, upon his death, the leadership was entrusted
to his son-in-law Hasdrubal in 229 BC. The Carthaginians reached the
Ebro and initially agreed not to cross the river. Yet, when Hannibal took
over, a more aggressive policy of conquest was adopted, leading to the
capture of Saguntum, a long-standing ally of Rome.

The Second Punic War started as Hannibal eventually crossed the river
Ebro and decided to march towards the Italian peninsula across Gaul in
218 BC (no.8). This military expedition is most famous for the difficulties to
get elephants and siege machinery through the Alps. Such initial setbacks
were soon overshadowed by three crushing victories against the Romans in
Trebia, the Lake Trasimene and, most decisively, in the Battle of Cannae
(216 BC). The long-term plans of Hannibal were not so effective. The
Carthaginian commander did not manage to siege Rome and he mostly
gained supporters from southern Italy while his troops were insufficient to
rule permanently. The levy of the legions, on the other hand, endured and
the Romans also adopted the innovative tactic devised by the consul and,
then, dictator Fabius Maximus; namely ‘always to fight Hannibal where
he is not’ as well as cutting the supply lines of the enemy. The Roman fleet
equally managed to prevail despite the alliance of Hannibal with Philip V,
king of Macedonia. The confrontations with his navy in the Adriatic Sea
from 214 to 205 resulted in the First Macedonian War, which finished with
the Treaty of Phoenice and the consolidation of the alliances between
Rome, the Aetolian League (in Central Greece) and the Kingdom of
Pergamum. Meanwhile, Hannibal remained in Italy for sixteen years until

49
the Romans decided to attack the Carthaginians in Africa. He was forced
to return home with his troops but could not defeat the legions commanded
by P. Cornelius Scipio in the Battle of Zama (202 BC). This Roman
proconsul received the title of Africanus in the subsequent triumph.
Hannibal had to negotiate the peace terms: Carthage would be allowed to
retain all her cities and territory in Africa, but had to surrender its fleet,
elephants and war prisoners, promising not to rearm or to make war without
Rome's permission. For some prominent Roman politicians such as Cato the
Censor, these harsh measures were not enough and he later advocated for
the utter destruction of the African city: Karthago delenda est!

While Rome was embroiled in surviving the Punic Wars, two of the most
important Hellenistic rulers in the eastern Mediterranean, Philip V of
Macedon and Antiochus III of Seleucia, conspired to cause instability in
the region (no.10-11). Roman allies such as the Aetolian League and
Pergamum sought help from the Republic institutions and found the support
of the Senate. In 200, Philip V was given an ultimatum that he ignored and,
subsequently, the Second Macedonian War was ignited. Titus Quinctius
Flamininus led the legions to Greece and Philip surrendered by 197 BC. The
corresponding peace treaty determined that the Macedonians had to
abandon all their recent Greek conquests and stop interfering in the
affairs of other Hellenistic kingdoms. In 196 BC, the consul Flamininus
presided over the panhellenic Isthmian games and proclaimed the
“Freedom of the Greeks” (no.12). A punitive military occupation of the
territory was therefore avoided and the gains were not truly consolidated at
this initial state. Instead, Rome was more interested in preventing the
expansionist plans of the Seleucids and Antiochus III. This ambitious king
had named Hannibal his military advisor and decided to send an army to
conquer Greece. Rome mobilised her troops on an unprecedented scale and
Scipio Africanus, the hero against Carthage, was put in charge once more.
Decisively, the Roman troops won in 195 BC a battle near the Thermopylae
where the Greeks had famously defeated the Persians. The Seleucids were
forced to retreat hastily, the Roman legions followed, entered Asia through
the Hellespont and defeated the army of Antiochus III in the Battle of
Magnesia (190 BC). The humiliating Treaty of Apamea shrunk the size of
the great Seleucid Empire and resulted in its decline and final disappearance
in the 1st century BC. The biggest beneficiary of the Seleucid failure was the
Kingdom of Pergamum, the loyal ally of the Romans, which was granted
control of virtually all the territory in western Anatolia.

Philip V died in 179 BC and his son Perseus did not abide by the conditions
of the Macedonian peace treaty with the Romans. He attacked its
neighbours and Rome was again forced to intervene with the ‘Third

50
Macedonian War’. Despite initial problems to defeat the well-trained
phalanx, the Roman legions eventually inflicted a decisive victory in the
Battle of Pydna (168 BC). Nevertheless, the Republican plans to pacify the
region through a more direct rule did not prove very effective. One of the
measures consisted in capturing one thousand nobles from Achaea that
were transferred to Italy. Among them, there was the writer Polybius who
became friend and mentor of Scipio Aemilianus and produced a
contemporary history of this age. In 150, a Macedonian pretender called
Andriscus managed to destabilise the entire Greek peninsula with the Fourth
Macedonian War and a revolt led by the Achaean league that concluded
with the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC and the creation of two new
provinces in Greece. In this same year, Rome also decided to devastate
Carthage after the local population revolted and Africa became a subject
province. Attalus III, king of Pergamum, a centre of power and culture in
Asia Minor, died without descendants and bequeathed the prosperous
Hellenistic kingdom to Rome in 133. In his territory the new province of
Asia was established. Even adamant local rebels such as the Celtiberians
defending Numantia or the Lusitanian leader Viriathus were eventually
subdued in Hispania. All the biggest powers rivalling the Roman Republic
had been either destroyed or controlled by the end of the 2nd century, and
the Mediterranean from Anatolia to Hispania was transformed into a Sea
with virtually one master, a Mare Nostrum for the triumphant Romans.

9. The Late Roman Republic

Even with Italy conquered and the Mediterranean largely subdued (no.2),
Rome faced challenges beyond preserving its traditional values against Greek
influences. After the mid-Republican victories the city experienced a period of
extreme political instability which preceded the establishment of imperial
rule. One issue particularly affecting late Republican politics was the
distribution and ownership of lands. Large extensions of public land (ager
publicus) had been incorporated to the Roman state as a result of the many
wars waged and the territories mostly taken from the supporters of Hannibal
in southern Italy. This abundance of fields was not paired with a growing
number of free tenants. In fact, many Roman farmers lost their possessions
while they were conducting military service and the debts continued to rise.
Richer classes who acted as moneylenders accumulated more wealth and the
presence of slaves in agriculture increased exponentially. This phenomenon
heavily affected the system of recruitment based on property
qualifications and centuriae which was traditionally attributed to the king
Servius Tullius and determined the classes of the Roman society. The
number of Roman citizens belonging to the more modest plebeian classes
decreased significantly and the process required the intervention of their
political representatives. The most outspoken advocate for a change was

51
Tiberius Gracchus, who reached the position of tribune of the plebs in 133
BC (no.3)

Tiberius Gracchus was well connected to the most relevant families of Rome
in the 2nd century BC. He had, for example, collaborated with the Scipian
family in the destruction of Carthage. The ancient sources also report that he
was a great orator with an effective power to animate the popular classes.
As part of his political programme, he proposed to distribute some of the
public land to impoverished peasants. The measure was not very positively
received by the aristocratic senators who also challenged Tiberius
Gracchus’ motion in the plebeian council concerning the recent bequest of
the Kingdom of Pergamum. After the conflicts of the early Republic, the
plebeian tribune had a powerful right of veto, was protected as inviolable
and the plebiscites became laws. When Tiberius Gracchus tried to hold the
tribunate for a second time, some patrician families accused him on charges
of kingship, as if he were trying to subvert the very foundations of the
Republican regime. Violence between factions ensued, Tiberius occupied
the Capitoline hill, but he and his companions were murdered after the
authorisation of the pontifex maximus. This rebellious movement, however,
was not completely extinguished and anticipated the many civil
confrontations witnessed in Rome during the 1st century BC. Still in 123/2
BC, Gaius Gracchus attempted to reinstate some of the original initiatives
of his brother.

Following Gaius Gracchus’ death, the senatorial oligarchy re-established its

influence until increasing dissatisfaction with corruption and military
incompetence forced a deeper transformation. A conflict in Africa normally
referred to as the ‘Jugurthine War’ exposed the deficiencies of late
Republican Rome. The Kingdom of Numidia was suffering dynastic
quarrels and one member of the royal family called Jugurtha bribed
senatorial envoys to consolidate his claims to the throne. The African
monarch later betrayed the Senate and many Roman citizens were killed. War
was declared in 112 BC but the first results were not particularly promising.
The consul Metellus was sent to lead the offensive in Numidia but the most
praised actions were achieved by his lieutenant Marius. Marius came from
the modest settlement of Arpinum and did not belong to one of the
influential families of Rome (no.5). A self-made man (or homo novus), he
first completed the military career of the knights (equites). After
appointments in Hispania and some minor political positions, he managed to
attain a higher social status through his marriage to a member of the
patrician Julian family. Marius gathered support in Rome against
Metellus, was elected as consul and granted the African command in 107
BC. He took this opportunity to reform the recruitment of the legions which

52
had suffered continuous difficulties almost since the end of the Punic wars.
The main objective was to increase the pool of candidates who could take
arms on behalf of the Republic, regardless of property qualifications. The
legions also began to be mainly organised on the basis of cohorts (made of 6
centuriae) instead of maniples (2 centuriae) With Marius’ reforms all the
Roman citizens were eligible to join the army, even those belonging to the
deprived class of proletarii. Military service became an attractive
alternative for poor plebeians and Marius took advantage of the popular
support generated by his decisions. The war in Numidia was finally settled
and the invasion of two Germanic peoples, Cimbri and Teutones, could be
stopped by 101 BC after they ravaged parts of Gallia, Hispania and Italy.
Marius was elected consul for the sixth time in 100 BC.

The beginning of the 1st century was marked by the hostilities between those
supporting aristocratic power (optimates) and the politicians backed by
the modest classes (populares). This period also saw the revolt of Italian
communities which felt disadvantaged because of their lack of rights. The
Gracchi brothers had promised them a status upgrade in their package of
reforms, but the programme was never fully delivered. Meanwhile, the
neighbours of Rome had experienced wars, exactions of lands and not many
rewards. The ‘Social War’ reached its climax between 90 and 89 BC and
came to an end when Roman citizenship and municipal status were
extended to the whole of Italy. One general of Rome called Sulla stood out
in some of these battles. He had previously played a prominent role with
Marius in Africa and against the Germanic tribes. He became consul in 88
BC and aspired to take the command against Mithridates VI, the king of
Pontus and enemy of the Roman State. The Hellenistic monarch had
previously extended his dominions over northern Anatolia along the coasts of
the Black Sea (no.8). Rome, on the other hand, had not managed to control
the province of Asia effectively after the bequest of the king of Pergamum
Attalus III. The collection of taxes has been largely contracted to
companies of equestrians called publicani which were more interested in
profit rather than in the well-being of the local population. Roman rule was
considered unfair and damaging in many provinces, so Mithridates took
advantage of this discontent and the military complications of the ‘Social
War’. When he invaded Asia, the killing of all the Roman tax-collectors
and their families was ordered. Despite such incidents and the senatorial
support, Sulla’s bid for the command of the army was blocked by the
tribune of the plebs who preferred Marius. The troops that Sulla had
already gathered, swore an oath of loyalty, and opposed a decision depriving
them of a rich booty in Anatolia. The consul consequently opposed the
plebeian magistrate and, unexpectedly, entered Rome with his soldiers
breaking Roman customs. Sulla’s march and the murder of a tribune

53
caused the defection of officers who turned to Marius. Sulla decided to sail
to Greece with his legions and defeated Mithridates twice before the end of
the 1st Mithridatic War. Marius was again designated consul until 84 BC
when he died. Full of booty, Sulla returned with his loyal army and entered
Rome in 83 BC. Firstly, he ordered the persecution of the opposition, with
hundreds of his enemies condemned. The plebeian tribunate was
disempowered and Sula remained dictator almost until his death in 79 BC.

Sulla’s legacy was taken over by Pompey. He rectified some of the harsher
reforms and restored, for example, the plebeian rights; while respecting the
Sullan Senate and providing a sumptuous funeral for his predecessor. Soon
thereafter, Pompey had to face the threat posed by Sertorius in Hispania
(no.9). This member of the “popular” faction had been fighting the Sullan
administration on the Iberian peninsula with the help of local peoples
such as the Lusitanians and the Celtiberians. Between 76 and 71 BC,
Pompey remained fighting in Spain, with frequent movements around the
Pyrenees and the Ebro river region. The city of Pompaelo (modern
Pamplona) was most likely founded by Pompey during these campaigns.
A revolt of slaves led by Spartacus broke out while Pompey was in Spain so
the Senate asked for his return in order to assist Crassus in the victory of 71
BC (no.10). This was also the period in which Cicero –another ‘new man’
from Arpinum like Marius– started to shine as orator in the law courts of
Rome and Julius Caesar –member of one of the most prominent patrician
families– reached the first quaestorship in 69 BC. The next mission of
Pompey was to deal with the pirates infesting the Mediterranean and he
achieved a crushing victory in 67 BC. Finally, he was appointed to terminate
the new war initiated by Mithridates in the East from 66 BC. Cicero gave
a speech supporting this command and, when Pompey was away, he became
praetor and finally consul in 63 BC. Cicero’s consulship was threatened by
the conspiracy of Catiline which the orator amplified in a famous series of
political speeches, the “Catilinaires”. The same events were also studied by
the Roman historian Sallust in his Catiline’s War.

Meanwhile, Pompey reorganised the East, reached the Caucasus and even
conquered Judea (no.11). Upon his return to southern Italy, he disbanded the
troops unlike previously done by Sulla. Caesar, on the other hand, had spent
his time climbing the ladder of Roman magistracies, through bribes and good
political instincts. When Caesar returned from his governorship in Hispania,
he struck an alliance with Pompey and soon Crassus, who had financed
Caesar’s enterprises, was also included. In 60 BC, the First Triumvirate
was established and Pompey married Caesar’s daughter, Julia, to cement
the alliance. Caesar took this opportunity to engage in an audacious campaign
to conquer Gaul between 58 and 50 BC (no.13). Pompey remained mostly

54
in Rome where food shortages affected the urban population and Cicero had
to defend himself from the attacks of his enemy and tribune of the plebs
Clodius. In 54 BC, Crassus also attempted a grand military campaign
against the Parthians, the Iranian people who had substituted the Persians in
creating an imperial power threatening the Roman expansion. The legions
were terribly crushed in the Battle of Carrhae, in northern Mesopotamia,
where the standards were lost and Crassus disappeared in 53 BC. Julia
likewise died and the tensions between Pompey and Caesar grew
considerably, with the faction of the optimates supporting the former. In 49
BC, the Senate passed a decree outlawing Caesar, the tribune of the
people and Caesar’s ally, Mark Antony, could not veto it and joined the
veteran army coming from Gaul. Caesar crossed the Rubicon River at the
beginning of the year and made civil war inevitable; “the die has been
cast”: alea iacta est (no.14). Pompey and his supporters fled from Rome,
first to southern Italy and then to Greece despite Cicero’s initial opposition.
Caesar chased the supporters of Pompey both on the Italian peninsula and
Spain before becoming dictator and naming himself consul in 48 BC. He
could in this way prepare an expedition that annihilated the enemy forces
at Pharsalus. Pompey, however, managed to escape to Egypt where the last
members of the Ptolemaic dynasty put him to death before Caesar arrived.
The Roman leader met Queen Cleopatra and supported her claim to a
Hellenistic throne in a clear state of decline. Caesar engaged in more
battles in Africa, Hispania and Asia where he could claim “to have come,
seen and won” (veni, vidi, vici). From 46 BC, a new programme of reforms
was initiated, including colonies for veterans, debt relief and grain
distribution providing popular support. Republican values, nonetheless, were
threatened by the power accumulated by this single man, and the Senate
organised a plot. On the Ides (the 15th) of March 44, Caesar was
assassinated in front of the curia before he could set a new campaign
against the Parthians (no.15). Brutus, a former protégée, was involved in his
assassination but these “tyrannicides” did not take advantage of the new
political situation. Caesar’s will was particularly generous and facilitated
the political ambitions of Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew, who had just
been adopted in the Julian lineage. From here, the Roman Republic could not
stop the downward path towards perdition and the beginning of the Empire.

10. Augustus and Imperial Rome

Julius Caesar died on the 15th March 44 BC, but his murderers could not
gain much popular support. The Roman people had benefited from the
reforms and munificence of a leader who promoted grain distributions,
colonisations, the suppression of enemies and civil cohesion. Octavian was
only 19 years old when his adopted father was killed and immediately took

55
the name Gaius Julius Caesar. His political role had been minimal until that
moment, but Octavian tried to present himself as the avenger of Julius
Caesar’s death. This position was also defended by the more mature and
experienced Mark Antony. The latter had served under Julius Caesar in
Gaul, where he became one of his most trusted generals. In 49 BC, he was
elected tribune of the plebs but failed to stop the declaration of Caesar as a
public enemy by the Senate. In the subsequent civil war he played a
prominent role as commander of the cavalry and he would have been in
charge of Rome if Caesar had started the Parthian campaign. Octavian, on the
other hand, was not in Rome during this time but completing his education in
Greece. When he finally reached southern Italy, he tried to encourage
Caesar’s veterans to join him with attractive financial incentives. Mark
Antony could not fulfil all his promises and his early political moves were
sometimes regarded as too lenient towards the conspirators.

In this context, Cicero, who regretted that the senators had not seized the
opportunity to restore a true Roman Republic, began a series of fierce
attacks against Mark Antony in the form of speeches known as Philippics
– a name given in commemoration of Demosthenes’ declamations against
Philip of Macedon (no.4). In order to ascertain the loyalty of his forces, Mark
Antony departed for Brundisium and met his troops. The Senate was left
without significant armed forces and in 43 BC accepted Octavian’s legions.
With the support of the Republic, Octavian and the consuls near Mutina
faced Mark Antony who was forced to retreat in Gaul where Lepidus
joined (no.3). After some negotiations, these two agreed with Octavian on a
system of government and power balance known as the ‘The Second
Triumvirate’, which was to remain for five years. Part of the deal consisted in
the persecution of political enemies, including Cicero who was killed at the
end of the year. During this period, Brutus and Cassius – leaders of the
conspiracy against Julius Caesar – had been gaining support in the
eastern provinces of the Mediterranean. The triumvirs therefore gathered
an army that crossed the Adriatic Sea and met the enemies at Philippi in 42
BC (no.5). Brutus and Cassius committed suicide and Octavian, who had only
played a modest military role, returned to Rome, a city suffering from issues
such as the piracy led by Sextus Pompeius, son of Pompey. Mark Antony,
in turn, was given command of the eastern Mediterranean. In his tour, he
met Cleopatra again and the Egyptian Queen delivered twins in 41 BC
(no.6). In this year, Mark Antony’s brother revolted but was besieged and
massacred by Octavian in Perugia (central Italy). Even under this tense
context, the triumvirate was renewed in the Treaty of Brundisium. A truce
was also agreed with Sextus Pompeius, who received several territories along
the coast while Mark Antony prepared a not very successful expedition
against the Parthians. Previously, Mark Antony had married Octavian’s

56
sister, and Octavian divorced his former wife and took Livia with whom
he remained for the next 50 years. The triumvirate was renewed for another
five years and Mark Antony soon returned to Egypt. By 36 BC, his third son
with Cleopatra was born while Octavian remained in Rome. Despite some
victories in Armenia, the Senate considered that Mark Antony’s eastern
excesses had gone too far. Cleopatra was declared an enemy of the Roman
State and Mark Antony attempted to defend her. Octavian with the
support of the Republican institutions and Agrippa – his best
commander – faced the navy and troops of Mark Antony and Cleopatra
in 31 BC near Actium, on the western coast of the Greek peninsula (no.7).
Octavian and his army prevailed and the victory was allegedly attributed to
the auspices of Apollo. Mark Antony and Cleopatra had to flee and, finally,
committed suicide in Alexandria, the former royal capital of the Ptolemies
that remained the centre of the new province of Egypt under Roman rule.

The triumphal Octavian remained consul every year from 31 to 23 BC

(no.9). He presented his programme as a restoration of the old Republican
values in contrast to the triumviral irregularities. In 27 BC, he reinstated the
magistracies and the authority of the Senate, the members of which granted
him perpetual proconsular powers and the title of Augustus, as a son of the
divine Julius Caesar (no.10-11). The city of Rome was beautified, including
many sanctuaries such as the one dedicated to Apollo on the Palatine hill
where Augustus also established his residence. The doors of the temple of
Janus were closed for the first time since the 2nd century BC as a sign of
peace. The standards lost by Crassus in Mesopotamia were recovered from
the Parthians and the Eastern provinces were largely pacified. Many of the
late Republican legions, nevertheless, needed to be dismissed and an
ambitious programme of colonisation was envisaged across the
Mediterranean. Octavian also reorganised the regions of Italy, promoted an
aggressive foreign policy (no.12) and personally led campaigns in provinces
such as those in Hispania, even if the military operations were mostly
waged by Agrippa. This happened, for example, against the Asturians and
Cantabrians of northern Spain who were finally subjugated in 19 BC. In 23,
Octavian had given up his consulship and was named perpetual tribune of
the plebs with additional powers such as the censorship. From this position,
he initiated a series of legal reforms that sought to reinstate the original
values of the Roman Republic, in principle. The leges Iuliae were approved
between 18 and 17 BC, encouraging people to marry and have children.
Adultery was considered a crime, descendants needed to be born in a lawful
marriage and important limitations to the manumission of slaves into liberti
(freedmen) were later introduced. After the death of his nephew and favourite
Marcellus, he adopted Caius and Lucius, sons of Agrippa and his

57
daughter Julia, and so they were signalled future heirs of his legacy. This
event coincided with the magnificent Secular Games held in 17 BC.

By 12 BC, Augustus had been designated pontifex maximus and soon

Agrippa died, once the conquest of the Alpine regions was largely achieved.
Julia was re-married to Tiberius, who was the son that Livia had with a
member of the Claudian family, before her second marriage to Octavian.
Tiberius had recently been promoted as military commander and led the
annexation of Pannonia in the Balkans first, and, then, Germania. All these
movements progressively marked the monarchical nature of Augustus’
plans, since he strove to perpetuate his rule in spite of the preservation or
revival of traditional magistracies and cults. In 2 BC, for example, Augustus
was named pater patriae or ‘father of the fatherland’ by the Senate, a title
that was unprecedented. His succession plans, however, were crushed for a
second time when both Lucius and Gaius died in 2 and 4 AD, respectively.
Tiberius was immediately adopted as Augustus’ heir and carried on with the
campaigns in northern Germany. In 6 AD, Judea was eventually
incorporated as a Roman province after the descendants of Herod the
Great failed to uphold the loyalty of this former client and ally of Augustus.
The birth of Jesus of Nazareth would be dated to the immediately preceding
period, when Herod was still king and Roman control in the Levant had not
completely unfolded.

Octavian, as Augustus and factual ruler of Rome, died in 14 AD and his

achievements were published with an inscription named Res Gestae. The
Empire had been established, the Julio-Claudian dynasty placed on the
throne and the city of Rome ready to shine as a cosmopolitan capital.
According to the historian Suetonius, Augustus himself claimed to have
“found a city of brick and left one of marble”. The inscribed self-account of
his actions also stated (no.12):

I built the Senate House, and the monumental gate adjacent to it, the temple
of Apollo on the Palatine with its porticoes, the temple of the
divine Julius, the Lupercal, the portico at the Flaminian circus,
which I permitted to bear the name of the portico of Octavius after
the man who erected the previous portico on the same site, a seating
area at the Circus Maximus, the temples on the Capitol of Jupiter
Feretrius and Jupiter the Thunderer, the temple of Quirinus, the
temples of Minerva and Queen Juno and Jupiter. [Augustus, Res
Gestae 19]

58
In addition to all these buildings, Octavian also claimed to have renovated
the theatre of Pompey, built a new one dedicated to Marcellus and improved
the water supply of the city with new aqueducts. The central area of the
Forum dedicated to Julius Caesar was likewise finished, commercial
complexes such as basilicas and, naturally, the roads ensuring
communication and control in the imperial territory. The Via Augusta
connected Cádiz with the Pyrenees in Spain, for example. Gladiatorial
games and other spectacles, including a theatrical naval battle (or
naumachia) were financed and his popularity also grew with regular
distributions of grain mostly coming from the newly conquered territory of
Egypt. These initiatives did not only seek popular support but also
propagated important ideological messages in cases such as the Altar of
Victory (or Ara Pacis).

Augustan propaganda affected urban planning, visual representations and

also written creations. From an early stage Maecenas remained one of the
most important supporters of Octavian. In contrast to Agrippa, Maecenas
never held public office or military commands. And yet, his great wealth
proved extremely helpful to fund a literary circle in which some of the most
important Roman authors flourished (no.13). This golden age of Latin
literature saw the talents of Virgil who dedicated to Maecenas one of his
books, the Georgics. His epic masterpiece, the Aeneid also contained clear
messages connecting Augustus with the Iulian family and the direct
descendants of Aeneas’ son, Ascanius/Iulus. The poet Horace also belonged
to this movement and managed to compose immortal sayings in the history of
Humanity such as Carpe Diem (“seize the day”) and Aurea Mediocritas (the
golden middle condition or balance, no.14). The Augustan period also
influenced the works of literary geniuses such as Ovid, the author of the
Metamorphosis and the historian Livy, who wrote our most important
source for the early Republic. By the end of the Republic and the beginning
of the Empire, Rome had reached a Classical status which could be
equivalent –and in many aspects, such as the territorial expansion,
superior– to 5th century BC Athens. In any case, the history of Rome was
not yet over and over four hundred years witnessed the development,
transformation and fall of a culture, rule and heritage from which the
Western World still derives today many of its structures.

11.The First Century AD

The death of Augustus in 14 AD marked the beginning of a Roman Empire
that could be inherited. After the first dynastic disappointments with the
deaths of Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, Tiberius suddenly became the first
heir in line (no.2). Even though he was originally a member of the Claudian
family – from his natural father–, he was incorporated into the Iulian lineage

59
when Augustus, the second husband of his mother Livia, adopted him in 4
AD. Previously, Tiberius had held prominent positions in the military
operations of Pannonia and Germania until he decided to retire to the
island of Rhodes. With his sudden designation as Augustus’ heir, Tiberius
was also forced to take Julia –Augustus’ daughter– as his wife and adopted
his nephew Germanicus, i.e. the son of his brother Drusus. A dynasty
combining both family ties had therefore been created and the Julio-Claudian
emperors and personalities dominated the public life of Rome in the first
half of the 1st century AD (no.2).

The details and anecdotes of this period are very well known by virtue of the
Lives of the Twelve Caesars written by the Latin author Suetonius at the
beginning of the 2nd century AD. To this period also belonged Tacitus, who
composed two masterpieces of historiography called The Annals and The
Histories covering from Tiberius’ to Domitian’ reigns. Both works –even if
fragmentary– still offer an insight into the palatial intrigues that
characterised the Roman Empire from an early stage. From such sources, it
can be established that Tiberius had strong Republican convictions which
he tried to make compatible with his superior status as emperor. For
example, while supporting the divinisation of Augustus (divus), he refused
extraordinary titles previously granted by the Senate such as ‘father of the
fatherland’ (pater patriae). Instead, he preferred to be called princeps or
“first” among the citizens led by him. Tiberius had acceded to the imperial
throne at the age of 57 and his first actions in government consisted in the
rationalisation of the regime created by Augustus. Spending cuts soon
reached the military and civil population of Rome, so unpopularity ignited.
At the same time, Germanicus began to stand out as a natural leader and
military commander (no.3). Tiberius called him back from Germania and
sent him on a diplomatic mission to the East, where he clashed with the
governor of Syria Calpurnius Piso. Tiberius accused the latter of the murder
of Germanicus, but Agrippina –Germanicus’ wife– suspected a larger
palatial conspiracy. In the Roman court, this period of distrust was
exploited by the praetorian prefect, Sejanus. Nine cohorts were under his
rule and camped near Rome with the mission to protect the emperor. In
the course of the Roman Empire, the relevance of these troops grew
exponentially as they had the force to effectively name and depose not only
military commanders but also rulers. The rise of Sejanus and court intrigues
over imperial succession led Tiberius to retire to the island of Capri. When
he eventually discovered the true intentions of the praetorian prefect, Tiberius
sent a letter to the Senate ordering Sejanus’ imprisonment and death in 31
AD. The subsequent period was devoted to revising Rome’s foreign policy,
with special attention to the Parthians and their expansion plans. The
province of Cappadocia was annexed and Armenia became a buffer state

60
between the two empires. Some revolts in Gallia and Africa were quenched
and Roman control over Judea continued to increase with the
appointment of Pontius Pilate, the governor who according to the New
Testament ended up authorising the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

When Tiberius died in 37 AD, his heir was not yet clearly designated. His
son had died and so did aspirants such as Drusus and Germanicus. The
selection of a successor was soon resolved in favour of Gaius, the son of
Germanicus. Commonly known as Caligula, this name derived from the
boots that he used to wear when he visited his father in the camps (no.7). At
first, Caligula expressed his intentions to collaborate with the Senate and
consolidate the Principate of Augustus and Tiberius. These moderate
beginnings were followed by a truly despotic character and symbols
resembling more Eastern monarchies than Roman institutions. Scholars
have even argued that Caligula could have suffered a mental disease; he
was said to have allegedly proposed his horse for the consulship, for example.
Caligula also increased the signs of his imperial cult and conducted an
extravagant public and private life that generated opposition from the
Senatorial class. The first attempt of assassination failed but in 41 AD
Caligula was killed by even a larger conspiracy. The young emperor had no
time to prepare his heir, and the hesitation of the Senate to designate a
successor was solved by the praetorian prefects who proclaimed Claudius
(no.8). He was the brother of Germanicus but had until then remained
mostly excluded from public life because of his physical defects and,
reportedly, poor intellectual skills. Claudius, by contrast, had spent most of
the time in the Palatine library devoted to studying and devising
innovations that were introduced when he ruled. A central administration
and bureaucracy based on chancelleries called scrinia was developed and
this improved, for example, diplomatic communications. These state offices
were mostly assigned to freedmen of the emperor who began to play a more
relevant role in the affairs of the imperial court. Claudius also enhanced the
image of the emperor as protector and guarantor of Roman power. There
was a closer control over his own funds (fiscus) and those of the Senate
(aerarium) while procurators improved the financial and judicial
management of the territories. A significant number of senators and
equestrians were dismissed due to their opposition. Claudius is also famous
for perfecting the water supply of Rome with two new aqueducts such as the
Aqua Claudia still standing today. As for the provinces, his reign is renowned
for the conquest of Britain (no.9). Despite these reforms and military
victories, the rule of Claudius is marred with even more obscure court
intrigues. After two marriages, he took Messalina as his wife but her
extreme cruelty and alleged promiscuity precipitated her death. With
regard to his last wife Agrippina, she was the sister of Caligula and already

61
had a son called Nero. The new empress persuaded Claudius to adopt him
as an heir while Claudius’ natural son, Britannicus, was killed. The
praetorian prefect was also eliminated, and so Nero’s enthronement
guaranteed (no.10-11).

Nero acceded to the throne in 54 AD when he was 17 years old. He received

the support of the praetorian troops who cashed a precious donative in
exchange. Until that moment, Nero’s education in the palace had been
entrusted to some of the most important intellectuals of the century. Most
importantly, Seneca became his tutor. This philosopher and prolific author
from Cordoba advocated for an illustrated despot as explained in De
Clementia (On Mercy), which was dedicated to Nero. Under these teachings,
the first five years of this reign are normally referred to as the quinquennium
aureum. The golden age later turned into a tyranny which started with an
aggressive fiscal reform that threatened the imperial funds. Nero left his wife
for the lover Poppaea Sabina and, together, they commissioned the murder
of Agrippina (Nero’s mother). The new praetorian prefect called Tigellinus
supported the emperor and carried out numerous political trials against
enemies and critics of the new regime. Nero also envisaged a new Rome
which would be culminated by a new royal residence called the Domus
Aurea (no.12). The multiple expenses of the project and the fire that struck
Rome in 64 AD provoked popular annoyance which the emperor probably
tried to appease by accusing a novel religious group in the capital: the
Christians. This first persecution could not, however, stop a conspiracy led
by a member of one of the most traditional patrician families, Calpurnius
Piso. The attempt was neutralised but tensions grew with the army. This
context was exacerbated by the fact that Nero, an enthusiastic but not very
talented singer, introduced reforms in the educational programme of
Rome with clear Hellenistic influences. Even if Latin literature saw the
birth of a Silver Age with authors such as Lucan, the insanity of the
emperor culminated with a trip to Greece between 66 and 67. He ordered
all the agonistic competitions including the Olympics to be held in the same
year against centennial traditions. His victories were assured and the freedom
of Greece was proclaimed once more with a total remission of its taxes. With
such obsessive actions, the foreign policy of the Roman Empire suffered.
Britain revolted under the leadership of Queen Boudicca, Armenia leaned
more towards Parthia and the general Vespasian was sent to suppress a new
Judean rebellion. Soon after Nero returned from Greece in 68 AD, the
Senate declared him an enemy of the state and became the first emperor to
commit suicide.

The immediately ensuing period is known as the ‘Year of the 4 Emperors’

and it suffered from Nero’s lack of a suitable descendant (no.13). The

62
Senate named one of his oldest members, Galba, who tried to initiate a more
traditional and austere way of ruling. From the moment he refused to provide
the expected gift to the praetorians, the plans of the patrician were doomed
to fail. The large army on the Rhine began to plot a revolt and Galba also
failed to designate an appealing heir. In this context Otho, a former ally,
persuaded the praetorians to kill Galba and proclaim him as imperator in 69
AD. His rule was challenged by Vitellius who commanded the legions of the
northern part of the Empire. The two armies met in the Po valley. Vitellius
prevailed, so the defeated Otho fled and finally committed suicide.
Vitellius’ troops advanced southward, looting many Italian settlements. The
government of Vitellius did not bring much innovation since he presented
himself as the avenger of Galba. The Praetorian Guard was replaced with
its own legions and the German front received rewarding privileges. This
policy together with some despotic manners resembling those of Nero
generated discord among the Roman armies along the Danube and,
particularly, in the eastern part of the Empire. The prefect of Egypt
together with the governor of Syria proclaimed Flavius Vespasian emperor
in the summer of 69.

Nero had previously appointed Vespasian as commander in chief of the

operations to suppress a revolt in Judea. From the East several actions, both
military and political, were put in motion so as to bring Vitellius down. The
armies supporting Vespasian waged a decisive battle near Cremona against
the troops still loyal to the emperor. Vitellius was killed on the field, Rome
swiftly taken and the Senate accepted Vespasian as the next ruler of the
Empire. This period of extreme instability was exploited in two episodes of
dangerous upheaval. The first one was instigated by the Batavian leader
Julius Civilis who revolted against Rome after having served in the auxiliary
troops along the mouths of the river Rhine. In Judea, Vespasian had to
leave his son Titus in charge of the operations (no.14). The Jewish rebels
took refuge in Jerusalem and Titus stormed the sacred city by assault in 70
AD. The Temple was destroyed by fire and entire families taken captive
(no.15). This war, as narrated by the Jewish author and then Roman citizen
Flavius Josephus, ended with the massacre of the last defenders of the
stronghold of Masada. Vespasian’s reign could hence commence in a
moment of relative stability after a traumatic period in which the Julio-
Claudian dynasty was substituted by rulers belonging to the Flavian
family.

Vespasian’s ancestors came from central Italy but did not belong to the old
patrician lineages. His social promotion was the result of a seasoned career
both in the administrative and military ranks until he was selected commander
of the Judean campaign. Upon his accession, this new emperor launched a

63
series of measures that consolidated Roman rule beyond the structures of
the former Principate. Absolute power was legally instituted as the
emperor was to automatically receive privileges such as the potestas of the
plebs tribunes and the name Imperator Caesar. Vespasian also knew about the
importance of creating strong dynastic links, so his elder son Titus was
associated with his kingship. The younger Domitian was named princeps
of the youth. All of them belonged to the imperial house or domus divina.
The Senate was reorganised and the administration of the Empire began to
rely more on the equestrian order rather than on freedmen (liberti). In
Rome, a new building programme was developed including a huge
amphitheatre located between the Forum and the Domus Aurea (no.16). In
the provinces, Vespasian promoted the expansion of Roman models of
municipal and urban organisation. The Latin right or (ius Latii) was granted
to Spain, so those holding office in the new municipalities had direct access
to Roman citizenship. Another way to obtain Roman citizenship was
through service in the auxiliary units of the Roman legions. Given the lack
of foreign campaigns or civil wars, the armies began to populate the frontier
(limes) of the Empire; mostly in Britain, the Rhine, the Danube and
Mesopotamia.

When Vespasian died in 79 AD, Titus automatically acceded to a throne

which he occupied only for two years. This short reign saw both the
completion of the aforementioned Colosseum and the catastrophic eruption
of the Vesuvius. The volcanic ashes covered the bay of Naples, including
the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum which still provide us with the best
archaeological sites of Classical Antiquity (no.17-19). Domitian, the
younger son of Vespasian, became emperor in 81 AD. In contrast to his father,
he was not very interested in government, stability and reforms. Instead,
he tried to attract popular support with distributions of grain, money, and
lavish spectacles such as the Capitoline games which imitated the Greek
agonistic tradition with athletic and cultural competitions. The Silver Age
of Latin literature continued during the Flavian period with authors such
as the Spanish poet Martial and the Italian Pliny the Elder who died trying
to flee Pompeii. Teachers also began to be exempted from paying taxes, the
first professorship of rhetoric was created in Rome and it was held by —
the also Hispanic— Quintilian (no.20). Towards the end of Domitian’s
reign, however, the philosophers were expelled from Italy. Such actions
marked the increasingly despotic nature of his rule, being declared dominus
et deus (‘master and god’). In 96 AD, a new conspiracy was organised, both
the praetorian prefect and even Domitian’s wife collaborated, and the
emperor was stabbed in the palatial chambers. This was the end of the
Flavian dynasty.

64
12. The Second Century AD
The assassination of Domitian in 96 AD allowed the Roman Senate to name
one of its most distinguished members, Nerva, as emperor. Unlike Galba,
this old aristocrat over 70 years old saw the necessity of appeasing the
armies and, particularly, the praetorian troops who received significant
donations. Upon his accession, the titles and actions of Domitian were
condemned (damnatio memoriae) (no.2). Nerva therefore tried to reconcile
two ideals which the historian Tacitus already saw incompatible at the end of
the 1st century AD. On the one hand, there was the emperor’s absolute rule.
On the other hand, the Republican aspirations for freedom could not be
fulfilled. The biggest achievement of this emperor, in any case, was his
decision to renounce family succession and adopt Trajan, the legate of
Germania (no.3). After Nerva’s death in 98 AD, Marcus Ulpius Traianus
became the first man born outside Italy who became Roman Emperor.
Trajan’s family came from Italica in the province of Baetica, southern
Hispania (no.4). Like his father, his career had principally developed from the
military ranks and he became an acclaimed general.

Trajan’s first measures followed the reconciliatory policy of his predecessor.

The Senate kept their traditional privileges and, in return, Trajan was
officially named Optimus (‘the Best’). Trajan also benefited from the
adequate reforms initiated by Nerva. For example, a new programme to
support poor kids called alimenta was fully unfolded while improving the
productivity of agricultural lands on the Italian peninsula. Cities in the
provinces also received the assistance of supervisors (or curatores) appointed
by the emperor, so the management of local issues improved under stable
Roman administration and rule. Trajan’s reign equally achieved a
successful foreign policy providing triumphs and new economic resources
(no.5). On the Danube, the people inhabiting Dacia (approximately modern
Romania) and their king Decebalus had already posed problems to
Domitian. Between 101 and 102 AD, a campaign known as the First Dacian
War saw the Romans defeating the troops of Decebalus and the local king
momentarily surrendered. A new revolt reignited in 105 AD and the Second
Dacian War made the emperor fully conquer this transdanubian territory as
depicted in the so-called Trajan’s column still standing near the Fora of
Rome (no.6). With Decebalus’ death, a new province particularly rich in
gold was incorporated into the Empire and, consequently, Dacia underwent a
process of cultural and administrative adaptation that explains the fact that
Romanian is today a language directly deriving from Latin.

The eastern front was subject to an even greater territorial expansion. In

105, the Nabataean kingdom and its wealthy capital Petra came under
Roman control (no.7). A new road named Via Traiana Nova was

65
subsequently prepared and incorporated to the extensive system of imperial
infrastructures; in this case connecting Arabia, Egypt and Mesopotamia
(no.8-9). In the easternmost extreme Syria, the caravan city of Palmyra
submitted to Rome (no.10) and, from these positions, Trajan attacked the
Parthians invading the lands between the Euphrates and the Tigris between
111 and 117 AD. Armenia was also conquered providing the emperor with a
realm of an unprecedented size (no.11).

In addition to these territorial gains, the reign of Trajan is also renowned for
the consolidation of the Silver Age in Latin literature. The same Pliny the
Younger who was appointed governor of Bithynia composed an influential
panegyric to the emperor. Tacitus, on the other hand, avoided writing about
his current historical period but still mentioned the influence of the emperor.
With Juvenal, Latin satires reached a climax. The engineer Frontinus
described the functioning and administration of the aqueducts of Rome; a
capital that saw the completion of impressive construction projects such as
the market place known as Mercatus Traiani. Trading in the Empire was
booming, but not all the territories and peoples equally benefited from the
Roman absolute rule. We know that in this period the Christians of Anatolia
began to be targeted for a religion which was regarded as a superstitio
(‘superstition’) by the imperial administration (no.12). Likewise, the last two
years of Trajan’s rule were devoted to quelling the new riots sparked by the
Jews across the Diaspora of Egypt, Cyrene and Cyprus. In 117 the emperor
died and the adoption of another general of Spanish descent called Aelius
Hadrianus was announced.

Still on the eastern front, the emperor Hadrian ordered the Roman troops to
retreat from Mesopotamia and negotiated a standstill with the Parthians.
Upon his return to Rome, the senators saluted the new ruler with
suspicion slightly distrusting the way in which the empress Plotina may have
plotted against some of them. Indeed, Hadrian’s dealings with the
Republican institutions were not as moderate as those of his predecessors;
confirming the trend towards a more absolute imperial power. The council of
the princeps composed of his friends and acquaintances took a leading role
and the emperor increased the amount of legislation emanating from his
pronouncements (constitutiones), edicts and responses. The imperial
administration continued a progressive professionalisation with
procurators of the equestrian class –sometimes after military service–
completing careers across the provinces. By the 2nd century AD, these
external territories and not exclusively Italy had become the backbone of
the Roman Empire. The province of Baetica, as mentioned above, was not
only exploited for its rich resources such as oil and metals, but also gave
origin to Roman Emperors. Senators and administrators coming from the

66
East increased while cities such as Athens and Ephesus flourished under
Hadrian. This emperor was truly fond of Greek culture and during his
multiple travels granted important privileges. In Athens, a new temple to
Zeus Olympios was dedicated and here an organisation for all the Greeks
(or Panhellenion) was inaugurated (no.15). The emperor himself began to
be called Olympian and, when he visited Ephesus, the capital of Asia was
gifted with grain supply from Egypt and the cleaning of its rivers and harbour
(no. 16 judaism-and-rome.org/council-and-people-ephesus-thank-hadrian).
On the Nile, Hadrian also dedicated a new city called Antinoopolis to his
deceased Greek lover. Other regions in the West received noteworthy
attention despite the philhellenism of the emperor. For example, an
unprecedented system of defence was deployed in northern Britain,
namely the Hadrian’s Wall separating the Roman province from the attacks
of the Picti in Caledonia (i.e. modern Scotland). Vindolanda was one of the
forts along this line of defence and the excavation of this archaeological site
sheds light on the lives of soldiers and commanders written in wooden tables
from the borders of the Empire (no.17-20). In Rome, Hadrian sponsored the
renovation of the Pantheon originally built by Agrippa and such a
monument with its enormous cupola still testifies Roman technical prowess
(no.21). The power of the legions in this period can also be demonstrated by
the fierce response of Rome against a new revolt of Jews between 132 and
135 (no.22). A local leader called Bar Kokhba led an uprising in Judea which
is documented in coins and by virtue of the extraordinary discovery of
papyri and scrolls near the caves of Qumran where the last rebels, wives
and children were massacred. Furthermore, a Roman colony named Aelia
Capitolina was to be settled over Jerusalem.

Hadrian and his wife Vibia Sabina did not have any children. In 135 AD,
when the emperor started to become ill, succession needed to be prepared.
The first option, Lucius Aelius Caesar, died in 138; so soon before his death
Hadrian had to adopt another candidate, Antoninus (the future Antoninus
Pius), who was already experienced in government issues. Due to his lack
of descendants Antoninus was likewise forced to take his nephew and
future emperor Marcus Aurelius as a son together with Lucius Verus. The
reign of Antoninus between 138 and 161 marks the golden age of the
Empire, with a general policy of moderation in which borders were
consolidated, reckless expansion abandoned and no extravagant constructions
attempted (no.24). The legacy of Antoninus is therefore not much visible
through monuments but rather via ruling virtues mostly praised by ancient
historians and even senators who bestowed upon him the epithet Pius.
The empress Faustina led charity actions to support poor girls. Instead of the
Greek divinities favoured by Hadrian, this period was characterised by the
imperial return to more traditional Roman gods. This official policy,

67
nonetheless, could not stop the popularity of certain oriental cults such as
those of Cybele and Mithras, particularly among legionaries. At the same
time, Greek culture and literature was experiencing a rebirth commonly
known as ‘Second Sophistic’ with authors displaying their oratorical skills.
Other geniuses like Lucian of Samosata even fantasised about trips to the
Moon in his True Stories.

Antoninus Pius died in 161 and Marcus Aurelius automatically acceded to

the throne as planned (no. 24). The family of the new emperor originated
from near Cordoba in Baetica, but spent most of his time in the palace
where he was exquisitely educated from an early age. Tutors such as the
Latin author Fronto became personal friends and introduced him to topics of
philosophy which he cultivated throughout his life. With stoic beliefs,
Marcus Aurelius penned his own works and, most famously, a series of
personal reflections or Meditations written in Greek. Upon his accession,
the emperor wanted to associate his step-brother as a co-ruler and not only
as a successor. The Senate sanctioned this union and they remained together
until the death of Lucius Verus in 169. In this first part of Marcus Aurelius’
reign the concord between the institutions of Rome continued. Yet, the
Empire started to suffer the first signs of exhaustion. The defensive and
conservative foreign policy imposed by Antoninus Pius decreased necessary
revenues from military operations. The size of the army also placed a
burden on a huge territory surrounded by enemies prepared to attack. The
Parthian king took advantage of these weaknesses and invaded Armenia. A
new imperial expedition towards the eastern front became necessary and
Lucius Verus was appointed commander in chief with the assistance of apt
and experienced generals such as Avidius Cassius. By 163 AD, Armenia had
been subdued and the army continued southwards, conquering strongholds
such as Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital in 166 AD. The Roman troops,
however, did not only bring triumphal victories from Mesopotamia but also a
plague that spread rapidly across the Empire. The subsequent years were
marked by a demographic decline and this dire situation coincided with the
incursions of German peoples through the Danubian border. Most
significantly, the Quadi and Marcomanni crossed the river and reached the
Italian peninsula near Venice where they were repelled by Marcus Aurelius
and Lucius Verus. The latter will die soon thereafter, but the scale of the
attacks only increased. Foreign attackers raided even as far as Greece and
this series of military confrontations, including those against the nomadic
Sarmatians, could only be brought to an end in 175. In this year, the death
of Marcus Aurelius was falsely announced and Avidius Cassius, the former
ally and then governor of Syria, decided to proclaim himself emperor. On
account of these threats, the emperor also decided to immediately associate
his son Commodus to his rule. The foreign pressure and attacks, however,

68
did not cease. The Spanish peninsula suffered the raids of the African
Mauri and the Danube continued to be under threat; with an old and sick
Marcus Aurelius who eventually died near Vienna in 180 AD. Under
Commodus, the golden age of the Empire was to become a period of iron and
rust.

13. Crisis of Empire: From Commodus to Diocletian.

I admire Marcus Aurelius all the more for this very reason, that amid unusual
and extraordinary difficulties he both survived himself and preserved the
Empire. Just one thing prevented him from being completely happy, namely,
that after rearing and educating his son (Commodus) in the best possible
way he was vastly disappointed in him. This matter must be our next topic;
for our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and
rust.
[Cassius Dio, Roman History LXXII.35]

The senator and historian Cassius Dio highly regarded Marcus Aurelius, the
emperor and philosopher who had managed to preserve the Roman Empire
despite the plague, the attacks of external peoples and a period of economic
stagnation. There was, however, one aspect in which he failed, the
designation of his successor. Unlike the other emperors in the 2nd century AD,
Marcus Aurelius produced descendants and did not have the necessity of
adopting better candidates. His son Commodus was associated with his rule
already in AD 177 and, accordingly, became single ruler after 180 when
Marcus Aurelius died near the Danubian front (no.3). As reported by Cassius
Dio, the education of Commodus in the imperial palace had been carefully
arranged with distinguished tutors and even access to Galen, the personal
doctor of his father. Together with Marcus Aurelius, he had also experienced
the toils of war and celebrated a joint triumph after the victory over the
Germans. Consul at the age of 15, Commodus acceded to the throne when he
was just 18 years old. As soon as AD 182 , the first conspiracy to dethrone
him had already been organised in Rome and Lucilla, his sister, played a
prominent role in it. She was exiled to the island of Capri and later killed,
while Commodus removed the advisors previously appointed by Marcus
Aurelius. A former slave called Cleander became Commodus’s favourite,
was promoted to the equestrian order, and even appointed prefect of the
praetorians. This period also suffered from the extravagances of an
emperor affected by megalomania. Commodus identified himself with both
Romulus and Hercules (no.4), wanted to re-found Rome under his name
(Colonia Aurelia Nova Commodiana) and even he is known to have
participated in gladiatorial spectacles (no.5). By contrast, he was not so
interested in running an Empire that continued to experience considerable
financial difficulties (no.6). The amount of silver in coins was sharply

69
reduced, inflation raised and, soon, grain provision in Rome was affected.
Popular riots removed Cleander from his influential position and the new
praetorian prefect reacted with more conspiracies supported by the Senate that
ended up with Commodus’ assassination in AD 192 .

The end of the Antonine dynasty gave way to a new year of multiple
emperors and pretenders. Those who had conspired against Commodus
offered the throne to Pertinax, a mature senator with a long career in the
management of Rome and the military. With the promise of a huge donative,
the praetorian troops stationed near the capital did not oppose the proposal
and the Senate finally ratified everything on the 1st of January 193. Pertinax
first needed to rectify the poor state of the public finances and proposed
spending cuts. Among these measures, unfortunately, there was a reduction of
the expected donation to the praetorians who murdered him just three
months after the accession. The Empire –in the hands of greedy soldiers–
was sold to the highest bidder and the rich Didius Iulianus became the ruler.
Almost immediately, he had to face the opposition of the Senate and the
military coup of the armies deployed in Pannonia, Britain and Syria. Their
respective generals L. Septimius Severus, Clodius Albinus and Pescennius
Niger were simultaneously proclaimed emperors; so a civil war of an
unprecedented scale was about to unfold.

Septimius Severus, a commander of African descent, soon received support

from the Danubian legions and headed towards Rome (no.7). At the
beginning of the summer of 193, he had already entered the capital almost
without opposition and presented himself as the avenger of Pertinax. Even if
Didius Julianus had been killed by the praetorians themselves, the units were
immediately dismissed and substituted by soldiers loyal to Septimius
Severus. In the Senate, the divinisation of Pertinax was approved and Clodius
Albinus was offered the title of Caesar in order to keep Britain, the provinces
of Gaul and Hispania quiet. Meanwhile, Pescennius Niger had gathered
support from the oriental provinces. A clash between both imperial factions
turned unavoidable. Cities in the Roman East took sides and the first big
fights took place around the Bosphorus area. The army of Septimius
Severus then marched into Anatolia and, finally, faced Pescennius Niger at
Issos, on the border with Syria where Alexander the Great had previously
defeated the Persians. Like Darius, Niger also tried to flee but was murdered
before he could reach Parthian refuge at the end of 194 AD. These victories
also allowed Septimius Severus to progressively associate Caracalla to his
rule; a dynastic move which Clodius Albinus interpreted as a breach of the
treaty and provoked his unilateral proclamation as emperor. At the beginning
of 197, the legions of both commanders met near Lyon in Gallia and
Septimius Severus prevailed. The senators that supported the opposing

70
party were suppressed and their possessions confiscated. Those who remained
accepted the commands of the emperor and declared that Septimius
Severus was related to Commodus, the memory of whom had to be
restored.

Already as the uncontested ruler of Rome, Septimius Severus prepared an

ambitious campaign against the Parthians. Between 197 and 198, new
legions were levied, Mesopotamia was again invaded and the client kings
became subject to Rome. At the end of this war, Caracalla was also officially
named co-ruler and the people in the provinces sent expected delegations to
celebrate the continuation of the dynasty (no.8). Prior to their return to
Rome, Septimius Severus and Caracalla spent time in Egypt. Once on the
Italian peninsula, one of the new legions created by Septimius Severus – the
II Parthica – was stationed merely 20 km outside the imperial capital. The
Parthian spoils also allowed the emperor to set up a triumphal arch on top of
the Roman Forum. During this period, the legislative and political activity
of the praetorian prefect, Plautianus had been intense. His daughter was even
married to Caracalla, but suspicions of conspiracy precipitated his fall and
demise in 205 AD. The following two years saw the consolidation of
Septimius Severus’ rule with a programme that, despite economic
difficulties, brought a reasonable level of stability. In 208, the final
campaign of Septimius Severus started and it was waged in Britain. The
emperor wanted to capture the territories to the north of Hadrian’s wall but
the Caledonians (in modern Scotland) offered considerable resistance. Ill and
old, Septimius Severus remained in Eburacum (modern York) where he died
in 211.

The accession of Septimius Severus had not just brought to the throne a
military officer from Leptis Magna in Libya. The wife of the emperor,
Julia Domna, came from Syria and was the daughter of the high-priest of
the indigenous solar god, Baal. Together with her sisters and nieces, she
formed a clan in the imperial court that influenced the education of the
Severan dynasty and promoted a cultural circle mostly composed of
oriental intellectuals. The role of Julia Domna increased significantly after the
death of her husband. Septimius Severus wanted Caracalla to share the
power with his brother Geta, who had already been named emperor in 209.
During 211, Caracalla and Geta tried to rule together but the co-regency soon
proved untenable; with two factions growing in the imperial palace and all
actions being marred by suspicions and hatred. By 212 Caracalla had
eliminated his younger brother and remained sole emperor until 217. His
image as a harsh ruler is visible from the literary accounts and his
portraits (no.10). And yet, this emperor must particularly be remembered for
one action that changed Roman History. With a single imperial

71
pronouncement commonly referred to as Constitutio Antoniniana, Caracalla
made virtually all the free inhabitants of the Empire Roman citizens.
Cassius Dio, the senator and historian mentioned above –who lived in the
Severan period– affirms that this unprecedented move sought to increase the
collection of taxes needed for the increasingly weak public resources.
Regardless of the actual motivations, Caracalla extended a privilege that had
previously been reserved to only a minority of the population,
particularly in the most external provinces. This change can also explain
that Roman law scholarship experienced a golden age during the Severan
period with famous jurists such as Ulpian who influenced key collections of
legislation for many centuries.

Caracalla’s sole reign, in any case, was mostly devoted to military affairs.
A new war on the Rhine-Danube border was waged as soon as 213 and he also
prepared a new campaign against the Parthians that started in 216. On his
march Caracalla was assassinated by a traitor that the praetorian prefect
Macrinus had previously instigated. Despite distrustful soldiers that regretted
the loss of Caracalla and an uncertain Senate, Macrinus was designated new
emperor in 217. His rule, however, lasted less than a year. Popular support
for the Severan dynasty remained high in Rome after the recent completion
of magnificent buildings for public use such as the Baths of Caracalla. In
the East, the imperial clan of women related to Julia Domna retreated to
their Syrian place of origin and, hence, started spreading the rumour that a
son of Caracalla was holding the high-priesthood of the local god Baal.
This adolescent of 14 years old, officially named Avitus but better known as
Elagabalus (or Heliogabalus), managed to receive military backing and
resources that led to his victory over Macrinus near Antioch in 218 (no.11).
Ancient sources recount the journey of Elagabalus from Syria to Rome as
an aberrant parade, with the emperor covered in exotic dresses and
worshipping the sacred stone of Baal’s cult that was deposited on the Palatine.
As for his actions in government, these were actually directed by the women
of the imperial family that brought him to the throne. The financial
difficulties of the Empire could not be solved and popular discontent grew.
In order to secure the succession, Elagabalus was forced to adopt his cousin
Alexander. Soon thereafter, the soldiers saw an opportunity to depose the
extravagant ruler to support Alexander Severus and his mother Julia
Mamaea (no.12).

The imperial court was profoundly influenced by the intellectual circle

created by the Syrian regents. Among others, Ulpian and Cassius Dio took
part in counselling a very young and inexperienced emperor. Given the
scarcity of written sources available, there are many aspects of this and
many reigns in the 3rd century AD that remain unknown today.

72
Nevertheless, from the information available it is possible to infer that the
Roman Empire began to suffer heavily from its inability to cope against a
state of general decline. The military demands depleted the imperial
accounts, there were not enough sources of income and, at the same time,
the external pressure did not decrease. After the Parthian rule was removed
in Iran, the Sassanians took over and invaded the Roman eastern frontier
in the 230's. The transdanubian peoples also raided the northern territories of
the Empire and, eventually, Alexander Severus and his mother were
eliminated by the soldiers in Mainz (no.13). The Severan dynasty was over
in AD 235 and the crisis of Roman rule became unavoidable.

The legions in Germania hailed Maximinus as emperor and this general of

humble Thracian origins did not even care to be recognised by the Roman
Senate. Instead, he continued the military operations on the border and
achieved important victories across the river Rhine. For the first time the
Empire was ruled by a soldier who neither belonged to the superior
senatorial nor the equestrian classes. Once emperor, Maximinus Thrax
devoted all his efforts to military operations and donations which provoked a
response by the members of the Roman elite. A civil conflict arose and
Maximinus was first opposed by the senators Pupienus and Balbinus and,
later, by the family of the Gordians (no.14). From Africa, the young
descendant of this lineage acceded to the imperial throne in AD 238 with
the support of both the praetorians and his senatorial connections. This
confluence brought a period of relative stability and a more traditional
approach to government. Their reasonable measures, however, were soon
interrupted by the expansionist intentions of the Sassanids and his king
Sapor from 240 onwards. At first, Gordian III achieved important victories
in Mesopotamia which were witnessed by the Neoplatonist philosopher
Plotinus, but the new leader of the praetorium, Philip, instigated a mutiny
and the assassination of the emperor in 244. Philip came from a small
settlement in the province of Arabia and tried to establish a new ruling
dynasty with his brother and son (no.15). Huge gifts were once more
distributed to the soldiers and new Saecular Games were organised for the
first time in almost half a century. Philip the Arab’s attempts to secure a
firm rule, in any case, failed with multiple usurpers proclaiming themselves
emperors in the provinces. More peoples, including the Goths, continued to
pour through the weak borders of the Empire and the praetorian prefect
Decius was sent in command. His partial successes ultimately led to his
proclamation and Decius defeated Philip with his son. The subsequent reign
only lasted two years but the emperor, seeking a resurgence to the golden
age of the Empire, decided to adopt the name of Trajan. This return to
more traditional motifs and ideology entailed a stricter religious policy
(no.16). The citizens of the Empire were obliged to perform sacrifices for

73
the emperor but the Christians refused to accept the cult of a human
ruler. The first great persecutions ensued and martyrs multiplied both in
Rome and across the provinces. St. Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, recounts
this difficult period in which people bought sacrifice certificates and even
lapsed out of fear (no.17). Only the death of Trajan Decius in 251 put an end
to this Christian tragedy, although it could not prevent overall chaos (no.18).
In 253, four generals considered them Augustus simultaneously, but only the
mature senator Valerian managed to prevail over all. This emperor almost
immediately associated his son Gallienus and attempted an ambitious plan
of defence with enormous economic difficulties. The biggest threat, once
more, came from the East, from the king Sapor who had managed to invade
the lands of Syria and Anatolia while Romans was embroiled in civil
discord (no.20) The campaign of Valerian against the Sassanians began in
257 and, despite a promising start, ended with a staggering disgrace: the
Roman emperor was captured, humiliated and became a trophy in the
achievements of Sapor (no.21). In the meantime, an even harsher
persecution of Christians had been initiated, the pope, Cyprian and St.
Saturninus, among many others, were killed and only the sole rule of
Gallienus could stop the massacres. His reign was shrouded with difficulties,
not only economic but also territorial. Some western provinces accepted the
claims of a usurper and a parallel Gallic Empire was created (no.21). In
the East, the Sassanian advances had only been stopped by the leaders of the
rich city of Palmyra and particularly by Queen Zenobia, who occupied
parts of Asia Minor, the Levant and Egypt (no.23-24). Gallienus, nonetheless,
managed to implement some reforms of the military that became important
for the later Roman Empire. The concept of a stable border (or limes) was
abandoned and more mobile troops were developed.

From 268 to 284, the rule of Rome was dominated by soldier-emperors

mostly coming from Illyria in the Balkans. This area traditionally provided
numerous recruits, most of whom had only received their Roman
citizenship after Caracalla’s Constitutio Antoniniana. The first emperor
with such origins was Claudius and he achieved some victories over the
Goths; hence his triumphal title Gothicus. The rule of Aurelian between 270
and 275 was even more significant. He controlled the Danubian border,
terminated usurpations in Gaul and defeated Zenobia’s Palmyrean
dominion across the East. In Rome, the emperor prepared a huge defensive
wall around the city that still stands today (no.25). Important changes of
currency sought to bring more stability and the emperor, dominus et deus
(‘lord and god’) was completely associated with the cult of the invincible
Sun (Sol Invictus). After several short subsequent reigns, Roman rule had
managed to survive and the crisis was partly in control. It was therefore

74
time to attempt the radical reforms that transformed the Classical World
into Late Antiquity with the accession of Diocletian in 284 AD.

14. The 4th Century AD

After decades of political failure, military collapse and foreign attacks,
Diocletian was named emperor in AD 284 (no.2-3). Roman rule had already
begun to recover in the 270’s under Aurelian. However, more substantial
reforms were needed to provide the Empire with stability after the crisis
affecting the 3rd century AD. Like most rulers in this period, Diocletian came
from the military ranks, from the Balkan region of Illyria, having
completed a career through which he was promoted to the position of
commander of the imperial cavalry. When the emperor Carus was killed
during a new expedition in Mesopotamia, his sons and dynastic heirs took
over but not for very long. Usurpers sprang across the Empire, but
Diocletian, most favoured by the troops, managed to prevail. Immediately
after this victory, the emperor headed toward the Danube where new
external incursions were occurring. Soon the new emperor realised the
challenges and perils of sole rule.

At the end of 285, Diocletian bestowed upon his commander Maximian the
title of Caesar and before the end of 286 he was elevated to Augustus. Such
dual reigns had precedents in Rome. On this occasion, however, the
difference lies not in designating a descendant (either natural or adopted)
to establish a dynasty but, rather, in selecting an already apt general who
could face the multiple threats crumbling the Empire. Almost
simultaneously there were revolts in Gaul, the usurper Carausius proclaimed
the independence of Britain and Diocletian needed to appease the growing
tensions against the Sassanians. Progressive success over such conflicts
permitted Diocletian and Maximian to reinforce their power and devise
an ideology by which the first was to be considered a descendant of Jupiter
(Iovius) and the second of Hercules (Herculius). Moreover, their dual rule
was sacred, with celebrations of the imperial birthdays and clear signs of
sovereignty such as diadems, insignias and kneeling. Even so, Diocletian
and Maximian considered that the security of the Empire required further
transformation. Between 290 and 291, they both met in Milan and the
reunion led to the designation of two Caesares later in 293. Flavius
Constantius Chlorus was given the command of the campaigns in Gaul
and Britain and was put under the hierarchy of Maximian. The Caesar
for Diocletian was called Galerius and he remained in charge of Greece
and the eastern Danube. With this four-tier system of rule, the Tetrarchy
had been created (no.5). Conflicts across the extensive territories could hence
be better controlled and by 300 AD the level of danger had considerably
decreased.

75
The process of pacification under the Tetrarchy entailed a series of
significant reforms that affected most aspects of Roman rule. The number
of legions increased and the levy of foreign units rose steeply. The troops
were likewise reorganised under the authority of military commanders
called duces instead of the provincial governors. Fortifications along the
borders were strengthened and more mobile forces deployed. In order to
facilitate local administration, the number of provinces multiplied while
they were organised in twelve demarcations or diocesis (no.5). The collection
of taxes was also transformed, updated census and lists of properties (or
cadastres) were required and the number of civil servants sprung. Trust in
the monetary system, so devalued during the 3rd century, had to be recovered
and a currency reform was undertaken. To curb inflation, an Edict of
Maximum Prices was issued, although the results did not turn out very
successfully (no.6). All these administrative reforms were combined with an
ambitious programme of new constructions and strong ideological
messages in which religious motives played a key role. The Tetrarchs
requested the allegiance of their subjects to imperial rule, its symbols and
sacred entities. In 303, Diocletian targeted the Christian leaders and
communities with an edict against their religion that was applied across
the entire Empire until 311. These long persecutions resulted in many deaths
and acts of martyrs such as the one dedicated to the bishop of Amiens,
Saint Firminus of Pamplona (San Fermín).

After 20 years ruling, the elder Diocletian left the imperial residence in
Nicomedia and retired to a palace built in his homeland –Spalatum/Split–
(no.7). Maximian acted similarly in Milan and the succession mechanism of
the Tetrarchy was put in motion. Galerius and Constantius Chlorus became
Augusti and Maximinus Daia and Severus were designated Caesares (no.8).
This arrangement left out Maxentius (Maximian’s son) and Constantine,
the son of Constantius Chlorus. When this last Augustus died in 306, the
legions deployed in Britain proclaimed Constantine emperor despite the
opposition of Severus. In Rome, the praetorian troops endorsed
Maxentius, who also gathered great popular support. Civil war ensued with
several rulers creating chaos and reshuffling the Tetrarchic hierarchy.
Diocletian and Maximian needed to intervene but the latter's death renewed
the conflict. In 311 Galerius also died after having issued a Decree of
Toleration for the Christians. From Trier –the capital of Gaul– Constantine
took this opportunity and led the troops across the Alps before reaching
the Italian peninsula. In the autumn of 312, the decisive Battle of the
Milvian Bridge took place and Maxentius fell with his troops in Rome.
According to Christian authors such as Eusebius, Constantine had
received divine inspiration promising a victory under the sign of Jesus, the

76
Chrismon (☧), painted on the soldiers shields and carried on the standards
(no.9). After Constantine was designated Augustus by the Senate in 313, he
went to see the other Tetrarch Licinius in order to isolate Maximinus Daia
in the East. From this meeting the so-called Edict of Milan was agreed and,
as a result, religious freedom was officially adopted in the Empire and the
Christians communities could recover their lost property (no.10).

As soon as Maximinus Daia crossed the Hellespont and invaded Europe,

Licinius headed to the East and gained control of this vast and rich territory
from 313 AD. Tensions with Constantine subsequently grew and this
situation continued until 324 when Licinius was finally defeated. These
years were also a period of conflict within the Christian church, with
several schisms and heresies disagreeing over aspects such as the divine
nature of Christ (no.12). To solve such issues an oecumenical (i.e. empire-
wide) council was summoned in Nicaea and here the Creed declaring that
the Son had the same nature as the God was agreed in 325 (no.13). Not all the
clergy accepted this doctrine and, for many years, the followers of the
Alexandrian bishop Arian (or Arianists) continued to oppose the concept
of the Holy Trinity. The emperor Constantine attended the Council of
Nicaea and allegedly converted from paganism to Christianity, the religion
of his mother Helen. The Catholic Church was favoured under his reign
but traditional symbols such the purple robe were not completely
abandoned. Constantine was likewise aware of the instability of his sole
rule and promoted the association of his sons to the throne. An even greater
project to perpetuate the memory of the dynasty had already started, a city
under the name of Constantine dominating the Bosphorus upon the
former site of Byzantium. Constantinople was consecrated in AD 330 and
here the emperor died in 337. A new fight for succession soon ensued.

Constantine had three sons and between them his vast rule was to be shared
(no.15). The three brothers met in the Balkans to divide their territories.
Constantine II was given the most remote western provinces. Constantius
retained the East and Constans –just 14 years-old– received lands from
Rome to Macedonia but remained under tutelage. As soon as 340,
Constantine II, unsatisfied with his share, marched against Constantius but
was prematurely killed in Italy. During the following decade, the fragile
harmony between Constans and Constantius remained despite their
religious disagreements, namely the latter followed Arianism and the former
defended Catholic orthodoxy. Both emperors, in any case, continued to
limit pagan activities, prohibiting certain sacrifices and closing some
temples. Constans faced major problems in the western provinces where
popular and military discontent grew to the point that the usurpation of the
army general Magnentius forced his assassination in 350. Magnentius was

77
accepted also in Rome and a period of two years of civil war continued until
Constantius managed to conquer Italy and Gaul. This emperor tried to
spread his Arianism doctrine but did not succeed in western provinces
where the pope maintained the Catholic orthodoxy. In order to prevent
more schisms, an amended version of the Nicene Creed would finally be
prepared in a new oecumenical council held in Constantinople.

Flavius Claudius Julianus was the cousin of Constantius. He had received

a Christian education in the court of Constantinople. From an early stage,
however, Julian felt a strong interest in Classical authors and disciplines
such as philosophy, rhetoric and grammar that introduced him to the
practices of paganism. In 355, Constantius had named him Caesar and,
after the death of the ruling emperor in 361, he was proclaimed Augustus.
As a sole ruler and with the backing of the military, Julian attempted a
radical transformation whereby religious freedom would be promoted,
paganism reignited and Christian controversies unleashed. Privileges
previously granted to the Church were removed and pagan personalities
such as the writers Symmachus and Libanius were favoured. In 362, the
Christians were even barred from teaching in philosophical schools.
Julian also revitalised the worship of the god Sun, son of Zeus, with the
creation of a clergy and philanthropic activities which could rival Christian
priests and charity (no.16). In 363, the emperor launched an ill-fated
campaign against the Sassanians. Ctesiphon, the capital of Mesopotamia
was reached but the Romans suffered heavy losses. Even Julian was
wounded in battle and, after three days of machinations unclear to
contemporary historical sources such as Ammianus Marcellinus, the
emperor died.

At the age of 32, the sole ruler died without descendants or dynasty. The
soldiers again chose their leader, Jovian, who immediately negotiated an
armistice with the Sassanians. Jovian reinstated Christianity as the state
religion and Julian’s reforms were halted even before the memory of the
predecessor was officially condemned (damnatio memoriae). On his route
towards the West, Jovian died unexpectedly near Ankara and new rulers were
needed at the beginning of AD 364. A commission was summoned and it
was decided to place two brothers that could provide an imperial lineage.
Valentinian and Valens divided the territory in two halves: the western
provinces for the older brother and the East for the younger (no.17). Valens
was therefore supposed to reside in Constantinople but foreign perils soon
made him move from the new imperial capital. This opportunity was taken
by the commander Procopius who gathered the support of both the soldiers
and a population discontented with the stringent fiscal policies of the Roman
emperors. In the West, Valentinian likewise faced external threats pouring

78
along the borders and his reign was mostly devoted to these wars. In 367, his
son Gratian was elevated to the rank of Augustus and together they
promoted again the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. And yet, when
Valentinian died in 375, the troops of Illyria did not recognise the rule of
Gratian and proclaimed Valentinian II, his very young brother, as
emperor. In this year, Valens needed to face an even bigger challenge when a
great number of Gothic tribes, pushed by the nomadic Huns, migrated and
started to ravage the Balkans and Thrace. Even Constantinople came under
threat and Valens hastened to the Battle of Hadrianopolis in which he died
(no.18). As a result of this military disaster, Gratian needed to intervene and
recalled one of his most distinguished commanders, Theodosius, from
Hispania. He was put in charge of reorganising the eastern provinces and
the Goths received lands, tax privileges and a federal organisation in
exchange for peace. In Thessalonica, an Edict of Theodosius declared
Christianity the sole religion of the Roman state in AD 380 (no.19). This
year also saw the arrival of the new emperor to Constantinople. After a
period of usurpers and low popularity, Gratian was killed in Lyon in AD 383.
As the new ruler of all the westerns provinces, Valentinian II met
Theodosius in 384 and they agreed to maintain their territorial
arrangement. Theodosius consolidated his power from an increasingly
monumentalised Constantinople, the Goths were defeated, the Sassanians
appeased and, soon, the Italian peninsula became a feasible objective. The
emperor stayed in Milan between 388 and 391 where the bishop St.
Ambrose had gained large influence and power. By 392, pagan sacrifices
and temples were forbidden across the Empire and Theodosius reached an
even more absolute power when Valentinian II appeared dead. Theodosius
ruled until AD 395 and his succession makes another crucial episode in
the History of Humanity. The Roman Empire was officially split in two
halves for their sons Arcadius and Honorius. The latter was too young and
put under the guardianship of the foreign commander Stilicho. Arcadius, in
turn, took over the East. These divided realms therefore began two separated
paths leading to kingdoms of Germanic tribes such as the Visigoths, the
Franks and the Ostrogoths in the West, whereas Constantinople, the new
Rome, illuminated both the birth of the Byzantine Empire and the end of
the Classical World.

79