|
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 01:27 AM by happyslug
The Rome of the Late Republic, where Senators fancied wars so that they can make money (Generally on the sale of Slaves, enslaved during the wars). The Executive at that time were the Consuls who were Senators. A Senator could only be a consul for one year, then was given the title "Pro-Consul" (i.e. Former Consul) and an Military command to make money. Julius Caesar was such a Proconsul when he was made Pro-Consul of Gaul (Then Modern Day Italy around Milan AND The "Provence" of France (Southern France, and the term "Provence" comes from the fact Southern France around Marseilles, had been a Roman Provence for over 100 years by the time of Caesar, who used the Provence to take over the rest of modern France.
The late Republic saw the final decline of working class of Rome. The Gracchi around 130 BC tried to reform the situation and both brother were able to achieve was their own murders. The Gracchi had a plan to ENFORCE long existing Roman law as to how much land a person could own AND access to the money to buy that excess land from the present owners and give it back to the soldiers who had fought and conquered most of the Known World at that time. The Roman money classes proceeded to murder both of them (About ten years apart), switch Rome from a militia based army to a Mercenary based Army (The claim was to make the Army more "Effective" but the real cause was the people, who made up the Militia based Roman Army after about 150 BC would REFUSE to serve in the army given that the wars NEVER benefited them, remember Hannibal had been defeated in 202 BC by the Militia based Roman Army (Which made Rome the Dominate Power in the Western Mediterranean including Spain). That same army then defeated Macedonia making Rome the Dominate power in Greece. In fact one of the richest country in the world was ruled by a King who turned it and his whole wealth over to Rome as a gift at his death. That king did so knowing Rome would take it anyway, but it gave the Gracchi a source of money to do the land reform Rome needed at that time. The rich decided the Gracchi was "stealing" from them twice, first by buying the land with the money from that king, and Second by NOT just dividing that gift among the rich. After the Gracchi, Roman continued to have foreign wars, but they were all minor drama between the fight between the Rich and the working class over who should get the benefits of Roman might. The Gracchi lead to Maius (Who actually did the first hiring for a mercenary army, showing the rest of the Rich how it could be done, he apparently viewed the use of mercenaries as a temporary expedite to solve the problem that no one wanted to go fight some invading Germans into Southern Gaul (Who made an effort to stay OUT of Roman Territory). Maius raised the first mercenary legions, but was quickly followed by others including Sulla who would drive out Maius from power and kill him. Caesar then inherited the support of the masses and used that support to get into power, but never did the land reform the Gracchi had proposed almost 100 years before. He gave the poor/Working Class free food and games for their support but no actual reforms. Octavian succeeded Caesar (and Octavian support from the poor was essential in his victory over Mark Antony, for the poor of Rome were the people who propelled the huge oared warships of the time period, something they have done since the first Punic War almost 200 years before. Augustus bought their support with free food and games, something even his opponents did NOT even want to give them (and subsequent such rich slowly died out or was killed by Augustus and his successors, so that by the time of Trajan, 97 AD, no one in the Senate could trace his family back before the time of Augustus, just 100 years earlier.
Augustus was able to do the above by reducing the army to just 29 legions to cover the whole world. One German Ruled of the 1700s marveled at that fact for he had more men under arms to hold onto his small part of Germany as Augustus used for the whole Roman Empire. Later historians point out that a Legion was more like a Modern Army Division then an 1700 Regiment, through the number of men in the Legion was closer to a Regiment then a Division. A Roman Legion consisted of ten Cohorts. Two Cohorts were made of 10 Centuries (i.e. 1000 men). Eight Cohorts were made of 6 Centuries (Or 600 men a piece). Thus a Legion made up of 6800 men PLUS auxiliaries to support the legion on the march (making the Legion about 10,000 men strong). Thus by the end of Augustus' rule he had only about 290,000 men under arms. At the height of the Civil War between Julius Caesar and Pompey Rome had at least 68 legions or 680,000 men under arms (And many historian question that number, for it is derived from the records we have from writers and other sources NOT a list of actual Military units, guesses go from 50 to 100 legions or 1/2 million to 1 million men under arms).
Another way Augustus and his successor saved money was to keep the pay of the soldiers the same time the troubles of the Third Century 1D (i.e. 200 plus years after Augustus). During this time period you had a slow rate of inflation, derived mostly from new Silver Coins being mined out of Spain. On top of this starting with Nero, Emperors started to debase the currency, i.e. instead of all Silver, the coins would only be 95% Silver, then 90% Silver, this accelerated rapidly in the Third Century as the Silver mines watered out and new Silver came hard to find (Diocletian tried to solve this problem with reform of the Silver Coinage, but had no way to produce new coins to replace the bad coins so failed, Constantine solved the problem by going to Gold which he took from the various Pagan Temples he had the early Church Take over, the Church received the temple, he took the Gold, he then used that gold to establish coinage that would last till the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade).
Thus the crisis in the Third Century had less to do with the Rich vs the Poor (a battle lost under Augustus who undermined efforts of the poor to reform Roman Land Ownership to include them) then how to solve the problem of a lack of money (Not Wealth, money). Paper money was NOT possible for the only paper available for widespread use was Parchment (Which is the skin of an animal, processed to be written on, an expensive way to produce something to write on, a very durable produce, last centuries and reusable, but expensive given the labor needed to make such items, thus books of the time period were written to be read aloud to a crowd of people by a person who could read and that book owner would make his money reading the book to groups who wanted to hear what was written. Books Were NOT written to be read alone, they were to expensive for that). Until the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine this money shortage caused all types of problems, but was solved by the adoption of what we call an "Imperial" view of the Emperor, adoption of Christianity as a state religion do to the fact unlike the earlier pagan religions it was empire wide and could be used by the Emperor to spread what he wanted people to hear AND a massive expansive of the army to solve the additional problems of the Goths and the Persians. Both had been minor problems before the problems of the Third Centuries, but in the case of Persia, Rome had attacked the weaker Pathenian Empire in the early part of the Third Century, looted its Capital and then withdrew using that wealth to patch things up for about 20 years then the money crisis recurred and Diocletian became Emperor and you saw the adoption of an very complicated Barter system to replace the use of Money. The Side affect of that attack was the weak Pathanian Empire was replaced by a much stronger native Persian Empire that could fight Rome toe to toe. This increase the need for Rome to keep Troops in its Eastern Border, a cost that continued till that Persian Empire was destroyed 300 years later by The Roman Emperor Herculius and the subsequent Arab Conquest.
Now, they was another way to solve the problems of the Third Century, which Diocletian did adopt (in part only)in the Greek Parts of the Empire. This seems to occur for unlike Egypt, North African and Western Europe, it had retained small farms (The rest of the empire had become nothing by large plantations worked by slaves). These farmers were willing to provide manual labor as a form of payment of their taxes. This survived till the 1800s in parts of Turkey. This is as far as Diocletian did this practice. He appears to have tried to expand it elsewhere but the rich refused to co-operate and as a member of the elite he did not want to fight them so the reform ended. 300 years later Herculius would expand this reform to include military duty, when he had to replace the remains of the Mercenary Roman Legions with troops who would accept land for pay, but of that more later.
Constantine did his financial reforms, continued by his son and successor Constantius II. Constantius II was succeed by his pagan Nephew, Julian the Apostate, but his plan to restore the old Pagan Temple died not only with him BUT his failure to take the Persian Capital so he could loot it and use that loot to undo what Constantine had done. The Persians defeated his efforts and his successors had a problem, what money Constantius II had left to Julian was gone. Retrenchment was the order of the day and the Gothic rebellion (Caused by Roman Greed) saw the lost of over 40,000 men in the battle of Adrainople. This was the destruction of what remained of the Roman Army at that time. Diocletian and Constantine's reform solved some of the problems, but giving the power of Persian the ability to raise a Mercenary Army to defeat the Goths was out of the Question. At the same time anywhere the Goths went they number INCREASED, given the vast number of Roman Poor who given a choice opt to be a landless Barbarian then a Roman Citizen (Diocletian and Constantine had tried to address that problem, but resistance from their fellow rich Romans stopped any real reforms). Theodosius the Great became Emperor at that point. Some how he mange to defeat the Goths. settle them within the Empire. He solved the problems of the Goths, but could do no other reform given the nature of the Empire. He divided the Empire between his two sons and that lead to the problems of the fifth Century.
The problems of the Fifth Century was the Roman Poor still did NOT support the state. They cared less who ruled. This had been a problem since the time of Augustus but now it was critical. The population of the Empire had been on the declined since before the troubles of the Third Century (Slaves have a habit of NOT re-producing). From the time of Augustus onward most Slaves came from the Roman Poor NOT foreign barbarians. This increased in the crisis of the Third Century AD. On the other hand the Roman Elite still wanted to live like their ancestors did, thus each peasant/slave had to produce more. At the same time to encourage children among the slaves, the rights of slaves increased (More to encourage them to have children then anything else). By the Firth Century (And probably by the Third) this increase in slave rights had been matched by a reduction in the rights of free poor Roman Citizens. Thus in this time period they was not much difference between being a Slave and being a Freeman (And about this time both groups became known as "Serfs" i.e. freemen to everyone but their masters who in turn had limits what he could order them to do, by the seventh century this was so clear that true slaves, someone who had no rights, started to be called "Slaves" not the earlier Roman term "Servus". "Servus" became today's "Serf". The term "Slaves" came from the Slavic Word for the Slavic people i.e. "Slav". By the time the term "Slave" replaced "Servus", Slaves were still known but rare. The vast majority of people were Serfs as that term was used after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West.
Anyway, I went into the above for the Roman poor did NOT support the State. Constantine attempt to get them to do so through Christianity ran into a brick wall, their masters, the Roman Elite was NOT about to arm them or even permit them to join the Roman Army. Thus although the Fifth Century, the Roman elite given a choice between arming their own peasants or hiring German mercenaries, opt for the later every time, even if the pay was to give the German some land. The Vandals were the big exception to this rule. The Vandals moved into Spain then to North Africa while Attila the Hun was attacking Gaul, Constantinople and Italy. In 460 AD the Vandals took and sacked Rome from their base in Carthage. That was something Hannibal could only dream of in 200 BC when Rome was only Italy, parts of Sicily, the Provence of Gaul (But NOT enough of Gaul to stop Hannibal's March to Italy via Gaul. Now over 600 years later, a Roman Empire spanning the whole Mediterranean Sea could NOT stop a Naval Attack from Carthage.
The rest of the Fifth Century in similar. Now in the case of every other Invader from Germany, the Romans were able to defeat sooner or later, but rather then push them out of the Empire, the Roman resettled them on the condition they support the Roman Elites against the other enemies of Rome. In 450 AD the German head of the Roman Army in the West became the de factor ruler of the Empire, the Western Emperor a mere figurehead. The Western Emperor-ship would last another 26 years before the then German head of the Army decided a Figurehead in Constantinople was as good as one in Rome and abolished the Western Emperor-ship and sent the Regalia of the Western Emperor to the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople. Basically the Germans took over do to the fact they were willing to fight and the Roman poor would not (And the Roman Rich thought since they had all of the wealth they were still in charge).
In the Sixth Century, the Eastern Empire with its wealth in Egypt still intact and the poor peasants of present day Turkey willing to be recruited into the still mercenary army (And Persian tied up with a 50 year peace treaty) went on the offensive against the Germans holding parts of the Roman Empire. What was the crime of these Germans? Being Peasants themselves they tended to side with their fellow Roman Peasants NOT the land owning Roman Elites. The Vandals started this, doing radical land reforms in Tunisia. The Goths who then ruled Italy did the same in Italy. The Roman Elite complained to Justinian, then the Emperor in Constantinople. Justinian ordered an attack on Carthage then on Italy. In the bloodiest war fought since the Punic War, Italy was re-taken by Roman Forces (Rome itself would exchange hands five time during the ten bloody years of war). At the end the population of Rome had been reduced to Zero (The last Gothic Commander of Rome took all of the remaining Roman Citizens in Rome with him when he withdrew, the Roman General then replaced then with people from his own side, thus for at least a day Rome had a population of one). The guesses on how many people died varies, but at the end of the War, the population of Italy was no more then 10% of its population under Augustus, 600 years before. How much on this predates the Italian War, is hard to say, but Italy had been on a population decline since 180 AD, the Sixth Century just saw its bottoming out. Justinian was proud of his efforts to reunite the Roman Empire, taking Carthage, Italy and Southern Spain, but he did so by bankrupting the state AND getting the Roman Elite made at time for the taxes he raised to do so. After Justinian died, the Lombards would invade Italy and take most, but not all and not Rome, of Italy. Again the reason seems to be the Peasants had liked the Land Reforms of the Goths and the Lombards reimposed those reforms, the Lombards even became Catholic in their attempts to become one people with the Italian Peasants. From 570 AD onward the Roman Empire had problem, no money to defeat the Lombards AND no way to convince the peasants to support the Empire for all the Empire brought with it was the peasants losing their lands back to the Roman Elite the Goths and later the Lombards had taken the lands from.
Finally in the Seventh Century, Rome would face its Greatest challenge. The West was under Barbarian rule but all of them recognized the Eastern Emperor as their Emperor. All had done land reforms so that the peasants of the west did NOT want a return to Roman Rule. All of the Barbarian occupying former parts of the Empire (Except Britain) had embraced Christianity. At the same time the Roman elite were losing their wealth in the West as the Barbarians slowly did land reforms. At this point the Persian decided to take over the remains of the Roman Empire. i.e. the Eastern Empire. The Persians were successful, so successful that for the first time since the time of Alexander the Great a Persian Army camped on the Mediterranean and then a few years later took Egypt. Heraclitus was the son of the Roman Commander in Carthage. Heraclitus then sailed to Egypt (Between the above Persian Camp on the Mediterranean and the Persian Occupation of Egypt). Heraclitus then used that as his base to attack Constantinople and replaced the existing Emperor with himself. Heraclitus then left Egypt fall to the Persians. Heraclitus, either implemented (The traditional view) or Completed (a modern minority view) a reform of the Roman Army. He took what remained of the Roman Army and imposed them over the population of Peasants in the Greek Speaking part of the Empire. He converted the mercenary army to a militia whose pay was retention of the land they and they family was living on. Now his army had more Calvary then earlier Roman Armies, but they were raised and maintained like the Militia Roman Armies of the time of Hannibal. This took over four years to finish. He then marched this army deeper into Persian then any Roman General had even gone and destroyed the Persian Empire. In the Subsequent peace treaty Egypt was returned to Roman Rule. Heraclitus then pulled out of Persia, replanted the True Cross in Jerusalem and then to the Red Palace in Constantinople.
At the same time as the above was occurring, Mohammad was slowly uniting the Arab Tribes. After his death, the Arabs would attack both the Roman and Persian Empires (Both weaken by the above bloody war). The Arabs would take Jerusalem then Syria, then Egypt. The Romans would try to retake the year after the Arabs took it, but with no support from the people of Egypt, the Roman left (Before they were driven out by the Arabs). Thus the Roman Empire was reduced to the Greek Speaking part of the Empire. Egypt had NOT been subject to the Reforms Heraclitus had imposed on the Greek Speaking parts and thus the Roman Elites viewed themselves as being the rightful owners of the lands of Egypt. A view rejected by the Persians during they five plus year rule (Where they gave the land rights to the peasants and in exchange the Egyptian people supported the Arabs, even while most Egyptians would stay Christian till the First Crusade 600 years later). While they had been a religious split between the Greek Speaking and "Egyptian-Arab" Speakers of the Roman Empire for about 200 years before the Arab Conquest, that split was more a reflection of how those two communities (Greeks speakers and "Egyptian-Arab" Speakers) were dealing with each other AND the lost of the Latin speaking west then any real difference in Religion (I.e. religion was the excuse and/or cover for the real argument which was who should be the dominate group within the Eastern Empire). During the rule by Persia, the "Egyptian-Arab" Speakers had saw the old Roman land ownership rights abolished and replaced by a Persian system. The Old Roman elites all lost any rights to the land and the Persians gave that right to themselves and in turn to strengthen they hold on the people, gave those rights to the peasants. This was the same type of land reform that had been going on in the Latin West for over 100 years at that time. The peasants liked it and hated the re-imposition of Roman land Ownership rights when Heraclitus won back Egypt when he destroyed the Persian Empire. When the Arabs took over Egypt, the peasants saw this as a second chance at land reform and took it. Thus they stayed Christian but came to oppose the remains of the Roman Empire.
Heraclitus has been criticized on why such a dynamic ruler in his war against Persia, but so passive when it came to the Arabs, just 15 years later. The traditional view is he was old, and wanted a Greek Only empire. A minority view is that given his earlier success, he wanted to build on them NOT save the wealth of the Roman Elite. In this view Heraclitus just left the areas go, for to take them would only benefit the Roman Elite NOT the peasants that made up his army (Remember he had replaced the remains of the Roman Mercenary Legions with his Militia based Themes), nor even himself or his family (Through his Brother was involved in the Fight to keep Syria, a fight Heraclitus stayed out of). If he re-took Egypt how would that benefit his army? The Roman Elite would do what they did after he had defeated the Persians, imposed themselves over the peasants of Egypt AND demand not only the money the peasants owned to him for the year Egypt was won back, but for all the years Egypt had been under Arab Rule. A similar situation occurred in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, the US would clean an area of the Viet Cong and then the landlords of the peasants would go into those areas and demand NOT only the rent for THAT year but for all the years the Viet Cong held the area. This was a tremendous lost of wealth to the peasants and in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, and Egypt in the Seventh Century, such a reconquest would lead to increase suffering by the peasants who in turn would support any new invader. Heraclitus had a first had experience with that when Egypt was returned to Rome by Persia and saw it occurring again and decided it was NOT worth fighting for (i.e. leave it go, for all it was bringing him was more warfare not peace). Thus Heraclitus left Egypt and Syria go, improved his new Militia Army which within 100 years was able to go on the offensive for the first time since late Roman Republican days. For the next 400 years Greece had a stable situation. Would lose Carthage about a generation after Egypt and then Sicily (Which it would win back) and hold onto Southern Italy till the Normans took it from them at about 100AD but overall given the fact Constantinople was the largest city in the World till 1204 AD, you had a very stable Government. After 1054 and the Defeat at Muzakurt increase power in the rich, decrease rights of peasants would return (both Increased after 1204), but 500 years of stability was more then Rome ever achieved when it relied on a Mercenary Army AND little or no rights to its working poor.
Just a comment, that rule by the rich was the problem of the Roman Republic. The rich defeated every effort to strengthen the power of the poor, even leaving huge sections of the empire to fall rather then army the peasants for such an Arming also means giving them more power. The reform elements were Strong under the Gracchi (c 130BC), but undermined by ability to raise troops with money as opposed to given the poor rights. The rich then patched over and over the problems of the poor but suppressing them over and over again. As this lead to a decline in the whole economy, the rich rather import workers (Slaves) and later Soldiers (The Barbarian "invaders" of the Third and Fifth Centuries) then arm their own peasants (Do to the fear such peasants would demand true reforms NOT crumbs as Augustus and his successors did). Finally, it took the Roman Empire to fall back on the one part of the Empire the Rich had the least investment in and support from before it decided it had to save itself by arming its peasants. With that arming, the situation stabilized. This method of stabilization started with the Byzantine Empire, soon spread westward. Finally becoming almost complete in the ninth century (The Century AFTER Charlemagne). Charlemagne had in many way reestablish the Western Roman Empire, but the inherent instability lead to its fall within 100 years, but that fall forced Western Europe to adopt a system much like the Theme system of the Byzantine Empire. Peasants were given rights and their "masters" not only could demand services from the peasants they were also expected to protect them (the key medieval Feudalism). The Final straw against the remains of the Roman system was the dual invasions of the Vikings and the Magyars. The Vikings attacked by sea, the Magyars attacked by Horseback. Both in the century after Charlemagne. The remains of the old Roman land owners were told either defend your lands and your peasants or the land was given to someone who would. This strengthened the hands and power of the serfs whose rights expanded even while they still had duties to perform for their masters. Once that was done the Dark Ages faded away and Western Europe emerged into the Middle Ages. An Age of stable government, stable enough to launch the Crusades starting in 1100 AD. The Crusades would lead to instability when you see Roman Law reimposed on Western Europe during the Renaissance but that is after almost 500 years of stability if you use the formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 900 AD as the start and the Black Death as the end of that long period of stability, something Rome NEVER had.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
