Dissecting Rome’s First Triumvirate – Part II

The rule for election of Consuls of Rome required that a man be 43 years of age unless he was of the patrician class and then he would get two years credit and be eligible at 41. Election during the first year of eligibility was on Caesar’s mind as he waited for the end of 60 B.C. and the voting. During his term as provincial governor of Spain, Caesar had acquired enough capital to pay off many of his debts. Moreover, his experience leading men in battle had energized him for more efforts in the arena of war. But first it had to be Rome and the Consulship.

Caesar’s competitors in the election were Bibulus and Lucceius. Bibulus had served with Caesar as Aedile, but disliked him immensely. Nonetheless he offered bribes to Caesar for his support. Caesar refused and short on cash himself,  borrowed money from Lucceius. He did not approach Crassus, as he was accustomed to because he didn’t want to offend Pompey who was still at odds with the wealthiest man in Rome. When the votes were tallied, Caesar was elected along with Bibulus who had benefitted from a campaign of bribery undertaken by Cato.

The force bringing the triumvirs together was now set in motion. Caesar was snubbed by the Senate when it assigned the “forests and cattle runs” of southeastern Italy as the province to be administered by the new Consuls.

Pompey was snubbed when the land bill he proposed to accommodate his veterans was defeated. The Senate looked down on Pompey as beneath their class – a plebian by heritage and only now elevated because of his father. They distrusted him fearing he would try to use his army to overthrow the government.

Finally, Crassus was snubbed when he supported the re-write of a tax collection contract favored by the knights. He got Cicero over to his position, but Cato killed the bill.

The Senate of this period was made up of three factions, each amounting to one third of the voting power: conservatives who supported the Republic as it had always been, moderates including Cicero and Cato who allowed some adaptation of the political system, and the liberals who supported Pompey and Caesar. The conservatives were so strict in their point of view, they tried to block all efforts of the triumvirs, unable to perceive the harm they would eventually bring to themselves.

Pompey and Crassus decided to bury the hatchet and go in with Caesar. The latter was still the least influential of the triumvirs but he had two important assets: he was by far the best negotiator and he had previously been a supporter of Marius, the man of the people, whereas the other two were seen as allies of dictator Sulla.

The allies decided to add a fourth man to the group – make a quatumvirate, no less. The man they chose was Cicero, because of his oratorical skills. The invitation to join was delivered to him by Balbus, a confidant of Caesar. Cicero was certainly angry at the conservatives who were in the process of wrecking the Republic, but he could not abide the triumvirs either. He felt Pompey and Crassus were not supportive enough of his handling of the conspiracy of Cataline, while his antipathy toward Caesar was visceral. In the end, he refused to join the others and would suffer later because of it.

Michael Grant, in his biography of Caesar described what followed:

“During the next ten years the triumvirate remained the controlling factor in Roman politics. This is not, as it is sometimes called, a defeat for democracy. The dispute was not between senatorial government and democracy, which never existed in Rome and never would, but between a haughty, reactionary, corrupt oligarchy and an equally ruthless tyranny conducted by three individuals.”

Let me provide more detail for year one – 59 B.C.

When the newly elected Caesar introduced the land bill to the Senate, they filibustered until he withdrew the measure and took it to the assembly. It was vetoed by three tribunes but Pompey and Crassus spoke in favor, making it plain they were allied with Caesar. When Bibulus, the other Consul, tried to block the bill, Caesar had Pompey’s troops burst into the assembly and intimidate the opposition into surrender.

Frustrated, Bibulus and his allies tried the alternative tactic of using auspices to block all assembly meetings. Whenever an Assembly meeting was scheduled, he would take auspices and declare that the date was unsuitable. Caesar ignored this blocking attempt and used the Assembly to pass legislation beneficial to the Triumvirs.

In April, Pompey, who was 43, married Caesar’s daughter Julia, 17. It has been suggested that Pompey needed the link to be able to count on Caesar’s political skills. Caesar also married for political advantage -- Calpurnia, daughter of Lucius Piso, who Caesar sought as a puppet Consul for the next year. These matrimonial maneuverings prompted Cato to remark that the Roman political system had become a marriage bureau.

Now Caesar decided it was time to improve his financial position and sought to use Egypt as the golden nugget. The king of Egypt had died and left a dubious will declaring his country would be bequeathed to Rome. Caesar then bribed the Senate and the Assembly with borrowed money to recognize Ptolemy XII as the rightful king so that he could gain a fortune through his relationship with the new monarch.

Even more important were Caesar’s efforts to secure a province for himself after his term of Consulship ended. Working through a trusted Tribune, Vatinius, he moved a bill through the assembly to allocate to himself Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for a period of five years instead of the normal two. The Senate was not even consulted. Bibulus declared the law invalid because the omens were not favorable, but, once again, he was ignored. During a subsequent shouting match in the Senate, Caesar declared that he had gotten what he wanted despite the moanings of the Senate and that from now on he would “mount on top of the heads of the Senators”.

Caesar was allocated three legions for his new dominion and as he prepared for the new  assignment, fortune smiled down on him and changed history. Narbonese Gaul (also referred to as Transalpine Gaul) had previously been assigned with Cisalpine Gaul to a single Consul. This time the provinces were split with Metellus Celer receiving the former and Caesar receiving the latter. Before taken his post, however, Celer died, and Caesar used his father-in-law Piso and his son-in-law Pompey to argue that Narbonese Gaul should be added to his domain. The Senate gave in, possibly thinking that the more Caesar had on his plate away from Rome, the less he would meddle in its affairs.

But Caesar’s power remained a threat to the Senate. In July, an informer named Vettius accused Caesar or a plot to kill Pompey, but before the matter could be prosecuted, Vettius died mysteriously. An assassination attempt by a slave followed, but Caesar would survive to let history take its course.

He would spend eight years in Gaul conquering the tribes and write the Commentaries along the way. Julia, wife of Pompey and daughter or Caesar, would die in childbirth (54 B.C.) breaking the marital bond between husband and father. Crassus would be ambushed and killed in Pythia in 53 B.C. leaving no offset to any conflict Caesar and Pompey. Caesar would use Gaul to fortify his resume as a military leader while Pompey languished in Rome, a general out of place as a politician. By the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon in January 49 B.C, he knew he was the man who would change the Republic forever.

Dissecting Rome’s First Triumvirate – Part I

The first triumvirate of the Roman Republic was a classic study in power and politics. Three men, each with their own unique personality, battled for control of Rome. It took a titan of titans to defeat the other two, and that man removed the final brick from the Republic and established the foundation for an empire.

Gaius Julius Caesar was born in 100 B.C. A member of the famed Julian clan, he was the son of another Gaius Julius Caesar whose sister Julia married Gaius Marius, the famous general who rebuilt the Roman army around the turn of the first century B.C. Caesar matured during the civil war between Marius and Sulla (88-82 B.C), although his allegiance to the former caused his life to be threatened. When Marius was in control of Rome Caesar was named a priest and married the daughter of Marius’ ally Cinna. But then Sulla took control of the city and Caesar lost his wife’s dowry, his title, and was forced into hiding. Ironically, the loss of his priestly office allowed Caesar to join the army and serve in the east. Hearing of Sulla’s death in 78 B.C, he returned to Rome to work as an attorney in order to hone his skills in rhetoric and oratory. Then, by 70 B.C, Caesar was ready to begin his political career.

After serving as a military tribune, Caesar was elected Questor in 69 B.C, Aedile in 66, and then Pontifex Maximus and Praetor Urbanus in 63 B.C. Once his term was complete, Caesar was appointed governor of Spain, but before he could take the position, he had to satisfy his creditors. Caesar appealed to Marcus Crassus for help and the richest man in Rome paid some of Caesar’s debts and guaranteed others. Caesar stood for Consul in 59 B.C. and was elected in one of the most corrupt campaigns on record.

Marcus Licinius Crassus was born in 115 B.C, son of P. Licinius Crassus, who was Consul in 97 B.C and Censor in 89. During the civil war, Crassus’ father and brother committed suicide rather than being captured by the troops of Marius. Later, after Marius’ death, his ally Cinna began proscriptions on all those who had supported Sulla, forcing the younger Crassus into exile. Then, after Cinna’s death in 84 B.C, Crassus joined Sulla in Africa and eventually became one of the leaders of the attack force that retook Rome in 82 B.C. Crassus spent the next few years amassing the greatest fortune in Roman history through land speculation, proscriptions against the followers of Marius, and slave trade. Now wealthy, he began his political career through the curule path. Political advancement was interrupted by the slave war with Spartacus, which Crassus helped put down in 71 B.C, but he was elected consul in 70 B.C, serving with Pompey and then Censor in 65 B.C. In 60, he was returned to consul, again serving with Pompey.

Gnaeus Pompey Magnus was born in 106 B.C. His father, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo served as Praetor in 92 B.C. and Consul in 89 B.C. He died during Marius’ siege on Rome in 87 B.C. The son served in the army under his father and found soldering to his liking. Prior to Sulla’s assault on Rome, Pompey raised three legions to support him and forever earned the trust of the new dictator. After victories over the remaining Marians in Sicily and Africa, Sulla dubbed his young general “Magnus” supposedly in derision because Pompey had no political experience worthy of a title. After putting down a revolt following the death of Sulla, Pompey demanded that the Senate name him proconsul of Hispania. Fearing his rising military power, the Senate said no, but Pompey got his way when he threatened the Senate by refusing to disband his legions. He remained in Hispania until 71 B.C. when the Senate requested that he help Crassus with the war against Spartacus.

Pompey was elected consul with Crassus in 70 B.C. without having first served in the Senate, a very unusual accomplishment. At 35 years of age, he was already Rome’s greatest general and, as head of the army, a power to be reckoned with. Following his consulship, Pompey continued his military exploits, fighting in the east against Mithridates, and then on to Syria and Palestine. He returned to Rome for his third triumph in 61 B.C. and again joined Crassus as consul in 60.

So we had three men, three personalities, who had accumulated great power on their own, each harboring a defect preventing further glory. Caesar, the youngest, had little military experience and substantial debts which limited his influence. Crassus lacked leadership skills and was forced to use coin in its place. Pompey had no political resume and lacked a skill for politics. They all experienced Sulla’s attempts to reform the Republic, but Pandora’s box had been opened and Sulla could not put the Republic back to the way it used to be. The new world would be fashioned by the triumvirate and that which would follow it.

The Early Kings of Rome

Those who are familiar with the history of Rome know that the Republic was preceded by a monarchy – seven kings, the last three Etruscan. These kings had no hereditary authority and were elected by the assembly to act as military and religious leaders of the Roman people. The purpose of this post is to try and separate fact from fiction in the story of those early monarchs.

The early-mid Iron Age period circa 700 B.C saw radical changes in the structure of political systems around the Mediterranean. In Greece, for example, the collapse of the Mycenaean dynasty ushered in the Dark Age period which lasted until about 700 B.C. New monarchies sprung up but the kings were weak and had no hereditary authority so their weakness ultimately allowed the Polis to take hold. Monarchies on the Italian peninsula were subject to the same pressures as we see in the behavior of the Etruscans during the time they controlled Rome.

Where do we get our information about this period in Roman history? Livy, writing six centuries later is our most detailed source, but his story is a retelling of folklore and myth that was given to him. Let’s take a few moments and review what has been written about those early kings.

Romulus was the first of the named kings -- invented to create an origin for the Roman culture. After 38 years as king, he ascended into heaven during a thunderstorm creating the the link to the gods necessary for the myth to be complete.

The second king, named Numa Pompilius, was said to be of Sabine origin. He built the king’s palace in the Forum (Regia) and organized the religion of Rome including the Temple of Vesta and its servants, the Vestal Virgins. Numa also expanded the Roman calendar to twelve months. He reigned for forty three years and then passed from this life.

Next was Tullus Hostilus, a strong military leader whose most notable achievement was the defeat of the Albans which led to their annexation to Rome. Tullus also built the first Senate house and called it the Curia Hostilia. He died in 642 B.C. after a reign of thirty one years.

The fourth king was Ancus Marcius. He is credited with building the first bridge across the Tiber and with extending Roman influence to Ostia. He lost a popular election in 616 B.C. to L. Tarquinius Priscus.

Tarquinius was an Etruscan and owed his election to the influence of his Etruscan friends who had followed him to Rome. He reigned until 579 B.C. when he was murdered by the sons of Ancus Marcius who were unhappy with their exclusion from the affairs of state. In the melee that followed, his son, Servius Tullus, became king when his wife (Tarquinius’ daughter) convinced a crowd that Tarquinius was alive but injured and Rome needed Severus to temporarily serve in his place. Severus continued with the ruse until he had consolidated his power and was elected king.

Severus was the most noteworthy and remarkable of the Roman kings. He reorganized the assembly by creating the Comitia Centuriata as an assembly of economic classes which mapped to each class’s role in the army. For example, the Equites, or cavalry, were the most wealthy of the groups because they had to be wealthy enough to buy their own horses. Severus is credited with the creation of the Roman Timocracy – property ownership requirement for the privilege of voting in the assembly. He also advanced the cause of the middle class as a brake against the power of the patricians. After forty-three years on the throne, he was murdered by the grandson of Tarquinius, also named Tarquinius. After new monarch evolved into a tyrant, the Romans began calling him “Superbus”, a derogatory reference to his arrogance. After a reign of twenty-five years, the tyrant was exiled and the reign of Roman kings came to an end.

Historians have been skeptical of much of the history we have outlined here. It appears that the date of Rome’s origin and the number of kings were selected before dates were fitted to them. It seems unlikely that all these kings could have reigned for twenty four years or longer. In addition, the accomplishments of the kings appear to be equally alloted between them to appear as if each helped in the formation of the Republic. Still, the history of the Etruscan kings appears solid for two reasons: we know that the Etruscans were expanding south during this time so it makes sense that they would gain power in Rome. More importantly, the Romans would not have acknowledged their subservience to the Etruscans unless it was actually true.

Livy admitted his history lacked authenticity:

“My task, moreover, is an immensely laborious one. I shall have to go back more than seven hundred years, and trace my story from its small beginnings until these recent times…Events before Rome was born or thought of have come to us in old tales with more of the charm of poetry than of a sound historical record, and such traditions I propose neither to affirm or refute. There is no reason, I feel, to object when antiquity draws no hard line between the human and the supernatural: it adds dignity to the past, and, if any nation deserves the privilege of claiming a divine ancestry, that nation is our own…”

And then, interestingly, Livy turns philosopher:

“I invite the reader’s attention to the much more serious consideration of the kind of lives our ancestors lived, of who were the men, and what the means in both politics and war by which Rome’s power was first acquired and subsequently expanded; I would then have him trace the process of our moral decline, to watch first, the sinking of the foundations of morality as the old teaching was allowed to lapse, then the rapidly increasing disintegration, then the final collapse of the whole edifice, and the dark dawning of our modern day when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.”

These words from two thousand years past anticipate the postmodern world we live in today.

Who were the Etruscans?

The story of the Etruscans is an interesting one -- interesting and obscure.

Their history is remarkable when measured by their accomplishments as merchants, craftsmen, traders, and influencers of Rome, but we only know pieces of their story. The emperor Claudius tried to help us by chronicling their history in twenty volumes, but his work did not survive. Meanwhile, the Etruscan language has defied our understanding and, other than some decoding of artifacts, we can’t read it. Still, three of the Roman kings were Etruscans who helped launch the Republic.

Ultimately, the Etruscan culture would die and fulfill an ironic prophesy.

The area of Italy we know today as Tuscany was originally settled by the Villanovans, an iron age culture that had migrated from Northern Europe. The Tuscan branch is referred to as the Northern Villanovans but there was also a southern faction extending beyond Rome into Campania. The term Villanovan comes from their discovery in an ancient cemetery near Villanova Italy, eight miles from Bologna. The Villanovans were not a uniform culture or society, but more of a group of tribes with common interests. They were expert metal smiths and potters who cremated their dead and buried them in cone-shaped graves. The earliest Villanovan evidence dates from the beginning of the Iron Age and continues to 500 B.C. Through artifacts, we can document their social evolution showing the tribes transitioning into a socio-economic hierarchy.

Around 750 B.C. another race arrived and displaced the Villanovans. According to Herodotus, the newcomers, eventually labeled Etruscans, came from Asia Minor. He writes in book 1 chapter 94:

“The customs of the Lydians (Asia Minor east of Ionia) are like those of the Greeks... They were the first men whom we know who coined and used gold and silver currency; and they were the first to sell by retail. …In the reign of Atys son of Manes there was great scarcity of food in all Lydia. For a while the Lydians bore this with what patience they could; presently, when the famine did not abate, they looked for remedies, and different plans were devised by different men… But the famine did not cease to trouble them, and instead afflicted them even more. At last their king divided the people into two groups, and made them draw lots, so that the one group should remain and the other leave the country; he himself was to be the head of those who drew the lot to remain there, and his son, whose name was Tyrrhenus, of those who departed. Then the one group, having drawn the lot, left the country and came down to Smyrna and built ships, in which they loaded all their goods that could be transported aboard ship, and sailed away to seek a livelihood and a country; until at last, after sojourning with one people after another, they came to the Ombrici (Umbria Italy) where they founded cities and have lived ever since. They no longer called themselves Lydians, but Tyrrhenians, after the name of the king's son who had led them there.”

What we see in the archaeology is the appearance of Etruscan settlements where Villanovan settlements once stood. Why? Perhaps they co-existed and eventually merged into one culture. The Romans called these people Tusci or Etrusci, creating the link to the region later called Tuscany.

The map shown above shows the territory of Etruria with its major cities.

The Etruscans were farmers first – taming the wild land of Tuscany to grow emmer (a type of wheat) which was husked and unsuitable for bread making until they were able to create new cultivars. Olive oil was unknown in Etruria as late as 581 B.C, but must have been imported from Greece. Home grown wine grapes, like olive trees came later. The Etruscans were skilled at irrigation, and the excavated tunnels suggest an organized approach and central authority behind the engineering.

Although Italy is not blessed with significant metal resources, what is there was concentrated in Etruria and, as metalworkers, the Etruscans excelled. They mined and worked precious metals, tin to make bronze, and iron. The photograph below shows an example of Etruscan craftsmanship.

Jewelry and metalwork became items of trade for the Etruscans and they developed a substantial merchant fleet. Allies of the Carthaginians, they traded throughout the Mediterranean including Southern France and Spain.

Tarchna (Tarquinnii) was perhaps the richest and most famous of the Etruscan cities. At its peak from 650-500 B.C, Tarchna was the center of bronze production in Etruria. Everywhere in the archaeology of the city we see a culture with evolving sophistication. The dead were cremated and buried in painted amphoras, temples were built, and life was represented in art – banquets, dancing, athletics, chariot racing, and hunting. We also see an early political system made up of clans, anticipating the Republic.

Ancient Rome was also Villanovan, but there was no Etruscan Villanovan marriage there. One suspects the independent nature of  the native Latins was responsible for blocking Etruscan assimilation. Ultimately the Etruscans would occupy Rome, but it was not by a gradual mixing of cultures.  Prior to their arrival, the Latins were mostly a pastoral people. The Etruscans influenced them to become more commercial (and maybe the Greeks in Campania had an influence also). The end result was the light went on for the Latins and their culture began to advance. In Rome, the Etruscan influence was everywhere – from the new temples that were constructed to the evolving political system.

Historically, Etruria was made up of an alliance of free independent city-states. Although they had common interests, the cities openly competed with each other and went to war when necessary. The ruler was an all-powerful king who acted as both a political and religious leader. Unfortunately, we know little of the Etruscan political system outside the period when they gained influence over Rome and the history was recorded. The last three kings of Rome were Etruscan (616-510 B.C.), so we can see Etruscan influence over the formation of the Roman government, which was different from the historical Etruscan model. During that period, across the Mediterranean and into Asia, aristocratic factions had begun to peck away at the authority of the kings.

The first Etruscan king of Rome, L. Tarquinius Priscus, created one hundred new Senators to win popular support, so even at this early point of Roman history the king was not powerful enough to function as an autocrat. Priscus also build the first wall around Rome and added sewers to drain the Forum. His successor, Servius Tullius, divided Rome into tribes and instituted the census for the first time. He created the Centuriate assembly which classified the army by wealth and gave the wealthy the most powerful voting blocks. In 509 B.C, the last Roman king, L. Tarquinius Superbus, was expelled and Rome became a Republic.

The ascendancy of the Republic hastened the decline of the Etruscans. The nearest Etruscan city, Veii, fell to the Romans in 396 B.C. At the same time, the Northern Etruscan cities were attacked and ravaged by a Gallic invasion. By 273 B.C. Etruria was firmly under Roman control as part of an Italian confederation. As time went on. the Etruscans provided troops to the Republican army and, during the Second Punic War, they were able to avoid Hannibal all together. Later, they took sides in the civil wars supporting Caesar and suffered devastation as a result. The Etruscan culture ultimately faded into history.

In the beginning of the article I mentioned an ironic prophesy, which was the prediction of the end of their civilization. The Etruscans were ultra-religious and I think it was Cicero who said they were the most religious people in the world. They believed their race (or any race) is given a fixed span of time by the gods – in their case 10 saecula of 70 years. The Etruscan civilization was established in about 750 B.C and after the 700 years had passed, they were no more.

Alexander the Great – What if he had lived?

One of the most fascinating stories from antiquity is the life of Alexander the Great, the man who conquered the world by age thirty. Alexander has to be considered one of greatest military commanders of all time and one of the most important personalities of the ancient world.

Unfortunately, the story of his life ends abruptly. He became ill in early June of 323 B.C. and died on either the tenth or eleventh of that month at age thirty-two. The cause of Alexander’s death has been debated throughout the centuries, even up to the present day. Was he poisoned, or was it an infection that killed him? The truth eludes us but the fact that Alexander was ill for ten days suggests that disease rather than poison was the culprit.

What would Alexander have accomplished if he had not died so young? We can only guess, but it makes an interesting topic for discussion nonetheless.

To try and imagine Alexander’s world after 323 B.C, I’m going to employ Arnold Toynbee, a well-known scholar of antiquity, to help us. Toynbee, known mostly for his Study of History, wrote many fine books about the ancient world including a favorite of mine called Some Problems in Greek History.

There is a chapter in the latter entitled “If Alexander the Great had lived on”, where Toynbee speculates about Alexander’s efforts and successes during the period after 323 B.C. It’s a long chapter, spanning some forty-five pages, and I will not attempt to re-tell his whole story, but I found the section on Alexander’s relationship with Rome particularly interesting.

At the time of Alexander’s death in 323 B.C, Rome was in the middle of the Second War with the Samnites, which would end in 304 B.C. Rome, in those early days, did not have control of central and southern Italy, much less the whole peninsula. There were strong neighbors allied against her and her future depended on guile and perseverance.

So we begin Toynbee’s narrative…

In the winter of 318/317 B.C. Samnium was threatening the whole Italian peninsula and since their failure at Caudine Forks in 320 B.C, the Romans sought a different strategy to use against their principle adversary. They reasoned that a move across the Apennines to the Adriatic and then south would allow them to seek allies along the way and outflank the Samnites. Rome succeeded in making allies of Frentani, Teanum Apulum, and Canusium by 318 and was gaining strength when Ptolemy, representing Alexander, landed in Tarentum. The Tarentine government was anxious to avenge the death of the king of Epirus and looked to Alexander as the agent of that purpose. Ptolemy toured the states of Peucetia and Apulia and offered their leaders an alliance with Alexander against Samnium as a preview to Alexander’s arrival the next season when he would crush the Samnites. Ptolemy also visited Teanum Apulum and Canusium urging them to think twice about an alliance with Rome, a minor power, when they could be allied with Macedon. Both cities abandoned their treaties with Rome in favor of the Greeks.

With his diplomatic mission completed in southeastern Italy, Ptolemy moved on to Rome with two advantages over the Romans: he was representing the conqueror of the world and Rome was still weak from her loss at the Caudine Forks. Ptolemy planned to offer an alliance that would offer Rome protection, but would the Romans see it as disguised servitude? Ptolemy offered a treaty similar to that of Porus, Alexander’s Indian ally -- an equal partnership – and the terms allowed Rome to retain all of its current territories. Alexander would not challenge the new Roman alliance with Frentani or another recent alliance with Neapolis, although he frowned on the latter as Roman hegemony against a Greek city. Once Samnium was overthrown, Rome could claim some of the resulting spoils including the Caudine Canton. Rome could also seek alliances with central Italian cantons, but in no case was she allowed to compel them to accept alliances with her. Alexander would also give Rome access to the Po valley with her rich agricultural potential.

Ptolemy now moved on to the more delicate part of the negotiations, namely what Rome must agree to in return for the benefits Alexander would provide them. Alexander wished to set limits to Rome’s territorial expansion. The Italian land east of the Apennines, including the major portion of Samnium, and all of Magna Graecia would be off limits. These territories would be organized into a territory of Tarentum. To mark the bounds of the new territory, Alexander would be planting Greek colonies at Maluentium, Luceria, and near Mount Vultur.

As to the Etruscan territories, Alexander would make treaties with them identical to those that had been negotiated with Rome.

And regarding Umbria and the northern territories of Italy, Alexander sought agreement with Rome on four points: first that the parties should agree as to the independence of the northern territories, second either party could sign treaties with any of the states in the north, third that any alliance made by either would count as one with both parties, and fourth the northern territories would not be asked to go to war with Samnium. That way they could protect the north from the Gauls should they choose to come down.

Ptolemy told the Romans they must except his proposal as is with no negotiation. If they refused or allied themselves with the Samnites, they would not be able to stop Alexander from continuing with his plans. Rome accepted Alexander’s offer without hesitation.

The next year Alexander landed at Tarentum, assembled his army and crushed the Samnites. He now controlled one half of the Italian Peninsula and could use it as a stepping stone to conquer Sicily and then Carthage.

This story did not happen, of course, but it could have. Toynbee teases us with a historical phantasy. One can imagine that Rome would eventually rise to the power she became once Alexander was out of the picture, after all the Italians were native to the peninsula and the Greeks were outsiders. The cultural bond between Italians would have eventually won the day.

Hadrian's Wall - Guest Post

This article is a guest post by my friend Geoff Carter, an archaeologist who lives in England. Geoff does research in ancient wood structures and has written about the original wooden fortifications at Hadrian's Wall. I have a link to Geoff's blog on this page under My Blog List - Theoretical Structural Archaeology. Tap on the link below to see a BBC documentary where Geoff is featured.

Hadrian's Timber Wall

Hadrian and the North South Divide

Britain is naturally divided by geography; the south is generally warmer, more fertile, and closer to the continent than the North.  Southern England had tin, and could control much of the trade in copper from the Irish Sea, so it was an important component in Prehistoric Northern Europe. The North itself is divided -- Scotland split between a highlands and lowlands.

The realpolitik in ancient times was how to stop those in the north from taking materials from their more prosperous southern neighbours.  These North-South dynamics were a recurrent theme of English history and both the North–South divide and Scottish independence are live political issues even today.

In the ancient world, politics was often conducted through warfare, and power was expressed through military engineering. Engineers changed geography and the shape of the landscape; heaped things up and dug things away, build roads, water courses, bridges, towns, and forts.  While what remains is stone, but most of the past was formed from earth, straw, and the key engineering component of the ancient world, wood.

Political Engineering

It was in wooden ships, built by Celtic shipwrights in Gaul that the Romans, led by Julius Caesar, first arrived in Southern England in 55-54 BC.  We know this because in Caesar’s account of his wars in Gaul we get an unprecedented insight into both military engineering and the mechanics of the imperial machine.  

I will use the word Celt here even though Caesar made clear he was dealing with the local aristocracy. In this context warfare was interaction between two ruling classes vying for ultimate control of land, its resources, and the people who worked it. ‘Romanization’ was a top down process.

Certainly, there was warfare, but this was driven by diplomacy and a political narrative. The Celtic peoples had long interacted with the Mediterranean world, and in many ways the Roman army was shaped by early unsuccessful encounters with them. For all concerned, warfare was a career and a business opportunity, so everybody knew the rules and what to expect. 

While Caesar did not stay, he established the political relationships that got Rome a foothold using the actuality or threat of a Roman intervention to destabilize existing regional politics.  Once an area came within range of Rome’s political and military interests, it’s leaders had two choices; cut a deal or fight. All of this on top of the traditional political and military pressures from other rivals beyond Roman control.  Invariably, this put the ruling elite between a rock a hard place. For perfectly honorable reasons they might resist and then end up with a worse deal, although not as bad if you make a deal and then broke it.  Punitive sanctions went as far as genocide, or you might have gotten away with enslavement. 

Once you were a client of the Rome, her army will ensure your security, in return for your assurance that it receive the necessary supplies, principally wheat, but also other material assistance and access to resources.  This sort of ‘taxation’ did not need micromanagement -- a treaty was made with the local political authority, so the Romans knew who to blame if obligations were not met. Beyond this, engineering made the Roman army self-sufficient in managing its security.

Rome in the North

When the Romans returned in 43 AD they had controlled the Atlantic Seaboard for ninety years, so Claudius was more properly prepared for a long campaign; not just an army, but a navy also, since control of the sea was key to taking and holding an Island. 

When Agricola made the first significant push into the north in the early 80s he had a naval presence on both coasts and even thought about an expedition to Ireland.  Then, after the near disaster of the Boudicca revolt, the south was secured, and Rome was on the offensive, initially in the west and then in the North. In a typically aggressive series of campaigns Agricola punched his way north culminating in a battle of Mons Graupius, where his auxiliary troops reportedly killed about a third of a thirty thousand man highlander force.The year was 84 A.D. and  it was a high water mark when the highlanders retreated back into their glens in the mountains or the Islands in the West, and reverted to an over the horizon threat.  Rather than pursuing them, the Romans chose to construct rough perimeter of timber forts and watch towers blocking off enemy territory. An opportunity and the strategic initiative had been lost due to external decisions and changes in military priorities of the Empire.  

At some point towards the end of the first century, the Romans withdrew the majority of their forces from Scotland to the territory of the Brigantes, who controlled Northern England. Their main base was set up at York and occupied by the twentieth legion. The Brigantes had long been loyal to Rome and provided a key buffer state for the Lands to the south.  We also presume that some political relations continued with former allies in Scotland, although everything between the campaigns of Agricola and the building of the wall 40 years later is very sketchy.

At this point Hadrian arrives, possibly in response to a revolt in the north involving the Brigantes, who may have been triggered by the death of Trajan.  Hadrian brought fresh troops, and re-established a ‘frontier’ in the North of Brigantes territory. After 80 years, the Romans understood that most of what they valued was in the South, so the north was no more than a security zone. 

What I have written so far is traditional scholarship, but I wish to change the story that emerges after looking at the ancient engineering.

Hadrian’s North-South Divide

The Wall was a  live frontier; so clearly nobody within striking range of the Roman Army was going to be openly hostile, but beyond them were still the people who were isolated.  Whatever the political and military circumstances that established the peace, splitting the country in two with a physical barrier probably came as a surprise to those beyond it.

The Roman Army was unlikely to face infantry in mass formation in open battle, and so the main threat probably came from concentrations fast moving mounted troops.  A physical barrier forced them to dismount and fight on the Roman terms, against gateways that allowed the Romans to counter attack and outflank their opponents.

Hadrian’s wall is a military engineering solution to the North-South Divide.  The line of forts and observation points had proved ineffective, but the Wall changes the geography.

How were the Romans able to spread themselves out across an eighty mile construction project without protection?

In the first season the bulk of the troops were engaged in creating a timber and earth wall with a ditch in front it which protected the work parties behind it.  Each of the forts being built was staged with a temporary camp to house the garrison and builders while work was on-going. Similarly, those guarding and building the Wall required accommodations. As part of the process, a construction trench was dug behind the wall for a road -- the spoil neatly piled to allow two wide verges on either side of the planned metalled carriageway. The skilled workers were concentrated in specialist groups working on the Wall starting in the East, while others started work on milecastles and forts.  Those digging the trench and laying the foundation were not as skilled as the crews working on the stone wall so their work was completed well ahead of time.

All appears to have gone well at first, but at some point, work appears to have virtually stopped. It is likely that warfare disrupted the construction process. Once the work was restarted again, the quality and quantity of the building was scaled back, the plan to build the road was abandoned, and extra forts were added.

So the wall was built in a war zone, as an army installation and a fortified frontier to contain the threat that had not been eliminated forty years earlier. Whatever the technical and in particular logistic achievements, the Wall did not work, and Hadrian’s successor moved the frontier North to Forth Isthmus, where forces could be concentrated on a shorter frontier.

Little remains of the wall to study, after centuries of robbing, and its systematic demolition by engineers in 1740’s in what turned out to be the final action on the frontier. On 16 April 1746, the Battle of Culloden, probably not that far from Mons Graupius, finally brought the highlands under central control.

There has been very little investigation of the scant traces of that remain of the extensive temporary works or of the builders and forces that guarded them. In the archaeology of these timber and earth structures lies the real key to understanding how the Wall was constructed.

Hadrian’s Wall

In the past I’ve discussed many of Rome’s great engineering feats -- Aqua Marcia, Caesar’s bridge over the Rhine, and the siege works at Masada, to name a few. The Romans were the greatest engineers of antiquity because structure and organization were fundamental to their view of the world.

For this post, we turn to Hadrian’s Wall, that enigmatic barrier built across Northern Britain in the early 120s A.D. There are many holes in the story of the wall including the purpose of its construction -- but its existence can't be disputed as you can see from the photographs below.

The wall was constructed at the direction of emperor Hadrian, according to restored sandstone tablets in found in Jarrow England,  to “keep intact the empire” which had been imposed on him by “divine instruction”.

Hadrian traveled to Great Britain in 122 A.D. and may have visited the wall during the initial period of construction. The wall took seven years to build and it was completed in 128 A.D. Spanning a 73 mile distance from east of Newcastle through Carlisle and on to the coastline of the Stolway Firth, the wall is stone from the River Irthing east and earthen from the river west. The difference in construction materials reflects the availability of stone in the east and the lack of same in the other direction.

The map above shows the geographic position of the wall and my yellow line approximates the point where the stone wall ended and the earthen wall began.

Wall Detail:

The wall in the east was a stone structure constructed using concrete as the strengthening material. It was about eight feet wide and extended to a height of twelve to sixteen feet. The walkway along the top was four to five feet wide. West of the Irthing, where the wall was earthen, the structures were wood or stone.

A defensive ditch was located twenty-two feet north of the wall. V-shaped with the bottom squared out into a channel, its dimensions were thirty-five feet wide and ten feet deep. The ditch was omitted where the wall ran along precipitous rocks.

There were seventeen forts along the wall averaging about five miles between them. Seven were built astride the wall and six were attached to its southern side. The forts were of two sizes: two and a half acres, the size required to accommodate 500 men and 5 acres, the size required to accommodate 1000 men.

At regular intervals, approximating a mile, the Romans constructed milecastles with dimensions of about 70 x 60 feet and attached them to the wall. They were of a size to accommodate 100 men and had gates to the north and south.

Turrets were located between each milecastle at 1/3 and 2/3 of the distance between them. Each turret was about thirteen feet square internally and contained a staircase used to climb to the rampart on the top of the wall. There were no stairways on the wall except at forts, milecastles, and turrets.

A road ran behind the wall, passed through the east and west gates of the forts and also branched off to a road leading to the milecastles and a path to the turrets.

At varying points behind the wall sat a defined earthwork barrier called the Vallum. A ditch was dug thirty feet deep and seven feet wide at the flattened bottom. The contents of the ditch were used to create a mound on either side of it about six feet high and twenty feet across. The ditch and mounds were separated by berms of about twenty-four feet in width. The entire barrier of mound, berm, ditch, berm, and mound was about one hundred and twenty feet across.

Lastly, behind the Vallum sat a Roman road called the Standgate.

The wall was first mentioned by Dio writing in 230 A.D. He said “The tribes of the island crossed the wall which divides them and the Roman stations and were doing much damage…” Later he says, “the Maeatae live close to the Wall which bisects the island, and the Caledonians beyond them”.

Towards the end of the same century, Aelius Spartianus, one of the writers of the Historia Augusta, said of Hadrian: “he visited Britain and put many things straight there: he also was the first to build a Wall, eighty miles long, to divide the barbarians from the Romans”.

The purpose of the wall has been endlessly debated, which seems surprising. One would think it obvious that the goal was to keep the northern tribes from attacking territory controlled by the Empire, but there are those that have argued that the tribes didn’t pose enough of a threat to justify the enormous expense of building the structure. The true answer may be as simple as Hadrian employing his "defense before expansion" strategy or perhaps he simply decided to draw a line where the Empire in Britain would end. 

Still, it is clear that the wall was built as a defensive structure. Examine the following graphic, provided to me by Geoff Carter, which demonstrates how the wall was designed to facilitate a counterattack against invaders.