AMERICA AND THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: PART ONE

Graphic courtesy of Jeremy E. Sarber

AMERICA AND THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Roger W. Gardner

Chapter One

The Weak Horse and the Strong Horse


"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse."

Osama bin Laden

"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming
home."

John McCain

It has become fashionable to draw parallels between the supposed misadventures of our “New American Imperialism” and the “Fall of the Roman Empire” -- a comparison that conveniently overlooks the fact that it took over a thousand years for the Roman Empire to ‘fall’. One of the most glaring inconsistencies of this comparison is that the Roman Empire was an unapologetically ruthless military power, which experienced no liberal pangs of guilt about its hard-won conquests. Indeed, to the typical Roman, who enthusiastically relished the daily bloody spectacles of the arena, the whole concept of having moral qualms about the manner in which they had acquired their vast Empire would be incomprehensible.

The Roman formula for conquering new provinces was fairly straight-forward. The Roman legions would simply annihilate any opposing force (no matter how long it took, or what it cost them in lives and treasure), systematically root out all remaining insurgents, and impose a locally administered Roman-style government, which would eventually build Roman-style buildings in which to conduct Roman-style business.

Once their territories were conquered, however, the Romans would govern them with a relatively light touch (despite a spate of anti-Roman, pro-Christian “biblical movies” produced in the 1950s -- usually starring the late Charlton Heston -- that invariably portrayed the Roman soldiers as sadistic brutes). So long as the local citizenry behaved according to the proscribed boundaries of the Roman model of civilization, adhered to the basic tenets of Roman jurisprudence, paid their taxes (which, for the most part, were considerably less than they had been paying under their previous rulers), and offered ceremonial homage to the Emperor once a year, the Roman attitude towards the local customs and religious practices was generally fair and unobtrusive.

However, Roman authorities would react swiftly and mercilessly to any perceived threat of dissent. In 146 B.C., in the city of Corinth, in the Roman protectorate of Greece, two Roman envoys were set upon by an unruly crowd of malcontents and were beaten up. The Roman response was quick and unequivocal.

The Senate dispatched the brutal Roman General Mummius who, with his four Legions, attacked the city of Corinth. He killed all of the men of military age, enslaved all of the remaining populace, burned the city to the ground and then, ceremoniously sowed salt on the earth so that nothing would ever grow there again.

An over-reaction? Perhaps. However, needless to say, after Corinth, anyone considering attacking a Roman citizen would, most likely, have serious second thoughts.

Indeed, if we are looking for parallels between our present-day American society and the Roman Empire, we need look no further than this episode of the two Roman ambassadors in Corinth, and compare the Roman reaction then to our government’s ignoble non-response to the plight of our helpless 70 American citizens who were held hostage for 444 days in the infamous 1979 Tehran Embassy takeover.

What then, if anything, can we learn from the history of the Romans?

First, when discussing the moral lessons symbolized by the 'Fall of the Roman Empire' we should perhaps consider how long it actually took to 'fall'. If one accepts the traditional date for the founding of Rome of 753 B. C., and the traditional date of the 'fall' of 476 A.D., then that means that the Roman civilization lasted for something like 1,200 years, while the actual process of the 'fall' arguably took about 300 years.

Transposing these figures onto America's timetable, this would mean that we might start losing ground around the year 2705, and could be in serious trouble by the year 3005. It seems to me that it would be a little difficult to realistically describe this 1200 year process as a 'fall'. I think it could better be described as a pretty big success story.

Additionally, this particular episode at Corinth occurred approximately 200 years before the Empire really reached it's peak, and, far from hindering the development of the Roman world, this incident, and many others like it, only served to strengthen its reputation and intimidate its potential rivals.

For 444 days, while our hapless President Jimmy Carter dithered and dallied with endless and empty diplomatic negotiations, our helpless 70 American citizens suffered the painful privations and unknown perils of their captivity. Only when a new president was sworn into office, an altogether different kind of man, whom they suspected might actually resort to force, were the hostages released.
These, then, are the lessons from Corinth in 146 B.C., and from Tehran in 1979 A. D. Somewhere between these two extreme reactions there is an eternal truth.

There are times when force is the only answer.

This now is our new enemy

These are his warriors


This is his ambition


And this is the threat

Will we be the Strong horse?

Or the Weak Horse?

Note from Radarsite:It would be remiss of me to publish this essay without acknowledging all of the help and good advice I received from my friend and first editor Marilyn A., who attempted -- with varying degrees of success -- to rein in my natural loquaciousness. I am still benefiting from her insightful suggestions. -- rg

Interesting visitors
Host: sherman.state.gov
ISP: U.s. Department Of State
Entry Page Time: 27th May 2008 13:04:48
Location: Washington, District Of Columbia, United States
Entry Page: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/
Exit Page: radarsite.blogspot.com/
Referring URL: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/05/strong-horse-and-weak-horse-jimmy.html

AMERICA AND THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: PART TWO

America and the “Fall of the Roman Empire”

II.

The Global Village

A note from Radarsite: This is the second article in a three part Radarsite series America and the "Fall of the Roman Empire. In the first installment The Strong Horse and the Weak Horse we saw how Rome used its military might to establish itself as a power to be reckoned with. In these following two installments we will eavesdrop on the lively conversation of a group of rather typical upper class Romans at a congenial dinner party. In these interesting and sometimes heated conversations, we find them discussing some of the most pressing issues of the day: “globalization”, “immigration” and, finally, “the Jewish question”. - rg

Globalization

Although, as we have seen, the attempt to equate present-day American foreign policy with that of the Roman Empire does not hold up upon close scrutiny, there are a few interesting parallels between the two. The Romans, like us, loved good food and good conversation, and they loved nothing better than the combination of the two. For the typical upper-class Roman family, in the second half of the First Century A.D., a sumptuous late afternoon dinner in their gaily-frescoed triclinium, with a carefully-chosen group of friends, relatives and clients would be the highlight of the day.

After dinner, and the usual small-talk about who was sleeping with whom, the conversation would most likely turn to the most pressing issues of the day. During this period, three of the hottest topics of conversation would be “globalization”, “immigration” and “the Jewish question”.

As early as the Fourth Century B.C., the Romans began construction of their famous network of ingeniously designed roads (the Via Appia, the most famous of all Roman roads was begun in 312 B.C.). By the time of our congenial dinner party, Roman roads traversed the Empire from the furthermost outpost in Britain to the easternmost Provinces of Pontus and Bithynia.

Not only did they build them, but they used them -- at first for strictly military purposes, but later on, for private and commercial transportation. Where it proved necessary, they protected them.*

Then, in 67 B.C., acting on orders from the Roman Senate, the famous Roman general, Pompey the Great successfully swept the ubiquitous pirates from the waters of the eastern Mediterranean, where they had always preyed upon the major trade routes. Not only did he destroy their ships at sea, but, acting under a special warrant from the Senate, his legions pursued the pirates inland to their home bases and destroyed these also.










Thanks to Pompey’s effective campaign, for the first time in recorded history, the shipping lanes of the eastern Mediterranean became relatively safe.


During most of the First Century B.C., the Roman Empire had been wracked by violent civil wars. However, after Augustus’ victory over the forces of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., a welcome period of peace settled in, which the Romans called the Pax Romana. The benefits of these positive developments were felt almost immediately throughout the Empire. Journeys that had previously taken weeks, or even months and were often difficult and dangerous, were now, thanks to the network of well-maintained and well-protected roads and shipping lanes, accomplished with relative safety and ease in a matter of days. Business and commerce prospered. International (or, in this case, interprovincial) trade flourished. Intricate new systems of credit were invented, and a whole new class of “middlemen” sprang up. Importing and exporting became promising new avenues to wealth and status for adventurous entrepreneurs, regardless of their previous rank in society.

A small potter in Ostia who previously could only hope to sell his wares within the narrow radius of an arduous one-or two-day journey by mule now had potential customers in Britain and Spain. Indeed, shards of First Century Italian-made pottery have been found all over Britain and Northern France. Remnants of Gaulish-manufactured goods are still being unearthed in North Africa. Although it is doubtful that they ever actually used the word “globalization” (or its Latin equivalent), that is exactly what they accomplished. Our Ostian potter was now so successful that he had to expand his pottery business and employ a dozen new workers to keep up with the demand. He purchased a new house in the city, built a small villa at the seaside, and bought three new slaves. Our enterprising Ostian businessman worked hard and was proud of his accomplishments; and he was proud of his Roman citizenship, which entailed so many advantages and protections. Many of these newly-absorbed members of the Roman Empire shared the views of our industrious potter, and looked forward to the day when they, too, could earn Roman citizenship and perhaps even visit Rome, itself.

However, there were some who were not happy with these changes. Certain disgruntled provincials with a religious bent felt that their traditional culture was being subsumed into the hedonistic and materialistic world of Rome. Not only were their historic traditions and local religious customs being neglected, but their ancient native languages were falling into disuse. Nowadays, they complained, almost everyone spoke Latin or Greek and considered themselves, first and foremost, Roman citizens. Everyone dressed like Romans and behaved like Romans.



Their ancient cities, which had once been so culturally unique, were now all beginning to look alike -- like mini-Romes.* As we shall see, some of these unhappy subjects would soon rebel, causing Rome endless problems into the future.

Meanwhile, in Italy itself, not everyone there was pleased with the unexpected repercussions of this new phenomenon of ‘globalization’. Wealthy Italian wineries, which for generations had been producing and exporting their universally popular, but relatively expensive* Falernian wine, suddenly found themselves competing with the cheap but excellent wines of Southern Gaul.


The proud, traditionally Italian-born imperial bodyguards, the Praetorian Guard, saw themselves gradually being replaced by larger*, more militarily proficient Germans who worked for less pay. And glorious Rome, itself, was being inundated daily with streams of unkempt, unruly foreigners -- some of whom didn’t even attempt to assimilate, but moved into their own separate enclaves. Some of these new immigrants never even bothered to learn Latin, or Greek, preferring, instead, to communicate with one another in their native languages. Alas, to the typical Roman it sometimes seemed that the very essence of Roman civilization itself was under siege. Which brings us to the second topic of conversation that evening:

Immigration

Since the first conquests of the early Republic, Rome had experienced a steady influx of foreigners and slaves. After Pompey’s successful Mediterranean venture, tons of booty and thousands of slaves were shipped back to Rome. Following his conquests in Britain and Gaul, Julius Caesar brought back thousands of barbarian slaves and camp followers -- blue-haired, heavily-tattooed Brits; huge, frightening, shaggy-haired Gauls, wrapped in their malodorous animal skins and heavy furs.

By the time of Augustus’ Pax Romana, the slave population of Rome had reached an astonishing 250,000 out of an estimated one million inhabitants. The number of unemployed, or sporadically-employed Romans is unknown, although it was undoubtedly great. Over the years, the number of foreigners flocking to Rome grew exponentially -- Egyptians, Ethiopians, Asiatics, Sardians, Lydians, Frisians, Batavians -- each tending to settle into their own particular neighborhoods, but all together adding to the weight of that great, barely-controllable beast, the Roman mob.

Successions of Roman Emperors had dealt with this mob. At various times they cajoled it, courted it, appeased, placated and bribed it, and when all else failed, tried to intimidate it. But they could never ignore it. Restless, dangerous, easily roused, the Roman mob was an integral and disruptive fact of life throughout the course of the empire. Ruled by violent street gangs and crime lords, there were whole sections of “inner city” Rome where an unarmed Roman citizen dared not enter.

Starting in the First Century B.C., both to placate and distract this unruly populace, Roman authorities instituted the now-famous policy of “bread and circuses”. What had begun as intermittent gifts of surplus grain by the government, soon became formalized into the so-called “corn dole”, later, actually distributing daily loaves of bread. The “circuses” referred to the immensely popular and deadly combats of the arena, to which the populace had easy access.

In the end, of course, this enormous urban welfare program was self-defeating, drawing in countless numbers of poor and unemployable people from across the Empire, and creating a permanent and discontented underclass, which could explode into violent riots at the slightest provocation.* Soon, the dole was perceived by the people as their traditional inalienable right, and no Emperor, not even Augustus, had the courage to curtail it. Although, with the introduction, towards the end of his reign (27 B.C.-14 A.D.), of an urban police force Urban Cohorts and a rudimentary fire department Vigiles, Augustus managed to assume reasonable control over the city, the problems of the dole and unregulated immigration proved intractable.

For that increasingly rare breed, the upper-class pure-bred Roman, these changes were hard to swallow.

Rome was looking more and more un-Roman, and our native Roman’s previously unchallenged supremacy in society was now being brought into question. Uncouth, foreign-born, recently-freed slaves (freedmen) were now becoming businessmen and entrepreneurs, some even managing to become wealthy -- ostentatiously, of course, accumulating huge retinues of household slaves and hangers-on.*

If these disgruntled “genuine” Romans sensed that their traditional privileged role in society was decreasing, it was more than a paranoid delusion. The birth-rate of native-born Romans was, as Augustus noted apprehensively, in rapid decline. Despite the questionable and violent manner in which he had assumed the throne, Augustus was at heart a staunch conservative, who advocated a return to the (supposedly) morally-grounded traditions of Rebublican Rome. Much to the consternation of his more liberal-minded subjects, Augustus introduced numerous laws aimed at promoting “family values”, (even though his own progeny were hardly shining examples of traditional Roman virtue)*. By strengthening the honorable institution of marriage and making the whole process of divorce more difficult, by rewarding parents of large families, and penalizing bachelors, Augustus hoped to both improve the morals of his Roman subjects and reverse the alarming decline in the birthrate.
Unfortunately, his well-intentioned laws accomplished little, as they were generally ignored by an upwardly-mobile generation of energetic young Romans who wanted to enjoy their new found wealth, unencumbered by the worries and cares of family life.

These two major problems of the dole and unchecked immigration would remain largely unresolved throughout the course of the Roman Empire. The population of Rome had more or less reached its peak during Augustus’ reign, and thereafter would sink into a slow, irreversible decline. In the following centuries, the Empire would succumb to yet another series of disruptive civil wars and, as Rome became more and more unstable, the migrations would begin to turn in the other direction. Our rare pure-bred native Roman would become rarer still, until eventually he could only be found in a few isolated, well-fortified estates spread throughout what remained of the Roman Empire.*

AMERICA AND THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: PART THREE

Part III

The Jewish Question

As we have seen in the first two chapters, the ancient Roman Empire, though so different from us on so many levels, did face many of the same challenges we in the West face in our present era, and the arguments they generated appear surprisingly familiar to us today. As the centuries unfolded and the great Empire devolved, these thorny issues would become ever more pressing, while the answers would become ever more illusive.

However, all that lay far in the future. For now, let’s return to our congenial Roman dinner party, where the conversation has moved on from what has become a rather lively debate over the pros and cons of ‘globalization’, and ‘immigration’, to one of the most pressing issues of the day, ‘the Jewish question’.

For these typical upper-class Roman citizens, solving the issue of ‘the Jewish question’ meant much more than mere philosophy. It had become a matter of life and death -- and money. A lot of Roman lives and a great deal of money had been expended on this bloody and seemingly endless war in Judaea (roughly modern day Israel) in an effort to quell the most recent rebellion of these tempestuous and recalcitrant Jews.* In the very first days of the uprising (which was evidently sparked by the alleged desecration of one of their local synagogues by a group of Romanized Jews), the Jews had slaughtered a whole garrison of Roman soldiers, and soundly defeated the Roman Legion (Legio XII Fulminata) sent by Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, to restore order. Since the days when they had called in the great General Pompey to settle the violent ongoing dispute for the Hasmonaean* crown between two bitter rival siblings -- which ended up embroiling Pompey in the midst of a bloody civil war -- these Jews had proven to be nothing but trouble.

Although Pompey eventually resolved the dispute (ironically, by choosing neither brother, but, instead, installing his own non-Jewish ‘client Prince’ -- the antecedent of the famous Herod the Great), the troubles only continued. Only during the successful and prosperous reign of Herod (73-4 B.C.) did this volatile Jewish kingdom experience a period of relative stability. Even then, there were numerous uprisings and disturbances which Herod had to put down -- some within his own family. After Herod’s death, the kingdom was divided between his three sons.* Archelaus, the least competent of the three inherited Judaea and -- through no fault of Rome’s -- quickly proved to be inept. So inept, that in A.D. 6, a delegation of Jews came to Rome to beg Augustus to depose him because of the brutality of his regime and allow them a measure of self-governance. However, given their past record of instability, Augustus wisely declined their appeal for self-rule and instead chose to rule this inflammatory province directly through his own personally-chosen legates.

Thus began the long series of endlessly contentious reigns of Roman prefects and procurators (amongst whom would be the controversial Pontius Pilate).Over the years, the character, and morals of these individual Roman prefects would vary considerably -- some would leave an embarrassing legacy of bribery and corruption, of which their Jewish subjects had good reason to complain. However, for the most part, they figuratively ‘bent over backwards’ to avoid offending the religious sensibilities of the Jews, if, for no other reason, than for their own peace of mind and safety. Even so, the slightest Roman infraction of some arcane Jewish religious law could still set the crowded streets of Jerusalem ablaze.

The unfortunate Pontius Pilate(the fifth in the line of Roman Prefects) seems to have earned more than his share of violent disturbances. While in some respects, Pilate must have been relatively efficient -- the Emperor Tiberius, who was known to suffer no fools, kept him in office for an unprecedented ten years (26-36 A.D.) -- he had shown a tendency to be unnecessarily severe and heavy-handed. At the beginning of his reign, he caused a huge Jewish backlash by introducing the Legionary standards bearing Caesar’s image into Jerusalem by night and setting them up outside the Antonia Fortress* -- even though he had been warned that doing so would likely violate a Jewish law against the use of ‘graven images’. The subsequent outcry led to a five day and night Jewish ‘sit-in’ demonstration, which eventually resulted in a Jewish victory.

Pilate then appropriated money from a Temple fund dedicated to sacrifices to build an aqueduct. Even though the new water supply would have benefited the Temple area, itself, this act caused a huge uproar, which resulted in a violent and bloody riot that he put down with deadly force. Then, of course, there was the unpleasant business of the trial and subsequent execution of that newest ‘messiah’, the troublesome, and probably seditious, preacher, whom they called Jesus of Nazareth -- an unfortunate affair that would cause numerous Roman authorities untold problems well into the future. This was followed, in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (44-46 A.D.), with the appearance of yet another ‘messiah’, named Theudas, who led a huge crowd of followers to the Jordan.

Finally, in order to protect the Province, Fadus had to stamp out this dangerous movement and decapitate Theudas.* Then, during the administration of the Procurator Cumanus (48-52 A.D.), there was the incredible incident of the Roman soldier’s fart -- surely, the deadliest fart in history! During the holy Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover), in the Temple in Jerusalem, a soldier stationed on the roof of the portico, bent over, lifted his tunic and ‘made a lewd gesture’ (in plain language, he farted).
The outraged crowd of worshippers below immediately erupted into a bloody riot and turned their wrath on the nearest Roman guards. Reinforcements had to be called in, and in the violent melee that ensued, an estimated 20-30,000 people were either killed by the soldiers or perished attempting to escape.*

To our urbane dinner guests, this evening, this level of religious fervor was incomprehensible. Through their eyes, in all of their dealings with this contentious people -- who represented a mere ten percent of the Empire; yet, seemed to cause ninety percent of the problems -- they had shown a remarkable level of forbearance. Beginning with an announcement in 44-43 B.C. issued to all the Roman officials in Asia [Minor], enjoining the Greek cities to guarantee their Jews “exemption from military service, protection of Sabbath observance (when Jews were not expected to attend the law-courts), freedom to hold religious meetings, freedom to send their money contributions to the Jerusalem Temple without molestation, the right to settle their internal legal controversies by their own jurisdiction, and instructions that their funds and sacred books should not be stolen from their synagogues”,* the Roman authorities had, it seemed, been extraordinarily fair and accommodating. Indeed, for a directly-governed province of the Roman Empire, the Province of Judaea enjoyed an unprecedented level of self-rule. In Jerusalem, itself, the Jews were governed, in almost all of their daily matters, by their own chosen Council of Elders, the Sanhedrin, under the guidance of their own High Priest,* who acted as an ambassador to the local governor -- who would intercede only in matters of the utmost importance.* And yet, in spite of all this preferential treatment -- they rebelled! Three times since the days of Pompey! And this latest rebellion was the bloodiest of them all. On this one subject, our diners all agreed --these Jews were impossible.

And now, as though Rome needed any more fanatical, rebellious Jewish zealots, there was this latest Jewish cult, these loud and obnoxious followers of that previously-mentioned, crucified Jewish preacher, Jesus the Nazarene (whom, they claim, had risen from the dead to lead them into eternity!) These latest trouble-makers, who call themselves “Christians”, had evidently already caused some serious problems throughout the Eastern Provinces of the Empire. Just recently, two of their most prominent leaders, two grey-bearded old Jews named Peter and Paul, had been executed in Rome for their alleged seditious misconduct in Jerusalem.* On this last point, our frustrated dinner guests merely shook their heads in uncomprehending disapproval.

Although our bemused Roman diners were most likely unaware of it, these two ‘grey-bearded old Jews’ had already sown the seeds of a new monotheistic supersessionist religion, called “Christianity”, whose radical followers would soon prove to be even more troublesome than those ‘impossible Jews’.Incredibly, although our dinner guests would not live to see it, this insignificant new sect, just one among so many exotic foreign cults to have found their way to Rome,* would over the next two hundred and fifty years, grow and expand to such an extent that, by the beginning of the Fourth Century, that wise and pragmatic Emperor Constantine the Great (acknowledging a virtual fait accompli) would officially proclaim Christianity the new state religion. Over the next few centuries, these emergent Christians would further define themselves and their doctrines and would finally cut themselves off completely from their Jewish origins, becoming in the process more and more intolerant of these ‘original Jews’ who stubbornly refused to acknowledge their omnificent ‘Messiah’.

In the beginning of the Seventh Century, a new ‘Prophet’ would emerge from the desert, and yet another monotheistic supersessionist religion would be born. Within a half-century, with all the fanatical zealotry of new converts, the followers of this latest Messiah, called Mohammad, would rise up and conquer all of the former North African provinces of the Roman Empire, and spread a new religion, which they called “Islam”, across these newly-conquered territories by a brutal combination of coercion and the sword. *

It is worth remembering that -- despite the occasional (politically correct) olive branches of ecumenical tolerance, it is the unambiguous mandate of all monotheistic religions to be the one and only purveyor of that elusive commodity of “Truth”. And according to this logic, it necessarily follows -- despite all the niceties of political correctness -- that all other religions are simply wrong, and therefore automatically become “Enemies of the Faith”. Although all monotheistic religions share these basic fundamentals, there are important differences between them, differences that drastically affect our world. Whereas the two oldest of these “desert religions”, Judaism and Christianity, have had two millennia to settle their innumerable internecine squabbles over doctrine, work their way through the horrors of their Inquisitions, their disruptive Reformations, and their often bloody confrontations with a long list of various emperors and kings over those thorny issues of supremacy, they have eventually found a place in that uneasy dichotomy of Church and State. However, the newest monotheism, Islam, being some 600 years, or more, behind the other two, has yet to experience any of these self-defining crises* and, as a result, has not yet found its proper place in civilization. We are presently witnessing first-hand the violent consequences of this relative ‘theological immaturity’. Whether we like it or not, we are now, as our Roman ancestors were then, in an epic “clash of civilizations”.*

There is one final point to be made on the comparisons between ourselves and ancient Rome. The Roman Empire, despite all of the lofty moral lessons drawn over the years from that overworked phrase, never actually ‘fell’; it simply slipped away, day by day, year by year, almost unnoticed. As Roman citizens prospered and became successful they became more and more reluctant to become personally involved in the defense of their vast and continually threatened Empire, increasingly relying on legions of mercenaries drawn from the lowest ranks of society, desperate men who had little or nothing invested in the society that they were supposed to be defending; or, worse still, recruited from the very barbarian societies that they were supposed to be fighting. In the end, the barbarian Chieftain who had become de facto Commander-in-Chief of the Roman Legions merely brushed aside the last nominal Roman Emperor without even raising his sword.*
If there is any moral lesson to be drawn from the legend of the “Fall of the Roman Empire” it is this. So long as the ordinary Roman citizen was willing to set aside the demands of his profitable business and leave the comforts of hearth and home to take up arms against the enemy, or to send his son in his place, Rome was invincible.

----------------------------------------------------------------

America and the “Fall of the Roman Empire”
Notes

“…their previous rulers”: “…the taxation imposed was not on the whole excessive -- in Macedon it was but one-half of what had previously been levied by the native kings --” History of the Roman Republic Cyril E. Robinson (Thomas Y. Crowell Company) p.189

“…eminently fair and unobtrusive”: “…the general principle of [Roman] government was wise, simple, and beneficent.” The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Edward Gibbon - the Low abridgement (Bonanza Books 1985), p.11

“…nothing would ever grow there again”: The History of Rome Michael Grant (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1978), p.143

“…they protected them”: Augustus Caesar E. S. Shuckburgh (Barnes & Noble 1995), p.214-15

“…battle of Actium in 31 B.C.”: Augustus’ emergence as the sole victor of the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. traditionally marks the beginning of the Roman ‘Empire’ and the death of the ‘Republic’.

“…like mini-Romes”: Herod’s extravagantly built capitol city of Caesarea Maritima, in upper Judaea, founded in the first century B.C., his most ambitious construction project among many others, with its luxurious Roman-style palace and various elaborately-constructed Roman-style baths, theaters and temples, came in for especially harsh criticism by the conservative Jews amongst the local population for these reasons. See: King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea (W. W. Norton & Co. 1988)

“…relatively expensive”: During the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.), ½ liter of Falerian wine cost 30 denarii, well beyond the means of an average Legionary, who earned approximately 112.5 denarii per year. http://scarrow.forumco.com/

“…replaced by larger”: The average height of a Roman Legionary during this period was 5’5”; whereas the average height of a German ‘barbarian’ was around 5’8”. http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/

“…at the slightest provocation”: Although throughout the course of the empire, there were many urban riots and disturbances, one of the deadliest occurred later in history, in Byzantium, in the city of Nika, on January 11, 532, during the reign of Justinian, in which an estimated 30,000 people were killed. Cruelty and Civilization Roland Auguet (George Allen & Unwin Ltd 1972), p.140

“…household slaves and hangers-on”: For the classic satirical treatment of the ‘uncouth…freedman’ there is of course no better source than Petronius’ famous Satyricon. For more on the subject of Roman ‘freedmen’, see Appendix I.

“…examples of traditional Roman virtue”: Augustus had both his daughter and granddaughter (both named Julia), as well as one of his grandsons exiled for ‘immoral behavior’, and for being members of a circle of suspected subversives. The History of Rome Michael Grant (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1978), p.260

“…what remained of the Roman Empire”: For more on this fascinating subject see Citizens of Long Ago Adeline Belle Hawes (Oxford University Press 1934), “A Roman Poet of the Fifth Century”, p.162-83

“…tempestuous and recalcitrant Jews”: the “First Jewish War”-(66-74 A.D.)

“…Hasmonaean”: The priestly family of Jewish rulers and leaders in Judaea in the First and Second Centuries B.C.

“…between his three sons”: Antipas received the territories of Galilee and Peraea; Philip received a large section of what is part of present-day Syria; and Archelaus received Samaria, Judaea, and Idumaea.

“…the Antonia Fortress”: The Fortress of Antonia was built by Herod in 35 B.C. to protect Jerusalem. It was at some point taken over by the Romans who stationed a garrison there.

“…decapitate Theudas”: After Theudas, still more ‘prophets’ emerged during this period. Under the procuratorship of Felix (52-60 A.D.), a number of ‘prophets’ led their followers into the desert. To prevent these movements from fomenting insurrection, Felix had many executed. Later, an Egyptian ‘prophet’ led thousands (Josephus: 30,000; Acts: 4,000) in an attack on Jerusalem, which Felix suppressed with Roman soldiers: http://www.westmont.edu/-fisk/Articles/jewhistd.htm

“…perished attempting to escape”: Josephus (37-c.100A.D): The Jewish War (Penguin Books Ltd. 1986), p.144. Also: Nero: The man behind the myth Richard Holland (Sutton Publishing Ltd. 2000), p.262, note 8: “…The soldier allegedly farted…The figure of 30,000 dead is plainly exaggerated. Josephus himself revises it down to 20,000 in his later ‘Jewish Antiquities’, 20. 12”

“…stolen from their synagogues”: The Jews in the Roman World Michael Grant (Dorset Press 1973), p.59

“…own high Priest”: Before and during Pilate’s entire reign (and during the infamous trial of Jesus) this post was held by Joseph Caiaphas. “…matters of the utmost importance”: Such as capitol cases that carried the possibility of the death penalty (like the trial of Jesus).

“…seditious misconduct in Jerusalem”: The precise nature of Saint Paul’s and Saint Peter’s offences remains somewhat obscure, however, being Roman citizens they had the right to take their cases to Rome and appeal to the Emperor. The exact method and date of their deaths (64-68 A.D.) is more a matter of tradition than historical fact.

“…found their way to Rome”: “Nero fastened the guilt [for the great fire in Rome of 64 A.D.] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penality during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” Tacitus (c.55-c.117 A.D.) The Annals, No. 44: The Annals of Imperial Rome Tacitus (Barnes & Noble 1971), p.365

“…coercion and the sword”: See: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Edward Gibbon (Bonanza Books 1985), Chapter 50; see especially: pgs. 679, 691

“…self-defining crises” It is arguable that the 18th century literalist movement of Abdul Wahhab (Wahhabism) constituted an Islamic Reformation. However, unlike its Western counterpart, Wahhabism generated no liberal Protestant counter-movements within Islam, but instead, merely tightened the screws of fundamentalism, and provided the theological justification for violent jihad.

“…‘clash of civilizations’”: See: The Clash of Civilizations? The Debate (Foreign Affairs 1996)

“…without even raising his sword”: The German general, Odoacer deposed the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus in 476 A.D. (the traditional date of the ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’).

Postscript:

Although this essay has focused primarily on the negative aspects of the three modern-day, Western monotheistic religions, the author willingly acknowledges those positive elements of Judaism and Christianity. From the innumerable and glorious works of art created by artists who were undoubtedly sincerely inspired by their respective religions, to the multitude of good works performed over the years by the various religious charities, to the courageous missions of our present-day religiously-based “NGOs” throughout the “Developing World”; the author in no way wishes to attempt to diminish the importance or the success of these noble enterprises. Moreover, for centuries, the Church and Synagogue have assumed the very necessary role of ‘moral guides’ -- for which, in our present-day society we find no adequate substitutes (with the possible exception of those innumerable ‘self-help gurus’, and the various practitioners of psychiatric therapy -- who for the most part choose to remain ‘morally neuter’ in questions of right and wrong. To dispense with the ‘moral guidance’ provided by formal religions without having first provided us with a viable alternative would be to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’.

Appendix I:

Manumission

Despite our native-born Roman’s obvious disdain, the whole concept of the ‘Freedman’, being the end product of that enlightened and far-sighted Roman policy of manumission, actually proved to be an eminently successful example of ‘social engineering’. Although, over the years, Rome had many problems with its enormous slave population, the problems could have been worse, much worse, were it not for the safety valve of manumission, which for the ambitious and talented slave provided a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ -- the possibility that sometime in the future he might not only win his freedom, but would have a chance of actually becoming financially successful.

Rather than allowing themselves to be confined to a choice between two equally unattractive, and potentially dangerous alternatives: either keeping their unhappy slaves in perpetual subjugation, or merely ‘emancipating’ them, which in reality meant turning them loose untrained and unprepared into a strange and hostile society, the clever and practical Romans created a third alternative, which they called manumission. When the system worked properly, it was of benefit to both the Roman masters and their slaves.

If, after a certain period of time, a slave showed the necessary prerequisites of loyalty, intelligence, ambition and talent, the master could decide to enter into the legal agreement of manumission. To begin this process the slave was obliged to pay his master a certain sum of money, the peculium, (a portion of the slaves’ personal savings of monies earned through ‘tips’, special payments, or gifts) which would vary depending on the circumstances between a small, mainly symbolic sum, to what might be a considerable amount of money. After this important ceremony, the roles between the two would then change from master and slave, to patron and client. The patron would then become responsible for helping his client establish himself in a business appropriate to his particular skills -- everything from carpentry, to accounting, to the importing and exporting business. After having set up his protégé in business, he would then enter into a legal contract with his charge, wherein he would become, for all intents and purposes, his ‘agent’, entitled to a certain agreed upon percentage of his client’s future earnings.

Thus, as we have seen, much to the consternation of certain native-born, upper-class Romans, these newly created ‘freedman’ could, and often did, rise through the ranks of Roman society to become successful businessmen, entrepreneurs and government officials -- in the time of the Emperor Claudius (41-54 A.D.), two of these talented freedmen rose to become high officials in his government, similar perhaps in function to our present-day Chiefs-of Staff. Often, these relationships between patron and client would become more than mere business arrangements and the two would become lifelong friends. So successful was this Roman experiment in ‘social engineering’ that it came to be regarded, by some historians, as ‘a compulsory initiation into a higher culture’,* and presents us with a startling contrast between the practice of first-century Roman ‘manumission’ and our own comparatively thoughtless nineteenth-century ‘emancipation’ of our African slaves.

* “…into a higher culture”: Slavery in the Roman Empire R. H. Barrow (Barnes & Noble Books 1996), p.197