The Handy Military History Answer Book. Samuel Willard Crompton

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ into its own hands and its leaders believed that they had to preserve the imperial dignity: without an emperor, they had no jobs.

      Which one emperor nearly brought down the imperial system?

      The Emperor Nero (ruled 54–68 C.E.) was almost as great a disaster as the Emperor Caligula. During his short time on the throne, Nero focused all his attention to affairs in Italy and Greece—including entering himself in the chariot races of the Olympic Games—and far too little on the external parts of the empire.

      No major threat from outside the empire emerged; rather, it was the threat posed by ambitious generals from within. Since the death of Augustus, they had never seen a truly effective emperor, and Nero was so weak—and personally conflicted—that it seemed a god-sent opportunity for revolt. When Nero died by his own hand in 69 C.E., a series of revolts and counter-revolts were set off, with the potential to destroy the center of the empire.

      How did the Romans found a new dynasty?

      All of Augustus’ relatives—collateral or direct—were now deceased, and a struggle for the Roman throne ensued between prominent Roman noblemen. Whoever commanded or had the allegiance of the Praetorian Guard had a major advantage in this power struggle, which resulted in no fewer than four emperors over the period of eighteen months. Nero was followed by Galba, who was overcome by Otho, who lost to Vitellius, who was then overthrown by Vespasian. Things finally began to settle down when Vespasian won battles in Italy and ascended the throne. He had no special mandate or familial connection to Augustus, but the people of Rome were desperate for peace and they soon settled down under Vespasian’s rule.

      Were life and death as intricately connected in the Coliseum as we suppose?

      It was a place of tremendous danger for those who provided entertainment for the imperial elite. When the Coliseum opened in the year 80 C.E., the event was commemorated by festivities that resulted in the death of 5,000 animals, many of them from North Africa. This was but the beginning, however, of the Coliseum’s long rule as the place for blood, death, and imperial circuses.

THE PAX ROMANA

      What did the Mediterranean world look like between about 100 and 160 C.E.?

      Many historians have followed the lead of Edward Gibbon—author of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire—in declaring that this half century was the most prosperous and secure period of recorded Roman history. In some ways this is true: there were no major wars in this period. The Roman legions were so powerful that any revolts were quickly stamped out. One can, however, discover the roots of future weakness even in this time of great success.

      By 160 C.E., the legions were mostly composed of non-Italians; very few natives of the Italian soil wished to serve in the provinces. The leaders of those legions, too, were increasingly foreign. This was not a terrible thing, but Roman patriotism—based on allegiance to the city-state and Italian peninsula—began to wither and was replaced by a much broader loyalty to the empire as a whole, represented by the emperor. As long as the emperor was a good and practical leader, the legions would accomplish their tasks; if he was a weakling, things could go downhill quite rapidly. As it turned out, there was to be one more truly great emperor, followed by a long series of mediocre or poor ones.

      How do we know so much about the Emperor Marcus Aurelius?

      We know a great deal, both from what was written about him at the time and because he was a true philosopher-emperor who composed the Meditations. A lesser known fact, however, is that Aurelius—who was a secondary character in the 2000 film Gladiator—was a true warrior-emperor. From the start of his reign, the empire was attacked on its eastern and northeastern frontiers. The Parthians attacked Syria while various Germanic tribes attacked in the Danube River Basin.

      Aurelius spent most of the last ten years of his reign in the Danube Basin, responding to one crisis after another. On one occasion, in a battle against the Quadi tribe, he was nearly defeated, but a thunderstorm—which all observers treated as a miracle—rescued his parched men, who rebounded to win the day. By the time of Aurelius’ death in 180 C.E., the empire was largely victorious, but it required the constant attention of a vigorous emperor.

      By the time Marcus Aurelius became emperor of Rome in the second century C.E., the empire was struggling to defend its borders in the east and north.

      When did the decline of Rome really become apparent?

      The reign of the Emperor Commodus (180–193) was bad enough in that Commodus was far more interested in gladiatorial events than anything to do with real military matters, but things only became worse with the turn of the century. One emperor after another deposed his predecessor, usually with the help of the Praetorian Guard, and none of them were men of great ability. There was a very surprising period of seven months when the empire was ruled by a man whose father had been a slave—this was a true anomaly—but this entire time was marked, in general, by mediocre leaders and an increasing sense of hopelessness.

      THE MID-CENTURY CRISIS

      Was there any time prior to the fifth century when Rome could have collapsed?

      Yes. In the middle part of the third century, both the city of Rome and the empire showed severe signs of strain. Perhaps the worst moment was when the Roman Emperor Valerian (ruled 250–260) was captured by Shapur, king of the Sassanid dynasty in Iran. The event was commemorated in a number of sculptures and monuments in Iran (some of them exist today), and the shame felt by the Roman public was very great.

      The Sassanids were a formidable foe, but they could never have threatened the integrity of the Roman Empire on their own; it was the simultaneous attack of tribal peoples along the vulnerable Danube River frontier that really accelerated the danger. Even then, had Rome in 260 been the Rome of two centuries earlier, it could have responded to all threats. As it was, currency devaluation combined with a weakness in the legions led to conditions that made a general collapse possible.

      How did Rome make it through the crisis of the third century?

      Neither the Sassanids nor the northern tribal peoples pushed their advantage strongly enough, and by about 275 Rome had steadied herself. A new emperor, Aurelian, was the first to appreciate that the city of Rome needed new defenses, and the Aurelian Wall was completed by 280. Other Italian cities were fortified, and by about 290 the empire had taken on a stronger, though highly defensive, look.

      Then, too, a new emperor, Dicoletian, set a new set of rules and regulations. To us today, they seem extreme, as when he decreed that men must practice the trade of their fathers and that men and women must live in the towns of their birth. But to an empire that was on the verge of disintegration, these reforms made sense. Dicoletian, too, was the first emperor to acknowledge that the empire was too large for one person to manage; during his reign, there were two Augustuses and two Caesars, making for a total of four men who ruled.

       Which is the correct name: Byzantium, Constantinople, or Istanbul?

      In truth, they are all correct. Originally a small Greek fishing village on the west side of the Bosporus, the city became known as Constantinople after Constantine settled there; following its capture by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, it became known as Istanbul. All three names refer to the same place: one of the most beautiful and strategic places in the world.

      Constantine decided to settle in the Greek fishing village because of its great strategic location. СКАЧАТЬ