Spartacus: History of Gladiator Revolt Leader

Spartacus was a Thracian gladiator who led a slave revolt with an army numbering in the tens of thousands. He defeated Roman forces over half a dozen times, marching his people up and down the Italian peninsula until he was killed in battle in April 71 B.C.

While Spartacus was a real person who has inspired revolutionaries and filmmakers, scholars do not have an abundant amount of information about him. Accounts from only about a dozen ancient writers survive to this day, and none of the surviving reports was written by Spartacus or one of his supporters.

 

According to the surviving sources, Spartacus was from Thrace, an area in southeast Europe that the Romans were often trying to subjugate during the first century B.C.. He appears to have served in a Roman auxiliary unit for a time, deserted and became either a bandit or insurgent against the Romans. At some point he was captured, brought to Rome and sold as a slave to a man referred to at times as “Vatia.” This man owned a gladiator school in Capua, about 120 miles (193 kilometers) southeast of Rome. While at the school, Spartacus helped organize a breakout that led to more than 70 gladiators escaping armed with knives, cleavers and other makeshift weapons they got from the kitchen.

One of the people Spartacus escaped with was his wife, a Thracian woman whose name is lost to history. The writer Plutarch, who lived in the second century A.D., wrote that she “was a prophetess who was possessed by ecstatic frenzies that were part of the worship of the god Dionysus.” After Spartacus woke up with a snake coiled around his head “she declared that this was the sign of a tremendous and fearsome power that would bring him to an unfortunate end”

 

First fight

Spartacus and his small band of escapees acquired gladiator weapons from a passing cart and made their way to Mount Vesuvius. This was more than a century before it erupted and, in Spartacus’ time, the mountain was actually covered with vines and had fertile farmland nearby.

 

On their way, Spartacus and his co-leaders, Crixus and Oenomaus, raided for supplies and recruited slaves in the countryside. Rome did not respond to Spartacus’ growing force seriously. At the time of his breakout, the Republic’s military was fighting in Spain, southeast Europe and Crete. Furthermore, a group of escaped slaves were not seen as posing a serious challenge to Roman soldiers.

 

The Romans despatched a praetor named Gaius Claudius Glaber to form an army to crush the slaves. This man, and another person named Publius Valerius, whom they despatched later, “did not command the regular citizen army of legions, but rather whatever forces they could hastily conscript on the spot,” wrote Appian, a writer who also lived in the second century A.D. (translation by Brent Shaw).

 

Glaber’s ad-hoc army didn’t even try to attack Spartacus. Instead, they blocked off the main route up Vesuvius, pitched camp and tried to starve him out. Spartacus took the initiative, having his newly liberated slaves build rope out of wild vines so they could move down the mountainside to a spot the Roman had neglected to defend. The Romans, still in camp, never saw them coming. The “slaves were able to surround them and to shock the Romans with a surprise attack. When the Romans fled, the slaves seized their camp,” Plutarch wrote. This success resulted in new recruits flocking to the force of Spartacus. “At this point, many of the herdsmen and shepherds from the surrounding regions — hard-bodied and swift-footed men — came to join the slaves.”

 

The growth of Spartacus’s force was aided by other factors. Throughout his rebellion, his army spent much of its time in rural areas and small towns, places that were poorly defended but had an abundance of slaves. Additionally, according to ancient sources, Spartacus insisted on equally dividing the spoils, something that made recruitment all the more easier.

 

In time, he even succeeded in getting non-slaves to join his rebellion. “They were able to build such a formidable force in part because many freedmen and other free commoners joined their ranks along with thousands of fugitive slaves,” writes historian Michael Parenti in an essay published in the book "Spartacus: Film and History" (Blackwell, 2006).

 

Serious opposition

Spartacus continued to ambush and defeat Roman units while freeing slaves in the countryside and gathering supplies. Back in Rome, the senate grew impatient and sent a large army led by the consuls Lucius Gellius Publicola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus. Each man may have commanded 10,000 troops.

 

By the spring of 72 B.C., Spartacus may have had 40,000 troops, some of which stayed in south Italy with his co-leader Crixus while the remainder advanced towards the Alps under the command of Spartacus.

 

This did not work out well for the rebels. The Roman force under Gellius caught up with Crixus, killing the leader along with many of his rebels. Gellius then proceeded to advance on Spartacus from the south while Lentulus, who was apparently ahead of Spartacus, drove in from the north. Spartacus was trapped between two armies likely equipped with better arms and armor then he had.

 

But one thing neither commander appears to have counted on was that Spartacus had built up a sizable cavalry force in the preceding months. Thracians were known to be good horseman, able to tame even wild horses. “Spartacus suddenly rushed at them and engaged them in battle. He defeated Lentulus’ legates and captured all of their supplies,” Plutarch writes. Gellius was then either defeated by Spartacus or forced to retreat. Spartacus had not only escaped the trap but had mauled the Roman army, allowing his troops to march to the Alps.

 

An Alpine mystery

After defeating another Roman force, this one led by a Roman governor named Gaius Cassius Longinus, Spartacus’s force was now free to climb the Alps and go to Gaul, Thrace or other areas not controlled by Rome.

 

However, for reasons lost to history, Spartacus chose not to do this, instead turning his force around and heading back into Italy. Why he did this is a mystery.

 

“Many theories have been proposed, but the best explanation was already hinted at in the ancient sources. Spartacus’s own men probably vetoed him,” writes Barry Strauss, a Classics professor at Cornell University, in his book The Spartacus War (Simon & Schuster, 2009). “In the past, they had never wanted to leave Italy; now success might have gone to their heads and aroused visions of Rome in flames.”

 

He notes that other factors may also have been involved. Spartacus may have received news of Roman advances in Thrace that made him doubt that he and the other Thracians in his army could return home safely.

 

“The last straw might simply have been the sight of the Alps. As anyone who has ever looked up from the plain toward the rock wall of the Italian Alps knows, the mountains are overpowering,” writes Strauss.

 

Whatever the reasons were Spartacus led his army back south, through Italy, overcoming resistance along the way, until they arrived at the Strait of Messina, in hopes that they could cross over to Sicily, an island of agriculture and slaves waiting to be liberated.

 

Betrayed by pirates

While the Strait of Messina is small, being only two miles (3.2 kilometers) wide at some points, Spartacus had several problems crossing it. He had reached the strait in the winter of 72-71 BC, a time when the weather was colder. Additionally the Roman governor of Sicily, Gaius Verres, had fortified some of the best landing spots.

 

Spartacus needed two things, good boats and good sailors, to be able to land an advance party of his troops across the strait. He turned to a group of “Cilician pirates” (as Plutarch called them) who frequented the area and, who Strauss notes, were equipped with speedy boats and navigational knowledge, things Spartacus needed to make the crossing successfully. 

 

The pirates, however, had other plans. “Although the Cilicians made an agreement with Spartacus and accepted his gifts, they deceived him and sailed away,” wrote Plutarch. Whether the pirates had been bribed by the Romans, or just didn’t want to be involved, is not known.

 

Undeterred Spartacus ordered his troops to assemble boats of their own and, while they succeeded in building a number of them, their attempt to cross the strait failed, leaving his troops stuck on the Italian mainland. This left Spartacus with no choice but to take his force north to face a Roman leader more ruthless than any he had encountered before.

 

Crassus

By the time Spartacus had reached the straits a new leader named Marcus Licinius Crassus had taken command of the Roman forces. Strauss notes that he was a wealthy individual, able to raise a large army and pay them, at least in part, out of his own pocket.

 

In his business dealings Plutarch said that he had a scheme where “he bought up the burning properties and the buildings in the neighborhood of those alight, as the owners would surrender them for a small sum of money out of fear and uncertainty.” (Translation from Roman Social History: A Sourcebook, Routledge, 2007).

 

In his military life he was even more ruthless. Among his forces were the remnants of legions belonging to Gellius and Lentulus that had been previously defeated by Spartacus. As a consequence “Crassus selected every tenth man from the consular legions by lot and had him executed,” wrote Appian. He also revived a practice called “decimation” where units that ran away from the enemy would draw lots and have a random number of soldiers killed by being clubbed or stoned to death.

 

Needless to say discipline tightened under Crassus. Still, knowing that many of Rome’s best soldiers were outside Italy, he proceeded carefully when moving against Spartacus. Rather than try and openly battle Spartacus in southern Italy he built a system of fortifications centred on the Melia Ridge in an effort to trap Spartacus and starve his troops.

 

Spartacus responded to the situation by offering Crassus a peace treaty which Crassus swiftly rejected. Perhaps seeing his own soldiers beginning to waver Spartacus stiffened their resolve by crucifying a Roman soldier where all could see. It served “as a visual demonstration to his own men of what would happen to them if they did not win,” wrote Appian. Spartacus eventually managed to break through Crassus’s trap by filling in one his trenches (allegedly with human bodies) and using his cavalry to punch through.

 

While Spartacus escaped Crassus’s trap he faced serious consequences. Ancient writers say that he lost thousands of soldiers in the break out. Furthermore a split emerged in the rebel camp. A dissident group led by Castus and Gannicus, which included many Celtic and German troops, broke away from Spartacus and set off on their own. Additionally Crassus’s force was still largely intact while another force, led by Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus, was about to land at Brundisium and a third force, led by Pompey, was on its way to Italy from Spain.

 

Spartacus’s force was now divided and increasingly surrounded and the stage was set for the final battle.

 

The end of Spartacus

 In the spring of 71 BC things fell apart for Spartacus. Castus and Gannicus were defeated by Crassus, likely sometime before April, at the Battle of Cantenna.

 

Spartacus was now isolated further. After the battle at Cantenna he received news that Lucullus’s force had landed at Brundisium, crushing the hopes the rebels had for getting out of Italy by using that port.

 

What happened next is hard to explain. Spartacus could have tried for another port, or another part of Italy. His force was not completely trapped and he likely had at least 30,000 troops able to fight.

 

But, for reasons we do not know, he decided to turn around and attack Crassus. Whether Spartacus really wanted this, or whether his men decided this for him, is not known.

 

The final battle took place in April 71 BC. Strauss says that we cannot be sure where it was fought but it was likely somewhere in the Upper Silarus Valley. Spartacus’s strategy appears to have been two-fold, use his cavalry to attack Crassus’s archers and missile throwers while Spartacus would lead his infantry in an attempt to kill Crassus himself, hoping to break up his army.

 

Crassus built trenches to block Spartacus’s cavalry prompting a wild melee when Spartacus’s men jumped in and tried to stop their construction. Eventually Spartacus lined up his men for battle and Crassus his.

 

Plutarch wrote that, just before the battle, Spartacus got off his horse, killed the beast, and told his men that “if he won the battle, he would have many fine horses that belonged to the enemy, but if he lost he would have no need of a horse.” The battle went poorly. Spartacus’s cavalry was apparently unable to reach Crassus’s missile throwers and archers. Undeterred Spartacus, at the head of his troops, and on foot, led a charge aimed at Crassus himself.

 

Spartacus is said to have hacked down two centurions in this final attempt, however it was in vain. There are varying accounts about Spartacus’s death but they all end with him being surrounded and killed. With his death his army fell apart and Crassus and the other Roman forces hunted down the remaining rebels.

 

The body of Spartacus was apparently never identified. Strauss points out that he had killed his horse before the battle and probably did not embellish his armor. “Spartacus’s final struggle might have left only the badly disfigured body of a soldier dressed in ordinary armor.”He was likely buried in a mass grave with the rest of his troops. Even if archaeologists do find it someday they likely would be unable to distinguish the famous commander from that of his troops.

 

While Spartacus’s uprising was ultimately crushed his memory lives on, more so than the Romans who fought against, or otherwise opposed, him. “Who, today, remembers Crassus? Pompey? Even Cicero is not so well remembered,” writes Strauss. On the other hand “everyone has heard of Spartacus.”

 

Irene of Athens, Byzantine empress

Introduction

 

Irene was related to the noble Greek Sarantapechos family of Athens. Although she was an orphan, her uncle or cousin Constantine Sarantapechos was a patrician and was possibly general (greek: strategos) of the theme of Hellas at the end of the 8th century. She was brought to Constantinople by Emperor Constantine V on 1 November 768 and was married to his son Leo IV on 17 December. Although she appears to have come from a noble family, there is no clear reason why she would have been chosen as Leo's bride, leading some scholars to speculate that she was selected in a bride-show, in which eligible young women were paraded before the bridegroom until one was finally selected.

 

On 14 January 771, Irene gave birth to a son, the future Constantine VI. When Constantine V died in September 775, Leo succeeded to the throne at the age of twenty-five years. Leo, though an iconoclast, pursued a policy of moderation towards iconodules, but his policies became much harsher in August 780, when a number of courtiers were punished for venerating icons. According to tradition, he discovered icons concealed among Irene's possessions and refused to share the marriage bed with her thereafter. Nevertheless, when Leo died on 8 September 780, Irene became regent for their nine-year-old son Constantine.

 

Irene's most notable act was the restoration of the veneration of icons (images of Christ or the saints). Having chosen Tarasios, one of her partisans and her former secretary, as Patriarch of Constantinople in 784, she summoned two church councils. The first of these, held in 786 at Constantinople, was frustrated by the opposition of the iconoclast soldiers. The second, convened at Nicaea in 787, formally revived the veneration of icons and reunited the Eastern church with that of Rome.

 

While this greatly improved relations with the Papacy, it did not prevent the outbreak of a war with the Franks, who took over Istria and Benevento in 788. In spite of these reverses, Irene's military efforts met with some success: in 782 her favoured courtier Staurakios subdued the Slavs of the Balkans and laid the foundations of Byzantine expansion and re-Hellenization in the area. Nevertheless, Irene was constantly harried by the Abbasids, and in 782 and 798 had to accept the terms of the respective Caliphs Al-Mahdi and Harun al-Rashid.

 

 

…………………………………………

 

 

Irene, (born c. 752, Athens—died Aug. 9, 803, Lesbos), Byzantine ruler and saint of the Greek Orthodox Church who was instrumental in restoring the use of icons in the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

The wife of the Byzantine emperor Leo IV, Irene became, on her husband’s death in September 780, guardian of their 10-year-old son, Constantine VI, and co-emperor with him. Later in that year she crushed what seems to have been a plot by the Iconoclasts (opposers of the use of icons) to put Leo’s half brother, Nicephorus, on the throne.

 

Irene favoured the restoration of the use of icons, which had been prohibited in 730. She had Tarasius, one of her supporters, elected patriarch of Constantinople and then summoned a general church council on the subject. When it met in Constantinople in 786, it was broken up by Iconoclast soldiers stationed in that city. Another council, which is recognized by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, met at Nicaea in 787 and restored the cult of images.

 

As Constantine approached maturity, he grew resentful of his mother’s controlling influence in the empire. An attempt to seize power was crushed by the Empress, who demanded that the military oath of fidelity should recognize her as senior ruler. Anger at the demand prompted the themes (administrative divisions) of Asia Minor to open resistance in 790. Constantine VI was proclaimed sole ruler and his mother banished from court. In January 792, however, Irene was allowed to return to court and even to resume her position as co-ruler. By skillful intrigues with the bishops and courtiers she organized a conspiracy against Constantine, who was arrested and blinded at his mother’s orders (797).

 

Irene then reigned alone as emperor (not empress) for five years. In 798 she opened diplomatic relations with the Western emperor Charlemagne, and in 802 a marriage between her and Charlemagne was reportedly contemplated. According to the contemporary Byzantine historian Theophanes, the scheme was frustrated by one of Irene’s favourites. In 802 a conspiracy of officials and generals deposed her and placed on the throne Nicephorus, the minister of finance. She was exiled, first to the island of Prinkipo (now Büyükada) and then to Lesbos.

 

Irene’s zeal in restoring icons and her patronage of monasteries ensured her a place among the saints of the Greek Orthodox Church. Her feast day is August 9th

Crusaders and Mongols: an Alliance.

Franco-Mongol relations were established in the 13th century, when the Christian Crusaders and the Mongol Empire attempted to form a Franco-Mongol alliance against various Muslim empires. Such an alliance might have seemed an obvious choice to both parties: the Mongols were sympathetic to Christianity, given the presence of many influential Nestorian Christians in the Mongol court. The Franks (Western Europeans and those in the Crusader States of the Levant, were open to the idea of support from the East, owing to the long-running legend of the mythical Prester John, an Eastern king in a magical kingdom whom many believed would one day come to the assistance of the Crusaders in the Holy Land. The Franks and Mongols shared a common enemy in the Muslims, but despite many messages, gifts, and emissaries over the course of several decades, the often-proposed alliance never came to fruition.

 

Contact between Europeans and Mongols began in about 1220, with occasional messages from the papacy and European monarchs to Mongol leaders such as the Great Khan, and subsequently to the Ilkhans in Mongol-conquered Persia. Communications tended to follow a recurring pattern: the Europeans asked the Mongols to convert to Western Christianity, and the Mongols responded with demands for submission and tribute. The Mongols had already conquered many Christian and Muslim nations in their advance across Asia. After destroying the Muslim Abbasid and Ayyubid dynasties, for the next few generations the Mongols fought the remaining Islamic power in the region, the Egyptian Mamluks. Hethum I, king of the Christian nation of Cilician Armenia, had submitted to the Mongols in 1247, and strongly encouraged other monarchs to engage in a Christian-Mongol alliance, but was only able to persuade his son-in-law, Prince Bohemond VI of the Crusader State of Antioch, who submitted in 1260. Other Christian leaders, such as the Crusaders of Acre, perceived the Mongols as the most significant threat in the region. The Barons of Acre therefore engaged in an unusual passive alliance with the Egyptian Mamluks, allowing Muslim forces to advance unopposed through Crusader territory to engage and defeat the Mongols at 1260's pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut.

 

European attitudes began to change in the mid-1260s, from perceiving the Mongols as enemies to be feared, to potential allies against the Muslims. The Mongols sought to capitalize on this, promising a re-conquered Jerusalem to the Europeans in return for cooperation. Attempts to cement an alliance continued through negotiations with many leaders of the Mongol Ilkhanate in Perisa, from its founder Hulagu to his descendants Abaqa, Arghun, Ghazan, and Öljaitü, but without success. The Mongols invaded Syria several times between 1281 and 1312, sometimes in attempts at joint operations with the Franks. But the considerable logistical difficulties involved meant that their forces were never able to coordinate their simultaneous arrival, and thus could not cooperate in any meaningful way. The Mongol Empire eventually dissolved into civil war, and the Egyptian Mamluks successfully recaptured all of Palestine and Syria from the Crusaders. After the Fall of Acre in 1291, the remaining Crusaders retreated to the island of Cyprus. A final attempt was made to establish a bridgehead at the small island of Ruad off the coast of Tortosa, again in an attempt by the Crusaders to coordinate military action with the Mongols, but the plan failed, and the Egyptians besieged the island. With the Fall of Ruad in 1302 or 1303, the Crusaders lost their last foothold in the Holy Land.

 

Modern historians debate whether a successful alliance between the Franks and Mongols would have shifted the balance of power in the region, and if it would have been a wise choice on the part of the Europeans. Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects or enemies, with little room in the middle for a concept such as ally

                     ***********************************************

Pope Gregory X (1210–1276) promulgated a new crusade in liaison with the Mongols in 1274

Edward I's crusade (1269–1274)In 1269, the English Prince Edward (the future Edward I), inspired by tales of his great-uncle, Richard the Lionheart, and the second crusade of the French King Louis, started on a crusade of his own, the Ninth Crusade. The number of knights and retainers that accompanied Edward on the crusade was quite small, possibly around 230 knights, with a total complement of approximately 1,000 people, transported in a flotilla of 13 ships. Edward understood the value of an alliance with the Mongols, and upon his arrival in Acre on May 9, 1271, he immediately sent an embassy to the Mongol ruler Abaqa, requesting assistance. Abaqa answered positively to Edward's request, asking him to coordinate his activities with his general Samagar, whom he sent on an offensive against the Mamluks with 10,000 Mongols to join Edward's army. But Edward was able only to engage in some fairly ineffectual raids that did not actually achieve success in gaining new territory.[ For example, when he engaged in a raid into the Plain of Sharon, he proved unable to even take the small Mamluk fortress of Qaqun. However, Edward's military operations, limited though they were, were still of assistance in persuading the Mamluk leader Baibars to agree to a 10-year truce between the city of Acre and the Mamluks, signed in 1272. Edward's efforts were described by historian Reuven Amitai as "the nearest thing to real Mongol-Frankish military coordination that was ever to be achieved, by Edward or any other Frankish leader."

 

                             *****************************************

In 1299/1300, the Mongols engaged in battles for cities in Syria, and engaged in raids as far south as Gaza.

There has been much discussion among historians as to why the Franco-Mongol alliance never became a reality and why, despite all the diplomatic contacts, it stayed a chimera or fantasy. Many reasons have been proposed: one was that the Mongols at that stage in their empire were not entirely focused on expanding to the West. By the late 13th century, the Mongol leaders were several generations removed from the great Genghis Khan, and internal disruption was brewing. The original nomadic Mongols from the day of Genghis had become more settled, and had turned into administrators instead of conquerors. Battles were springing up that were Mongol against Mongol, which took troops away from the front in Syria. There was also confusion within Europe as to the differences between the Mongols of the Ilkhanate in the Holy Land, and the Mongols of the Golden Horde, who were attacking Eastern Europe in Hungary and Poland. Within the Mongol Empire, the Ilkhanids and the Golden Horde considered each other enemies, but it took time for Western observers to be able to distinguish between the different parts of the Mongol Empire  From the Mongol side, there were also concerns as to just how much clout the Franks could have brought to bear, especially as there was decreased interest in Europe in pursuing the Crusades. Court historians of Mongol Persias made no mention whatsoever of the communications between the Ilkhans and the Christian West, and barely mentioned the Franks at all. The communications were evidently not seen as important by the Mongols, and may have even been considered embarrassing. The Mongol leader Ghazan, a converted Muslim since 1295, might not have wanted to be perceived as trying to gain the assistance of infidels against his fellow Muslims in Egypt. When Mongol historians did make notes of foreign territories, the areas were usually categorized as either "enemies", "conquered", or "in rebellion". The Franks, in that context, were listed in the same category as the Egyptians, in that they were enemies to be conquered. The idea of "ally" was foreign to the Mongols.

 

Some European monarchs responded positively to Mongol inquiries, but became vague and evasive when asked to actually commit troops and resources. Logistics also became more complex – the Egyptian Mamluks were genuinely concerned about the threat of another wave of Crusader forces, so each time the Mamluks captured another castle or port, instead of occupying it, they systematically destroyed it so that it could never be used again. This both made it more difficult for the Crusaders to plan military operations, and increased the expense of those operations. Monarchs in Western Europe often gave lip service to the idea of going on crusade, as a way of making an emotional appeal to their subjects, but in reality they would take years to prepare, and sometimes never actually left for Outremer. Internal wars in Europe, such as the War of the Vespers, were also distracting attention, and making it less likely for European nobles to want to commit their military to the Crusades, when they were more needed at home.

 

Another concern among the Europeans about the long-term goals of the Mongols. The early Mongol diplomacy had been not a simple offer of cooperation, but straightforward demands for submission. It was only in later communications that the Mongol diplomats started to adopt a more conciliatory tone; but they still used language that more implied command than entreaty. Even the Armenian historian Hayton of Corycus, the most enthusiastic advocate of Western-Mongol collaboration, freely admitted that the Mongol leadership was not inclined to listen to European advice. His recommendation was that even if working together, European armies and Mongol armies should avoid contact because of the Mongol arrogance. European leaders were aware that the Mongols would not have been content to stop at the Holy Land, but were on a clear quest for world domination. If the Mongols had achieved a successful alliance with the West and destroyed the Mamluk Sultanate, there is little doubt that the Mongols would have then proceeded to conquer Africa. There, no strong state could have stood in their way until Morocco and the Islamic caliphates in the Maghreb of northwest Africa. The Mongols would have turned upon the Franks of Cyprus and the Byzantines.

 

And lastly, there was not much support among the general populace in Europe for a Mongol alliance. Writers in Europe were creating "recovery" literature with their ideas about how best to recover the Holy Land, but few mentioned the Mongols as a genuine possibility. In 1306, when Pope Clement V asked the leaders of the military orders, Jacques de Molay and Fulk de Villaret, to present their proposals for how the Crusades should proceed, neither of them factored in any kind of a Mongol alliance. A few later proposals talked briefly about the Mongols as being a force that could invade Syria and keep the Mamluks distracted, but not as a force that could be counted on for cooperation.

 

Flavius Stilicho and Emperor Honorius- The last decades of the Roman Empire

Flavius Stilicho (died 408) was a Roman general of Vandal origin who maintained the territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire during the reign of the emperor Honorius.

 

The father of Stilicho was from the German tribe of the Vandals but served with distinction as a cavalry officer in the Roman army. Stilicho's mother was Roman. His early career included both diplomatic and military experience. He was sent on a mission to Sapor III, king of the Sassanian Persians, to arrange for the partition of Armenia (383 or 387). His early military exploits included victories over the Visigoths, Bastarnae (ca. 391), and Franks (395). He held various military offices, and after Emperor Theodosius defeated the rebel Eugenius (394), he promoted Stilicho to the rank of master of infantry and cavalry for Italy. The Emperor further showed appreciation for the ability of Stilicho by marrying him to his niece Serena. On his deathbed Theodosius appointed Stilicho guardian of his two sons, Honorius, who would rule in the West, and Arcadius, who would rule in the East. Thus Theodosius left them in the hands of a talented man whose barbarian ancestry would prevent him from aspiring to become emperor. But the very division of power further weakened the empire, already staggering under severe barbarian pressures on the frontier.

 

Honorius was too young and incompetent to manage the empire, and the responsibility fell heavily upon Stilicho. His problems were enormous. Virtually no region of the frontier was secure, and one area could be defended only by withdrawing troops from another, exposing that area in turn to barbarian assaults. Thus in 406, when Stilicho defeated an invasion of Italy by the German Radagaisus, he was forced to draw troops from the Rhine and British frontiers, leaving those open to invasion.

 

Foreign problems were compounded by domestic revolt. In 398, Gildas, the governor of North Africa, revolted and cut off the vital grain supply for the city of Rome. Stilicho raised grain from Gaul and Spain and marshaled forces which defeated Gildas and restored Africa to the empire.

 

However, the major rival to Stilicho was Alaric the Goth. Four times in his career, Stilicho faced Alaric. He was about to crush Alaric when he was called back by order of the emperor Arcadius. In 397 he confronted Alaric in Greece but was forced to make peace when Gildas revolted. In 402 Alaric invaded Italy. Stilicho checked him in battle (April 6) but negotiated peace rather than crushing him. In 403 Alaric again invaded Italy and was defeated by Stilicho near Verona. This time also, Stilicho did not eliminate his rival.

 

The failure of Stilicho to annihilate Alaric was the result of other challenges. The first derived from his being semibarbarian and therefore suspect by the still-powerful Italian nobility. Stilicho tried to appeal to that group. He slowed down such antipagan acts of the emperors as temple closings and even restored the altar of victory, a symbol of the old Roman paganism, to the Senate house. He also reduced the burdens of taxation and military recruiting which were levied on the Italian upper classes. These gestures were not successful in winning support, and toward the end of his career he took a more antipagan stance. In 407 he proposed a law which confiscated all pagan property and destroyed all pagan altars. With animosity toward him strong among the Romans, Stilicho needed the potentially powerful assistance that Alaric's forces could provide.

 

A second area of concern was the Eastern Empire. This was largely independent of Stilicho's control, and in fact, with Arcadius coming under the control of Stilicho's archenemy Rufinus, it became actually hostile. The major area of contention was Illyria, which was a buffer zone between the two parts of the empire and also an important recruiting ground for soldiers. Stilicho arranged the murder of Rufinus but even then did not succeed in dominating the East. After the death of Arcadius, Stilicho had plans for seizing the Eastern throne for Honorius, but his own fall prevented that. Again, Alaric and his Goths, who generally were settled close to the border of the two empires, could be extremely useful as friends of Stilicho against the Eastern emperors.

 

During the first decade of the 5th century, the power of Stilicho seemed secure. The Emperor had married two of Stilicho's daughters in succession. He had been consul four times. However, trouble continued. A rival, Constantine, led a revolt in Britain and rapidly seized control of Gaul. The Italians were hostile toward the Vandal. Factions in the court led by a palace official, Olympus, were turning Honorius away from him. Finally Stilicho was arrested and on Aug. 22, 408, was executed. For 40 years no barbarians held a comparable high place in the Western Roman Empire.

 

Everyday Life in Ancient Greece

(4th Century BC)

 

Centered within a loose collection of city-states (often at war with one another), ancient Greek culture reached its pinnacle during the fourth century BC - an era described as its "Golden Age." Art, theater, music, poetry, philosophy, and political experiments such as democracy flourished. Greek influence stretched along the northern rim of the Mediterranean from the shores of Asia Minor to the Italian peninsula.

 

In Athens, society was male-dominated - only men could be citizens and only upper-class males enjoyed a formal education. Women had few political rights and were expected to remain in the home and bear children. Fully one quarter of the population was made up of slaves, usually prisoners captured during the many clashes that extended Greek influence overseas. These slaves provided much of the manpower that fueled the burgeoning economy, working in shipyards, quarries, mines, and as domestic servants.

 

Most homes were modest, windowless and wrapped around a courtyard. Furniture was rare. People spent the majority of the day out of doors enjoying the mild Mediterranean climate. The Greek diet was also modest, based largely on wine and bread. A typical day would start with bread dipped in wine, the same for lunch and a dinner of wine, fruits, vegetables and fish. Consumption of meat was reserved for special occasions such as religious holidays.

A Glimpse of the average day in Ancient Greece

 

Xenophon was a pupil of Socrates. Here, he describes the manner in which the ideal Greek aristocrat would pass the hours of a typical morning. Xenophon uses a literary device in which the story is supposed to be told by Socrates who is speaking with a friend by the name of Ischomachus. Socrates has asked his friend to describe how he spends his day. Ischomachus responds:

 

"Why, then, Socrates, my habit is to rise from bed betimes, when I may still expect to find at home this, that, or the other friend whom I may wish to see. Then, if anything has to be done in town, I set off to transact the business and make that my walk; or if there is no business to transact in town, my serving boy leads on my horse to the farm; I follow, and so make the country road my walk, which suits my purpose quite as well or better, Socrates, perhaps, than pacing up and down the colonnade [in the city]. Then when I have reached the farm, where mayhap some of my men are planting trees, or breaking fallow, sowing, or getting in the crops, I inspect their various labors with an eye to every detail, and whenever I can improve upon the present system, I introduce reform.”

 

“After this, usually I mount my horse and take a canter. I put him through his paces, suiting these, so far as possible, to those inevitable in war, - in other words, I avoid neither steep slope, nor sheer incline, neither trench nor runnel, only giving my uttermost heed the while so as not to lame my horse while exercising him. When that is over, the boy gives the horse a roll, and leads him homeward, taking at the same time from the country to town whatever we may chance to need. Meanwhile I am off for home, partly walking, partly running, and having reached home I take a bath and give myself a rub, - and then I breakfast, - a repast that leaves me neither hungry nor overfed, and will suffice me through the day."

 

Chinese Relations With Rome

 Sino-Roman relations started first on an indirect basis during the 2nd century BCE. China and Rome progressively inched closer with the embassies of Zhang Qian in 130 BCE and the military expeditions of China to Central Asia, until general Ban Chao attempted to send an envoy to Rome around 100 CE. Several alleged Roman embassies to China were recorded by a number of ancient Chinese historians. The first one on record, supposedly from either the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius or the later emperor Marcus Aurelius, arrived in 166 CE.

 

Preceding History

 

The rapid growth of Roman commerce with ancient China likely would not have been possible without two major preceding developments, first by Alexander the Great and the ancient Greeks, and second by the spread of embassies of the Han Dynasty into Central and Western Asia.

 

Development of Trade Links

 

The first major step in opening trade links between the East and the West came with the expansion of Alexander the Great deep into Central Asia, as far as the Fergana Valley at the borders of the modern-day Xinjiang region of China, where he founded in 329 BCE a Greek settlement in the city of Alexandria Eschate "Alexandria The Furthest", Khujand (also called Khozdent or Khojent - formely Leninabad), in the modern state of Tajikistan. The Greeks were to remain in Central Asia for the next three centuries, first through the administration of the Seleucid Empire, and then with the establishment of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in Bactria. They kept expanding eastward, especially during the reign of Euthydemus I (230-200 BCE), who extended his control to Sogdiana, reaching and going beyond the city of Alexandria Eschate. There are indications that he may have led expeditions as far as Kashgar in Xinjiang, possibly leading to the first known contacts between China and the West around 200 BCE. The Greek historian Strabo writes that "they extended their empire even as far as the Seres (China) and the Phryni" (Strabo XI.XI.I).

 

Zhang Qian's Embassy

 

The next step came around 130 BCE, with the embassies of the Han Dynasty to Central Asia, following the reports of the ambassador Zhang Qian (who was originally sent to obtain an alliance with the Yuezhi against the Xiong-Nu, but in vain). The Chinese emperor Wudi became interested in developing relationships with the sophisticated urban civilizations of Ferghana, Bactria and Parthia: “The Son of Heaven on hearing all this reasoned thus: Ferghana (Dayuan) and the possessions of Bactria (Daxia) and Parthia (Anxi) are large countries, full of rare things, with a population living in fixed homes and given to occupations somewhat identical with those of the Chinese people, but with weak armies, and placing great value on the rich produce of China “ Hou Hanshu (Later Han History).

 

The Chinese subsequently sent numerous embassies, around ten every year, to these countries and as far as Seleucid Syria. Thus, more embassies were dispatched to Anxi (Parthia), Yancai (who later joined the Alans), Lijian (Syria under the Seleucids), Tiaozhi (Chaldea) and Tianzhu (northwestern India). As a rule, rather more than ten such missions went forward in the course of a year” Hou Hanshu (Later Han History).

 

Chinese Silk in the Roman Empire

 

Trade with the Roman Empire followed soon, confirmed by the Roman craze for Chinese silk (supplied through the Parthians) from the 1st century BC, even though the Romans thought silk was obtained from trees:

 

   “ The Seres (Chinese), are famous for the woolen substance obtained from their forests; after a soaking in water they comb off the white down of the leaves... So manifold is the labor employed, and so distant is the region of the globe drawn upon, to enable the Roman maiden to flaunt transparent clothing in public.”

    -(Pliny the Elder (23- 79, The Natural History)

 

The Senate issued, in vain, several edicts to prohibit the wearing of silk, on economic and moral grounds: the importation of Chinese silk caused a huge outflow of gold, and silk clothes were considered to be decadent and immoral:

 

   “ I can see clothes of silk, if materials that do not hide the body, nor even one's decency, can be called clothes... Wretched flocks of maids labour so that the adulteress may be visible through her thin dress, so that her husband has no more acquaintance than any outsider or foreigner with his wife's body.”

    -(Seneca the Younger (c. 3 BCE- 65 CE, Declamations Vol. I)

 

The Roman historian Florus also describes the visit of numerous envoys, included Seres (perhaps the Chinese), to the first Roman Emperor Augustus, who reigned between 27 BCE and 14 CE:

 

    “Even the rest of the nations of the world which were not subject to the imperial sway were sensible of its grandeur, and looked with reverence to the Roman people, the great conqueror of nations. Thus, even Scythians and Sarmatians sent envoys to seek the friendship of Rome. Nay, the Seres came likewise, and the Indians who dwelt beneath the vertical sun, bringing presents of precious stones and pearls and elephants, but thinking all of less moment than the vastness of the journey which they had undertaken, and which they said had occupied four years. In truth , it needed but to look at their complexion to see that they were people of another world than ours.

    -("Cathay and the way thither", Henry Yule).

 

A maritime route opened up between Chinese-controlled Jiaozhi (centred in modern Vietnam, near Hanoi) probably by the 1st century CE. It extended, via ports on the coasts of India and Sri Lanka, all the way to Roman-controlled ports in Egypt and the Nabataean territories on the northeastern coast of the Red Sea. The Hou Hanshu records that a delegation of Roman envoys arrived in China by this maritime route in 166 CE; this may well have been an exaggeration, by the envoys or the scribe, of a party of Roman merchants.

 

Castaways

 

Pomponius Mela (Book III,Chapter 5), copied by Pliny the Elder, wrote that Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer, proconsul in Gaul, 59 BCE, got 'several Indians' (Indi) as a present from a Germanic king. The Indians were driven by a storm to the coasts of Germania (in tempestatem ex Indicis aequoribus):

 

    Metellus Celer recalls the following: when he was Proconsul in Gaul, he was given people from India by the king of the {Sueves}; upon requesting why they were in this land, he learnt that they were caught in a storm away from India, that they became castaways, and finally landed on the coasts of Germany. They thus resisted the sea, but suffered from the cold for the rest of their travel, and that is the reason why they left.

 

It is unclear whether these castaways were people from India or Eastern Asia, since "Indians" designated all Asians, Indian and beyond, during Roman times. Pomponius is using these Indi as evidence for the Northeast Passage and the northward strait out of the Caspian Sea (which in Antiquity was usually thought to be open to Oceanus in the north). Edward Herbert Bunbury suggests that they were Finns. There are also some speculations that they may have been American Indians castaway across the Atlantic.

Some confusion may be suspected in this passage since Metellus Celer died before taking up his proconsul- ship, thus leaving it free for Julius Caesar.

 

Roman Soldiers in the East

 

There are several known instances of Roman soldiers being captured by the Parthians and transfered to the East for border duty. According to Pliny, in 54 BCE, after losing at the battle of Carrhae, 10,000 Roman prisoners were displaced by the Parthians to Margiana to man the frontier (Plin. Hist. Nat. 6. 18).

The Chinese have kept an account (by Bau Gau) that some of these soldiers were enlisted by the Hun chief Jzh Jzh against the Chinese  Han Dynasty. Some of them were blond with blue eyes, and fought in "fish-scale formation" (possibly the Roman testudo formation). These men were captured by the Chinese and were able to found the city Liqian (Li-chien), the Chinese transliteration of "Alexandria", in the Gansu region of western China.

A Roman inscription of the 2nd-3rd centuries CE has been found in eastern Uzbekistan in the Kara-Kamar cave complex, which has been analyzed as belonging to some Roman soldiers from the Pannonian Legio XV Apollinaris.

 

The Expedition of Ban Chao

 

In 97, the Chinese general Ban Chao crossed the Tian Shan and Pamir mountains with an army of 70,000 men in a campaign against the Xiongnu. He went as far west as the Caspian Sea and the region of Ukraine, reaching the territory of Parthia, upon which event he reportedly also sent an envoy named Gan Ying to Daqin (Rome). Gan Ying left a detailed account of western countries, although he only reached as far as Mesopotamia. He intended to sail to Rome through the Black Sea, but some Parthian merchants, interested in maintaining their profitable role as the middleman in trade between Rome and China, told him the trip would take two years at least (when it was actually closer to two months). Deterred, he returned home.

Gan Ying left an account on Rome (Daqin in Chinese) which may have relied on second-hand sources. He locates it to the west of the sea:

 

    “Its territory is covers several thousand li [a li is around half a kilometer], it has over 400 walled cities. Several tens of small states are subject to it. The outer walls of the cities are made of stones. They have established posting stations... There are pines and cypresses.”

    -(Hou Hanshu, cited in Leslie and Gardiner).

 

He also describes the adoptive monarchy of the Emperor Nerva, and Roman physical appearance and products:

 

   “ As for the king, he is not a permanent figure but is chosen as the man most worthy... The people in this country are tall and regularly featured. They resemble the Chinese, and that is why the country is called Da Qin (The "Great" Qin)... The soil produced lots of gold, silver and rare jewels, including the jewel which shines at night.. they sew embroidered tissues with gold threads to form tapestries and damask of many colors, and make a gold-painted cloth, and a "cloth washed-in-the-fire" (asbestos).”

    -(Hou Hanshu, cited in Leslie and Gardiner).

 

Finally Gan Ying determines Rome correctly as the main economic power at the western end of Eurasia:

 

    “It is from this country that all the various marvelous and rare objects of foreign states come.”

    -(Hou Hanshu, cited in Leslie and Gardiner).

 

The Chinese army made an alliance with the Parthians and established some forts at a distance of a few days march from the Parthian capital Ctesiphon and held the region for several years. In 116, after the conquest of Dacia's gold and silver mines in year 106, the Roman Emperor Trajan advanced into Parthia to Ctesiphon and came within one day's march of the Chinese border garrisons, but direct contacts never took place.

 

First Roman Embassy

 

With the expansion of the Roman Empire in the Middle-East during the 2nd century, the Romans gained the capability to develop shipping and trade in the Indian Ocean. Several ports have been excavated on the coast of India which contain Roman remains.

Several Romans probably traveled farther to the East, either on Roman, Indian or Chinese ships. The first group of people claiming to be an embassy of Romans to China is recorded in 166, sixty years after the expeditions to the west of the Chinese general Ban Chao. It came to Emperor Huan of Han China, "from Antun (Emperor Antoninus Pius), king of Daqin (Rome)". Although, as Antoninus Pius died in 161, while the convoy arrived in 166, if genuine, it may have been from Marcus Aurelius, who was emperor in 166. The confusion arises because Marcus Aurelius was formally adopted by his predecessor and took his names as additional names.

The mission came from the South, and therefore probably by sea, entering China by the frontier of Jinan or Tonkin. It brought presents of rhinoceros horns, ivory, and tortoise shell, which had probably been acquired in Southern Asia. About the same time, and possibly through this embassy, the Chinese acquired a treatise of astronomy from Daqin (Chinese name of the Roman Empire).

The existence of China was clearly known to Roman cartographers of the time, since its name and position is depicted in Ptolemy's Geographia, which is dated to c. 150. It is located beyond the Aurea Chersonesus ("Golden Peninsula"), which refers to the Southeast Asian peninsula. It is shown as being on the Magnus Sinus ("Great Gulf"), which presumably corresponds to the known areas of the China Sea at the time; although Ptolemy represents it as tending south-east rather than north-east. Trade throughout the Indian Ocean was extensive from the 2nd century, and many trading ports have been identified in India and Sri Lanka with Roman communities, through which the Roman embassy passed.

 

Other Roman Embassies                                                                                       

 

Other embassies may have been sent after this first encounter, but were not recorded, until an account appears about presents sent in the early 3rd century by the Roman Emperor to the Emperor Taitsu of the Kingdom of Wei (reigned 227- 239) in Northern China. The presents consisted of articles of glass in a variety of colors. While several Roman Emperors ruled during this time, the embassy, if genuine, may have been sent by Alexander Severus; since his successors reigned briefly and were busy with civil wars.

Another embassy from Daqin is recorded in the year 284, as bringing "tribute" to the Chinese empire. This embassy presumably was sent by the Emperor Carus (282- 283), whose short reign was occupied with war with Persia