1.3 Empire

It has to be stressed at the outset that 'Empire' takes on an additional connotation from 27 BC. Until Octavian's emergence as master of Rome, 'Empire' has only one meaning, i.e.

1.3.1 Augustus and the principate

By 31 BC, Octavian was already a proven commander and statesman of consider­able experience. He understood well the lessons to be learned from the mistakes of the past. So, he moved tentatively in seeking to establish his power, eschewing the type of precipitate action that had brought down Caesar. Gradually, he acquired dictatorial powers but wisely avoided calling himself rex or dictator, titles which had hateful associations. He used his powers astutely, always careful to act constitution­ally, or at least to give that impression (see Mousourakis, Legal History, 88-99).

1.3.1.1 Constitutional developments

The constitutional settlement that emerged during the course of Octavian's long rule was a novel mix—a restoration of the traditional forms of Republican gov­ernment, but under the aegis of a princeps, i.e. first citizen. This was one of the many titles that Octavian acquired from a grateful nation. Other titles included pater patriae ('father of the nation') and augustus, a title conferred on Octavian by the Senate in 27 BC in recognition of the powers vested in him, and to signify the Janus-like nature of his position—as a harbinger of good things to come, yet associ­ated with the glories of the past.

There were other titles of significance. As chief pontiff, Augustus stood at the head of the religious life of the State. He instituted an ambitious programme for the building of new temples and shrines. His personal mission to regenerate Rome, and to revive the glories of the past, led him to encourage her to adopt a more moral and godly existence than she had experienced of late. As caesar and divi filius (son of the divine one'), Augustus stressed his close links with the deified Julius Iaesar—a vital ingredient in securing his power base, and in giving the appearance f some continuity with the past. He took care to diminish the fears of his potential enemies of a return to the terrible days (as they saw it) when Caesar ruled Rome. He even offered high office to his political opponents. Augustus took the title of impera- tor, but this signified that he was the commander of the army, and not that he was 'Emperor' in any formal sense. In addition to these titles and honours, Augustus held the consulship until 23 BC and was then elected tribune for life. Moreover, he was granted special rights, (e.g. the governorship of provinces, the right to select senators) that, in combination with his other powers, eventually made him the most powerful man in Rome’s history since the monarchical period.

The traditional dating of the Empire from 27 BC reflects that it was in that year that Augustus and the Senate agreed on the substantial reorganization of the govern­ment of Rome that historians later designated as imperial. Rome was to be governed by the princeps and the Senate acting in partnership. Also, Augustus was granted a number of provinces (including Egypt and Gaul), that were ruled by governors considered to be his delegates rather than those of the Senate. The other provinces remained in the control of the Senate. This division of the Empire into imperial and senatorial provinces was a major innovation of the time.

The different forms which the worship of Augustus took in Rome, Italy and the provinces illustrate the different aspects of his rule—he is Princeps to the Senate, Imperator to army and people, King and Cod to the subject peoples of the Empire—and recapitulate the sources of his personal power in relation to towns, provinces and kings. The sum of power and prestige was tremendous. (Syme, R., The Rchikiii Revolution (1939), 475.)

1.3.1.2 The Augustan age

Rarely has a man used absolute power in such a sagacious and constructive man­ner, and with such impressive results. Rome was transformed to such an extent that 'the Augustan age' has become a favourite phrase of historians to describe this remarkable period of her history. Of special interest to lawyers was Augustus' attempt to change Roman society through the medium of legislation, i.e. 'social engineering' (see, e.g. 5.2.4.3). Augustus brought to Rome the internal peace, sta­bility, sound administration, and good government for which she craved. Further, the Augustan age was famous for a flowering of the arts unparalleled in Rome's history, especially in the field of literature. Poets and historians were inspired by the momentous events of the period. Often, the themes of their work were distinctly nostalgic, portraying a yearning for the distant past. Virgil's Aeneid is perhaps the finest manifestation of this rich period of artistic creativity, much encouraged by Augustus.

Augustus extended his firm government throughout the Roman provinces, reor­ganizing their administration, and tackling the corruption that was allegedly rife at the time. As regards territorial expansion, it was a time mainly of consolidation, especially at the western and eastern borders of the Empire. In Central Europe, however, the Roman armies advanced towards the Danube and across the Rhine but suffered a disastrous defeat in AD 9 at the hands of the Germans.

1.3.2 The first and second centuries AD

1.3.2.1 Constitutional developments

In this period, despite some notorious Emperors, Rome reached the zenith of her power and prestige. The constitutional 'system' that had evolved under Augustus was resilient enough to withstand the presence at the helm of the affairs of Rome of the occasional monster or halfwit as Emperor. The Republican constitutional frame­work remained basically intact. The Senate, the assemblies of the people, and the magistrates continued for a while performing their traditional roles, but with the Emperor pre-eminent as the princeps. However, the importance of the republi­can institutions gradually waned. For example, the assemblies came to be regarded as little more than conveyor belts for the Emperor's proposals. By AD 100, they were ceasing to have an independent existence. A similar pattern can be discerned in the position of the Senate. It simply became a mouthpiece of the Emperor, a passive and subservient tool of the imperial will. Moreover, the republican magistracies gradu­ally lost much of their traditional importance or disappeared altogether.

1.3.2.2 The role of the army

Every Emperor needed the unswerving support of the army. If he neglected inter­est in the army, or failed to reward it properly, or showed himself incompetent as a commander-in-chief, he was unlikely to reign for long. Armies made and unmade Emperors; and sometimes murdered them. It became customary for Emperors to nominate their successors, but the nominee would need the army’s support to suc­ceed.

Strictly, there was no such thing as 'the army’. There were normally several armies at any one time, dispersed over various parts of the Empire. Grave complications arose when the armies did not agree on the choice of successor—anarchy, civil war even. Take, for example, the death of Nero in AD 68. The succession to the imperial throne had proceeded fairly smoothly after the death of Augustus, apart from the murder of Caligula. It had passed in turn to Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, all descendants of Augustus' family. But Nero lost the support of the army, which, on his suicide, decided to choose his successor. However, the main army groups could not agree, and so they put forward their own nominees. This resulted in civil war—in little over a year Rome had four different Emperors! The eventual victor, Vespasian, was the first of a new dynasty—the Flavians. The army had ended the rule of one dynasty and replaced it with another, not for the last time.

1.3.2.3 A golden age

The civil war of AD 68-69 proved to be a watershed in the fortunes of impe­rial Rome. For much of the next century and a half, Rome was ruled by three dynasties (the Flavians, Antonines, and Severans), that served Rome well for the part. During this period, the Emperors were mostly talented and success­ors

—Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and imius Severus, all soldier-statesmen of great ability, even a distinguished phi- pher amongst them. Marcus Aurelius's Meditations—written mostly while on campaign—were a collection oi private musings inspired by Stoic and Platonic philosophy.

1.3.2.4 Romanization

This period witnessed a process of 'Romanization' (a controversial term in modern scholarship) whereby the inhabitants of the Empire were educated in Roman ways, dressed in Roman clothes, and encouraged to adopt the life of city or town dwellers. A vast amount of building was done in the provinces. New cities were created, and old ones rebuilt on the Roman model.

An important consequence of Romanization was the narrowing of the gulf between Rome and her provinces. Rome still remained the capital, and Italy the focal point of the Empire, but other cities and regions were growing in importance—an inevi­table development, given the massive size of the territory under Roman rule. Their inhabitants were playing an increasingly major part in Rome's affairs. The Roman army began to be dominated (numerically, at least) by recruits from the provinces. The governing class of Rome ceased to be exclusively 'Roman' and came increas­ingly to be filled from the ranks of provincials. Several of the outstanding lawyers of this golden age were men of provincial origin, including Julian (Africa) and Ulpian (Syria). Even the imperial throne ceased to be the preserve of men from traditional Roman origins. But then descent from pure Roman stock was no longer the most important attribute demanded of an emperor. What had come to matter most was the ability to earn the respect and loyalty of the Roman army. Trajan and Hadrian were both of Spanish origin; Antoninus Pius was from Gaul; while Septimius Severus hailed from near Carthage. How Dido, Hannibal, and others from Carthage's proud past would have rejoiced at the news that someone of Punic stock ruled Rome!

1.3.3 The third century AD: the Empire under strain

The murder of Alexander Severus in AD 235 can be regarded as another milestone in Rome's imperial history. The Severan dynasty had brought Rome over forty years of generally stable and wise government. In contrast, the fifty years after Alexander's murder was a period of almost continuous anarchy during which the Roman Empire came close to disintegration.

1.3.3.1 Rome on the defensive

The reason for the murder of Alexander Severus was the familiar one of an Emperor losing the confidence of his soldiers at a time of military crisis. Rome was being forced on the defensive as virtually all parts of her huge Empire came under attack: it had become too large for a single Emperor to organize and defend against deter­mined enemies. The most sustained pressure came from the East, where the resur­gent Parthians invaded Roman provinces at will, inflicting a series of heavy defeats. And there was serious trouble on the Rhine and Danube frontiers from new tribal coalitions—in AD 271 Rome was forced to abandon Dacia to the Goths. There was even the occasional audacious foray by Germanic tribes into Italy, a precursor of things to come. However, although Rome's military situation was serious, the Roman army was still a superb fighting machine. It continued to inflict defeats on most of its enemies, but not as regularly as before.

1.3.3.2 A plethora of Emperors

The confusion and anarchy of these years can best be illustrated by reference to the imperial succession. From AD 235 to 284 there were eighteen emperors, and scores of rival candidates. The life expectancy of Emperors fell dramatically. Some were deposed, some were murdered, some were captured or killed in battle. Few died in their beds. Emperors had, indeed, become the puppets of the generals. An army in some distant corner of the Empire would proclaim its general as emperor, only to find that the same process was being repeated elsewhere by other armies with their own candidates.

But even in this troubled and anarchic period there were outstanding successes and emperors, especially Aurelian (AD 270-275). He proved to be the finest Roman commander of the period, consistently defeating foreign enemies all over the Empire and recovering much territory in the East. And he found time to build a massive defensive wall around Rome, the substantial remains of which you may still see.

1.3.3.3 Economic problems

There was also a marked change in the economic position of the Roman Empire. The relative prosperity of the second century gave way to a grave economic crisis. The army had to be greatly increased in size to meet defensive commitments. The effect on agricultural output was serious, food shortages becoming commonplace. Moreover, the army had to be properly equipped and paid if the Emperor wished to remain in favour with his troops. Consequently, army pay was increased dramati­cally in the third century AD. Who paid for all this? The taxpayer: under a system that was becoming increasingly corrupt and incompetent. It was also a period of high inflation, the result partly of the occasional debasing of the currency in order to increase army pay. Many of Rome's economic problems at this time stemmed from her increasing military expenditure.

1.3.4 Diocletian, Constantine, and the fourth century AD

Diocletian and Constantine, who transformed the State and checked the remorse­less pressure on the borders of the Empire from Rome's enemies, ended fifty years of anarchy and disintegration. Her military recovery was emphatic. The achievements of the two men gave Rome a fresh start, similar in some ways to the age of Augustus (see Mousourakis, Legal History, 135-56).

1.3.4.1 Diocletian

Diocletian became Emperor in AD 284 in the (by now) 'traditional' manner— elevation to the imperial throne by the army. He set about reforming the ailing Roman Empire with great vigour, realizing that it was too large for one man to rule effectively. Delegation of imperial power was essential. So, he divided the Empire into East and West, putting an old friend, Maximian, in charge of the West while Diocletian took charge of the East, a sign of its increasing importance. Each then adopted a junior partner to be their heir apparent. Thus was born the 'Tetrarchy', the rule of the four Emperors, each having his own particular sphere of responsibility, but under the ultimate control of Diocletian.

To increase the authority of the Emperor, Diocletian actively promoted a more exalted concept of royalty. He identified closely with the traditional gods of Rome and surrounded himself with an elaborate court full of pomp and ceremonial. He was no longerprinceps, the first citizen, because he had to be above the citizen body— after all, almost anyone could be a citizen, the Emperor was now dominus, i.e. 'lord' of his people. Accordingly, Diocletian's reign is often described as the beginning of the Dominate (in contrast to the Principate that Augustus had inaugurated). It was important also to weaken the political influence of the army. This was achieved by removing from commanders their executive powers in civil administration. The army was confined to an exclusively military role.

Diocletian reformed virtually every level of government. The provinces were divided into smaller units, each with its own army of administrators. The civil service grew much larger, much of its effort directed at administering the laby­rinthine tax system. Decuriones (town councillors) were given the unenviable task of collecting taxes and were made personally responsible for any shortfall. Not surprisingly, the position was not eagerly sought thereafter. And, there were some important economic reforms. The State adopted a more interventionist role in protecting essential economic interests: farm labourers and smallholders were tied to the land; arms factories were taken into State control; and the currency was reformed in a vain attempt to check inflation. An edict was passed in AD 301 that fixed an upper limit on goods and wages. This was unprecedented legislation. Various consumables were listed with their maximum prices; e.g. four denarii for a measure of Gallic beer, but two for Egyptian beer; 2S0 denarii for a fattened pheas­ant, but 125 for a wild pheasant. The maximum daily wage for a sewer cleaner was twenty-five denarii; fifty for a carpenter, seventy-five for a teacher of arithmetic, and so forth. Severe punishment was prescribed for breaking the edict, but it failed to check inflation, one of the few failures in an exceptional reign. Diocletian sud­denly decided to abdicate in AD 305, spending his remaining days in a decidedly less stressful manner—growing cabbages.

1.3.4.2 Constantine

The excellent teamwork demonstrated during the Tetrarchy under Diocletian was unfortunately not maintained immediately after his abdication. Eventually, Constantine emerged as Emperor of the West, following his victory in AD 312 against his chief rival, and in AD 324 became the sole ruler of the whole Empire after defeating the Emperor of the East. The renewed civil war of these years sug­gests that Diocletian's reforms were little more than an interruption in a prolonged period of anarchy, but Constantine shared much of his power with his sons, and it was by them that he was succeeded. Diocletian's system thus survived, albeit in a revised form. Constantine wisely adhered to many of Diocletian's policies, continu­ing the restructuring of the Empire. Foreign invaders were repulsed, Constantine proving himself to be a formidable commander-in-chief. But his reign was truly remarkable in two particular respects: the conversion of Rome to Christianity, and the building of Constantinople as the capital of the Eastern Empire.

(a) Conversion to Christianity The appeal of Christianity to the poor and under­privileged gave it a potentially revolutionary flavour, as did the ready acceptance

by its followers of martyrdom. Failure to understand the Christian message, as well as its frequent misinterpretation, contributed to the terrible persecution inflicted on early Christians by some emperors. The persecution under Diocletian, more systematic than in the past, provided a catalyst for change. Christians were to be found by now in all walks of life; some were even members of the imperial court. The wives of Diocletian and Constantine were thought to have been Christians, or to have had Christian sympathies.

It is not clear when Constantine's conversion to Christianity occurred, but he ascribed the victory in AD 312 to divine intervention. Soon after, Constantine initiated the process that led to Rome's conversion. The Edict of Milan in AD 313 formally ended the persecution of the Christians and proclaimed the religious neutrality of the State. But, as the Emperor declared himself to be a Christian, the example of his own personal beliefs, coupled with his programme of building Christian churches all over the Empire and donating much land to them, effec­tively transformed Rome into a Christian State by the time of his death. In AD 325, he summoned the Council of Nicaea to attempt a formulation of a common creed for all Christians.

(b) Constantinople When Constantine became sole ruler of the whole Empire, he decided (as an act of thanksgiving) to establish a capital for the Eastern Empire. This was the inevitable culmination of the eastward shift of the centre of grav­ity of the Empire that had begun to manifest itself in the second century AD. The site chosen was the ancient city of Byzantium overlooking the Bosphorus. A magnificent new city was built, replete with Christian churches, and named Constantinople after its founder. The virtually impregnable position of the site made it an ideal choice as a capital.

1.3.4.3 After Constantine

On his death in AD 337, Constantine was succeeded by his three sons, who ruled for a while as joint Emperors. Eventually, they began to quarrel, and this bout of infight­ing was to set the tone for much of the rest of the century, a period generally of ten­sion and some confusion. Power-sharing between Emperors rarely worked smoothly for long—it seemed to be a recipe for constant friction. There was an attempt even to reverse Rome's espousal of Christianity, but the attempt was short-lived. Revolts occurred frequently in various parts of the Empire, and serious incursions on its bor­ders. Roman armies were beginning to suffer some terrible defeats again.

However, Theodosius I, Emperor of the East in AD 379, and sole ruler of the entire Empire for a short while before his death in AD 395, reversed the run of defeats, proving himself to be a strong ruler at a critical time. He was to be the last ruler of a united Roman Empire before the West collapsed. Significantly, Theodosius estab­lished Mediolanum as his western base—further evidence of Rome’s diminishing importance as a focal point of the Empire. Indeed, in the fifth century, Ravenna replaced Rome as the official seat of imperial government in the West.

It was during the reign of Theodosius I that the power of the Church became very evident. The Emperor was forced to do public penance for his alleged authorization of a massacre of citizens at Thessalonica in AD 390. This was a significant moment in the developing relations between Church and State. The possibility that one day the Christian Church would humble a distinguished Roman Emperor would have been treated as a joke only eighty years earlier. Bishop Ambrose of Milan, the man who insisted on the emperor doing penance, thus demonstrated that the Church could play a vital role in the secular affairs of the State. Indeed, he acted as an unof­ficial magistrate during his bishopric, and came to be seen as the protector of the people against the worst excesses of civil government.

His two young sons, Arcadius and Honorius, neither of them possessing their father's sterling qualities, succeeded Theodosius in AD 395. The Empire was entrusted to Stilicho, an able general of 'barbarian' descent, related to Theodosius by marriage. Within a few years the Empire had witnessed its Emperor prostrate before the Bishop of Milan, and someone of 'barbarian' stock in supreme control. How the world had changed!

The death of Theodosius led to a division of the Empire into East and West. Now that two children ruled the Empire there was a need to reorganize its govern­ment. Under the new arrangement, each was to be regarded as sovereign within his Empire, and as equal to the other. Diocletian's system of joint rule under the aegis of a supreme ruler was abandoned. From this time, the history of the Roman Empire was essentially the story of two Empires, not one, although the division was somewhat less formal than was once supposed.

1.3.5 The Western Empire: collapse and oblivion

Much ink has been spilt down the ages describing and explaining the collapse of the Western Empire. Here is just a little more. It is a tortuous story and can be told only in the briefest detail.

1.3.5.1 Rome falls

Constant incursions into Roman territory forced Rome to make alliances (never very secure) with various invaders. Emperors resorted to making friends with former bitter enemies, or even to buying their way out of trouble when all else failed. The policy was doomed. Within eighty years of the death of Theodosius, the Western Empire had been overrun. Britain, one of the remotest provinces, was abandoned at an early stage. Arthur, if he existed at all, was probably a Romano-British chief trying to stem the westward advance across Britain of heathen invaders.

Now, the loss of a Chester or a Gloucester could have been coped with, but when the Visigoths captured Rome in AD 410, the Empire was clearly in a terminal state. Attila and his Huns, the fiercest of the 'barbarian' invaders, invaded Italy in AD 452 and threatened Rome, but they were eventually persuaded to depart. A few years later, the Vandals, who were aided by dissension among her senatorial factions, sacked Rome. But the story was not one of total defeat and collapse. The West could still produce able soldier-statesmen (if not Emperors) capable of at least holding together what remained of the Empire. Stilicho had been such a man; another, even more successful, was Aetius—he managed to delay the relentless onslaught of Attila. Tragically for Rome, success against the invaders did not receive its due reward. Both Stilicho and Aetius were murdered with the connivance of their respec­tive Emperors. In AD 476 came the final indignity. A 'barbarian' leader, Odoacer, deposed the last Emperor of the West, Romulus Augustus. Apart from a relatively short period in the sixth century, Italy was henceforth to be ruled by Germanic chiefs, sometimes in exemplary fashion, as under Theodoric (Odoacer's successor). Many of these rulers were admirers of Rome and her traditions and preserved much of what they found.

1.3.5.2 The causes of collapse

Why did the Western Empire collapse? This is one of the most intriguing questions in world history. The single most important factor was that the Empire was sub­jected, from the early years of the third century, to continuous attacks from fierce and determined enemies—a tidal wave of peoples on the move, pressing against Rome’s frontiers. Such an irresistible force could not have been successfully con­tained for long. And, how did Rome resist? She still fielded huge armies, if any­thing larger than those in the past, but these armies were composed mainly of troops of doubtful loyalty—Germanic allies and mercenaries. The army that fought the 'barbarian' invaders was itself largely a 'barbarian' force. Changing sides was not uncommon. Much of this army lacked patriotic fervour: it cared mostly about who was to pay it, and how much, but very little about notions such as defence of the 'homeland'. In any case, the army's homeland was no longer Rome. This 'bar­barization' of the army itself, made necessary by a pronounced shortage of citizen recruits, was the crucial military weakness of the era.

But, was the Western Empire worth defending? It was riven with dissension and disunity. Emperors faced frequent crises, often precipitated by their own ineptitude and by the ambitions of rivals and usurpers. Successful generals seemed to pay the ultimate price for their achievements—assassinated on the orders of the Emperor. The ruling classes alienated the rest of the population by their alarming compla­cency in these difficult times, and by their failure to contribute more to the affairs of Rome, and to her coffers, than their wealth and power warranted. The gulf between the rich and the poor; between the rulers and the ruled; between the bureaucrat and the peasant smallholder; was too great to permit any reasonable degree of harmony. Moreover, there was racial conflict between Rome and her neighbouring allies, i.e. those Germanic tribes that she was forced to allow into Italy, and there was discord among the tribes themselves. In addition, the advent of Christianity precipitated considerable religious disunity. First, it was Christian against pagan; then, Christian against Christian. Heresies abounded, necessitating a painful search for a common creed. There was disagreement whether doing good works or devoting one's life to prayer and meditation best served the Christian ideal. Many took the latter course, and the Empire lost their talents. Furthermore, a lack of harmony was apparent even in relations between the two Empires. They were very unalike in any case, possessing different cultures and speaking different languages, but one could have expected perhaps greater cooperation between them than actually occurred in the fifth century. A fuller account of the extent of the disunity affecting the Western Empire can be found in Michael Grant's The Fall of The Roman Empire (1990).

There were grave economic problems. A shortage of manpower contributed to a decline in agricultural produce—cities faced serious famine at times in this era. High levels of taxation were imposed, largely because of the need to maintain huge armies and to bribe enemies. Life for many Romans had, indeed, become unbear­ably grim in this land of decaying cities, roaming 'barbarians', pillaging armies, corrupt bureaucrats, high taxes, and severe food shortages—a land plagued by com­placency; lacking in patriotism; torn asunder by disunity at every level; the tradi­tional Roman virtues seemingly dead and buried. Is it any surprise that the wealthy landowner may have wondered whether life under the rule of the enemy might in Some ways be preferable?

■Were we to adopt the attractive 'what if?' approach to explaining historical lenomena, stressing the importance of the 'human' factor at the expense of underlying causes, we would probably find a different scenario emerging. What if, in AD 395, just one of the sons of Theodosius had possessed his father's qualities? What if Aetius had not been murdered? Could he not have held the remnants of the Western Empire together? What if the East had given the West more help in the fifth century? And so on. Still, one is left with the distinct impression that the problems confronting the West were of such a magnitude that its fall was inevitable. Disunity in the face of sustained and overwhelming attack spelled certain disaster sooner or later. The only surprise was that the Western Empire did not crumble earlier—its longevity is perhaps the more interesting historical question, not its demise.

1.3.6 The Eastern Empire: dazzling achievements

The Eastern Empire was fortunate in having a capital that was a formidable strong­hold. The Emperors of the East were able to rule for centuries from Constantinople, secure from external attack. The city was considered virtually impregnable by rea­son of its heavy fortifications and its commanding defensive position, largely sur­rounded by water. The building of the massive Theodosian walls in the fifth century (still visible) added to the city's redoubtable defences.

1.3.6.1 The survival of the Empire

Despite the occasional internal crisis, or external threat from Persians, Goths, and Vandals, the fifth century was predominantly a time of peace, prosperity, and tolera­bly good government in the Byzantine Empire, under a succession of able Emperors— Theodosius II, Marcian, and Leo I. However, the East was not immune from some of the problems that the West experienced. Religious disunity, for example, was per­haps even more acute than in the West. Why then did the Byzantine Empire survive while that in the West fell? One reason was that the East had a sounder social and economic structure. The gulf between the classes, and between rich and poor, was less pronounced than in the West. Besides, there was less poverty—the East was far wealthier, possessing some rich provinces.

Taxation was high, but there was a greater ability and willingness to pay. The wealthy contributed much more to the State than their counterparts in the West. The East seemed to have an abundance of much that the West lacked, including manpower. And it was internally more stable: it had fewer insurrections, fewer usurpers and claim­ants to the imperial throne, and fewer enemies resident within its borders.

None of this might have saved the East if it had been attacked with the same degree of sustained aggression that befell the West. Certainly, the Eastern Empire was engaged in some bitter fighting, and its armies suffered the occasional crushing defeat, particularly against the Vandals. But such reverses were relatively light com­pared to the hammer blows that rained on the West. In any case, the geographical position of the Western Empire made it more susceptible to invasion. Once invaders crossed the Rhine or the Danube, the West was very difficult to defend. The Eastern Empire provided a far greater challenge for invaders; and its great capital was unassailable.

1.3.6.2 Justinian

The achievements of Justinian's long reign (AD 527-565) mark him out as the greatest of the Byzantine Emperors. He carried out a massive building programme. Old cities such as Carthage and Antioch were rebuilt on a lavish scale. Magnificent churches and public buildings appeared all over the Empire. The building of the cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople was one of the wonders of the age. This vast edifice was built at huge cost on an unprecedented scale by the finest archi­tects of the day, using materials from all over the Empire. Justinian certainly spent lavishly. Perhaps he did empty the imperial coffers and left the Empire poorer than he found it; but he enriched it in so many ways. In any case, he was not a reckless spender—his spending had a greater purpose. He dreamed, as Augustus had done, of a return to the past, and of a revival of the greatness of Rome. He regarded this as his God-given mission. Magnificent buildings were only a part of his dream. A united Empire, free of discord and disunity, free of Germanic tribes and other invaders—that constituted his mission.

Dreams became reality in many respects. His great generals, Belisarius and Narses, defeated a variety of foes. The Vandals and Ostrogoths were crushed beyond recov­ery. The regularity of imperial victories recalled distant memories of Rome at her zenith. It seemed like old times, with Roman armies crushing numerically supe­rior forces. For a while, the Italian mainland and much of the Mediterranean was clear of hostile forces. The Emperor of the East had recovered an important part of the former Western Empire, something that had eluded Justinian's predecessors. In the East, the Persians, potentially the most dangerous foe, were kept largely at bay through a series of truces and inconclusive wars. But the recovery was short-lived. Soon after Justinian's death, Italy (those parts of northern Italy which had been recaptured during his reign) was again reverting to the rule of 'barbarian' tribes.

Another aim that obsessed Justinian was doctrinal unity. Repeatedly, he summoned councils of Christian churchmen in an attempt to end their differences. Success proved elusive. Even Justinian's wife, Theodora, was strictly a heretic, a committed Monophysite (belief that there is only one nature—the divine—in Jesus Christ). If anything, doctrinal rifts deepened as the result of his well-meant efforts. Nor was Justinian particularly successful in his administrative reforms. He made strenuous efforts to eliminate corruption—long a major disease in the Byzantine Empire—but achieved little of permanence. More effective was his contribution to the needs of industry and commerce, especially his success in establishing new trade routes.

Justinian's most important achievement was his codification of Roman law. It can safely be said that this monumental work has had a lasting and significant influence on subsequent civilizations. There are few countries in the modern world that have been unaffected by Justinian's codification. He attempted to summarize the Roman law of the past, at the same time updating it, and propounding it as a model for the future. The codification constitutes one of our great legacies from the ancient world.

As can be imagined, Justinian was a man of restless energy as well as boundless ambition. However, a large measure of credit for his achievements belongs to the remarkable Theodora. A sensational past as an actress and courtesan did not prevent her marriage to Justinian, a union regarded as scandalous by the Byzantine nobility. She proved to be a rock by her husband's side. In AD 532, a serious insurrection—the Nika riots—nearly ended Justinian's reign. He appears to have lost his nerve at the height of the crisis and was all for fleeing from Constantinople. It was apparently Theodora who saved the day, persuading her husband to stay and, it seems, to give the order for a ruthless suppression of the revolt. Without Theodora's nerves of steel, it is very doubtful whether Roman law would have become the foundation of the legal systems of many countries of today.

ONLINE RESOURCES

www.oup.com/uk/borkowski6e

Visit the free online resources for revision sheets to aid exam preparation and example essay questions to test your knowledge.

Take your study further with the additional resources including:

• An interactive timeline

• Biographies of key figures

• Glossary of Latin terms

• Annotated web links

• Examples of textual analysis of Roman law texts

• Guidance to the literature and sources of Roman law