In the ancient Roman Republic, from the 5th to the 1st century BCE, the economy, much like in many societies of the classical world, was primarily, if not exclusively, centered around the production and distribution of agricultural products. The majority of this production, however, was geared towards self-consumption. The aristocratic class, known as patricians, who were also the wealthiest social class during this period, consisted mainly of large landowners personally involved in managing agricultural enterprises, such as rural estates. It was only in the later Republican era that the economic influence of the equestrian class, or equites, began to rise. Unlike the patricians, the equites derived their wealth not from agriculture but from trade, industries, and finance, including tax collection and interest-bearing loans.
Economy of the Early Roman Republic (5th century BCE–3rd century BCE)
Agriculture and Livestock
During the early Republican era, the most common form of agricultural enterprise was based on small property. The landowner personally worked the land with the help of slaves or paid laborers. The small landowner cultivated a variety of products (mixed farming), but only a small portion of the agricultural products reached the market. The majority was intended for the landowner’s family needs. The primary cultivated product was wheat, with sheep dominating in animal husbandry, while cattle and horses were used for fieldwork.
Industry
Given the predominantly rural nature of the Roman economy, when referring to industry in the Republican era of ancient Rome, it means artisanal activities. The products of these activities, much like agricultural products, were often intended more for family needs than for commercialization.
Trade
Trade in the early Republican era was primarily linked to livestock and conducted through barter (the word “pecunia,” meaning money, is derived from “pecus,” meaning livestock). In Rome, weekly markets, especially the livestock market, were held in the area of the Forum Boarium, between the Aventine and the Tiber Island. In addition to the livestock and meat market, markets for vegetables (Forum olitorium) and “delicacies” (Forum cuppedinis) developed. Finally, with the growth of cities, from the mid-3rd century BCE onwards, what we might now call “commercial centers” of the time spread, mostly near the city forum: the general markets (macellum).
Currency
When the transition from barter to an initial monetary system occurred, the value of the monetary unit, consisting of a certain quantity of copper or bronze (aes rude), was established to be equal to that of a sheep or an ox. Later, aes rude was replaced by the first bronze coin, the aes grave or asse librale (initially weighing about a pound). With Rome opening up to foreign trade, especially with Magna Graecia, in the 3rd century BCE, the first silver coins appeared, initially minted by the ally Cuma (which had a mint).
Eventually, Rome itself began minting coins, producing silver coins like the Denarius and the Victoriatus and gold coins like the Aureus, alongside bronze coins (As). The Sestertius during the Republic was a small silver coin worth 1/4 of the denarius (after Augustus’s monetary reform, it was designated a copper or, more precisely, brass (orichalcum) coin). The more valuable coins were used for international transactions, while those of lesser value were used for domestic economic purposes.
The consistency of the system was maintained through fixed exchange rates: one Aureus = 25 Denarii = 100 Sestertii = 400 Asses. Throughout the Republic, the state acted with prudence and wisdom in regulating coinage (the quantity of coins issued, their weight, and their purity).
Mines
The state held a monopoly on metals and ownership of the mines.
Economy and Society: Relations Between Patricians and Plebeians
While the concept of social class is foreign to the ancient world, it can be asserted that a minority of large landowners (patres or patricians, who inherited the right to sit in the Senate from father to son) dominated over the rest of the citizens, who lacked political rights (the plebeian order or plebs). The plebs were not a homogeneous “class,” as they included not only the poor or property-less proletarians but also wealthy plebeians, small landowners, artisans, and small traders.
Rich plebeians were primarily interested in having greater political weight and accessing major public offices, while poor plebeians, burdened by economic issues, sought the abolition of debt slavery (nexum), land distributions, and subsidies from the state. The relations between plebeians and patricians were complicated by the fact that many plebeians were clients of patrician families. Since the poor had no influence and were exposed to oppression, the most destitute plebeians sought a powerful protector (patronus) among the patrician class to assist them in court and in various circumstances in exchange for votes in elections in various assemblies.
To attain political rights, the plebs engaged in a series of harsh struggles (the Conflict of the Orders) from the 5th century BCE to the 3rd century BCE.
Economy and Expansionism
The internal class conflict, coupled with overpopulation and the need to improve the conditions of the less affluent classes, ended up fostering external expansion. The conquest of new territories allowed the distribution of new lands among the plebeians (although in reality, the distributions of ager publicus mostly ended up in the hands of the wealthier landowners) and “channeled” tensions outward, stimulating social cohesion. Thanks to this impetus, the Roman Republic initiated a process of expansion and colonization that transformed it, in two centuries, into the dominant power on the Italian peninsula.
Economic and Social Changes in the Late Republican Era (2nd century BCE – 1st century BCE)
Starting with the conquests of Greek Italy in the early 3rd century BCE (particularly Taranto and Syracuse) and then those in the Mediterranean (beginning of the 2nd century BCE) until the time of Caesar, the plundering of countries such as the Kingdom of Macedonia and Greece (197 to 146 BCE), Carthage (146 BCE), the Kingdom of Pergamon bequeathed to Rome (133 BCE), the Kingdom of Pontus after campaigns against Mithridates (88–62 BCE), the Seleucid Syria conquered by Pompey (64–63 BCE), and southern and later northern Gaul by Caesar (125–50 BCE), brought into the coffers of Rome “so many spoils from opulent nations that the City was unable to contain the fruits of its victories.”
This influx of gold and works of art brought about a massive capital movement in a city that, up to that point, had been primarily tied to agricultural activity. In addition to war booty, there were war indemnities imposed on the conquered countries and new taxes levied on the provincials. This resulted not only in an increase in wages and the cost of living, with consequences especially for the poorer social class, but also led to the devaluation of the denarius. Furthermore, there was a massive influx of slaves; consider that after the conquest of Carthage, 50,000 prisoners of war were deported, and after the wars against the Cimbri and Teutones, a staggering 140,000 slaves were introduced to the city market.
Agriculture: The Crisis of Small Property and the Rise of Large Estates
Starting from the 2nd century BCE, the continuous wars of conquest ended up keeping away from Italian soil, for many years, the citizen-soldier-farmers (small landowners) who served in the Roman army. As a result, the small farms, lacking the owner (engaged in the army), could no longer yield as before, and families were no longer able to meet the tributum, the taxes that landowners had to pay to the state. Small land ownership was also in crisis due to other factors, leading to profound transformations in Italian agriculture:
Conquests had flooded the market with a large number of prisoners of war sold at low prices as slaves, providing labor at zero cost compared to paid laborers and thus more cost-effective for wealthy landowners.
Competition from overseas products ultimately led to the long-term decline of agricultural incomes for small Italian landowners, who lacked the capital needed to increase productivity and compete.
The reduction in cereal production (due to the influx of foreign and provincial wheat, with little commercial interest) in favor of cultivating olive and vine plantations.
Small farmers were thus forced to sell their lands, which were increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few large landowners due to growing indebtedness. This led to a rural exodus and the proletarianization of the urban population, especially in Rome. Alternatively, they changed their rural practices, resulting in increased costs, focusing primarily on producing oil and wine. The expropriated farmers had few other job opportunities: before the Marian reforms of 107 BCE and the option to become professional soldiers, former small landowners could, if lucky, find employment as paid laborers; otherwise, they were forced to swell the ranks of the urban proletariat.
With the expansion of large estates, there was a shift from mixed farming to extensive and speculative monoculture. This involved the large-scale cultivation of a single product for profitable market sale. The cultivation of wheat was replaced by the cultivation of olive and grapevines, and the breeding of large herds of livestock to meet the growing demand for dairy products, meat, wool, and leather. Large landowners made these choices because they were more profitable: they didn’t require specialized labor, were conducive to the large-scale use of slaves, and provided easily marketable products.
Economy and Society: Division into Nobility and Populace
The almost total disappearance of small property in Rome and Italy, coupled with the management of taxes from the provinces, led to a significant enrichment of the already affluent classes. The traditional distinction between patricians and plebeians gradually gave way to the division into nobilitas and populus. Nobilitas consisted of the amalgamation of patricians and wealthy plebeians who had now joined the Senate, alongside the ancient noble families, in governing the state and sharing all major public offices.
The main threat faced by the 300 families controlling the Senate did not come so much from tensions with the populus (consider the failure of the social and economic reform attempts by the Gracchi brothers between 133 BCE and 121 BCE) but rather from the influence of prominent personalities (Mari, Sulla, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, and Mark Antony) attempting to exploit their prestige and sway over the army and populus to impose personal policies. This attempt was successful with Octavian, who, from 31 BCE, initiated the imperial phase of Rome’s history.
Much of the lavish spending by the rich was not focused on luxury but rather served as a “political” investment. Consuls, magistrates, military leaders, and dictators lavished the people with spectacular festivals and games, extraordinary gratuities to their legions, and constructed forums and theaters for the Roman people in exchange for votes, further fueling their “generosity.” Votes could also be directly purchased (it is said that at certain times, the price of votes was posted in thermopolia, the bars of that era).
Industry, Trade, and Mines in the Hands of the Equites
In the 2nd century BCE, alongside the senatorial aristocracy, a new social group distinct from the nobilitas and populus emerged. This group, known as equites or knights, comprised those who could maintain at least one horse and serve in the cavalry. However, the term came to designate wealthy individuals not belonging to the senatorial class.
As senators were traditionally forbidden from engaging in commerce, it was the knights who became entrepreneurs, contractors, and merchants (negotiatores), specializing in industrial and commercial activities. They achieved enormous profits, enabling them to acquire immense prestige and influence. Many of their businesses depended on activities performed for the state: supplying clothing, weapons, and provisions to legions; constructing roads, aqueducts, and public buildings; exploiting mines; lending money at interest (argentari); and collecting taxes and vectigalia (publicans).
On November 11, 1918, the armistice was signed, marking the end of World War I. The extreme right attributed this failure to the home front, Jews, Republicans, and the left.
Anton Drexler, 1920.
On January 5, 1919, the German Workers’ Party (DAP) was created by Anton Drexler. Among the founders of this far-right party were Dietrich Eckart, the editor of an anti-Semitic periodical, and the economist Gottfried Feder.
Treaty of Versailles, english version.
June 28, 1919, saw the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, attributing the overall responsibility for the war to Germany. Reparations and war indemnities of 269 billion Reichsmarks were demanded from the Germans.
The Weimar Constitution in booklet form.
On August 11, 1919, the official birth of the Weimar Republic took place as it adopted a constitution. The German extreme right immediately rejected this parliamentary regime, considering it corrupt and guilty of signing the Treaty of Versailles.
First political program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Image: Museum of World War II Boston.
February 24, 1920, marked the transformation of the DAP into the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP). The party advocated for a “racist and nationalist” state, with Adolf Hitler emerging as a prominent figure among its fervent supporters.
State memorial ceremony with Rathenau’s laid-out coffin in the Reichstag, 27 June 1922. Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-Z1117-502 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
In less than a year, nationalist attacks on January 26, 1921, and June 24, 1922, claimed the lives of two Republicans: Matthias Erzberger, a signatory of the armistice, and the Jewish industrialist Walther Rathenau.
French soldiers and a German civilian in the Ruhr in 1923. Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R09876 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
In January 1923, the occupation of the Ruhr occurred as France and Belgium conducted a military operation to forcefully claim war reparations from Germany. The NSDAP perceived it as another affront to the German people.
Early Nazis who participated in the attempt to seize power during the 1923 Putsch. Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-2007-0003 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
The failed Beer Hall Putsch on November 8 and 9, 1923, in Munich, led by Hitler and supported by Göring, Himmler, and Ludendorff, became a foundational myth of the Nazi Party.
Ludendorff in 1915. Image: Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2005-0828-525 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
March 29, 1925, witnessed a presidential election in Germany. Erich Ludendorff, chief of the German armies in World War I and an active supporter of the NSDAP, was strategically pushed by Hitler to run in a presidential election destined for failure. Ludendorff secured only 1.1% of the votes in the first round.
Title page of the 1940 edition, exhibited at the Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds in Nuremberg. Image: Public Domain.
On July 18, 1925, Mein Kampf was published. Hitler, imprisoned after the failed putsch, wrote his manifesto behind bars with the assistance of Winifred Wagner, the daughter-in-law of Richard Wagner.
Gregor Strasser, c. 1928. Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 119-1721 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
The Nazi Party congress in Bamberg on February 14, 1926, was convened by Hitler to solidify his legitimacy, gaining support from figures like Gregor Strasser and Joseph Goebbels from the left wing of the party.
Crowd gathering on Wall Street after the 1929 crash.
The Wall Street Crash on October 24, 1929, prompted the United States to withdraw its capital from Germany overnight. The NSDAP seized the opportunity to strengthen its nationalist discourse.
Adolf Hitler. Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-12922 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
On September 14, 1930, the NSDAP secured 18.3% of the votes in the legislative elections, following the dissolution of the Parliament due to disagreements on unemployment insurance. Financial support from magnates like Emil Kirdorf, Fritz Thyssen, and Hjalmar Schacht contributed to the Nazi Party’s rise.
Camp service of the NSDAP delegation, in the first row SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, SA Chief Ernst Röhm and Hermann Göring. Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-02134 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
October 11, 1931, witnessed the creation of the “Harzburg Front,” an alliance of heavy industry employers and right-wing and far-right parties, including the NSDAP, opposing Chancellor Heinrich Brüning and advocating for a strong leader for Germany.
In February 1932, with unemployment at 33.8%, Brüning chose deflation to support the economy, leading to a 25% reduction in public spending, a 14% cut in unemployment benefits, and a 15% increase in taxes. Meanwhile, on February 25, 1932, Hitler obtained German citizenship.
Hitler with Nazi Party members in December 1930. Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 119-0289 / Unknown author / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
On July 31, 1932, the NSDAP became the largest party in Germany, securing 37.3% of the votes in the legislative elections, surpassing the Social Democratic Party (21.6%). President Paul von Hindenburg refused to appoint Hitler as chancellor.
Hjalmar Schacht (photo from 1931). Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-12733 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.
November 19, 1932, saw an appeal (Industrielleneingabe) from 19 financiers and industrialists to President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as chancellor, but he refused. Göring, a Nazi party member, had been leading the Reichstag since August 30.
Recently appointed as German chancellor, Adolf Hitler greets President Paul von Hindenburg in Potsdam, Germany, on March 21, 1933. Image: US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Finally, on January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor as Hindenburg yielded after weeks of political intrigues, orchestrated in part by von Papen and the German National People’s Party (conservative), believing they could “control” the Führer.
Reichstag Fire. Image: Public Domain.
On February 27 and 28, 1933, the Reichstag Fire, a criminal act, was used by the Nazis to implement a policy of suspending individual liberties and suppressing communists. On March 23, after the arrest of 4,000 opponents, the new parliament passed the Enabling Act, granting Hitler full powers.
In accordance with the ancient Julian calendar used by the Georgian Orthodox Church, the celebration of Christmas in Georgia takes place on January 7th. Tovlis Babua, the Georgian Santa Claus, starts the celebrations on December 31st by bringing sweets and goodies to the youngsters. A large number of people take part in the “Alilo” procession on Christmas Day, during which they sing hymns and carry banners, crosses, and icons. Dried wood adorned with little fruits and sweets is the traditional “Chichilaki” Christmas tree in Georgia. Hospitality, cheer, and feasts characterize this time of year.
Orthodox Christianity makes up more than 83% of the population in Georgia. Christmas is observed on January 7th in Georgia. Among the most important customs and festivals in the country are as follows:
Alilo: The Alilo is a Christmas Day parade when participants wear elaborate costumes in a show of celebration. Georgian flags or costumes depicting Nativity scenes might be among their belongings. During the ceremony, sweets are distributed, and Georgian children are invited to join.
Chichilaki (Georgian Christmas Tree): This is the classic Georgian Christmas tree fashioned from dried branches of hazelnuts or walnuts. You can make a smaller tree out of them by shaving them into long, curly strips and then decorating it with fruits and candies. On the eve of the Georgian Orthodox Epiphany, which falls on January 19th, they are burned as a symbol of the year’s end woes.
Tovlis Papa: On New Year’s Eve, a jolly old man named Tovlis Papa visits homes to deliver gifts. White garments, a hat, and a “nabadi” (a kind of cape) make up his attire.
Nadzvis Khe (Western Christmas Tree): Along with the Chichilaki, the Western Christmas Tree (Nadzvis Khe) is also a popular choice for New Year’s Eve (December 31) decorations and lighting in Georgia.
Family Feast: Christmas Eve is not complete without a feast, and the Georgian bread known as Khachapuri is made with unique ingredients for this family occasion.
New Year’s Celebrations: Georgians celebrate both New Year’s Eve (December 31) and Old New Year’s Eve (January 13) as part of their new year’s celebrations. The night before Christmas Eve, the households gather to make food and decorations.
Bedoba: Bedoba is a celebration with loved ones that is said to influence the course of next year in Georgia.
Alilo is a Georgian traditional song that is traditionally concluded on Christmas Eve. The practice involves a group of at least three, forming a three-part harmony and visiting each family to extend holiday greetings through the song. As a token of appreciation, the host would gift the singers an egg, symbolizing life and fertility. The lyrics of Alilo, such as “On the twenty-fifth of December,” “The bird sat on the fence,” “I gave bread to the miller,” etc., convey wishes for health, happiness, and prosperity.
Similar traditions exist in Western European countries; for instance, in the English-speaking world, the practice aligns with “trick-or-treating,” associated with Halloween and occurring on October 31. This tradition bears resemblance to the Georgian Alilo, as children dressed in masquerade costumes go door-to-door, singing and requesting sweets from hosts.
The tradition of Alilo was widespread across Georgia, and each region had its own unique rendition. Rooted in a pagan melody, the term “Alilo” appears to have been derived later from “Alleluia.” It is suggested that the collective name for Christmas and Easter carols might have originally been Chona. The Alilo tradition in Georgia holds a long history, interrupted only once during the Sovietization of Georgia. In 1990, Ilia II of Georgia (Patriarch of Georgia) reinstated this cultural practice. Today, Alilo is observed after the feast’s liturgy (worshipping), with parishioners participating in the procession.
For Georgians, Tovlis Babua—or, in the east, Tovlis Papa—is the central figure of the New Year’s celebration. “Father Snow” is the literal translation of the name. He supposedly comes from the Svaneti village of Ushguli. Hence, a white burka and a Svan cap are typical garments for him to wear.
On New Year’s Eve, Tovlis Papa is said to provide gifts to kids. He frequently makes his appearance as the kids outside are watching the midnight fireworks. Tovlis Papa, in contrast to the red-suited Western Santa Claus, wears nothing but white—a cap and the nabadi, a traditional Georgian sheep-wool robe. Decorative bells adorn his bag of sweets, the khurjini, which he slings over his shoulder.
According to legend, every kid in Georgia receives a special gift from Tovlis Papa on New Year’s Eve when he descends from his residence in the Caucasus Mountains and makes a round of the nation, bringing sweets and goodies. The youngsters reciprocate the gift-giving by omitting churchkhela, a traditional Georgian treat made with almonds and dried grape jelly.
Guria and Samegrelo are two regions in western Georgia where the traditional Georgian Christmas tree Chichilaki was first planted. There is a connection between the tree and the biblical story of the tree of life, as well as parallel stories in Egyptian, Assyrian, and Arianic traditions. When Christianity was officially recognized as the state religion of Georgia in 337 AD, the tree transitioned from its original use as a New Year’s tree to its current status as a Christmas tree. To make the tree, the branches of hazelnut trees are first chopped, then immersed in water in the days leading up to New Year’s Eve, and finally dried in front of stoves.
To create the curled fronds that depict the “rays” that signify the sun, the branches are continuously shaved from below using a specialized knife. These fronds are then left connected at the top. Another story has it that the fronds represent Basil of Caesarea’s beard, who, like Santa Claus, is believed to visit people on Christmas Eve. A ring of reeds was fastened to the summit of Chichilaki in earlier times. A cross, symbolizing the union of pagan and Christian practices, eventually took its place.
Chop branches are used to make chichilaki, which is known for its eco-friendly manufacture. Contrast this with the practice of cutting down spruce trees to make the ubiquitous Christmas trees. In an effort to encourage environmental preservation, the Georgian government has instituted a heavy punishment for the illegal cutting and transportation of pine trees from non-registered farms. In a solemn ceremony that takes place the day before the Georgian Orthodox Epiphany (January 19), chichilaki trees are burned ceremoniously to signify the finality of the previous year’s difficulties.
Bedoba: A Unique Georgian Christmas Tradition
One unique Georgian New Year’s ritual is bedoba and this festival takes place on January 2nd, which is also the second day of the new year. “Bedoba” means “luck” in Georgian, and the traditional belief is that one’s actions on this day will determine the direction of the new year. This is why the Georgian people put extra effort into celebrating this day at Christmas.
Bedoba is celebrated with feasts and quality time with loved ones. The feast, or “supra,” is a crucial aspect of this festival. At this family-oriented celebration, the Georgians raise a glass to the next year and send their best wishes for health, wealth, and happiness. Although Bedoba has nothing to do with Christmas per se, it is a part of Georgia’s holiday season that also includes the Georgian Orthodox Christmas celebration on January 7th.
Traditional foods and family get-togethers are part of the Georgia Christmas season, and the following are examples of traditional Georgian holiday foods and beverages:
Satsivi: It is a boiling turkey stew with walnut paste, garlic, spices, and herbs. Typical gatherings and feasts include this meal as either a starter or a side dish.
Khachapuri: A classic Georgian flatbread stuffed with a variety of fillings, such as spinach, cheese, or ground beef. It’s a hit all year but Christmastime is when the Georgians really get into this dish.
Mtsvadi: A tasty meal popular during Christmas festivities; it is skewered pork grilled over an open fire.
Nigvziani Badrijani: It also known as Eggplant Walnut Rollups, is a delicacy that combines eggplant and walnuts, which are wrapped and cooked until they become crispy.
Pkhali: Spinach walnut dip with pomegranate combine three ingredients and it goes well with crackers and toast.
Churchkhela: Georgians enjoy churchkhela, a confection made with grape juice and walnuts, during the holidays and new year’s festivities.
Gozinaki: Georgians also love to indulge in gozinaki at Christmas, a honey walnut candy.
Wines: As an addition to Christmas festivities, Georgians also enjoy handmade wines.
Places to Visit in Georgia at Christmas
There are wonderful spots to visit in Georgia to celebrate Christmas, and the land is stunning. Here are a few of the most visited sites:
Tbilisi: During the Christmas season, Tbilisi—Georgia’s capital city—becomes a wonderful location to visit because of the abundance of cathedrals and churches that put on various activities, lights, and decorations, making the city seem like a party.
Batumi: One of the well-liked places to spend Christmas is the Georgian seaside city of Batumi. Concerts, fairs, and fireworks displays are a few of the events and activities that take place across the city while it is decorated with Christmas trees.
Mtskheta: Near Tbilisi is the ancient city of Mtskheta, which is good for anyone seeking a taste of traditional Georgian Christmas thanks to its old churches and monasteries.
Bakuriani: One of Georgia’s most famous ski resorts, Bakuriani is a holiday destination for snow sports enthusiasts. There are fun things to do, including skiing, snowboarding, and sledding under the Christmas lights and trees.
Signagi: Visit the picturesque village of Signagi in eastern Georgia this Christmas if you’re a fan of traditional Georgian food and wine. There are restaurants and wineries to peruse.
Gudari: If you’re a fan of winter sports, this Georgian ski resort is also a good Christmas getaway.
Borjomi: Located in central Georgia, this spa town focuses on relaxation and breathtaking scenery. Spas and natural springs abound, and the town is full of Christmas lights and trees.
History of Christmas in Georgia
Until the year 377, in the eastern domain of Christianity, Christmas coincided with Epiphany on January 6, aligning with the tradition preserved in the Apostolic Church of Armenia. However, under the guidance and teachings of John Chrysostom, the observance of Christmas was separated and shifted to December 25. Scholars of that era, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine of Hippo, contended that Christ’s birth occurred on the day of the winter solstice—December 25—precisely when the sun and the earth initiate their proximity.
In 1923, under the leadership of Christophorus III, the Georgian Church made its initial attempt to introduce a new calendar. Consequently, the new-style calendar was implemented from 1923 to 1925, yet this endeavor proved unsuccessful due to the populace’s lack of insight. On June 24, 1927, during the holy synod of Ambrosius of Georgia, a decision was made to recognize the new style of celebrating Christmas on December 25th.
The ecclesiastical court’s decision was only applicable to the adherents. On September 28, 1928, the holy synod of the Catholicos of the Georgian Church acknowledged the temporary observance of the new date. The decision urged the clergy to engage in propaganda for the future adoption of the new calendar.
The Constitutio Antoniniana, promulgated in the year 212 CE, derives its name from the issuing authority, Emperor Caracalla (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus). This legislation is also referred to as the Edict of Caracalla (Antonine Constitution). It grants Roman citizenship to every free man residing within the lands of the Roman Empire. Inherited through both lineage and adoption, citizenship entails certain rights. For instance, a citizen can gain access to property, bequeath a legacy to heirs, and claim the privilege of wearing the toga. However, it also imposes specific duties, particularly of a fiscal nature.
The Constitutio Antoniniana signifies a pivotal moment in the evolution of the Roman Empire, as citizenship had hitherto been granted only to inhabitants of Italy and municipalities with the status of a Roman colony. It could also be acquired through purchase or after completing 24 years of service in the military. Despite certain adverse consequences, the Constitutio Antoniniana stands out as one of the most renowned laws of the Roman Empire, symbolizing its golden age.
—>The Constitutio Antoniniana was a significant legal reform in the Roman Empire. It marked a shift from a system based on status to one based more on geography and had profound implications for the social and economic structure of the Roman world.
Why Was the Constitutio Antoniniana Created?
Papyrus Giessen 40.
Roman citizenship was initially granted to the inhabitants of Italy and later extended to Roman colonies. It could be acquired either by birth or through naturalization, with the newly minted citizen adopting the family name of the magistrate who conferred citizenship and joined their tribe. The affluent also had the option to purchase citizenship. Towards the end of the Republic, citizenship became attainable through military service, as it was systematically granted to soldiers who had served a minimum of 24 years.
The Constitutio Antoniniana (Edict of Caracalla) is complex in its origins, making it delicate to definitively establish its reasons. The likely objectives include fostering unity within the Empire and streamlining administrative processes. Its enactment contributed to the popularity of the young emperor. The rise in the number of citizens is coupled with increased tax revenues, primarily attributable to the inheritance tax.
What Does It Mean to Be a Roman Citizen?
The Roman citizenship entails fundamental rights, including:
Right to vote
Right to property
Right to marriage
Right to bequeath property to heirs
It also ensures civil rights such as:
Ability to buy and sell within Roman territory
Eligibility to Marry a Roman Citizen
Permission to wear the toga and bear the tria nomina (first name -praenomen-, family name -nomen-, nickname – cognomen-)
Capability to initiate legal proceedings in a Roman court
Citizenship comes with accompanying duties, which include:
Participation in Census
Contributions to occasional military expenses
Payment of an inheritance tax
What Was the Constitutio Antoniniana?
The Edict of Caracalla has long been known through references and commentaries by certain ancient authors, most of whom were not contemporaries of the events. A papyrus known as Papyrus Gissensis 40 lists three imperial decisions of Caracalla in the Greek language, but it is challenging to conclusively establish that they pertain to the Antonine Constitution.
Historians ascertain that the Edict of Caracalla proclaims: “I grant to all those in the Roman world the citizenship of the Romans.” The inhabitants, termed “peregrinus,” are free non-Roman men (foreigners). Residing in Rome or its provinces, they lack the rights of citizenship and Latin rights, exclusive to Roman citizens. Consequently, they are prohibited from marrying Roman women or participating in political life, subject to the laws of their own community.
Therefore, the Antonine Constitution confers Roman citizenship upon all free men within the Empire, effective from the day of its promulgation. They, however, retain the option to preserve their rights and customs as long as they desire. Roman citizenship is hereditary through adoption and lineage. The Edict of Caracalla has become emblematic of the golden age of the Roman Empire, now politically unified with a universal culture.
Who Was Emperor Caracalla?
Portrait of Caracalla (AD 212–217) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Lucius Septimius Bassianus was born on April 4, 188, in the Gallic region of Lugdunum (Lyon). His origins trace back to Carthage, present-day Tunisia, on his father’s side (Septimius Severus, of Punic and Berber descent) and Syria on his mother’s side (Julia Domna). He was renamed Marcus Aurelius Antoninus in order to be closer to the prestigious Antonine dynasty, which is why the Edict of Caracalla is also called the Antonine Constitution. The epithet “Caracalla” originates from the Gallic garment with long sleeves and a hood that he commonly wore.
Upon the death of Septimius Severus in 211, Caracalla was obligated to share power with his brother Geta. Alleging a conspiracy by Geta, Caracalla orchestrated his brother’s assassination. As emperor, he delegated internal affairs to his mother, Julia Domna, while focusing on military campaigns. In 213, he engaged in various campaigns against the Alamanni. Admiring Alexander the Great, he identified with him and later waged a campaign against the Parthians. Seeking the daughter of the Parthian king for marriage, he traveled to Mesopotamia with his army and took advantage of the celebration to order an attack.
Between 215 and 216, Caracalla’s visit to Alexandria resulted in several massacres, driven by his perceived lack of respect. The intellectual elite suffered significant losses, as did a substantial portion of shippers, leading to the decline of the port. Caracalla, a military tyrant, became unpopular and was assassinated by Martialis on April 8, 217, near Harran. Macrinus, the Praetorian Prefect who succeeded him, likely orchestrated the assassination.
What Were the Positive Impacts of the Constitutio Antoniniana?
The Constitutio Antoniniana serves to enhance the popularity of the young emperor, garnering support from the provinces. It also attracts followers to the imperial cult, ultimately solidifying control over the various provinces. Instituted by Emperor Augustus, this set of rituals, prayers, and sacrifices primarily aims to cement the Pax Romana. The expansion of Roman citizenship contributed to the unity of the empire and economic development.
According to Cassius Dio, a contemporary of Caracalla known for his Roman History, this law is crucial for the glory of the Roman Empire. However, the Antonine Constitution entails new taxes: granting citizenship to a large number of individuals involves significant financial gains, especially through the inheritance tax.
The Constitutio Antoniniana additionally offers the advantage of streamlining administrative and judicial management within the Empire.
What Were the Negative Consequences of the Constitutio Antoniniana?
The Roman army’s main lure was obtaining Roman citizenship. Upon completing military service, foreigners (peregrinus) also received a substantial sum, enabling them to settle. The Edict of Caracalla (Constitutio Antoniniana) initially had a negative impact on recruitment. Consequently, the army transforms from a conquering force into a defensive one, marking what some interpret as the onset of Rome’s decline.
The Antonine Constitution swiftly endangers Roman citizens who are Christians. Refusing to partake in the Emperor’s worship or make sacrifices to the gods, persecutions intensified throughout the third century. In 250, Decius mandates obligatory sacrifices to the Roman gods under the threat of death. In 303, Diocletian’s Great Persecution became the deadliest in Africa.
The Constitutio Antoniniana accentuates the distinctions between the two categories of citizens in ancient Rome:
1. Honestiores—the honorable (the elites) 2. Humiliores—the humble (the common people)
The honestiores encompass senators, knights and their families, veterans and their children, and individuals holding or having held public offices in cities and municipalities outside Rome and their descendants. The humiliores include all other citizens. Unlike the humiliores, the honestiores cannot be subjected to torture, are subject to capital punishment only in cases of parricide or high treason (resulting in beheading), and are exempt from forced labor or mining sentences.
Featured Image: Constitutio Antoniniana in Klimavitrine, by Frank Waldschmidt-Dietz [CC BY-SA 4.0].
The Battle of Muret occurred on September 12, 1213. It was part of the Albigensian Crusade aimed at suppressing heresy, particularly the Cathar movement, and played a pivotal role in the conquest of southern France. The alliances formed were driven not by religious conviction but by political interests and territorial ambitions. Despite being outnumbered, the Crusaders emerged victorious against the opposing armies. Peter II of Aragon lost his life in the battle.
What Was the Background to the Battle of Muret?
Map of an interpretation on the Battle of Muret. Image Joel Bellviure, CC BY-SA 4.0.
On September 12, 1213, the Battle of Muret took place on the plain of Muret, in Haute-Garonne. It occurred within the context of the Albigensian Crusade, proclaimed by the Catholic Church to suppress the Cathar heresy. This Christian religious movement was gaining momentum, causing concern in Rome about potential future challenges to its authority. The Battle of Muret followed the sieges of Béziers and Carcassonne in 1209.
What Was the Albigensian Crusade?
Massacre against the Albigensians by the Crusaders. Image: Public Domain. High Res: Malevus.
The Albigensian Crusade, led by the Catholic Church from 1209 to 1229, pitted the Crusaders (Kingdom of France, Papal States, and the Duchy of Austria) against the Cathars and their allies (notably the County of Toulouse, the Crown of Aragon, and the County of Astarac). Primarily unfolding in the southern region of France, specifically in Languedoc, this historical episode is more aptly characterized as a territorial conquest, given the dissent and pretexts cited for engaging in the conflict.
It is worth noting that Catharism also has Christian origins. In contrast to Catholicism, its adherents advocated for a life founded on benevolence and spiritual development, eschewing material wealth. The Cathars rejected Catholic sacraments and the concept of private property. Similarly, Valdism also contested the deviations and corruption within the Catholic Church. At the conclusion of the Crusade, Languedoc became a possession of the King of France.
Who Took Part in the Battle of Muret?
Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester, 1835.
The Battle of Muret witnessed the confrontation between the Crusaders and various belligerent factions, including the counties of Toulouse, Comminges, and Foix, as well as the Crown of Aragon. Leading the Crusaders was Simon de Montfort, supported by allies Guillaume III, Alain de Roucy, and Bouchard de Marly. They faced opposition from Peter the Catholic (or Peter II), Raymond VI, Raymond Roger Trencavel, and Bernard IV. The Crusaders numbered approximately 1,000 to 2,000 men, while their adversaries commanded armies ranging from 5,000 to 22,000 men.
How Did It Go?
With such numerical superiority, Peter II of Aragon refused to completely besiege the city of Muret, defended by about thirty men under Simon IV de Montfort. Peter II dismisses any negotiation and urges Simon de Montfort into battle. The latter’s strategy involves simulating a retreat before outflanking the Toulousian troops, catching them completely off guard. The flanking attack is successful.
The Crusaders manage to break through the first line of defense and reach the second.
Nicknamed the “Moor’s Bane” after his victory at Las Navas de Tolosa, Peter II of Aragon loses his life in the Battle of Muret, slain by Alain de Renty. His army is scattered. Raymond VI of Toulouse, foreseeing defeat, hastily flees with a portion of his men.
Who Won?
Against all expectations, the Battle of Muret resulted in a victory for the Crusaders and, consequently, the defeat of the Cathars and their allies, despite being more numerous. It is estimated that the Crusaders lost fewer than 10 soldiers, while the opposing camp mourned 5,000 to 10,000 dead and wounded. Many of them are believed to have perished by drowning. Historians attribute this outcome to the recklessness of Peter II of Aragon and multiple strategic errors, particularly in terms of troop coordination.
What Were the Consequences of the Battle?
The Battle of Muret according to the Libre dels fets.
In the year of our Lord Simon de Montfort, he was in Murel with about 800 horsemen, and our father came upon him near the place where he was. With him were from Aragon Don Miquel de Luzia, Don Blascho d’Alagó, Don Roderich de Liçana, Don Ladro, Don Gomes de Luna, Don Miquel de Roda, Don G. de Puyo, Don Azmar Pardo, and others from his household, many of whom we cannot recall. But we remember well what they told us—who had been there and knew what happened. Except for Don Gomes, Don Miquel de Roda, Azmar Pardo, and some from his household who perished, the others abandoned him in the battle and fled. In Catalonia, Dalmau de Creixell, Huguet de Mataplana, En G. d’Orta, and Berenguer de Castellbisbal fled with the rest. However, we know for certain that Don Nuno Sanxes and En G. de Montcada, sons of En G. R(?). and Na G. de Castelviy, were not in the battle. Instead, they sent a message to the King to wait for them, but the King refused and fought the battle with those who were with him.
Following the Battle of Muret, Jacques, the son of Peter II of Aragon, was captured by the Crusaders while still a child. At the request of the pope, however, he was released and placed under the guardianship of the Templars. This defeat of the Aragonese crown contributed to the strengthening of the Capetian monarchy.
Raymond VI of Toulouse, then the count, was compelled to travel to England to meet with John Lackland. The Battle of Muret marked a pivotal moment in the Albigensian Crusade, as the forces of Toulouse were effectively decimated.
From the first and second centuries on, the Roman people practiced various occupations and trades. The sources from these periods provide extensive evidence of the diversity of roles undertaken by men of all social statuses, excluding women. Women, especially those of more humble conditions, were assigned roles primarily related to the care of the home and family, as dictated by tradition.
Roman Women Without a Profession
In the Rome of Emperor Trajan, it appears that the female population of ancient Rome did not engage in any specific occupation outside the home. Women of modest means dedicated themselves to domestic chores within the household. They would occasionally leave to go to the public fountain for water, the garbage dump for waste disposal, or to the baths reserved for them.
Noble and wealthy Roman matrons, attended by crowds of servants, had no domestic obligations and were entirely free to manage their time, whether by going to the baths, taking a stroll, or visiting friends. Roman women who sought to be equal to men in literature, philosophy, the sciences, or law considered it humiliating to engage in professions typically associated with men. Inscriptions from the imperial period indicate that, at most, they practiced jobs where men were deemed less suitable, such as hairdressing (tonstrix, ornatrix), midwifery (obstetrix), or nursing (nutrix).
Marriage of a young Roman woman. (Public Domain)
Despite the efforts of emperors like Claudius, who aimed to involve women in guilds, they remained absent. When wealthy matrons responded to Claudius’ invitations, exchanging their support for naval armament for the ius trium liberorum, they always did so through proxies.
Certainly, it was not the women but their husbands who sought assistance from the public grain supply. In paintings from Herculaneum and Pompeii, women are depicted free from any occupation, walking empty-handed, sometimes accompanied by a child, in squares filled with stalls and shops, dominated by men busy with shopping or work. Life was markedly different for men of all social standings: rising almost at dawn, they hurried, especially if employed, to join their guilds, the forum, or the Senate, which were already open early in the morning.
The Clients
A particular occupation that contributed to income formation was the condition of a cliens (plural clientes), not tied to a specific social class. Ancient Romans, from freedmen to the grand lord, all felt bound by an obligation of respect (obsequium) towards those more powerful than them. The freedman towards the one who had liberated him (the patronus) and on whom he continued to depend, the parasite towards the lord, who (as a patronus) had the obligation to welcome these applicants (the clientes, precisely), assist them in times of need, and sometimes invite them to lunch.
Periodically, the clientes also received a supply of provisions that they carried away in their sportulae (bags) or sums of money when they visited their protector. In the time of Trajan, this practice was so widespread that a tariff, the sportularia, corresponding to six sesterzi per person, had been established for every noble family. Often, the sportula was a resource for survival: lawyers without cases, teachers without students, and artists without commissions presented themselves at the door of the patronus for daily survival.
Even those with a profession added the small income from the sportula to their earnings, and before going to work, even before daybreak, they lined up for the sportula. The importance of a powerful person was measured by the clientele that noisily woke him every morning for the morning salutatio.
The dominus would have lost his reputation if he had not listened to the complaints or requests for help and had not responded to the greetings of the crowd waiting for him since dawn. A strict procedure regulated this daily ritual of the clientele. The cliens could reach the house of the patronus on foot rather than by litter but, obligatorily, had to wear the toga and not dare to call him by name familiarly: the magnate was always addressed as dominus, under the penalty of returning home empty-handed.
The obligation of the toga, a garment of some importance and therefore expensive, posed a difficulty for many. In such cases, the patronus would sometimes be the one to donate it on particular and special occasions, along with the five or six pounds of silver paid annually. The time to receive this gift was not determined by the order of arrival but based on social importance. Thus, the praetors took precedence over the tribunes, the knights over the freeborn, and these, in turn, over the freedmen.
Women did not participate in this daily assistance either as patrons or as clients, except in the case of widows, who requested for themselves what the patronus had done for the now-deceased client. Alternatively, when the client came along on foot or in a litter of wives in distress, presumably unwell, to induce the lord to make more generous donations.
The Rentiers
Far more crucial in terms of the quantity of resources provided compared to these private donations was the public assistance that the Roman state indiscriminately provided to the 150,000 proletarians. These were lifelong unemployed individuals who had the right, until their death, to receive from the annona of Rome, on a specified day of a given month, whatever they needed to survive.
It can be said, as Rostovtzeff suggests, that these individuals also lived on a pension, akin to the large landowners in the provinces whose wealth granted them the right to sit in the Curia with the obligation of residence in Rome. Similarly, those who lived on a pension included the scribes attached to magistrates, occupying a function acquired with money, administrators, and those who had invested capital in the works of contractors. There were also officials who conveyed the commands of central power to the periphery, remunerated by the treasury.
However, Rome was such a vast economic center that it could not sustain itself solely on a policy of assistance and pensions without genuine work and production. Rome, a hub of international terrestrial and maritime commercial activities and a center of consumption for the finest manufacturing production, had to necessarily organize and direct this incessant exploitation.
“The Roman victor already held the entire world; every sea, every land, both hemispheres. And yet, he was not satisfied… For the city, the Syrians and the Numidians wove precious wool, and the Arabian peasant went without bread.”
The Merchants
The intense productive activity in 2nd-century Rome is evidenced by archaeological excavations in Ostia, specifically in the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, featuring a temple at its center dedicated to Annona Augusta, symbolizing the deification of imperial provisioning.
On the inner side of the two-naved porticos surrounding the square, between the columns, 16 small rooms were created. On their thresholds are mosaics symbolically depicting various trade corporations: shipwrights, ropemakers, furriers, timber merchants, weighers, and shipowners, distinguished based on the cities they hailed from, such as Alexandria, Sardinia, Gaul, North Africa, and Asia. Despite the naive and modest depictions, this gives the viewer an idea of the immense scope of economies both near and far in service of the well-being of Rome.
In Rome, hectares of surface were covered by horrea (horreum), warehouses holding various goods, usually accompanied by the tabernae of wholesale merchants.
From there, a dense network of workers branched out, including retail merchants, manual laborers necessary for maintaining the warehouse buildings, and workshops of artisans who processed and refined raw materials before they were sold.
To understand how, even in the absence of true productive activities, Rome nevertheless engaged in intense economic activity linked to trade, it is sufficient to consider that there were approximately 150 corporations in Rome. These included wholesale grain, wine, and oil merchants (magnarii), owners of entire fleets of ships (domini navium), engineers (fabri navales), or ship repairers (curatores navium). These corporations bear witness to a broad business turnover involving collaboration between patricians and plebeians, capitalist owners, and wage laborers.
Merchants and Producers
Regarding food commodities in imperial Rome, two commercial categories can be distinguished: those of retail sellers, such as fruit merchants (fructuarii), and those who sell their goods after producing or transforming them, such as the olitores, who were both vegetable gardeners and sellers of legumes, or the bakers who simultaneously practiced the trade of millers.
For the trade in luxury goods, some artisanal processing was always present in the sold goods. Perfumers, craftsmen of the mixtures they sold, goldsmiths producing their jewelry, pearl merchants, or ivory object merchants—the work of skilled artisans who could carve the tusks arriving from Africa. This connection between selling and manufacturing was inseparable for all goods related to clothing, such as those produced by tailors (vestiarii) or shoemakers (sutores).
Numerous corporations can be divided into two categories:
Those that produced what they sold, such as furriers (pelliones), carpenters, and cabinetmakers (citrarii),
Those that provided labor to the former. The latter included:
Building corporations, such as those of masons (structores) and carpenters (fabri tignari),
Transport corporations for land transport, e.g., muleteers (muliones), and those for water transport, e.g., boatmen (lenuncularii), and finally
Those responsible for the maintenance and supervision of the horrea, the warehouses.
In imperial Rome, there were no industrial districts or factory zones. Workers lived scattered throughout the various areas of Rome, where warehouses and shops, artisan workshops, and houses could be found mixed together. Organized in corporations, Roman workers, regulated by the laws of Augustus and his successors, followed binding rules for everyone practicing the same trade.
In addition to being regulated by lighting hours, the duration of work did not exceed eight hours, except for those whose activities were tied, such as barbers and innkeepers, to the leisure time of their clients. From numerous indications, it can be deduced that the majority of Roman workers stopped working at the sixth or seventh hour in the summer, and certainly between the sixth and seventh hour in winter:
“Into the fifth hour, Rome extends its varied labors; The sixth is rest for the weary, the seventh will be the end.”
During the Roman Monarchy, the king was the sole magistrate. He was assisted by two questors whom he appointed, as well as other assistants for various tasks. When he died, an interrex (interregnum) presided over the Senate and assemblies until the selection of a new king. Under the Republic, the executive branch was composed of both ordinary and extraordinary magistrates. Each ordinary magistrate was elected by one of the two main assemblies. The primary extraordinary magistrate, the dictator, was appointed with the approval of the Senate.
Imperialium, or “supreme command” in Latin, was held by the consuls and praetors, the two highest-ranking ordinary magistrates. Imperium authorized a magistrate to command military forces. Consuls held a higher level of imperium than praetors. After the fall of the Republic, the old republican magistracies (dictatorship, consulship, praetorship, censorship, aedileship, quaestorship, and tribunate) were partially abandoned, with the remaining ones losing all power. The emperor became the master of the state. The advent of the Empire was equivalent to the restoration of the ancient monarchy. The emperor held undisputed power, the Senate became a mere advisor without authority, and the assemblies were completely powerless.
Magistrates of the Roman Monarchy
During the Roman Monarchy, the king was the sole magistrate. His authority was absolute in reality. The king could have several assistants. In the event of a monarch’s demise, an interrex was designated to oversee the process of choosing a successor.
The King of Rome
The king combined executive, religious, judicial, and legislative powers. He was also the sole commander-in-chief of the armies. The king of Rome was technically elected by the people of Rome. Nevertheless, in practice, it was the Senate that actually held the power to elect a new king. The interregnum was the time that elapsed after a monarch died and before his successor was elected. At this time, the Senate selected an interrex.
Following this, the interrex nominated a potential heir (claimant) to the throne, who would then be put to a vote in the Senate. If the Senate voted in favor of the claimant, they would stand for the official elections, that is, the vote of the people through the comitia curiata (popular assembly). After the claimant was elected by the comitia curiata, the Senate ratified the election using its auctoritas patrum. The interrex then declared the claimant as the new king.
The new king would then take the auspices and be invested with imperium by the application of the lex curiata de imperio by the comitia curiata. According to Sallust, the imperium possessed by the king (resulting from the application of the lex curiata de imperio by the comitia curiata) is known as the imperium legitimum.
This probably means that the only limit imposed on the king was to respect the mos maiorum. In practice, this did not impose any real restrictions on power. Sometimes, the king accepted restrictions on his power. Typically, the king would want a declaration of war to be ratified by the comitia curiata before engaging. Such ratification was not necessary but ensured the king the support of the people (who would fight in that war).
King’s Assistants
Several officers could be chosen to assist the king. When the king left the city, a substitute (the praefectus urbi or “prefect of the city”) governed the city in the absence of the king. The king also had two questors (quaestores parricidii) as general assistants. Several magistrates, known as duumviri perduellionis, assisted the king in cases of treason. During a war, the king occasionally delegated command of the cavalry to the tribunus celerum.
Interrex
When the king (from the Latin rex) died, his powers were transferred to the Senate. The period following the king’s death, ending with the election of his successor, is called the interregnum. When an interregnum began, an interrex was appointed. It is unclear how each interregnum’s initial interrex was selected.
It is known, however, that every interrex had a five-day grace period during which they were required to step down and assign a replacement until a king was chosen. The interrex and king were identical except for the time each held power. Equal to the king’s authority was the interrex. While its primary function was to ease the handover of power from one monarch to another, the interrex’s influence extended well beyond this.
Roman Republic Magistrates
There was a certain level of authority (maior potestas, “greater powers”) that all Roman magistrates (magistratus) had since they were each given a set amount of power. Dictators had more authority than any other magistrate. No magistrate could use their veto power to overturn the decision of a lower-ranking magistrate. As a result, the judgments made by the Senate or the assembly could not be overturned by any magistrate.
As the tribunes of the plebs and plebeian aediles were not strictly speaking magistrates, they were not subject to the distribution of “greater powers.” In general, this made them independent of other magistrates. For example, this is why their actions could not be blocked by the consuls’ veto. Tribunes did not rely on their powers to obstruct magistrates, comitia, and the Senate through a veto but rather on the sacrosanctity of their person (intercessio). If a magistrate, assembly, or the Senate did not comply with a tribune’s orders, the tribune could, through the use of intercessio, block that particular action. Any aggression against a tribune was considered a capital offense.
Each ordinary magistrate could obstruct (veto) an action taken by a magistrate of equal or lower rank. If this obstruction occurred between two magistrates with the same powers (like two praetors), it was then called par potestas. This form of obstruction was not a veto per se but rather straightforward opposition. To prevent this, magistrates used the principle of alternation, allocating responsibilities by lot or seniority, or assigning certain magistrates control (provinciae) over specific functions. For instance, each consul held the fasces for one month and then handed them over to their colleague the following month, and so on.
If this obstruction occurred against a magistrate with less power (such as a consul acting against a praetor), it was then called intercessio. In this case, the magistrate opposed their superior power (maior potestas) to nullify the acts of a lower-ranking magistrate.
Powers of Magistrates
Each republican magistrate held certain constitutional powers (potestas), including imperium, coercitio, and auspicia (religious powers). These powers were balanced by several constitutional constraints, including collegiality (collega), the citizens’ right to appeal to the people (provocatio), and a constitutional division of powers (provincia). Only the people of Rome (plebeians and patricians) had the right to confer these powers upon a magistrate.
The most crucial of the constitutional powers was the imperium. It was held by both consuls and praetors. Defined in a restricted manner, it simply gave a magistrate the necessary authority to command a military force. More broadly, it bestowed upon the magistrate the constitutional authority to command in military, diplomatic, civil, or other domains. The magistrate’s imperium was at its maximum when they were abroad. While a magistrate was physically present in the city of Rome, they might have to completely relinquish their imperium.
All magistrates possessed the power of coercitio, used to maintain public order, though in Rome, all citizens enjoyed absolute protection against coercitio. This protection ensured the right to appeal to the people (provocatio). Provocatio required appealing to a tribune. As no tribune could retain their powers outside the city of Rome, the power of coercitio was absolute beyond the city’s borders.
Magistrates had both the power and duty to interpret omens (auspicia). An omen was an event understood as a sign sent by the gods. Auspices could be used to obstruct political adversaries. By declaring having witnessed an omen, a magistrate could justify their decision to end a legislative assembly or Senate meeting or their decision to veto a colleague.
Limits on the Magistrate’s Powers
Roman magistrates faced some restrictions on their powers. Three of these restrictions were collega, provocatio, and provincia. As long as a magistrate was in the city of Rome, collega and provocatio were at their maximum. While the magistrate was outside, provincia was the primary restriction on their power. Their powers were also limited by the duration of their term (usually one year). One of these restrictions was collegiality (collega). Each magistracy was concurrently held by at least two individuals to minimize the risks of tyranny and facilitate successions. For instance, consuls always governed in pairs.
Another restriction was provocatio, a precursor to the modern principle of habeas corpus. Every Roman citizen had an absolute right to provocatio. If a magistrate attempted to use their powers against a citizen (for example, to punish a citizen for a presumed crime), the citizen could appeal to the people (provoco ad populum). In this case, a tribune intervened with the power to assist the citizen. Often, the tribune brought the case of justice before a legislative assembly, a tribunal, or the college of tribunes to render the final verdict. Provocatio was used to control the coercive power (coercitio) of magistrates.
Provincia served as an additional check on the power of magistrates. Provincia compelled the division of responsibilities. For example, provincial governors each had supreme power over their province. Following the provincia principle, these governors couldn’t bring their army into another province. Once the annual mandate of a magistrate expired, they had to wait ten years before running again for the same magistracy. As this posed challenges for some magistrates, especially consuls and praetors, their imperium could be occasionally “prorogued.” They then held the same powers (as promagistrates) without officially occupying the magistracy. In practice, they acted as provincial governors.
Magistrates
By definition, a magistrate (magistratus) was an individual elected by the people of Rome (populus Romanus). In this capacity, they were considered representatives of the entire Roman people. Each magistrate acquired a degree of power (maior potestas).
Consuls
The consul of the Roman Republic was the highest among ordinary magistrates. The supreme power of the consul resulted in no ordinary magistrate holding a higher rank of maior potestas than the consul (other than the censor, who lacks imperium). The major potestas of the consul were illustrated by twelve lictors accompanying each consul. Each of them carried a ceremonial axe known as fasces, symbolizing the state’s power to punish and execute.
The consuls were elected by the centuriate assemblies. The consular mandate lasted for one year, and each consul always had another consul as a colleague. Over the years, one of the consuls became superior to their colleague. This surplus of power was exchanged monthly between the two consuls. The one with the most power for a given month held the fasces. After completing their mandate, a consul had to wait ten years before running for the consulship again.
The consuls held supreme power in both civil and military matters. In Rome, the consul holding the fasces was, in fact, at the helm of the Roman government. The governance of the government ultimately fell under the authority of this consul. They were then tasked with enforcing the laws enacted by the assemblies and the Senate, which they presided over.
The consul also served as the head of diplomacy and facilitated exchanges between foreign embassies and the Senate. The consul was invested with the highest level of ordinary imperium. While abroad, each consul commanded an army. At that time, neither the Senate, nor the assemblies, nor the tribunes could oppose them. Thus, their authority abroad was nearly absolute. The first consul appointed after the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, the last king of Rome, was Lucius Junius Brutus, a nephew of Tarquin.
Praetors
The praetors administered civil laws and commanded provincial armies. They were elected by the centuriate assemblies for an annual mandate, similar to the consuls. When both consuls were outside Rome, the urban praetor governed the city as an “interim consul.” Some praetors (praetor urbanus) assisted in the management of the central government. They could administer civil laws or act as judges in the courts. Other praetors had responsibilities in foreign affairs, often serving as governors of provinces.
Censors
Every five years (a lustrum), two censors were elected by the centuriate assembly for a term of eighteen months. Following their election, the centuriate assembly granted them censorial powers (by voting on the lex potestate de censoria). The censors did not hold imperium and therefore could not summon either the Senate or any legislative assembly.
Despite having curule seats, they did not possess fasces and were not accompanied by lictors. While theoretically holding a higher rank than the consuls (and thus higher than all ordinary magistracies), their decisions could only be blocked by the veto of another censor or a tribune. Generally, the censors did not act together, but one censor needed the agreement of their colleague to downgrade a citizen’s status during the census.
During their tenure in the censorship, they conducted a census, allowing them to admit citizens to the Senate or expel them. They had to update the list of citizens and their assets in the city, requiring them to be familiar with certain details of their lives. These inquiries sometimes led the censors to take action against a citizen for various moral offenses, such as bankruptcy and cowardice. As a penalty (“censure”), the censor could impose a fine on the citizen or sell their property.
Once the census was completed, the censor conducted a religious ceremony, the lustrum, validating the result of the census.
Aediles
Aediles were magistrates responsible for domestic affairs in Rome. The tribal assembly, under the presidency of a consul, elected two curule aediles for an annual term. Although curule aediles did not hold fasces, they occupied a curule seat. They had broad powers concerning daily affairs in the city of Rome. They managed markets, spectacles, and games. They also took care of the maintenance of buildings such as temples, aqueducts, and sewers.
Questors
The magistracy of questor is considered the lowest-ranking. Questors were elected by the tribal assemblies for an annual term. They assisted the consuls in Rome and the governors of provinces, with their duties often being of a financial nature.
Tribunes and Plebeian Aediles
As tribunes and plebeian aediles were elected only by the plebeians, rather than by the entire Roman populace, they were not technically magistrates. They were elected by the plebeian council. Initially, the sole task of a plebeian aedile was to assist the tribune. Nevertheless, over the years, the distinction between plebeian aediles and curule aediles disappeared.
Since tribunes were considered the embodiment of the plebeians, they were sacrosanct. Their sacrosanctity was reinforced by the plebeians’ vow to kill anyone who harmed the tribune during their term. All the powers of the tribunes derived from this sacrosanct status. An obvious consequence was that it was considered a capital offense to assault a tribune, ignore their veto, or thwart their actions. Being independent of all other magistrates, their actions could only be blocked by the veto of other tribunes.
The sacrosanctity of the tribune (as well as all tribunician powers) only took effect as long as the tribune remained in Rome. If the tribune left Rome, the plebeians could no longer enforce their oath. The Tribunes had the authority to uphold the right of provocatio. It was a theoretical guarantee of legal security and a precursor to our own habeas corpus.
If a magistrate threatened to take action against a citizen, the citizen could cry provoco ad populum. This had the effect of appealing to a tribune from the magistrate’s decision. The tribune then had to assess the situation and give approval to the magistrate before they could act. Any action taken despite a valid provocatio was considered an illegal act.
The tribunes could use their sacrosanctity when someone physically mistreated an individual (such as during an arrest) and order the imposition of the death penalty against an individual who obstructed their path. Additionally, tribunes could physically intervene (intercessio) against a magistrate, the Senate, or an assembly, this action having the same effect as a veto.
If a magistrate, the Senate, or an assembly refused to respect a tribune’s veto, the tribune could use their sacrosanctity as protection and physically force them to comply. Moreover, the tribunes presided over the plebeian council. Therefore, they were authorized to open and close sessions, as well as introduce matters before the council.
Dictators and Senatus Consultum Ultimum
In times of war, during critical circumstances for the Roman Republic, a dictator was appointed for six months. The government was dissolved after the Senate enacted a senatus consultum ultimum, authorizing the consuls to appoint a dictator, who then became the absolute master of the state for a maximum of six months. They assumed power immediately and appointed a master of the cavalry (magister equitum) to act as their chief lieutenant. Often, the dictator stepped down as soon as the issue justifying their appointment was resolved, thereby restoring the government to its pre-arrival state.
The last conventional dictator was appointed in 202 BCE. After this date, cases of extreme urgency were managed through the passage of a senatus consultum ultimum, which suspended civilian government and instituted martial law (or something analogous). Indeed, this invested the consuls with dictatorial powers.
There were several reasons why the Senate began to use the senatus consultum ultimum rather than appointing a dictator in cases of extreme urgency after 202 BCE. During the 3rd century BCE, a series of laws were ratified, allowing the control of dictatorial power. In addition, the aristocracy lost their monopoly on appointing dictators when a statute was passed in 217 BCE that granted this authority to the popular assemblies.
Summary
Magistracy
Curule seat and pretext toga
Imperium
Designated by
Auspice
Type of Judiciary
Dictator
Yes
Yes
Consul
Major Auspices
Extraordinary
Magister Equitum
Yes
Yes
Dictator
Major Auspices
Extraordinary
Consul
Yes
Yes
Comitia Centuriates
Major Auspices
Ordinary
Censor
Yes
No
Comitia Centuriates
Major Auspices
Ordinary
Praetor
Yes
Yes
Comitia Centuriates
Major Auspices
Ordinary
Curule Aediles
Yes
No
Comices tributes
Auspice Minor
Ordinary
Plebeian Aedile
No
No
Comices tributes
–
Ordinary
Quaestor
No
No
Comices tributes
Auspice Minor
Ordinary
Tribune of the Plebs
No
No
Comices tributes
–
Ordinary
Interrex
Yes
Yes
Senate
Major Auspices
Extraordinary
Magistrates of the Roman Empire
A distinction needed to be made between the title “princeps” and that of “emperor.” While the term “emperor” derived from the honorary title of “imperator,” the word itself only appeared in its modern form when Charlemagne was crowned “emperor” in the 8th century. The most appropriate term for referring to the early emperors would be “princeps.” This term simply meant “the first citizen.”
Under the Empire, most of the old republican magistracies continued to exist. Nevertheless, they quickly became powerless.
Emperor (Princeps)
Theoretically, the Senate elected each new emperor. In practice, however, each emperor appointed his own successor. After his death, he granted his legal powers to his successor (tribunician powers and proconsular imperium), theoretically necessary for being named emperor. After the emperor’s death, it was up to the army to ratify or reject his choice. If an individual had the support of the army, the Senate would acquiesce under the guise of an independent election.
The legal basis for the emperor’s power rested on his proconsular imperium and tribunician powers. His proconsular imperium gave him the authority to command the entire Roman army. His tribunician powers provided him with complete control over the civil apparatus in Rome and made his magistracy and person sacrosanct.
Consular and Proconsular Powers
Under his proconsular imperium (imperium proconsulare), the emperor held the same rank of imperium as the consuls. This granted him the same degree of authority held by the consuls. However, as the emperor was (almost) never a consul, he was not bound by the constitutional restrictions of that magistracy. For example, he was not required to observe collegiality (having no colleague), and his acts could not be blocked by a veto.
His proconsular imperium gave him command and authority over all the proconsuls. Since the proconsuls commanded each province, most of the Roman army was stationed there. Thus, by commanding the proconsuls, the emperor acquired control over almost the entire Roman army. Finally, the imperium rank granted to the emperor included powers that, under the Republic, were reserved for the Senate and the assemblies. This encompassed the right to declare war, ratify treaties, and negotiate with foreign nations.
Tribunician Powers
While the proconsular imperium gave the emperor authority over the Roman military apparatus, his tribunician powers (potestas tribunicia) bestowed powers over the Roman civil apparatus. Perhaps the most useful aspect of the tribunician powers was their prestige, derived from the popular history of this magistracy (the tribunate). His tribunician powers granted the emperor the legal rank to preside over (and thus dominate) the assemblies and the Senate.
They also gave him the right to veto any acts of the popular assemblies and the Senate. However, the assemblies quickly lost their powers, and obstruction from the Senate against the emperor was unlikely. When an emperor was invested with tribunician powers, his magistracy and person became sacrosanct. It was a capital offense to harm (or even attempt to harm) the emperor. It was also a capital offense (punishable by death) to obstruct the emperor or speak ill of him.
Additional Powers
The emperor had the authority to perform duties that, under the Republic, were reserved for the censors, notably the collection of taxes and the right to grant public subsidies. He could also control public morality (censorship) and conduct a census. With control over the census, the emperor had absolute control over the admission of members to the Senate. He had the power to issue edicta (“edicts”), decreta (“decrees”), and rescripta (“rescripts”). Edicta generally concerned matters related to the army, the treasury, or supplies. Decreta were judicial decisions. Rescripta were published in response to important questions posed by private citizens.
During the Republic, the aerarium Saturni (Public Treasury of the Temple of Saturn) housed the state’s treasury, with control vested solely in the Senate. In the early principate, the Senate retained control over the aerarium Saturni for a while but gradually lost it. Emperor Augustus established two new treasuries, namely, the fiscus Caesaris and the aerarium militare.
The fiscus Caesaris replaced the aerarium Saturni, emerging as Rome’s primary treasury. Even though the emperor now controlled the public treasury, he technically did not violate tradition by outright taking control of the aerarium Saturni. The aerarium militare held lesser significance, primarily serving to contain funds for soldier payments. The emperor also wielded control over religious institutions. By dominating both political and religious institutions, the emperor became the true master of the State.
Republican Magistracies under the Empire
Under the Empire, citizens were divided into three classes: the senatorial order, the equestrian order, and the plebeians. Each citizen could pursue a career in public service, and each of these three classes had separate career opportunities known as the cursus honorum. Magistracies in the old republic were only open to citizens of the senatorial class. The surviving executive magistracies after the fall of the Republic (in order of the cursus honorum) included the consulship, the praetorship, the tribunate of the plebs, the quaestorship, the aedileship, and the military tribunate.
Consuls
During the transition from the Republic to the Empire, the essential powers of republican consuls shifted to the emperor. Moreover, one had to be appointed by the emperor before running for any magistracy. This resulted in the loss of independence for consuls, diminishing both their powers and prestige. Furthermore, under the Empire, consuls often resigned before completing their terms, further weakening the consulship. With weakened consuls, the Senate itself lost influence, and the emperor gained increasing power.
After the fall of the Republic, the consuls held no real power. The authority (as well as the prestige) of the consulship declined, and the consuls became, in a sense, high-ranking magistrates. The imperial consuls presided over the Senate, acted as judges in certain criminal cases, and controlled public games and demonstrations. Generally, consular authority did not extend beyond the civil administration of Italy or senatorial provinces.
Praetors
For a brief period, the praetors had control over the treasury. The power of the praetors was at its height when they also presided over the quaestiones perpetuae (“permanent legal inquiries”). The significance of the praetorship collapsed when Emperor Hadrian issued a decree called the edictum perpetuum. This decree deprived the praetorship of its right to issue edicts and transferred most judicial powers to the consuls or judges of provincial courts.
Tribunes
Under the Empire, the tribunes remained sacrosanct. In theory, they retained the power to convene (or exercise their veto rights on) the Senate and assemblies. The tribunes’ powers over the assemblies became meaningless since the assemblies themselves no longer had real powers. The only real influence of the tribunes was their ability to veto a senatorial decision. Tribunes also had the power to impose fines and retained their power of provocatio.
Quaestors
Augustus divided the college of quaestors into two parts. One part served in senatorial provinces, while the other part assisted in the administration of the central government. One quaestor was assigned to each senatorial province, except Sicily, which had two, making a total of twelve quaestors.
For the remaining eight quaestors, two served in the internal jurisdiction of the city of Rome (the quaestores urbani). Finally, the two consuls and the emperor each had two quaestors assigned to them. During the reign of Augustus, control over grain supply shifted from the édiles to a special council. Subsequently, they lost their remaining powers, including the ability to maintain order in the city, rendering this magistracy powerless, and it disappeared around the middle of the 3rd century.
Magistracies Abolished
During his consulship in 44 BC, Mark Antony abolished the extraordinary magistracies of dictator and Magister Equitum (Master of the Cavalry). The magistracy of interrex was also eliminated during the transition from the Republic to the Empire. Censorship disappeared permanently after the reign of Emperor Claudius.
Executive Magistrates of the Late Roman Empire
The executive magistracies had hardly more powers than municipal offices after Diocletian became emperor. His reforms merely formalized what was already happening. Consuls could only preside over the Senate. The praetors and quaestors could only organize public games. The praetor still retained some limited judicial authority. Other magistracies disappeared.
The first two consuls of a year, the consules ordinarii, were appointed by the emperor. The term of the consules ordinarii ended on April 21. All other consuls of the year (having less prestige, the consules suffecti) were elected by the Senate, which also elected the praetors and quaestors. However, the approval of the emperor was necessary for the election to be certified.
The first part of the Peloponnesian War is known as the Archidamian War, spanning from its outbreak in 431 BC until the Peace of Nicias in 421 BC. Its name is derived from the Spartan king Archidamus II, who, despite not being a war enthusiast, led Peloponnesian invasions into Attica until his death in 427 BC. The conflict lasted for ten years and can be divided into four phases:
The operational plan of the Spartans and the Peloponnesian League involved appearing in Attica every year before the harvest, devastating the fields to compel the Athenians to initiate a struggle in the open field, where they would be at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, Sparta continued to foster discontent among the Athenian allies of the Delian League.
The Athenians knew that the final outcome depended on their fleet, to which four specific missions were assigned:
Control the maritime routes of the Western Mediterranean through the Gulf of Corinth and around the Peloponnesian Peninsula.
Harass the Spartans with landings on their coasts.
Consolidate a series of strategic points crucial to keeping them blocked.
Isolate the Peloponnesian forces from their allies in Sicily and Magna Graecia.
In 431 BC, two months after the events recounted in the following section, the Spartan army appeared in Attica, and Archidamus attempted, as he had done previously, to get the Athenians to make some concessions. Pericles did not yield. Additionally, the Athenian Assembly enacted a decree prohibiting negotiations with the enemy under pressure of arms.
For greater security, the Athenians sheltered their families and possessions in the Long Walls, from where they could witness the destruction of their wheat fields, vineyards, and olive groves by the Peloponnesians. Archidamus had to withdraw from Attica after waiting in vain for a month for Pericles’ troops to defend their lands and try to expel him. Moreover, he lacked supplies as the Athenians had withdrawn their food reserves and livestock.
Attack on Plataea
Military actions began in 431 BC with Thebes’ attack on the city of Plataea, an ally of Athens and hostile to Theban supremacy in the Boeotian League, which served as an outpost in Boeotian territory. There were significant tensions between the two cities as the Thebans sought to expand the Boeotian League under their leadership and were unwilling to relinquish Plataea.
In the spring of 431 BC, Thebans, aided by a pro-Theban faction from within, attempted to seize Plataea by surprise. The attempt failed, but the frightened Plataeans killed the 330 Theban prisoners who had surreptitiously entered the city, and this massacre incited Thebans against them.
Although the Theban aggression against an Athenian ally tacitly initiated hostilities, the “official” beginning of the conflict did not occur until May, with the Peloponnesian invasion of Attica led by the Eurypontid king Archidamus II.
Archidamus II
Subsequent Military Actions
In these early years of the war, Athens displayed intense military activity, as evidenced by various actions such as the annual invasion of the neighboring Megaris region and the expulsion of the Aeginetans from their own island to establish Athenian cleruchs (settlers) under a pact between Athens and Sparta, who settled in the region of Thyrea. The Athenians also aimed for absolute control of the Gulf of Corinth and the maritime route to the Western Mediterranean.
In 431 BC, in accordance with his capabilities and strategic plans, Pericles dispatched a fleet of a hundred triremes to the shores of the Peloponnese. Although it failed in Methone (on the western coast of Messenia), defended by the Spartan general Brasidas, it succeeded in Elis. Brasidas, an atypical Spartan strategist, undoubtedly stood out during the Archidamian War, earning the praise of Thucydides for his military talent and diplomatic skill.
The northwest of continental Greece became a significant theater of operations, where Athens, with the assistance of its Acarnanian allies, attempted to eliminate Corinthian influence. In 431 BC, the same 100 ships that had circumnavigated the Peloponnese seized the Corinthian colony of Soli, ousted the pro-Corinthian tyrant Evarchus from power in Astakos—though he was restored by the Corinthians in the following winter—and diplomatically gained control of the island of Cephalonia, at the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth.
Swift landings in the perioeci territory of Laconia and Messenia were repeated in subsequent years:
In 430 BC – For details on these actions, refer to the second paragraph of the section “After the death of Pericles.”
In the summer of 428 BC when, on two occasions, the Athenian fleet ravaged coastal regions in Lacedaemon. Thucydides reflects the Spartans’ concern.
In the spring of 430 BC, 4,000 Athenian hoplites and 300 horsemen, aboard 100 Athenian cavalry transport ships and 50 from Chios and Lesbos, laid waste to the countryside of Epidaurus and attempted an assault on the city, which failed. Following this, they devastated the fields of Troezen, Halieis, and Hermione, cities located on the Acte Peninsula in the northwest of the Peloponnesian Peninsula. The expedition concluded with the conquest and plunder of Prasiae.
The devastation of these three cities, besides undermining Spartan morale, served as a call to Argos to abandon its neutrality and lead the opposition to Sparta in the Peloponnese. Additionally, Prasiae, situated south of Cynuria, was a hotspot in the age-old conflict between Spartans and Argives over the possession of this border region between Laconia and Argolis. The dispute intensified when the Spartans settled Aeginetans there, expelled from their island by the Athenians.
In the summer of 430 BC, there was an attempt at diplomatic rapprochement between Sparta and Persia. A delegation, consisting of Spartans Aneristus, Nicolochus, and Pratodamus, Tegean Timagoras, Corinthian Aristeus, and Argive Polides, was sent with the main mission of securing financial support from the Great King for the Peloponnesian League. The presence of at least two high-ranking Spartans, Aneristus and Nicolochus, descendants of Espertias and Bulis, the two nobles who sacrificed their lives to Xerxes I to atone for the crime against the heralds of the Persian Great King, confirmed Sparta’s readiness to continue the war until the disintegration of the Athenian Empire.
This happened precisely at a time when Athens sought a peaceful resolution to the conflict. En route to Persia, the ambassadors seized the opportunity to persuade the Odrysian king Sitalces to abandon the Athenian alliance, which could be very useful for aiding Potidaea and even for inciting a rebellion throughout Chalcidice, very close to the Thracian kingdom.
However, coincidentally, two Athenian ambassadors were present at the court of Sitalces, who persuaded Sitalces’ son, Sadoch, who had recently granted Athenian citizenship, to hand over the Peloponnesian envoys. The members of the delegation were arrested, taken to Athens, and executed without a prior trial. Thucydides explains the violation of the law that allowed any individual to defend themselves publicly, attributing it to the fear inspired by Aristeus, who was accused of all the troubles in Potidaea and Thrace.
In the late summer of 430 BC, the Spartans and their allies dispatched an expedition of 100 ships, carrying 1000 hoplites, against the island of Zakynthos, located off Elis and an ally of Athens. Led by the Spartan Cnemus, they disembarked and devastated most of the island. As the Zakynthians refused to surrender, they set sail towards the Peloponnese. Thucydides implies that the military campaign was a failure due to Cnemus’ role as the navarch (admiral), considering him the archetype of a Spartan due to his lack of energy and decisiveness.
Zakynthos held significant strategic importance, serving as a stopover in Athenian voyages around the Peloponnese and its location off the coast of Elis, not far from the Peloponnesian naval base at Cyllene. The crucial aspect is the timing of the expedition, which occurred shortly after Athens initiated negotiations for the end of the war—talks that remain unknown as Thucydides does not even outline them, showing little concern for the failed peace attempts.
Athens was going through a challenging moment in the war, not only due to the annual Peloponnesian invasions but also because of the epidemic that was decimating the population. Additionally, there was the rapid depletion of Athena’s treasury, accelerated by the financial drain resulting from the prolonged siege of Potidaea. The authority of Pericles was also questioned by a majority of the people who blamed him for the war’s misfortunes. These criticisms manifested themselves in the temporary deprivation of the strategos position and the imposition of a fine.
The conditions that Sparta set for achieving peace are unknown, but they probably weren’t much different from those demanded before the outbreak of the conflict. The Athenian historian’s silence suggests intransigence on both sides and little success in the diplomatic approach.
The Plague
An epidemic, originating in Ethiopia, was introduced through the port of Piraeus in 430 BC and quickly spread through a city whose dense population lived crowded within the walls in precarious hygienic conditions. Although Thucydides accurately describes the symptoms, the nature of the disease remains a subject of debate among pathologists, considering possibilities such as bubonic plague, typhus, smallpox, and influenza. In three years, 4,400 hoplites and 300 horsemen perished, roughly one-third of both bodies, a casualty percentage presumably also recorded among the general population. Pericles succumbed to the epidemic and died in 429 BC. The epidemic, moreover, recurred in 427 BC.
After the Death of Pericles
The power vacuum left by Pericles was filled by the aristocrat Nicias and the demagogue Cleon (d. 422 BC). The former advocated for an understanding with Sparta to end the conflict, while the latter was inclined toward an all-out war without concessions. This internal struggle affected Athenian foreign policy, which experienced continuous fluctuations as the people were swayed by one leader or the other. The political legacy of the “Olympian” also fell to Eucrates and Lysicles. None of these figures knew how to capitalize on the opportunities that presented themselves to the Athenians to emerge successfully from a challenging war.
Phormion and Cnemus
In the summer of 429 BC, the Spartans implemented a vast and ambitious plan in the northwest, aspiring not only to dominate Acarnania but also the islands of Zakynthos and Cephalonia, and even Naupactus, where since the winter of 430-429 BC, the Athenians had stationed a fleet under the command of Phormion, enhancing their control of the Gulf of Corinth.
The Spartan plan would make it extremely difficult, or even prevent, the Athenians from circumnavigating the Peloponnese and blockading the Gulf of Corinth due to a lack of ports for their ships. However, the Acarnanian campaign, also led by Cnemus, would end in another debacle due to poor coordination among the participants and the inconsistency in Spartan leadership.
The Spartans were more inclined to withdraw at the slightest adversity or setback than to engage in a distant enterprise from which they were not direct beneficiaries. The 47 ships forming the fleet supporting Cnemus couldn’t evade the surveillance of Phormion and were forced to combat at the entrance of the Gulf of Corinth. In the two naval battles, the second of which Phormion won despite a numerical disadvantage of almost 4 to 1, a significant portion of the Peloponnesian fleet was trapped in the gulf. This prevented the Peloponnesian League from participating in the defense of the Peloponnesian coasts, as the consequences of both defeats were disastrous for them.
Subsequently, Phormion took a detour through Acarnania, a region with several territories dominated by Athens’ allies. He returned to Athens via Naupactus, thus complicating the supply of wheat from Magna Graecia to the Peloponnese. Despite his successes, he was accused in court and sentenced to pay a fine, which, being unable to satisfy him, led to his atimia (loss of citizenship). Consequently, he could no longer hold any public office.
Militarily, Athens retained Naupactus, signifying the blockade of the gulf and the Isthmus of Corinth, while almost a quarter of the Peloponnesian fleet had been dismantled and its crews captured or killed. These effects had repercussions on naval activity in the following years. Another no less important development was the naval strengthening of Athenian power in northwest continental Greece at the expense of the Corinthians, as demonstrated shortly after by the expeditions to Acarnania by Phormion and his son Asopius.
Mytilenean Revolt
Greek trireme.
In 428 BC, the island of Lesbos, which had been one of Athens’ most loyal allies for half a century, defected from the Delian League. This defection had the potential to drag other city-states along and undermine Athenian dominance in Asia Minor. Due to its strategic position in the region of the northern Aegean straits, Lesbos was admitted to the Peloponnesian League, although the Peloponnesians did not provide effective assistance. The Athenians sent the strategos Paches to the island, commanding 1000 hoplites and 250 triremes. He blockaded the two ports of Mytilene and surrounded them with a wall.
As the Athenian punitive expedition incurred significant expenses, Athens had to resort to a wealth tax, eisphora, which provided a fund of 200 talents. Meanwhile, another Athenian fleet circumnavigated the Peloponnese. Due to the harm it inflicted on the perioeci communities of Laconia, the Spartans chose to come to their aid instead of rescuing the people of Mytilene. When Sparta decided to send a fleet of 40 ships under the command of Alcidas, it was already too late. In the Cyclades, the Spartan navarch received the news that Mytilene had surrendered.
The city of Miletus, which sought help from the Peloponnesian League, waited in vain and had to surrender. In the treaty between Paches and the people of Mytilene, the Athenian general pledged not to execute, enslave, or imprison any Mytilenean before the return of an embassy sent by the city to Athens. The ecclesia, at the suggestion of Cleon, decided to punish all Mytileneans severely, advocating for the execution of the adults and the enslavement of the children.
However, in a hastily convened Assembly, the people were persuaded by Diodotus to repeal the cruel decree (psephisma) and replace it with another that only sentenced the leaders of the rebellion to death. It was also decreed that the walls be torn down, only the ambassadors, whose number remains unknown to this day, be executed, autonomy be lost, the fleet be handed over, and all cultivable lands, except those of Mithymna, be confiscated for later distribution among Athenian cleruchs.
The End of Plataea
In 427 BC, the Spartans and their allies marched with their troops to Plataea, which had been under siege since 429 BC. Plataea, an ally of Athens, remained a thorn in the side of the Boeotian League, led by the Thebans. After speeches from both Plataeans and Thebans, five Spartan judges dispatched to Plataea pleased their Theban allies by deciding to execute the 225 defenders who had surrendered (200 Plataeans and 25 Athenians) and enslave 110 women. The city was destroyed, and the lands and small communities dependent on it were annexed by the Thebans (427 BC), who saw their political and economic power increase within the confederation.
The Civil War of Corcyra
The Civil War (stasis) that erupted in Corcyra represented the first incident of dramatic consequences for the internal politics of a city as a result of the interference of the two powers vying for hegemony in Hellas. In 427–426 BC, the endemic antagonism between the Corcyrean (Corfu) democrats and oligarchs degenerated into an open civil conflict when the latter attempted to seize power through violent means and overthrow the democratic government.
The prisoners taken during the battles over the city of Epidamnus had been released, either in exchange for a huge sum for their ransom or due to the promise they made to reconcile their city and Corinth. Corcyra possessed the third-largest fleet of the time, and if it fell into the hands of the Peloponnesians, it would tilt the balance of naval power.
Moreover, the island of Corcyra had significant strategic value due to its location on the maritime route to the Italian peninsula and Sicily. Athens sent its first expedition there in the same year to cut off the Peloponnesian grain supply and the possibility of gaining control of the island. The intervention of the Athenian Nicostratus with his fleet did not resolve the problem, although Corcyra signed an alliance with Athens, replacing the previous epimachia (defensive alliance) for the time being.
The Athenian Occupation of Pylos and Sphacteria
The war was about to take a new and unexpected turn in favor of Athens, amidst the successes and failures on each side. The Athenians had decided to carry out intensive naval activity in the Ionian Sea, aiming to attack Sparta’s allies and seeking to extend their hegemony to Sicily and Magna Graecia.
Athens deployed its fleet there with two specific objectives:
Isolate the Peloponnese from the wealthy colonies of Italy and Sicily, especially Syracuse.
Impose political hegemony over the Greek colonies in the West.
The Athenian intervention relied on the old and bitter rivalries that had long faced the Greeks of these western colonies. For a long time, Syracuse had threatened Segesta, Leontino, and Rhegium, among others. Pericles had allied with them against Syracuse and its allies (Gela, Selinunte, Himera, and Locri).
Under the command of Laques, 40 ships appeared between 427 and 426 BC. They returned to Athens with no real success because the Greeks of Sicily gathered in Gela, anticipating Athens’ annexation intentions, and agreed to make peace among themselves. However, the Athenian assembly, following bellicose and megalomaniac leaders, exiled the three strategoi of the fleet, accusing them of being corrupted to abandon the conquest.
On the Peloponnesian coasts, Athens achieved favorable results that it failed to capitalize on. Demosthenes landed on the coast of Messenia to harass the Spartans. His fleet had to anchor in the bay of Pylos due to a storm, a moment the Athenian strategos used for his other two colleagues, Eurymedon and Sophocles, to occupy the Corifasian Peninsula. From there, the Athenians could be in contact with the Messenians.
While most of the ships continued to Corcyra and Sicily, Demosthenes stayed behind with five triremes. The Spartans occupied the island of Sphacteria, located south of Pylos, with the intention of confronting the Athenian detachment. The Athenian fleet that had headed to Corcyra returned from Zante and blocked the two entrances to the bay of Pylos, isolating a significant number of Lacedaemonian hoplites on Sphacteria.
Faced with this dramatic situation, Sparta arranged a truce for the region of Pylos and wanted to negotiate peace with the Athenians. Given the power of the radical Athenians under the leadership of Cleon, the Assembly ordered him to end the situation. Athenian hoplites landed on the island, disarmed the Spartans, and captured 120 Spartiates.
The success of the operation was not Cleon’s but Demosthenes’, the main architect of it, although Cleon claimed the triumph. He took advantage of this victory to triple the tribute of the Delian League and increase the juror fees to three obols, thereby gaining the favor of the people. The Spartan defeat surprised all of Greece. Such a victory over their infantry and, above all, the presence of a garrison in Pylos formed by Messenians from Naupactus and Athenians, posed a significant threat to Laconia due to the potential danger of a helot uprising.
Towards the Peace of Nicias
Cleon and Brasidas
The success at Sphacteria had led Athens’ war faction, led by Cleon, to a program of actions that differed from Pericles’ naval policy, leaning towards land warfare. The conquest of the island of Cythera in 424 BC by Nicias caused serious damage to Peloponnesian trade. The Athenians seized the port of Nisaea. Later, an Athenian contingent attempted the conquest of Boeotia but suffered a major defeat in Delium against Boeotian hoplites who, for the first time, employed the oblique phalanx formation.
The Spartan general Brasidas introduced a new turn to the war, which had hitherto involved ravaging Attica and maintaining a defensive stance in the Peloponnese. They recognized that Athens’ vulnerability lay in Chalcidice and Thrace. To reach these regions, the Lacedaemonians would need to pass through Thessaly, officially an ally of Athens but divided between pro-Athenian and pro-Spartan factions: the common people favored Athens, while the wealthy aristocracy sympathized with Sparta. Brasidas crossed the Isthmus of Corinth, Boeotia, and Thessaly, and arrived in Chalcidice, where he incited the inhabitants to revolt.
The cities of Acanthus and Stagira sided with him, and his most notable success was the conquest of Amphipolis. Thus, Brasidas dealt a significant blow to the Athenians in an area where their empire seemed secure. Thucydides, the historian, and then the strategos responsible for the city’s defense could not prevent it from being taken by Brasidas. This loss was crucial due to its strategic position with respect to Thrace and the Straits (Hellespont and Dardanelles), as Amphipolis provided wood for shipbuilding and contributed financially. Thucydides was punished with ostracism (exile) by the Athenian assembly.
Following the Spartan victory, numerous Chalcidian cities defected from the Delian League, and the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaion came under Spartan control. Athens’ position in Thrace weakened with the loss of other cities like Torone (Toroni). Consequently, the Athenians were compelled to increase tribute quotas (eisphora), leading to the defection of additional allied cities. However, both Athenians and Spartans, represented by Nicias and Pleistoanax, desired peace as soon as possible. The latter were particularly concerned about the prisoners from Pylos, who would be executed if the Peloponnesians invaded Attica again.
Consequently, in the spring of 423 BC, Laconian general Laconian negotiated a one-year truce that seemed to leave a door open to a definitive peace. Thucydides records its contents, which included different local demarcation lines for both forces and their territorial possessions. Certain problematic issues would be subject to arbitration.
However, once the deadline passed, the war resumed in Chalcidice, and intrigues continued. The city of Sicyon defected from the Delian League, and according to the agreement, it should have been returned to them, but Brasidas refused. Nicias managed to win the support of Perdiccas II of Macedonia and Prince Arrhidaeus of Lynkestis, gaining some advantage in the north. Cleon presented himself with a strong contingent and achieved some victories, including the conquest of Torone, but as he approached Amphipolis, the Spartans dealt him a severe defeat. Cleon and Brasidas died in the Battle of Amphipolis in 422 BC.
The Peace of Nicias
The deaths of Cleon and Brasidas removed two staunch supporters of war from the political stage, allowing Pleistoanax and Nicias to resume peace negotiations. The events in Delium and Amphipolis shifted the spotlight in the direction of the war and, therefore, in Athenian politics, to the aristocrats led by Nicias, who wanted to return to Pericles’ plan as the war was ruining the agricultural economy. Nicias faced opposition from radical Democrats Hyperbolus and Peisander. Sparta also desired peace. Among other things, they wanted the return of the 120 prisoners from Sphacteria (island), as the diminishing number of Spartiates was a concern. In the early days of April 421 BC, peace was signed for a duration of 50 years. The key points recorded by Thucydides were:
Athens and Sparta would return to the situation before the war and should therefore reintegrate everything conquered during it.
The Spartans and their allies would regain Pylos, Corcyra, Cythera, Methana, Pteleum, and Atalanta.
Exchange of prisoners.
Release of prisoners by both sides.
Recognition of the autonomy of the Sanctuary of Delphi.
In the context of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Battle of Wörth, also known as the Battle of Froeschwiller, took place on August 6, 1870, in Alsace. The confrontation is remembered for the intense charges of the French cuirassiers against a numerically superior Prussian army. The cavalry was crushed, albeit putting up strong resistance. Their heroism proved futile.
France lost the war to Prussia on January 28, 1871, after a few months. This defeat had significant consequences for the country, including the deposition of Emperor Napoleon III and the establishment of the Third Republic. Resentment over this military failure would eventually lead to the next conflict: World War I.
—> The Battle of Wörth saw the use of key military tactics, including the Prussian use of combined arms, efficient use of artillery, and flexible maneuvering to outflank and defeat the French forces.
Why Did the Battle of Wörth Take Place?
Battle of Wörth, 1870 (general overview). Image: Public Domain.
The Franco-Prussian War was instigated by the Prussian Otto von Bismarck, who held leadership in the country. He views with disapproval France’s industrial development, which is gaining significance and power. The primary objectives of this war were to unify Germany against a common enemy and to reclaim territories such as Alsace. Bismarck initiated hostilities by opposing Napoleon III and supporting the candidacy of his cousin for the leadership of Spain.
The conflict escalated, leading to the expulsion of the French ambassador by Bismarck. Despite the cancellation of William I’s candidacy, Bismarck spread rumors that the ambassador was removed in a very discourteous manner. This narrative is encapsulated in the Ems Dispatch and disseminated to European chancelleries.
Napoleon III aligned himself with the strongly opposed French public opinion and declared war on Prussia on July 19, 1870. However, the French army was ill-prepared for this conflict, revealing weaknesses from a military operation in Mexico. The initial battle of the Franco-Prussian War, the defeat at Wissembourg on August 4, 1870, saw Prussian forces significantly outnumbering the French. Subsequently, the Germans advanced into Alsace.
Prussian V Corp artillery advances through the streets of Wörth. Image: Public Domain.
After the victory of Wissembourg, the Germans move towards the town of Woerth and encounter the French vanguard. Sporadic fights ensue. At Morsbronn, General Michel led the first cavalry charge on August 6, 1870. The situation becomes critical for the French cuirassiers, and Marshal MacMahon, leading the troops, decides to launch a second charge in the neighboring town of Elsasshausen.
The cuirassiers of General de Bonnemains advance on impassable terrain, strewn with vineyards and other obstacles. The offensive is cut short after very fierce fighting and the dispatch of several consecutive regiments.
The Prussians gained the advantage thanks to their artillery and numerical superiority (three Prussian soldiers to one French soldier). The charges of the French cavalry will always be remembered for the fierceness of the fighting, but the sacrifice of the men proved to be in vain and demonstrated the weaknesses and lack of information of the command. This battle, known as the Battle of Reichshoffen in military history, is also called Frœschwiller (on the French side) or Wörth (on the German side).
Who Won the Battle of Wörth?
Captain de Pontécoulant of the 1st Algerian Rifle Regiment supports the retreat against Elsasshausen. Image: Public Domain.
The Prussians prevailed in the Battle of Wörth. Despite the heroic charge of the French cuirassiers, the Prussians demonstrated their military superiority. The French were equipped with Chassepot rifles, known for their precision. However, the lack of coordination within the French army, coupled with command weaknesses, led to significant confusion. The Prussian army countered the French with direct attacks combined with flanking maneuvers, resulting in the massacre of the French cuirassiers.
Following the French strategy, the cavalry charge aimed to divert the Prussians’ attention from the 4th division, which was in grave danger in the commune of Morsbronn.
Marshal Patrice de MacMahon misjudged the situation and ordered the cuirassier troops under General Michel. The battle lasted for about ten hours, showcasing the resilience of the French cavalry. However, surrounded, they eventually succumbed to the enemy. Their resistance, nevertheless, allowed the French infantry to retreat.
This advantage was short-lived, as the French would lose the Franco-Prussian War a few months later.
How Many People Died in the Battle of Wörth?
The French cavalry’s charge in this battle, while courageous, was futile and desperate. The French made sacrifices, displaying fervent combat, explaining the comparable human losses on both sides. On the Prussian side, there were 10,153 soldiers killed and 487 officers wounded. For the French, the figure stands at approximately between 10,000 and 11,000 dead or severely wounded, with 9,000 French soldiers captured by the Prussians.
What Were the Consequences of the Battle of Wörth?
The sacrifice of the French cuirassiers will be extensively utilized in propaganda to glorify the courage of the French army. It will be highlighted to exalt French patriotism, even after the defeat against Germany, with the aim of reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine. The consequences of the Battle of Reichshoffen were severe for the French army, which conceded defeat to the Prussians due to their military superiority. Although they possessed a smaller cavalry force, the French could rely on quality weapons, including more effective rifles.
On a broader scale, the Battle of Wörth signifies the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to France. The desire for vengeance subsequently led to World War I. The conflict of 1914–1918 is, in fact, a result of the Franco-Prussian War, etched in memory. Politically, Prussia gained ascendancy in Europe. In France, the Franco-Prussian War triggered institutional upheavals. Emperor Napoleon III was deposed, marking the end of the Second Empire and the advent of the Third Republic.
