Most heavy, bulky, large-volume goods, such as food, wine, oil, and building supplies, were shipped by water. Waterways provided cheap and easy access to all parts of the Mediterranean. Travel was fast if the winds were favourable, but they were also unpredictable and often dangerous. At times the winds stopped, stranding cargo and crew. Ship captains lacked accurate charts and navigational equipment. Therefore, they stayed close to the coastline to navigate, and many vessels were shipwrecked. Archaeologists have found many sunken ships laden with trade goods that offer valuable clues about the lives of people of the Roman Empire.
Rome lived off its imports, and importers were among the wealthiest citizens of the Empire. Many traded goods for goods in a barter system, while others used the silver coins minted by each emperor. In fact, the trade network became so vast that silver Roman coins could be found as far east as India.
Far behind agriculture and trade in importance to Ancient Rome was its industry. The largest was mining. Greece and northern Italy provided marble for the grand building projects commissioned by the emperors. From Spain and Africa came the gold and silver to mint coins and create jewellery, while mines in Britain produced lead and tin for making weapons. Within Italian communities, small-scale manufacturing plants turned out pottery, glassware, weapons, tools, and textiles.
In spite of the Empire’s flourishing economy it is very important not to exaggerate Roman prosperity, for the Roman Empire had its weaknesses as well. The poor were miserably poor and the magnificence of Rome was built on the backs of sweating peasants.
Source C is an extract from ‘The Roman Empire’ by Christopher Culpin. It is a map of Europe, showing the areas with which Rome traded. It shows that wide ranges of materials are imported from all over the world. Places like Gaul, Germany, Spain, Africa, Sicily, Egypt, Arabia, India, China, the Black Sea area and Greece imported everything from perfume to slaves.
Source D is an extract from a letter by Aelium Aristides in150. He is praising the accomplishments of the Romans in the areas of trade and transport. He says how the Romans made it possible to travel across the world. He also says how Rome is the centre of trade; ‘anything that cannot be seen in Rome does not exist.’ He mentions that skilfully made articles from Greece and other foreign lands are part of a ‘constant flow of goods which pour into Rome.’
Evidence from Verulamium to prove the importance of trade is the pottery and other articles that were found. A specific type of pottery found was only made in Gaul at the time of the Romans, which proved that trade did occur. Many more archaeological finds similar to this have proved that Rome relied on the imports to sustain its way of life.
In conclusion, I have found that trade is of the uppermost importance to Rome. It is the infrastructure of the entire empire. Trade was so essential because Romans needed the imports; the items that were necessary for a comfortable life were sometimes unable to be produced in Rome itself. This could have been due to climate, the number of skilled craftsmen and the amount of raw materials available.
Trade links in will all other aspects that made Rome so unique. Money originated because of trade and transport flourished because of it. Trade made Rome even more sophisticated, never before had a country traded with other countries on such a large scale.
Flourishing overseas trade not only had an impact on the empire’s establishes economy, but also promoted the exchange of ideas. Which, as a result contributed to the dispersal of science, architecture and crafts, consequently having and enormous effect on roman life, and the Roman Empire as a whole as seen by the disproportionate influence of the Greek civilisation.
Question three
‘Verulamium was a typical town of the Roman Empire.’
It is difficult to agree or disagree with this statement because there is not a very clear definition of a typical Roman town. There were three different types of Roman towns within the Empire. They were Colonies, Municipia, and Civitas.
Colonies were the most important of all towns. Ex-soldiers were allocated the land in these towns free of charge when they retired
Municipia were towns for Roman citizens only, and they governed themselves. All the building and government rules were meant to resemble the towns of Rome. They were meant to show the local tribes the great advantages that came with roman rule.
Civitas were set up in each tribal area. They were controlled by the province’s Governor. However, he allowed friendly tribes to play a part in governing themselves. The towns were named after the local tribe.
Another aspect of Roman towns was what the majority of them started as, army camps. When the Romans invaded an enemy country they always built a camp for their armies before going in to battle.
In order to build their camp, they made the ground level if it was uneven and marked out a square for the camp. The interior was divided into rows of tents and outside there were towers at regular intervals along the perimeter.
Then the Romans would divide the camp into four quarters, the general’s headquarters were in the centre and all the market stools for craftsmen were in the sections. By this point it would very much resemble a city. When legions stayed anywhere for a long time these temporary camps were turned into permanent fortresses. Wooden huts replaced the tents, and in time stone replaced wood. Thus, many army camps became the basis for towns and cities. This is why so many modern day English settlements end with the words –cester or –chester; castra is Latin for military camps.
New towns were not merely built to use up the old army camps; they were built for a number of reasons. Romans were urban people and saw towns as being more civilised. Towns also helped to control the local population and they were vital for trade, they were also centres of local administration.
Once the towns had been properly established, roads were needed in order to join them other towns. Roads within the empire served three main purposes; they connected the main towns, they enabled the army to move about quickly and they helped trade.
In order to build a road the path to build it upon must be found first. The surveyors took sights from one high point to the next. In flat and wooded country they looked for the smoke from fires lit by their men. They always chose the shortest, straightest route, only making corners if absolutely necessary. All Roman roads are long and straight, with bends on high points where setting were taken. Marching men preferred a short steep climb to trudging round a long hill.
When building the actual roads the labourers cleared the trees and turf. Then a ditch about one metre deep was dug in order to take the foundation stones, which were rammed down into it. Next came the smaller stones, followed by layers of sand, clay or gravel, then for the actual road surface, slabs of stone were laid, or anything else suitable that could be found nearby.
Another aspect of a typical roman town is the public buildings, the most popular being the public baths. Roman baths used the Hypocaust system for heating the building and the pools. This under floor heating system had hot air heated from the basement fires flowing between the brick or concrete columns, which support the ground floor. The warm air flows through wall ducts into the rooms at the baths and quickly heats them. In some baths the floors would be so hot that the bathers would have to wear wooden sandals to stop their feet from being burnt. The fires in the basement where stocked by slaves of the baths.
Many Romans visit the Thermae or the public baths, as we know them. They went to the baths for entertainment, healing in the case of some baths, or just to get clean. There were 170 baths in Rome during the reign of Augustus and by 300 AD that number had increased to over 900 baths.
The baths were huge buildings built at public expense or by rich emperors who wished to impress their subjects. Sometimes rich Romans who were trying to gain popularity paid entry for a whole day for anyone wishing to visit the baths.
Most of the Roman baths were free but those baths that had a nominal fee had the fee to keep out the slaves and the poor who could not afford it. There were many famous baths these included the Baths at Caracella, the Baths of Diocletian and the baths at Bath.
or springs supplied the public baths. Doors opened around 10.30 am and closed in the late afternoon, just before dinnertime. Men and women bathed separately. Women either bathed early in the mornings, at their own baths or at home in their villas. Some of the bathing habits of the richer part of the Roman civilisations had very lavish. Roman men would bathe in wine and the women sometimes in milk. The wife of Emperor Nero had 500 asses to supply the milk for her baths.
Evidence of a roman bathhouse was found at Verulamium. Part of the under-floor heating system was also recovered; the remains are in very good condition considering how old they are. Inside the bathhouse were extravagant mosaic tiles all over the floor and walls.
Verulamium was a wealthy town of the Empire. The evidence to suggest this is the coins that have been discovered, the lavish, expensive jewellery found on the site. The mosaics in the bathhouse and those that were found in some homes are signs of wealth; extravagant glassware has also been discovered which was reasonably expensive in Roman times. Surrounding the town of Verulamium is a wall; this was a method of protection and the remains of the army camp. It would have been time-consuming and taken a lot of effort to build and only the wealthier towns would have had these walls.
Verulamium was a typical town of the Empire; it has all the usual features. The homes are very similar to those across the whole empire and the roads that were built in Verulamium are the same as those that were built in Rome.
Although, this is not entirely accurate because it is difficult to define a typical town of the Roman Empire. I agree with the idea behind the statement but not the wording; Verulamium is a typical civitas of the Empire although all civitas were not the same. The empire spread over a vast number of countries and in these countries there were significant differences, the climate varied, also the building materials, so no two towns were exactly the same.
Question four
The Romans conquered Britain in much the same way they overcame the Celts in Gaul. They would build alliances with various tribes through a variety of means. One way was the client-ruler style. In this relationship, which was personal and special, and was dissolved upon the death of the client, the Romans would set up a series of treaties, taxes, and other items. The clients would then be provided protection by the Roman legions in Britain from the other tribes. Upon the death of the special client, the Romans put up the relationship for review and reassessment. One of the British tribes that had such a relationship was the Iceni.
Prasutagus was the client-king of the Iceni, whose centre of power was around Norfolk, in modern England. When he died in 61 AD, the Roman emperor Nero's representative Decanius Catus moved with incredible haste to do an inventory of the property of the Iceni and their late king. Prasutagus had left a will in which he left half of the property to the emperor, and the other half to his two daughters. The Romans declared the will invalid, and carried out the inventory.
Prasutagus' wife was Boudicca. She was described as being a large woman, with flaming red hair. Her name in the Brythonic language meant victor. Boudicca had expected that the previous relationship with the Romans would carry over to her, and her daughters. This was not to be the case. Catus had decided to make an example of the Iceni.
Boudicca and her subjects were incensed by the incredible lack of tact in which the matter was being carried out by Catus. Boudicca then declared herself the leader of the Iceni. Catus had Boudicca flogged, and had her two daughters raped. The property of the Iceni was then declared forfeit to the Romans, and seized. The Iceni rallied around Boudicca, taking up arms in a challenge to the imperial authority. They were joined by the Trinovantes, who were tired of the high taxes, misappropriation of their lands, and the expensive temple that was built in the memory of Claudius in the city of Camulodunum, modern Colchester. With the backing of this army, Boudicca sacked the cities of Camulodunum, Londinium, (London) and Verlamium (St Albans).
Boudiica's army at the sack of London was exceptionally savage. According to Roman historian Tacitus, the Roman women were rounded up, taken to a grove that was dedicated to the worship of the Celtic war goddess, Andraste, where they were murdered, had one of their breasts cut off and stuffed into their mouths, and then were impaled with large skewers. This was in some ways a cruel parody of the rape of Boudicca's own daughters. It may have also been in response to the savage slaughter of Druids at Mona earlier in 61 AD. It may also have been a play at winning the battle in an all or nothing tactic.
Boudicca's rebellion was destined to fail. The Roman commander in chief, Suetonius, rallied a force of Roman legionnaires and friendly Britons that number 10,000. The Roman army took up positions at the edge of a forest, near a narrow gorge. The Britons then came with their forces, including a number of chariots, used to transport both the warriors and their families. (The Celts would often go into battle with women and children, away from the battle, shrieking and screaming, in attempts to unnerve the enemy.)
Suetonius' forces were able to decide the way the battle was fought. Because the Britons army was hemmed in by the woods, and the small opening, and the fact that the Romans were on foot, the chariots became a hindrance, as there was no way to manoeuvre them. The battle became a rout in favour of the Romans. It was reported that the Romans didn't collect many prisoners that day. Women and children were put to death. Boudicca poisoned herself, rather than end up an amusement for the Romans.
Boudicca's revolt initially caused an increase in the severity of the Roman rule. The Romans became more determined to subdue the Celtic tribes that were not completely under their domain. However, it also made the independent Celtic tribes, and those with only a nominal allegiance to Rome, more determined to hold out.
Suetonius' successor, Pretonious Turpilanius, decided to let the Britons guide themselves. This action wasn't very popular with a number of the Romans. Tacitus called it "Cowardly Inactivity". However, at this same time, Britain was quiet, and no overt revolts occurred.
Boudicca's revolt didn't free the British tribes of the Romans. It also didn't result in any of the lands of the Iceni or the Trinovantes being returned. What it did show was that the Celts could not unite to fight a common enemy. The Roman legions in Britain were filled with numbers of Gaulish soldiers, cousins to the British. And the use of the allied British tribes against the Iceni also showed the lack of unity the Celts were famous for.
Boudicca’s revolt was one of the most important events in Roman Britain. They were the only army to pose an actual threat to Roman province Britain. Although Boudicca put up a good fight Rome was better equipped.
Source F is an extract from ‘The Romans and Their Empire’; it talks about Boudicca and her army. It describes how she ‘butchered every Roman in Colchester’, and destroyed the towns of London and St. Albans. This is not a primary source of evidence and is not very reliable nor is it very accurate. This source talks about the actual battle and not the effects it had on the south- east of Briton at the time.
Source G is an extract from a speech by Calgacus, leader of the Britons. When questioning the reliability and accuracy of this source numerous factors must be taken into account. The content of the speech could have been altered in the twenty years between the time when it was spoken and the time it was quoted in ‘The Agricola’. Whether intentionally or unintentionally the details could have been changed in this time period. It is possible that Calgacus could have seen the revolt, so he could be talking from his own experience, but a Briton wrote it so it could be a biased opinion. This source is about the after-effects and the impact the revolt had upon Briton.
Personally I consider source F to be the most useful for researching the effects of Boudicca’s revolt on the South-east of Briton. Source G is emotional and opinionated whereas Source F is factual and gives a well-rounded impression of the revolt and the effects.
Question five
‘The whole Roman Empire was in
serious decline by the Fourth Century.’
It is difficult to agree or disagree with this statement. The empire was too large to say ‘the whole’ of it was in decline. Numerous factors affected the decline of the Roman Empire, and in my opinion the majority of countries with in the empire had begun to fall by the fourth century. In order to agree or disagree with this statement these factors that caused the decline must be explained.
Why did Rome fall? Was it because Christianity weakened the bonds that had held it together? Was it because people became corrupt? Was it because it just got too big? Was it because of the barbarian attacks? Was it because they had started using lead pots and got lead poisoning? Or was it simply that empires always fall and somebody decided this was as good a time as any? The correct answer is, of course, that none of these answers is correct. There wasn't any single cause.
An underestimated factor may have been that they made too many stupid mistakes. Take Hadrians Wall, built in England at the time of Emperor Hadrian. A prudent government, concerned with the defence of the wall, would have installed a moat around the outside. But what did the Romans do? They built moats on both sides of the wall, at a cost, it is said, of a million days' labour.
Why did they build the inside moat? Historians have forwarded fancy explanations, one being that an inside moat was a convenience for customs officials. But the chief conclusion, I think, is that the Romans did it because of stupidity, a conclusion they themselves seem to have reached a short time later when they decided to fill the inside moat.
The fall of the Roman Empire could be linked to many different aspects: army, citizens, and barbarianism. Personally I think that all these reasons are linked and headed by the decline of the Roman emperor. The deficient Emperor role led to the lacking military response to invasions, civil war and peasant uprisings.
One thing we know for sure is that in the third century AD the Roman Empire went through a difficult time. There were long civil wars between generals who wanted to become Emperor. It became harder to find men who were willing to serve in the Legions.
Prices rose by up to 15,000%. This made the cost of serving the government too high and people began to refuse. The population began to decline. The northern frontiers of the Empire were under serious attack. Tough, warlike tribes of Goths, Vandals and Franks raided the Empire with increasing success. The eastern frontiers of the Empire came under attack from the Persian Empire. In 260 they defeated the Romans and captured the Emperor Valerian.
The problems of running the Empire became too great for one man, ad the empire was split in two. The Emperor Constantine founded a second capital in the East, at Constantinople.
Special efforts were made to defend outlying parts of the Empire, such as Britain. Forts were built to all along the south and eats coasts to protect it from Saxon Sea raiders – this became known as the Saxon shore. Navies patrolled the seas continuously.
However, as pressure on the rest of the Empire increased from the barbarian invaders, the decision was taken to abandon Britain. In 410 the Emperor Honorius wrote to the leaders of Britain telling them they must look after their own defence. Britain was no longer part of the Roman Empire.
In 410Rome itself was attacked by the Goths, gradually the barbarian tribes over ran the Western Empire, and in 476 the last Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was removed by the gothic King, Oderic.
While the Western Empire was in serious decline the Empire in the east remained strong, although over the centuries became more and more Greek, in language and customs. It was often known as the Byzantine Empire, after the city of Byzantium, on whose site Constantinople was built. The last Byzantine emperor died in 1453, when the Turks captured Constantinople.
Source H is an extract from ‘Roman Britain’, it talks about the fall of the Empire and Britain’s most prosperous period coinciding. The source explains that although the Roman Empire was falling apart, in Britain wealthy villas became a lot more common and life flourished in many of the towns. The source explains that because Britain is an island, it was more insulated from the military and political strife that hid places like Italy and Gaul. Also because Britain had more creation off wealth through craftsmanship and industry and the rich spent less money on public display monuments which meant, many more resources were channelled into private buildings. Although this is a secondary source of evidence it does not appear to be biased in any way, and in my opinion is quite a reliable source of information.
Source I is from ‘The Treatise’, it is a biased opinion which gives a good idea of how Roman subjects felt during the collapse of the empire. The anonymous author says that;
- Public grants have made the rich even more extravagant, while the poor are driven by their problems into crime.
- Now, in addition, comes the appalling greed of the provincial governors, which ruins the taxpayers.
- The vast spending on the army must be stopped.
- Above all, it must be recognised that wild nations are pressing upon the Roman Empire and howling around everywhere. Treacherous barbarians, protected by natural defences, are attacking every frontier. The state must take care of the frontier.
- When you’ve dealt with all these, one thing remains to you emperor – to get rid of the dishonest laws.
This source shows the annoyance of the people of Rome and what they thought of the greed of their emperor.
In conclusion, I would say that most of the Empire was in decline by the fourth century. However, some parts remained successfully powerful, Britain for instance and the Eastern Empire. But I don’t dispute the fact that the Western Empire had fallen into serious decline. In some ways I both agree and disagree with the statement, because although most of the empire was in serious decline, the whole of it was not.
