“THE HUMBLE ORIGIN OF EUROPEAN NATIONS” (Teaching Guide 3)

 

 1. Introduction  

Traditionally, historians have marked the end of the Roman world on September 4, 476, when a "barbarian" leader named Odoacer, King of the Heruli, dethroned the last Roman emperor of the West: Romulus Augustulus, a 6-year-old boy. This was a dramatic, apocalyptic time. By then the capital of the Western Empire had moved to Ravenna, since Rome was not a safe city, having already suffered two sackings. To some, it seemed like the end of history. In reality, it was only the beginning.

G. W. F, Hegel in his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History; (Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte) given in the University of Berlin between 1822 and 1830, considered that Humanity in its first stage was Oriental, then it became Greek, in the third place Roman and in the fourth German. He was certainly not wrong as a new era in European history begins with the Germanic invasions of the 5^th century. Because political and legal unity –established in 212 AD by Caracalla- disappears replaced by the diversity of the different Germanic peoples and kingdoms. European historians since the XIXth century have tended to consider this period as the first chapter of the history of the “European nations”. Because some states and territories are still named after the Germanic people that settled in them.

 We will se that this is not exactly true because Germans had a very different idea of what the word “nation” means to us in the 21^st century. However it is true that some of the originally Germanic kingdoms ended up all along the centuries becoming European states.

 But who were these Germanic People. It is difficult to know as they did not write their Germanic languages prior to the contact with the Roman world. The first text written in a German language was the translation of the Bible made in the 4^th century by an Arian bishop named Wulfila[1]. Why he did so, we will see in Teaching Guide 4. The relevant point now is to understand that prior to the “Gothic Bible” there not written texts describing how Germans lived. We have some mentions in Julius Caesar’s writings as he fought them often, and a larger description in the Book of Roman historian Tacitus (55-120), simply called “Germania” and most likely written around the year 98 AD. Also the Nordic Sagas are interesting as they are part of the Germanic tradition, as the Vikings for instance, and the Valhala legends. 

 We do know that the Romans considered these people “Barbarians”. With this term the Greek designated “all he who was not Greek”. The Greeks had first used it in reference to the Persians. In the Roman Empire a person not inculcated in Roman culture was considered a barbarian. Thus were the German peoples living outside the Empire’s borders referred to as barbari. In more modern times the term acquired its meaning of “savage” or “uncivilized.”

Photogram of the movie "Gladiator" (2000)

 Today we consider the date of the 4^th of September of 476 as the one marking the end of the Roman Empire and generally speaking the end of Antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages, that is Era that saw the rising of Europe. But of course this is our vision as Europeans living in the 21^st century. Odoacer himself had no idea that he was making history, as his only intention was to make possible the reunification of the Empire. Thus, he sent imperial emblems to the then Eastern Emperor Zeno (474-491), thereby acknowledging his imperium, or authority. Zeno rewarded Odoacer by appointing him consul, a position that had, in classical Rome, constituted one of supreme power, but by this point in history was nothing but a token title, an honor. Odoacer, nevertheless, relished it.  

 Though imperial unity was soon officially re-established, in theory, as of September 4, 476 things were, in reality, very different, as the West came under the command of a whole series of Germanic leaders who rushed to found independent kingdoms and had no intention whatsoever of submitting to the Emperor of the East. These stances, of course, did not sit well in Constantinople, where these barbarians were considered a bunch of rebels. Thus, the first Byzantine emperor who felt powerful enough to subdue these usurpers wasted no time in launching his army to regain the Empire's lost territories. His name was Justinian (527-565). 

Justinian and his court (Mosaics of San Vitale, Ravenna 546-548)

Justinian took the reunification of all the territories under his rule very seriously, initiating a series of military campaigns aimed at reconquering the former Western Empire, in order to achieve what they called the "Renewal of the Empire of the Romans" (Renovatio Imperii Romanorum). The attempt was, however, a failure as Byzantine troops managed only to occupy North Africa, the South of the Italian Peninsula, and an insignificant part of the Iberian Peninsula, and not for long. So in the end, Justinian was quite a flop as a political and military leader, but his name would go down in history for another reason, as his frustrated attempt to reconquer the former Western Empire inspired his initiative, more mundane but much more important, to compile the entire Roman legal tradition and systematically order it into a single official code to be applied across all his domains.  

  After the failure of the imperial reunification attempted by Justinian, the Empire's ancient pars occidentalis definitively disassociated itself from Constantinople-Byzantium and began a new phase of political history in which the unitary imperial power would be replaced by a myriad of diverse kingdoms whose sovereigns did not wield anything like the power the Roman emperors did. This was because they proceeded from a legal tradition very different from that of Rome, one which conceived Law as a collective regulation instead of something based on a general submission to the emperor's omnipotence. For the Germanic peoples the legitimacy of the Law did not emanate from the authority of the political power, but rather relied on collective decisions rooted in the immemorial traditions of each Germanic nation.

  The Roman Historian Tacitus (55-120 AD), in his book Germania (98 AD) mentions that: “Princes resolve the minor things, the major ones are dealt with at meetings for all ...”[2]; and Julius Caesar, in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, also confirms that major decisions in these nomadic societies were taken by the warriors of the group gathered in assemblies. Based on these references, legal historians have concluded that before their settlement in the West, social power among the Germans was not exercised by a chief, but rather by the entire "people" or "nation;" well, not all of them, because only the warriors (considered the most important members of the group) gathered at these crucial meetings. It was they who resolved conflicts, applying the non-written rules extracted from the nation’s traditional customs. Their agreements, reached by consensus, were legitimate and binding upon all because they represented the will of the group.

 Compared to a Roman Empire in which the Emperor had taken full control of the Law, as they not only created it through legislation, but they applied it in the imperial courts, the German conception of social organization was definitely very different, as we will see. It is true that as soon as these people (nations) established themselves within the boundaries of the Ex Western Roman Empire they tried to imitate the Roman Emperors. But they could not reach the same level of power and civilization because instead of one unique power they were scattered in different Germanic kingdoms.

The main Germanic Kingdoms at the end of the 5th century AD

 As we will see in Teaching Guide 4, Europeans tried to retrieve the imperial idea during the Middle Ages, through two crucial figures: the Popes and the Emperors. Though this attempt was a failure as the idea of different political unities (the kingdoms) ended up prevailing, and was definitely consolidated in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) that sanctioned the fact that Europe was not a universal empire but a bunch of different independent states. Something that Europeans started to regret after 1945, when they realized that in the new World order that came after World War Two, if they did not unite they would become irrelevant. And this feeling was what promoted the process of European integration that started in 1950 and brought the European Union in 1992.

 After the Greek and the Romans, the Germans became naturally the third pillar of European civilization. And so by different reasons. First because they broke with the idea of unity and installed in European history the idea that Europe is integrated by different “nations” (the different Germanic People and the roman population). Second because they clashed with the idea that Law and Power belonged to one person, an idea that Rome developed as you already know after the Octavian Reform of 27 BC, that collided with the collective conception of politics sustained initially by the Germanic nations. And finally because they did not speak Latin but a bunch of different languages that linguist consider members of a common Germanic core.     

 Let’s see all of this to understand our European German origin, and why it ended up coexisting with the Greek and Roman traditions.

2. How to study Teaching Guide 3:

 

a) Read the corresponding text in the “Aula Virtual”.

b) Familiarize yourself with the basic Chronology of the period:

 

CHRONOLOGY

                        

378                  The Visigoths defeat Emperor Valens at Adrianople. 

382                Theodosius signs a first foedus with the Visigoths. They may settle in the Empire if they pledge to defend it. 

395               After the death of Theodosius I the Roman Empire is divided: the Western Empire is inherited by Honorius (395-423) and the Eastern by Arcadius (395-408). 

409                  Romans abandon Great Britain. Britons are not deeply Romanized. During the 5th century Great Britain is invaded by different German people. The most important are the Angles and the Saxons. They push the Britons to the mountains and to the less fertile lands (Scotland, Wales or Ireland). 

410                  Sack of Rome by the visigothic king Alaric. 

416                  Foundation of the Visigothic kingdom of Tolosa (actual French Toulouse) with Valia as its first king. 

451                  Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. A coalition of Romans and Visigoths defeat the Huns commanded by their chief Atila. 

476, September 4: Romulus Augustus is deposed by Odoacer, the Germanic chieftain of the Heruli. The end of the Western Roman Empire. 

481                  Clovis (+511), of the Merovingian clan, becomes King of the Franks. 

568                    The Lombards, led by King Alboin, invade Italy when pressured by the Avars, soon driving the Byzantines out of northern Italy (Po Valley, which comes to be called “Lombardy”).

507                  King Alaric II enacts the Lex Romana Visigothorum (Breviary of Alaric), for the roman subjects of the Visigothic Kingdom of Tolosa.

Image from the Breviary of Alaric

527-565           Reign of Byzantine Emperor Justinian

573                    Leovigild (573-586) ascends to the Visigoth throne and is considered the founder of the Kingdom of Toledo, which would last until 711. 

577                 Battle of Dyrham. Decisive victory of Angles and Saxons. Beginning of Anglo-Saxon rule. 

600                     Aethelbert Law Code is formed. The Law of the Kingdom of Kent is the oldest written law in England. 

654               Approval of the Liber Iudiciorum in the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo. Is the first territorial Germanic Law binding both to Visigoths and Hispano-Romans that have already merged as one single people under the authority of the King of Toledo. 

711                  King Roderic is killed in the battle of the Guadalete River in the South of Spain, against the Muslim invaders. End of the Visigothic kingdom of Toledo. 

 

Capital of an Hispanic Visigothic church

(San Pedro de la nave, Zamora), end of the 7th century.

c) Complete in your Class notebook the following exercises:  

 

 CONCEPTS 

Barbarians. Foederati. Nation (Germanic sense). Roman universalism. Principle of personality of the law. National Germanic Laws. Breviary of Alaric. Territoriality of the law. Liber Iudiciorum. “National states”. Principle of nationalities (W. Wilson). Nationalism vs. Patriotism (G. Orwell).  Collège des Quatre nations (Nations of students). Consuls (Nations of merchants). Collective Justice. Jury trial. Stare decisis.

 

Visigothic Jewellery

QUESTIONS 

Concrete questions

1. Why according to the text the Germanic kingdoms cannot be considered the precedents of actual European nation-states as 19^th century nationalistic historians pretend? 

2. Which actual European States or regions bear the name of a Germanic People? Explain why Spain or Italy don’t.  

3. Define the Principles of personality and territoriality of the Law. Think of what happened in the Roman Empire after 212 and the situation after the Germanic invasions of 4^th and 5the centuries.  

5. Explain what meant the “Principle of Nationalities” defended by the US President Woodrow Wilson in its Fourteen Points. What were its consequences in Europe after 1919’s Treaty of Versailles. 

6. What is the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism" according to George Orwell? Look at footnote 10. 

7. Which Legal institution of today come from the idea of Justice of the Germanic People? 

8. What is the “stare decisis” principle. 

9. Why we know better Roman Law than German Law? What is the problem for reconstructing the German Legal tradition?

 

General questions

1. Explain how evolved the relationship between Germanic invaders and the Roman population of Western Europe. Think of the principles of “Personality” and “Territoriality” of the Law. 

2. Explain the different senses of the word “nation” that appear in the text: Germanic sense, Medieval sense (universities and merchants), Enlightened revolutions sense and 19^th century nationalists (Read the texts of John Stuart Mill and Ernest Renan, foot notes 5 and 6.  

3. Was Germanic Law similar or different to Roman Law in the procedural Stage (system of Justice) and from the legislative perspective (personality vs territoriality of the Law).  Justify your answer. 

 

---

Recceswinth's Votive Crown (7th century)

THE FIRST EUROPEAN EMPIRE (Teaching Guide 2)

 

Roman Aquilifer

1. Introduction

If the Greeks invented the polis, the Romans invented the “state”. Unlike the Greek polises, which never produced a great, unified state because they lacked the institutional capacity to organize and control an extensive territory, Rome developed a method of expansion which allowed it to govern and administrate large territories from the metropolis (that is the Roman civitas). This was their first contribution to European culture. The second one was Law.

The Romans managed to build upon the Greek political model of the polis, and dramatically expand it, transforming Rome into a colossal territorial entity and a military, political and cultural juggernaut, thanks to their advanced organisational capacity. But they consolidated it durably thanks to the development of a truly extraordinary legal system. The Romans may have expanded their empire through their military prowess and technology, but they consolidated it through Law. Given that the entire Western legal apparatus rests on foundations laid by the Romans, and as its legal conceptions have come to permeate the world, it is important to understand why and how the Romans managed to avail themselves of such an astonishing system. 

The Roman Empire at his height

a) The Roman Empire: an “avant la lettre” state

 The Roman Empire is not the oldest. The first empires appeared in the East, not in the West. Concretely in Mesopotamia where appeared the first empire: the Akkadian at the end of the Third Millenium. The second one appeared in China a territory that became a powerful empire under the Han (206 BC from AD 220), precisely thanks to the unification carried out at the end of the 3rd century BC by Emperor Qin (223-206 BC , who ruthlessly wiped out the heads of rival clans.

Emperor Qin Shi Huan (223-206 BC

 Qin followed the ideas of the sage Confucius (551-479) who sought to mitigate the negative effects of the spread of feudalism during the era of Warring States (475-221 BC). At the time of his birth China was dominated by powerful rulers at war with one another.  In order to rectify this situation Confucius endorsed the idea of a single empire headed by a sole sovereign. It is interesting to note that Confucius did not base the social structure he envisioned on any divinity. China was not a theocracy, as its religion consisted essentially of the veneration of one’s ancestors and a morality according to which rulers were to be accepted by the people because they were virtuous, not because they had imposed themselves upon them by military force.  According to Confucius, government should be based not on force, but on the encouragement of just and good conduct, not in divinity. From a practical point of view he defended a centralized model of governmental organization, presided over by an emperor who would administer and govern the state through a bureaucratic class. Confucius, however, argued that these bureaucrats should be selected based on merit, and not simply drawn from the hereditary nobility. Thus appeared the famous “mandarins,” who obtained their posts only after passing very difficult tests requiring years of study.   

Confucius (551-479)

 

Confucius’s ideas on government and the state were, for the first time, placed into practice by the Qin Dynasty (223-206 BC), whose emperors were so important that the line would give the country its name today: China.

 The Westerners –today Europeans- did not have a strong centralized empire until much later. The Roman Empire appears after the Roman Civil Wars (88-31 BC) with Octavian Caesar Augustus (27 BC-14 AD), and disappears –at least its Western part- in 476 AD.

The original 7 Hills Rome

 Rome is initially a small polis, but gradually through their strong sense of organization, the Romans conquered the Italian Peninsula by the beginning of the 3d century BC and they started expanding fighting and beating the Carthaginians by the end of the same century. From then the Roman expansion was unstoppable. The problem was that such an extraordinary territorial increase could not be managed through the polis model. So Rome entered in the critical period of the Civil Wars (88-31 BC).

The Roman Republic on the eve of the Civil Wars

 By his victory in the naval battle of Actium (31 BC) against Mark Antony and Cleopatra, Octavian became the only master of Rome. On top of that he was extraordinarily clever and he decided to change the system of the Republic steadily, avoiding following the fate of his adoptive father Julius Caesar who was assassinated on 44 BC. Apparently he shared his power with the Senate after becoming the First Citizen (“Princeps”) whose role was to protect the Roman Republic. In fact he started concentrating all political power in his hands, something that his successors consolidated. 

Reconstruction of the face of Octavian Caesar Augustus according to AI

The height of the Roman Empire was attained in the 2^nd century AD with its greatest emperors: Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, the three of them of Hispanic origin.

 Thanks to the cleverness of Augustus the West saw the rise of its first great Empire. Many of Roman institutions would come until our days, as for instance the Senate, an institution that still exists in many European States. Though the real reason why the Romans were so decisive in European history is because they developed and outstanding Legal System. This is why our National legal systems are essentially based of the Roman Legal concepts, developed by the first Legal Professionals in History: the lawyers, that the Romans called “Jurisconsults”, persons that dedicated their lives to resolve the conflicts among their fellow citizens... for free.  

Romans invented lawyers

b) An outstanding Legal System

Roman society was initially ordered around the “mores maiorum”, the way of their divine ancestors- as in Confucius China-, a code coming down from a long tradition and constituting a moral system proven over the course of generations, which is why it was imposed on citizens, limiting their freedom within the city of Rome. This is why Cicero, in his Treaty on Laws, writes that: “The origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality”. 

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)

Today, when we think of the legal realm we tend to envisage an overwhelming multitude of rules, as we see ourselves buried under an avalanche of laws ― that is, statutes, regulations, ordinances, directives ― legislated by governments. Originally, however, in Rome, such laws (as opposed to Law; note the distinction here) were almost non-existent. For the citizens of Rome, the Law did not refer to mandates that had to be obeyed, but rather the possibility of “acting” to protect one’s rights.

Law as Justice

Romans did not speak about “Law,” but rather to ius. From which come the word “Iustitia” Ius, in the broadest sense, embraces the entirety of the Law. It is, according to jurist Celsus (67-130 AD) “the art of goodness and equity” (ius est ars boni et aequi); and, for Paul (3rd century AD) “what always is just and fair” (aequum et bonum). The fundamental principles of the Law are to live honestly, to harm nobody, and to give everyone their due (honeste vivere, alterum non laedere , suum quique tribuere).   For the pragmatical Romans, the important thing was not so much to define the social order imposed by their predecessors as to ensure its restoration in the event that it was violated. The logic of ancient Roman law can be expressed in the maxim: Where there is a Remedy there is a Right, and there is no Right unless there is a Remedy.

For making it short: for the Romans Law was synonym of JUSTICE.  Originally the essence of Roman Law was the possibility of attaining “justice” (“Ius-titia”), a concept defined by one of the most famous Roman jurists, Ulpian (170-228), as the constant and perpetual impulse to “give to each his own” (Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum quique tribuendi)― an excellent definition that makes this great jurist a sort of forerunner of Human Rights theory.   

Ulpian's statue in the Brussels Palace of Justice 

But why Roman Law became such a good legal system? Every group of people, every civilization needs a system for solving conflicts if they do not want the conflict to degenerate in a war. This why the History of Humanity is in great part the History of the Law, that is the instruments every society develops to solve human conflicts.  But why Roman Law was so special? Simply because the Romans had the first legal professionals in Human History. That is people who dedicated their lives to help their fellow citizens to solve their conflicts. 

And then appeared the Lawyers

The Romans were the first people to have legal professionals. The ruling classes in a whole range of different cultures –the Greek Sophists, the Chinese Mandarins, Islam's alfaquis and ulemas, the priestly classes in Egypt and Mesopotamia– all ensured the maintenance of social order, but they never specialised in the task of resolving conflicts between their fellow citizens. Today we find it only natural, and obvious, that when faced with a legal problem, you go to a lawyer. But, back in the day, this was not obvious at all.

  Being sarcastic we could say that Romans did many great things, and we owe them a lot, especially when it comes to the subject before us: Law. But they also did something unforgivable: they invented lawyers. But the truth is that Roman lawyers were not like ours.

In fact they were not exactly lawyers, they were experts that advise people on how to solve their clashes. People with expertise in ius, (that is jurisconsults), who had gained experience through a lifetime dedicated to instructing citizens on how best to resolve their differences. Moreover they were not at all like modern lawyers because they did not charge for their services. They helped their customers “pro bono”.

These jurisconsults did not need the money, because they invariably belonged to the well-heeled families of the Roman ruling class, and lived off passive income. They did so out of vanity, as jurisprudence was considered such a complex art that it conferred upon them great prestige and allowed them to achieve social renown. Romans who dedicated themselves to the practise of Law wanted honour and fame. In order to achieve both, through the exercise of jurisprudence, young Romans from well-to-do families became apprentices to famous jurisconsults, attending their consultations and discussing them. This allowed them to commence paths of public service (cursus honorum) leading towards the highest magistracies: praetor or consul, which, in turn, was the way to access the Senate, the nucleus of Rome's most influential elite. In short, jurisprudence was a high road to the “Establishment”.

Learning the Law in Rome

And emperors ended up controlling the Law

Of course this Legal system essentially orientated to solve problems changed considerably after Augustus reforms, especially when political power was finally vested on emperors. Because the concentration of political power led naturally to the politicization of the Law. 

The Romans, after inventing lawyers, discovered that controlling the law was a great way to consolidate and strengthen political power. The pretext, of course, was to prevent chaos, but once politicians get their hands on the law it is extremely difficult for citizens to wrest it back from them.

The practice of asking for an authorization to legislate on behalf of the People of Rome began quietly under Augustus, and continued under Tiberius and Claudius, being consolidated by Vespasian (69-79) as soon as he occupied the imperial throne.

Emperor Vespasian (6-79 AD)

Concretely emperor Vespasian (69-79 AD) received the authorization to legislate in name of the people of Rome, a blank check given by a popular assembly, so far the only legitimated to issue legislation, allowing Vespasian and his successors to legislate whatever they felt like. The amazing thing is that the gambit actually worked, and thereafter the emperors managed to seize full control of the Roman legal system. What ensued was a rampant legislative invasion, opening the door to an unbridled politicization of the Law. And today, in our powerful states, politicians still try to control the legal system through legislation.

Emperor Vespasian according to AI

From ius to directus

This important transformation ended up being reflected in the terminology itself:  originally the Romans had used the term ius to refer to the mechanisms to safeguard the social order, but by the end of their history they were using a new term to refer to the law: directus, which may be translated as "straight" or "direct" or "right," expressing the idea of rectitude, of doing the "right" thing.

The fact that Roman law went from ius to directus meant that its primary function had evolved from resolving conflicts to forcing everyone to act rightly so that citizens would live their lives in accordance with the law, now upheld as the paradigm of righteousness and rectitude. Law was no longer synonymous with "justice," but rather with "legislation." It was no longer, essentially, a "civilized" way of solving human conflicts, but rather a set of rules dictated by a political authority to construct a social "order." Those in power indicated what was right, and society was to obey. 

And Justinian preserved the Roman Law forever

In 476 AD, when Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman Emperor was dethroned by a German chief warrior named Odoacer. However Odoacer had no idea that he was making history, as his only intention was to make possible the reunification of the Empire. Thus, he sent imperial emblems to the then Eastern Emperor Zeno (474-491), thereby acknowledging his imperium, or authority. It was a matter of time that Eastern (Byzantine) emperors would try to reconquer the Weastern part of the Empire.

Romulus Augustus surrender to Odoacer according to AI

The emperor that tried to do so was Justinian (527-565) who took the reunification of all the territories under his rule very seriously, initiating a series of military campaigns aimed at reconquering the former Western Empire, in order to achieve what they called the "Renewal of the Empire of the Romans" (Renovatio Imperii Romanorum). The attempt was, however, a failure as Byzantine troops managed only to occupy North Africa, the South of the Italian Peninsula, and an insignificant part of the Iberian Peninsula, and not for long. 

 Justinian´s failure as military leader was largely compensated by his initiative, more mundane but much more important, to compile the entire Roman legal tradition and systematically order it into a single official code to be applied across all his domains. 

The compilation commissioned by Justinian is also known by the Latin name of Corpus luris Civilis (or Corpus luris Justiniani), though this name was applied to it later, in 1583, when the Italian jurist Denis Godefroy published a comprehensive edition that included the four parts of the Justinian compilation: Code, Novels, Digest and the Institutes, over 1,000 years after Justinian's death, which is quite a testament to the immortality of his legal feat. 

Without Justinian European history would have been very different. 

Emperor Justinian (527-565) 

2. How to study Teaching Guide 2

a) Read the corresponding text in the “Aula Virtual”.

b) Familiarize yourself with the basic Chronology of the period:

 

CHRONOLOGY

 

10.000 BC Founding of the city of Jericho

 

2334-2279 BC  Sargon of Akkad 

 

551-479           Life of Confucius

 

223-206 BC  Reign of Emperor Qin (from whom “China” takes its name. 

 

202 BC 220 AD           Han Empire in China. 

 

The origins of Rome and its first expansion

753      Legendary founding of the city of Rome by Romulus and Remus (Ab urbe condita)

509      Servius Tullius establishes the republican regime

275      Defeat of Pyrrhus at Beneventum, Rome controls the whole Italic peninsula

264-202 Punic Wars. First Extra-Peninsular expansion of Rome (Sicily and Spain the first Roman “Provinces”)

146      Annexation of Greece as Roman Province

Map of the Roman Provinces at the height of the Empire

The Collapse of the Republican System

88        Beginning of the Civil Wars

63        Catilina’s conspiracy. Cicero manages to restore the republican order. 

60-54   First Triumvirate: Caesar, Pompey and Crassus

44  (Ides of March, 15 March) Assassination of Julius Caesar 

43  Second Triumvirate Octavius, Mark Antony and Lepidus

31 b Naval battle at Actium (Greece). Victory of Octavian over Mark Antony. 

 

The Imperial Era

27 BC Official establishment of the Principate by Augustus

19        Publication of the Virgil’s Aeneid: an embellished and mythical approach to Rome’s origins.

14 AD Death of Augustus

14-68   Julio-Claudian Dinasty  (Nero 54-68)

69-96   Flavian Dinasty (Vespasian 69-79)

96-191 The high Empire_ the golden Roman Era

-           98-117 Trajan

-           117-138 Hadrian

-           161-180 Marcus Aurelius

212      Caracalla grants Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire

Emperor Caracalla

The Decline of the Roman Empire

284-293 Diocletian and the establishment of the Dominate (Tetrarchy)

380  Theodosius I imposes Christianity as the official religion of the empire (Catholicism)

395 After Theodosius I death the Roman Empire is divided in East and West

476      End of the Western Roman Empire. Romulus Augustus and Odoacer. 

The Roman Empire in 395 AD

From Eastern to Byzantine Empire  

527-565           Reign of Justinian

1453, 29 of May           Constantinople is conquered by Ottomans. End of the Byzantine Empire. 

 

The Fall of Constantinople

c) Complete in your Class Notebook the following exercises:

 

CONCEPTS

Historical Era. Qin. Zhongguó. Confucius. Princeps. Province. Gentilitas. Dominate. Romanization. Octavian Caesar Augustus. Diarchy. SPQR. Res publica. Caracalla (Constitutio Antonina). Mores maiorum. Legal Action vs. Legislation. Procedural conception of Law. Iustitia. Jurisconsults. Pro bono. Honoraries. Cursus honorum. Ius vs Directus. Justinian Code.

QUESTIONS

Concrete questions

1. How do the Chinese call China and why?

2. Why Confucius was essential for the Chinese empire? What was his idea of government and how to enforce it?

3. Why the political reform of Augustus was called a “Diarchy? (power of two).

4. How did the Romans called the public organization of the Empire as they did not use the word “state”?

5. What was the “legal regime” of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire before and after the date of 212 AD?

6. Was Odoacer aware that deposing Romulus Augustus in 476 AD he was liquidating the Western Roman Empire?

7. Explain briefly what were the “mores maiorum” and how the “ius” appeared to protect them.

8. Explain the sentence : ” Where there is a Remedy there is a Right, and there is no Right unless there is a Remedy”. 

9. Why the Roman Law was such a good legal system? What did the Roman have that the rest of civilizations  did not?

10. Why roman lawyers practiced law, considering that they did not charge their clients for consultations?

11. How did the Augustus reform of Roman political system affect the Roman Legal system? Why it changed of spirit?

12. Why Emperor Vespasian changed forever the Roman Legal system? Think of its relationship with popular assemblies that used to legislate.

13. Explain what means the term “politicization” of the Law.

14. Why the Eastern Byzantine emperor Justinian (527-565) despite being a failure in the political aspect was crucial for European civilization in the long run?

 

General Questions

1. Explain what means that the Romans overcome the polis system? Why their contribution was essential for European civilization?

2. Why did the Republic disappeared in Rome ? What was the cause of its decay? How did Augustus change the public organization of Rome? What was the spirit of his reform?

3. Explain why Roman Law initially was originally a system of remedies and not a system of laws (in the sense of legislation).

 

Caracalla giving Roma citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire (212 AD)