From 8000 BC to 4000 BC, anatomically modern humans began an agricultural revolution in the Middle East that spread throughout the globe setting the foundation for cities and city-states. Eventually, these city states evolved into larger political entities which then developed ruling classes (elites—can’t get away from ’em), armies, priests, and bureaucrats (such as the ever present tax collectors). Along the way, the invention of writing led to what we now identify as history. In our short historical survey the terms Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, advanced civilizations and whatnot are often used. Please understand that while ancient Greece may be in the Bronze Age (using products made of Bronze, which is a metal made out of a mixture of tin and copper), Europe may still be in the Neolithic Stone Age and Central Asia in the Paleolithic Stone Age. The world did not develop in a uniform manner. For most of ancient history nearly the entire world was in the Stone Age era. Only a few places managed to achieve a written language and the other trappings of urban civilization. While many things were happening elsewhere, we will only concentrate on the most advanced areas of civilization.
Geography
Geography’s impact on the ancient world and its people was massive. The affect of land features goes unappreciated today because our modern world greatly reduces their impact. Ancient people lived in mud huts, caves, or just a hole in the ground with a grass roof. Imagine the smell of the village they occupied, especially with the trash piled a stone’s throw away (fish heads included). Fire was the only heat or light they enjoyed. Even today, the wilderness possesses a remarkable weight during its deepest nights.
What our primeval friends did have was wind, rain, snow, and sun hammering them 24/7. Geography determines how much, and what kind, of natural conditions people have to tackle each day. After all, when all that stands between you and an ice storm is a mammoth hide weather becomes extremely important. The first needs for a settled agricultural based community were water, open land to grow crops, and grass to feed the domesticated animals. When choosing a site people took patterns of weather into account, building materials, and probably thought about other tribes or clans lurking about. After evaluating an area, the folks might decide to settle down (or not) and then start to build houses, canals, corrals, and maybe a wall to keep out unwanted strangers. Once a good area was located and heavily invested in the residents wanted to keep others out. And why not? A good location, and the investment of time and labor, made it important to protect for themselves and their descendants.
By way of illustration, from 1000 BC until about AD 1500 whoever controlled the area between China and Europe, astride the “silk road”, became fabulously wealthy. Empire after empire grew rich in this region by acting as middlemen between the riches of Asia and European consumers. These well positioned empires included Persia, Parthia, Kushana, the Mongols, Ottoman Turks, and the Caliphates of Islam. The overland route was necessary because a geographic feature stood in the way of an ocean route: Africa. After the Muslim defeat at the sea Battle of Du in 1508 the land route fell out of use. European seafarers captured the trade since ships moved cargo long distances at less risk and expense than land travel. Nonetheless, the merchants of Asia, and the middlemen, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on silk, spices, jade, and other oriental luxuries for about 2,500 years because of geography.[7] Thus, we ascertain the significance of geography.
Security
Prior to settlement and farming, it appears people were relatively peaceful. Of course, it is hard to tell with few archeological sites, no written history, and immense expanses of time between the prehistoric era and ourselves. That much time erases a lot of evidence; nevertheless, we find no evidence of large battles. Even cave paintings only depict people hunting. After building large settlements, and investing time and resources enhancing the land with irrigation systems and permanent structures, people would naturally resist efforts to seize their improved territory. Because of this inherent problem of investment into land and permanence, war, which is fighting between organized groups of armed combatants, appeared in spades. It seems the creation of villages and cities led to warfare.
Throughout history we find groups of people coveting the property of others, especially if they believe they are tougher than the ones owning the prized possessions (that human nature thing). As groups organized into cities it seems some leaders decided taking the land, property, and women of their neighbors was a good thing—especially if they had a larger army. Villages or clans with small armies faced critical problems if a large army appeared; consequently, very early on, communities built protective enclosures such as stone walls or wooden stockades. Good walls can even the odds against a larger army. The city of Jericho near the Dead Sea was founded by 8500 BC, and its construction included a surrounding stone wall over twelve feet high with towers thirty feet tall. In front of the wall the inhabitants constructed a ditch cut out of solid rock. Whoever erected this citadel spent a lot of time, labor, and resources protecting themselves. Throughout history we will find that walls define good times or bad times. Many sturdy walls around every town in a region shouts danger, but open cities without walls whisper safety. Today we find people putting iron bars on the doors and windows of their homes. These are essentially walls, and tell us life is dangerous. Others have gone so far as to live in so-called gated (read walled) communities within our great modern cities. The walled communities are constructed because security is failing, and people feel a need for additional protection. Just like people ten thousand years ago, people today build walls when security is uncertain.
Of course, security needs go far beyond walls, and these needs consume countless resources. Good protection requires an army; thus, men of military age must be trained and be equipped for war. Walls, ditches, armaments, and time for the men to train are all necessary for resisting outside conquest—or internal trouble. Towns fearing a siege would allocate additional resources for the storage of extra food and water so the city could withstand these attacks. A considerable effort had to go into protection for an urban area to survive 8,500 years ago. Another form of protection is the gods. If the gods (or the god—singular) were on your side then your army would succeed. If the gods were against you then all your armies, weapons, walls, and storehouses would be useless; therefore, appeasing the gods and shamans was a major concern. During pre-history some of this is guesswork, but after writing allowed us to read the ancient’s thoughts we know security concerns were high.
Sumer and UR
The first civilization of note was located at the outlet to the sea of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers near the Persian Gulf. A group of folks started to farm the very fertile land eventually establishing several large and well maintained cities on the alluvial plain by about 5000 BC. These cities came together to form the civilization of Sumer about 3500 BC. The city-states of Sumer, twelve in number, were involved in irrigating their abundant crops and needed a way to record the yields of the land. Thus, about 3300 BC,Sumer developed what were probably the first written records, and they are (drum roll)—receipts and tallies of crops. (Huh?) In Cuneiform writing the records were wedged shaped marks pressed into wet clay which became permanent upon drying. Why were records of grain deposits or land yields so important? Crops were the foundation of Sumer’s economy; accordingly, they probably decided to record the data because memories have a way of differing from year to year, or hour to hour for that matter. It is also probable that it had something to do with taxation (where there is government there is taxation). The why is lost to us but the records are there—warehouses full of them. From such monotonous undertakings our written language (and history) was inaugurated. Peculiarly, the language of Sumer was confined to the small area of the twelve cities, never expanding beyond them; however, the idea of writing spread swiftly throughout the world.
The Sumerians also made a beverage that is still popular today, beer. Moreover, they had many varieties of beer, most of them made from barley. The beer trade was important to the ancient Middle East, and went as far east as India. Egypt appears to be the ancient capital of beer brewing. The Egyptians processed something like 50 varieties of beer, ranging from red or white to premium. No wonder this area needed language and writing. How else can you order the right kind of beer all the way from India?
Sumer gave the world another item easily recognizable today, a numbering system based on 60, the sexagesimal system (!!—are they kidding?). Never heard of it? Recall that our time base is 60—sixty seconds to a minute, 60 minutes to an hour. The number of degrees in a circle (360) is also from the base of 60. Therefore, the basis of modern time and writing came from the long ago land of Sumer.
The Bronze Age replaced the Stone Age about 3500 BC in Mesopotamia. Metallurgy made remarkable advances and became a mainstay of urban civilization. Bronze is a mixture of copper and tin, which makes bronze much harder than copper alone. Bronze Age tools were superior to Stone or copper tools. Craftsmen turned out better plows, needles, tools for tending crops, and weapons. Such useful knowledge and materials quickly reached other areas. Bronze weapons gave the city folks an edge over nomads persistently battering at their gates. In China, the Bronze Age began earlier than the Middle East, and it seems each area independently developed its metalworking expertise. How is it that two widely separated civilizations both discovered that tin mixed with copper produced a harder metal? Can it be that humans think along similar lines no matter where they are located?
Figure 3 Sargon of Agade—first conquer
Human beings are endlessly competitive it seems, and that bit of human nature immediately caused trouble. As originally constituted, the cities of Sumer comprised twelve independent city-states. Then a fellow named Sargon of Agade invaded and conquered the cities in 2334 BC, thereby establishing himself as the ruler of them all. It is said that Sargon was the world’s first conquer, although Menes of Egypt seems to have been ahead of him. He expanded his empire, but it did not last, and the city-state system returned with the city of Ur being the big dog of the pack for a few hundred years. Ur fell around 2000 BC to other invaders, and the story of the Middle East—and the world—has not changed since. One empire after another conquered the area of Sumer, or part of it, only to be overthrown by another in due time. The Middle East is a key starting point for urban civilization, and war and conquest emerged instantly thereafter. It seems civilization got off to a bad start and never recovered.
These early wars were horrible. Imagine you live in a walled “city” of 8,000 people (men, women, and children), meaning you can field an army of less than 2,000 maximum. The normal figure for fighting men would be twenty percent of the population, or about 1,600 men in this instance. Assume an army of 5,000 well-armed invaders appear demanding that your city send out wagonloads of copper and grain, plus all the girls between the ages of ten and fourteen. Your choices are: (1) give them what they want, knowing a similar bounty will be required every year, moreover, your girls will suffer rape and slavery in a faraway land; or (2) fight, knowing defeat means burning your city, slavery for your young men, slaughter for the older citizens, and rape and slavery for your all your girls. These were the hard choices faced by the city’s leaders. The city’s army was like a college football team; the biggest, strongest, and most athletic young men the city can muster will fight the invader, probably within sight of the city.[8] If your young men lose, you get to watch them butchered as you contemplate your own demise. A “win” still requires the death and wounding of many of the city’s young men; however, you keep your independence and your property. Nevertheless, the invaders may regroup and return. As one can see the choices were anything but good.
Abraham
Around 2000 BC a man left Ur with his wife and traveled west, eventually settling in the land of Canaan which we now call Israel or Palestine. This one man was to be the father of the world’s three great monotheistic religions. Abraham would begin the Jewish religion, and through the Jews the Christian religion. By his handmaiden he was to father of the Islamic religion. As you know from our present-day headlines it was also the start of a LOT of trouble. The amazing thing about the religions Abraham originated is that many other religions, with abundant adherents, were around at the same time; however, they all faded away. Thousands followed the religions of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, and many others, while those following the one God of Abraham were very few. Yet, 4,000 years later, it is the religions spawned by Abraham that enjoy billions of adherents, while the other religions from his time are extinct.
When Abraham moved to the land of Canaan no one would claim this was a supernova event in history; and, at his death, no one would have thought this man had forever changed the world. As students of history we should note that events so breathlessly watched and reported on today will be meaningless in a hundred years, and perfectly erased in five hundred. Yet, events are taking place at this moment that will substantially impact the world one thousand years hence, but they will go unnoticed during our time. Ask your friends what they know about World War I. If they know anything it would be surprising, and that conflict was only 96 years ago. The current “newsworthy” happenings are actually very un-newsworthy. Who would have thought, at the time, the American Revolution would change the world, or a few men guarding a bridge against a small unit of English troops would trigger that change? Who knew in 1960 that computers would shrink to tabletop and then pinhead size and take over our world so completely? The birth and death of Jesus Christ went utterly unnoticed. That is why history must take the long view as I call it, because what seems important today will most likely be nothing at all in one hundred years.
Egypt
Figure 4 Egypt & the Middle East
Egypt played an important role in ancient history, as it is one of the earliest highly developed civilizations. Egypt was an isolated area with harsh deserts to the west and east, the Mediterranean Sea to the north, and the wilds of Africa to the south (here we note the importance of geography again). From about 4500 BC, the civilization along the Nile developed from farming communities to the empires of Upper and Lower Egypt. Around 3100 BC, an almost mythical ruler known as Menes conquered Upper and Lower Egypt founding the first of twenty-two dynasties to rule over Upper and Lower Egypt for over 2,500 years. The United States of America has been around about two hundred fifty years. An eye blink to the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptian rulers were Pharaohs, and the people considered the Pharaoh a god on earth.[9]
Egyptian history is divided into three eras: The Old Kingdom (3000 to 2150 BC), the Middle Kingdom (1975 to1630 BC), and the New Kingdom (1550 to 1070 BC). After each of these kingdoms came a phase of unrest, or conquests, termed “intermediateperiods” after which the Egyptians restored their old way of life.
Great buildings recall the era of ancient Egypt. During the Old Kingdom the Pharaoh Khufu ordered the Great Pyramid[10] at Giza constructed around 2550 BC.[11] Even after the end of the New Kingdom in 1070 BC Egypt went on, although its power was significantly reduced. Still, Egypt’s great building projects continued. Pharaoh Necho II (610 to 595 BC) built a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea to improve trade with the east. Actually, the “canal” had a few high and dry spots that required towing the boats across land (how would you like the job of pulling boats overland). Nonetheless, it was a great time saver, otherwise the circumnavigation of Africa was required to reach the Persian Gulf.
The Egyptians maintained a stable society for thousands of years, and this stability was the hallmark of their culture. As the sky and the Nile were stable so was life in Egypt. The dynasties did change, and periodically invaders came from outside their land to harass and overcome them, but the Egyptians quickly (in historical terms) re-established their control and continued their old ways of life. Their art forms reflect this stability. The Egyptians established rather unique artistic methods, and painting or carving these highly stylized depictions of people and animals resisted change for over two thousand years. This kind of stability is remarkable, and it is what allowed such a grand culture to develop and sustain itself for thousands of years.
The Egyptians enjoyed a perfect setup in the Nile River Valley. The Nile River flooded dependably, and those yearly floods deposited rich silt upon a level floodplain on which the Egyptians planted their crops yielding wonderful amounts of grain that all but guaranteed a surplus year after year. The Egyptians developed extensive canal and irrigation systems off the Nile River. In addition, the isolation protected them from invaders, and consequently allowed them to avoid a standing army (during the Old Kingdom), thereby saving funds normally spent on military protection. Instead, they spent their surpluses on civic projects. For many years the only consistent threat to Egypt’s way of life came from the south—the kingdom of Nubia(also known as Kush). The Egyptians pushed south, past the great waterfalls of the upper Nile (cataracts), and established a series of impressive forts to protect their southern borders. For thousands of years these prevented incursions that would otherwise threaten the peace of the Nile Valley. The Nile River Valley and its surrounding area offered up riches beyond farming. From the area of Syene (Assuan) came gold, granite, sandstone, and copper; from Heliopolis limestone; from Hermopolis alabaster; from the Red Sea’s western coast granite, gold and emeralds; and from Sinai copper, garnet, and turquoise. These riches (and beer) allowed Egypt to build a large trading empire.
The Egyptians liked to study the world around them, especially the sky (well, it is a desert—what else can you look at after dark?). From these studies they developed sophisticated astronomical data and ideas about the afterlife that would deeply influence their civilization and others that would follow. Christian and Hebrew sacred texts feature Egypt prominently. These sources tell us how the Hebrews became slaves in Egypt, and then—around 1200 or 1300 BC—how the prophet Moses led them east, out of Egypt to Palestine.[12] During the journey to their new homeland, Yahweh (God) presented the Hebrews with the Ten Commandants at Mount Sinai. God later gave the Torah to the Hebrews. These writings found their way into the Christian Bible as the first five books of the Old Testament. These five books help form the religious foundations of the Western World.
The Egyptians developed hieroglyphics, a form of writing using pictures and symbols for whole ideas rather than individual words or letters; thus, no alphabet was developed. Since each symbol or picture stood for an idea this made hieroglyphics exceptionally difficult to decipher (much like the written Chinese language).[13] The Egyptians also invented a simpler, faster way to write for everyday use, and that writing style eventually traveled to the land of Phoenicia transforming itself into an alphabet. To write upon something besides stone the Egyptians invented papyrus, an early form of paper. A lot of their records and day-to-day events were recorded on this medium which, unfortunately for us, deteriorates rapidly. As a result, countless Egyptian records were lost over time.
The gigantic pyramids and complex burial practices leave the impression that Egypt was a land seemingly living for the dead, but this is not the entire story. The Pyramids at Giza are immense stone monuments built to house dead Pharaohs (current theory). The Pharaohs wanted their tombs’ built out of exactly cut limestone stone blocks. Within the mountainous structures the ancient architects constructed passages leading to various chambers, one of which held the Pharaoh’s sarcophagus. The pyramids, along with the colossal and mysterious underground tombs in the Valley ofthe Kings, tell us of a society focused on the afterlife, and willing to expend enormous resources to ensure safe passage of the Pharaoh into the heavens; however, this safe passage into the heavens had an earthly impact.[14] Ancient Egyptians believed in a balance between earth and heaven, and the tombs of their Pharaohs were designed to help maintain that balance in both realms. The Pharaoh’s passage to the stars helped maintain the critical heaven-earth balance that guarded against chaos. The old reborn Pharaoh in the heavens would continue the divine order there (or “maat”), and the new Pharaoh would maintain maat on earth. In times of chaos the Egyptians thought the heaven-earth maat was disturbed.
The pyramids of the Old and New Worlds had different construction methods and vastly different functions. The Aztec pyramids in the New World were massive but rubble-filled construction, and only the structure’s exterior surface had cut stone. Atop the Aztec structures were temples where bloody sacrifices took place to honor and appease the gods; thus, the Meso-American pyramids were not tombs, rather they were places of slaughter where the living encountered a horrifying end to life. Aztec society required the victim’s heart be cut out, and while still beating, held up to the sun. The Aztecs thought blood alone fed the gods and prevented them from ruining the earth. The Aztecs seem to have inherited these beliefs from their predecessors.
In Mesopotamia, the pyramids were stepped structures constructed of sun-dried brick. Called ziggurats, the stepped construction method allowed tall and stable structures to ascend skyward, toward the desert sun. On top of their man-made mountains the priests of Mesopotamia performed rituals to appease and honor their somewhat fickle gods, trying to keep the gods tranquil and generous toward their people. Since the ziggurats were substitute mountains for ritual purposes there was no reason to bury people in them. Strangely enough, over time the bricks melted into the desert and today they look like small mountains. Along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers the inhabitants stuck with the ziggurat structure and the mountaintop idea, but the stepped construction’s influence on early Egypt may have been important because the first Egyptian temple structures were also stepped.
Egypt’s pyramids eschewed mountain top rituals; rather, they were both a tomb for their god on earth and a passageway for the Pharaoh to the heavens. For the Egyptians the pyramid connected earth and heaven. In Egyptian pyramids the stones inside and out were closely cut—so closely cut a playing card could not be slid between them. The outside surfaces of the three great pyramids at Giza were originally smooth and faced with white limestone so each would brilliantly reflect the desert sun. Inside the pyramid the Pharaoh rested in safety until securing passage to the sky and the world beyond, thereby ensuring a tranquil life to those remaining behind in Egypt. In a sense, while the Egyptian tombs focused on the afterlife they also focused on the present, because as order was maintained among the stars so order would be maintained on earth. Some commentators say the pyramid was an eternal life machine guiding Pharaoh’s journey to the stars.
Egyptians believed in life after death and judgment after death for one’s actions in life. Nonetheless, not everyone bought off on the Pharaohs being gods or on judgment after death, because the riches of the tombs were plundered on a regular basis. The problem was so severe a new underground burial location was constructed in the Valley of the Kings. Here the Egyptians created elaborate underground tombs rivaling the pyramids for spectacular construction. The Pharaohs entombed in this valley received extra protection from patrolling guards. In the end even this failed, and pillaging of the splendid underground tombs went on. Even so, the tombs in the Valley of the Kings are every bit as amazing as the oft-visited Great Pyramids. It was here that Carter found the now famous King Tut of Egypt.
The Egyptians may have constructed the Great Pyramids to conform to the stars in Orion’s belt, and they may have seen the Nile itself mirrored in the sky by the Milky Way’s band of stars crossing near the constellation of Orion. The ancient Egyptians still veil their secrets about why they placed the Giza Pyramids as they did. Strangely, the great pyramids on the Giza plateau contain no hieroglyphics or other writings inside. In addition, large boats are buried right beside the pyramids. Written records of how and why the great burial chambers were created are nowhere to be found. Modern scholars speculate on the methods of construction, and the experimenter’s mud ramps show practical ways to accomplish the task, but such experiments are not definitive. Much smaller pyramids contain pictures of pyramid building, but they show only small pyramids under construction. We cannot be certain of anything; not how, when, or even why Egyptians’ built the Giza pyramids leaving all our “facts” in the realm of speculation.[15] It is human nature to brag about deeds that stun the world. The missing writings deepen the Egyptian riddles, but the finely cut stone mountains stand with us still reminding us of Egypt’s remarkable stability.
Note that Egypt overcame at least two outside invasions during the intermediate periods, and then re-established their former way of life. Compare this to the fall of Rome where the Roman world totally disappeared. Why did Egypt eventually prevail over the invaders while the Romans did not?
Mesopotamia
Mesopotamia, the land between two rivers, was the location of many a mighty empire. Mesopotamia was the centerpiece of the Fertile Crescent area of the ancient world. The Fertile Crescent began at the Persian Gulf, continued up the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, then turned south down the coast of the eastern Mediterranean and thence to the border of Egypt, thus forming a kind of crescent (Well, it does sound better than “the fertile upside down U”). In Mesopotamia the rivers flooded irregularly so life was a bit unsettled in the food category. In addition, the area is open for invasion from all sides, again showing the importance of geography. Perhaps the gods were thought to be capricious because of the unsettled nature of existence along the narrow corridor of urbanization. Nonetheless, great empires were common on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers because the soil was fertile and previous occupants constructed sophisticated irrigation systems.[16]
Another reason Mesopotamia prospered was trade. The two mighty rivers were freeways to the ocean, then India, Egypt and beyond. The copper trade was so busy on the Euphrates River that the ancients called it the Copper River.[17] From the north came lapis lazuli (precious stones), from the west stone and wood, from the south copper, and from the east the luxuries of India all flowing into the Tigris and Euphrates River valley. Through all of history trade will mean prosperity to those who have it, and privation for those who do not. In addition, trade escorted the spread of another astounding concept, the alphabet.
On the western edge of the Upside Down U . . . oops . . . Fertile Crescent, assembled a group of seafaring traders known as the Phoenicians. They established their trading cities on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea at Tyre, Sidon, and other locations, about 1100 BC. The Phoenicians established spin-off trading towns throughout the Mediterranean world, including Carthage which was one of the ancient world’s most remarkable cities. Even though their sailing ships went west with trade goods the cargo itself was coming from inland; that is, the Fertile Crescent and its attendant trading partners. The Phoenicians developed the alphabet (theirs was only 22 letters) from informal Egyptian script. With an alphabet, a few letters are easily assembled into millions of words because the letters stand for sounds rather than ideas. The assembled words are the ideas, and when the words represented by the letters are spoken out loud they sound like the spoken language. Thus, one does not have to commit thousands of picture ideas to memory. All that is necessary is to sound out the word from the letters. This connection between the spoken word and the written word was a brilliant stroke, and from the Phoenicians’ central Mediterranean trading location this idea quickly spread east and west (never made it to China). This Phoenician alphabet leads to Aramaic and Greek scripts, and eventually Latin which was the foundation of many modern western languages (English, French, Spanish . . .).
Walled cities were common in Mesopotamia, and the larger the city the higher the wall. The open nature of the area and its nearness to the Caspian Sea, either side of which was a common incursion route from the plains of southern Russia, caused it to endure constant raids and outright invasions. Picture this roll call of changing kingdoms: the old Babylonian empire (1792 BC) was overthrown by Hittites (1595 BC), the Hittites departed after being vanquished by the Peoples of the Sea (1200), the Assyrians (694 BC) eventually filled the void left by the Hittites; the Assyrians were overthrown by the Chaldeans (neo-Babylonians or Medes) (626 BC), which were replaced by the Persians (539 BC), who were conquered by the Greeks (331 BC). And we have not listed all the empires, just the major ones. The Romans came later, then the empire of Parthia, and on and on. It never really ends. More than a little of this turmoil came from nomads around the Caspian and Black Sea.
For about three hundred years, Assyria was the dominant military and political power in the Middle Eastern region. Assyria began to expand in 911 BC and held on to an empire reaching from the northern Tigris River (Turkey) to the Persian Gulf (Mesopotamia), including Egypt, until its defeat by Babylonian Nabopolassar in 626 BC. The Assyrian capitol at Nineveh fell in 612 BC. The Assyrians used iron weapons, much harder than bronze, and excelled at siege warfare and the use of cavalry. The Assyrians were ruthless beyond compare. An area refusing their demands for subjugation had their cities razed and every inhabitant butchered. For example, the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal boasted he overthrew a city, skinned some leaders alive, walled some of them up alive, impaled others, beheaded some and had their heads hung from tree branches around the city, burned the young men and women alive, and the rest, he bragged, were driven into the desert to die of thirst. Not the kind of fellow one chooses to have over for tea. Walled cities often refused demands by invaders because sieges commonly failed; however, the Assyrians invented siege machines that breached the walls and brought cities down quickly. Nevertheless, all the empires, whether benign or ruthless fell one after the other. Whether Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, or Greek, no one could gain power and hold it indefinitely.
Figure 5 Babylon, The Hanging Gardens
In Babylonia, King Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) set forth a code of 282 laws governing his empire. His were not the first laws, nor were they the first written down; however, they are the most complete set of laws found from this era. Most of the laws would make sense in the twenty-first century because they deal with common problems and have common-sense solutions. For example, if a person injured another’s property, restitution was in order; or if a builder constructed a house that fell down, he was to pay the homeowner for damages. Obviously, people in the ancient world had problems similar to ours, and their solutions were exactly like ours, in that the governing body took steps to reach equity in disputes. In our modern world law continues to play a critical part in our societies, showing some things never change. Hammurabi’s Code, chiseled into stone and placed in a prominent public place, gave notice to all what the laws were so his subjects knew the rules and the punishment for breaching the rules. It might show that the king would settle all similar problems in a similar way, no matter who was involved. Enforcing laws in such a manner would be a new way of thinking for eastern rulers. Oriental kings normally exercised the power of life and death over their subjects, and they could be as fickle as they wished.
Thus, in Mesopotamia, we have the rise and fall of numerous empires. King after king, and empire after empire, conquered, grew wealthy, and then grew weak, eventually becoming the conquered. This cycle continues even today, on both a local and worldwide scale. Will governments always continue in this fashion?
The Bronze Age Collapse
In approximately 1200 BC, there was a widespread collapse of eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age civilizations. This collapse threw the eastern Mediterranean world into a Dark Age, and it took hundreds of years to recover. The shattered empires include the Minoan civilization on Crete, cities around the coast of Turkey, the Hittites of inland Turkey, and civilizations along the Palestinian coast. Their protective walls fell, the interior structures collapsed and burned, plus the population of the area decreased rather substantially. Egypt repelled a mighty invasion; however, the conflict substantially weakened the kingdom. Some scholars believe a physical disaster struck the area and destroyed these sophisticated civilizations. The massive super-eruption of the island of Thira may have caused the destruction of the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete about 1450 BC; although others think the Dark Age came due to invasions launched in 1200 BC by a mysterious Iron Age group named the “Peoples of the Sea.” Warriors with iron weapons could have easily defeated opponents wielding bronze weapons. The evidence for invasion comes from the extension and heightening of walls protecting cities in the area almost simultaneously with the rise of problems. The cities fell after the walls were improved, which implies some warning of an invasion and an attempt to prepare. In Egypt, the Pharaoh and his advisors decided to meet the invader at sea. This change in strategy may have saved the Egyptians, who won a significant naval victory by destroying the invading force before it landed. Whether or not these invaders were the same “Peoples of the Sea” or “Sea Peoples” described by others is unknown; however, the Egyptians repelled the invaders after cities around the Mediterranean fell in sequence from Crete, to Turkey, and then Palestine, leading to speculation the invaders proceeded around the northern and eastern Mediterranean before descending on Egypt. In addition, after the Egyptian victory the Peoples of the Sea disappear from history.
Apparently, the marauders did not care to settle in or near the cities they sacked.[18] The invaders appeared, destroyed, and then disappeared. It is possible that natural disasters contributed to the fall of the ancient Bronze Age cities, but the extension and heightening of the city walls indicates the disasters were manmade. More research may turn up better evidence, but for now, this inexplicable collapse of the high Bronze Age civilizations of the eastern Mediterranean remains a tantalizing enigma. Some authors hold the “invasion” was actually a great migration from the Black Sea and Caspian Sea area, rather than an invasion coming from the west to the east.[19]
Here we should note the importance of great migrations of peoples. The mystifying Bronze Age collapse could be the result of mass migrations from central Europe, most of which were Indo-European stock carrying iron weapons. We cannot know for certain. About 1300 BC, Iron Age peoples of the “Urnfield Culture”[20] were expanding out of their original territory in central Europe, leading some scholars to think this migration resulted in the Mediterranean problems. Dates can be most uncertain in ancient history. Other great migrations taking place throughout history influenced civilization in remarkable ways. In fact, there is an ongoing debate about which has more historical importance, the rise of large cities and empires, or the mass migrations of peoples. The cities gave us culture, agriculture, social organization, and specialization. Mass migrations, such as the Franks and Goths moving into Europe and toppling the Western Roman Empire, overthrew entire civilizations, changed social structures across entire regions, and often represent turning points in history. These mass migrations of entire populations from one area to another, usually for reasons unknown, are so numerous they are hard to list. Here are just a few: Asiatic peoples from the area of Mongolia pushing the Germanic people into Europe from about 200 to 1000 AD (sometimes called the Age of Great Migrations), the Sarmatians and Scythians marching into the Black Sea area after 2000 BC and fighting everyone in sight, the movements of Dorian peoples into Greece about 1100 BC pushing out the Mycenaeans, the Bantus moving from Central Africa to the eastern and southern areas of Africa after 2000 BC, and the Vikings moving out of Scandinavia for raids and settlement from 800 to 1100 AD. Such migrations are not elements of the ancient past. Movements such as the Europeans across North America in the 1700’s, or the movements of Latin Americans to North America today (2010) are examples of massive and disruptive movements changing the course of history.
Harappan Civilizations—Indus Valley
3300 to 1700 BC
In the Indus Valley about 3300 BC, a magnificent Bronze Age farming civilization arose that we call Harappan for the city of Harappa. Within the Indus Valley there were over 70 cities, but two stand out: Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. The Harappans laid out their cities in perfect north-south grids, with fired brick buildings, brick gutters, excellent drainage, and access to water in every house. Hygiene was a major concern of the inhabitants. Each house had a room set aside for bathing, complete with a drainage system to carry the water away. The society developed exacting weights and measures for common use. These may account for the expert grid layout of the cities, and the sophisticated sanitation systems. What makes both these cities even more fascinating is the lack of monumental structures. There were no large structures or extra large houses, plus large temple complexes and ceremonial centers are missing. All the houses were close to the same size, and all their baked mud bricks were exactly the same size. The size was, in centimeters, 17.5 x 13 x 30. How weird is that? Some of these facts, like no large houses, point to an egalitarian society.
Figure 6 Harappan Civilization
Thirty years ago archeologist thought the cities in the Indus River plain were constructed without walls; however, recent work shows the cities did have walls—thick double walls complete with ramparts and watchtowers. Inside the two walls was an imposing citadel to further increase protection.[21] Normally, protection like this means the people are frightened, but we have no idea why they needed such expensive and extensive protection. Our problem with the Indus civilizations is a lack of written records. Archeologists found cylinder seals in abundance, and recorded about four hundred symbols from the seals; thus, it is thought the society was literate, but no books or written records can be located. The lack of records severely hampers the hunt for facts about this civilization. The mere fact that the houses are the same size, wholly different from other ancient cultures, leaves us wondering what kind of society existed in the Bronze Age Indus Valley.
The Indus Valley pre-Aryan peoples created excellent pottery, flint blades, and copper wares. This manufacture was widely used in trade, and it found its way westward to the Fertile Crescent, and eastward to the Indian subcontinent. Indus Valley civilizations began to decline about 1800 BC. Why is unclear. Aryan invaders carrying iron weapons enter the area in 1700 BC, but it seems the civilization was already on a downward spiral. After the Aryan arrival, Harappan civilization soon vanishes completely.
The Aryans and Iron Age Civilizations In India
1700 to 500 BC
The Aryans came to the Indus Valley sweeping all before them; however, they were not the cultural equal of the preceding Harappan civilization. As a result, India and the Indus Valley fell into a dark age from which we can gather very little information. The Aryan language forms a cluster of languages that include German, English, and Sanskrit. These nomadic Aryan people probably arrived from Turkistan, and their arrival completely changed the language and culture of India, ushering in the Vedic period that followed the ancient Harappan. The Aryans brought an Iron Age culture into the valley, but it lacked a written language—at least initially. This Aryan culture dominated India through its religious underpinnings, the Upanishads, eventually developing into the complex religious and social caste system still seen today. What we do have from this era are the literary epics of Hinduism (the Vedas): Ramayana and Mahabharata. Hinduism was formed from early Aryan beliefs and prospered in India. It prevailed over Buddhism which spread from India to the rest of Asia and became a dominant force in these areas.[22] The Mahabharata is a key myth in Indian culture. In this story of an epic heroic war, the Krishna, its hero, finally manages to defeat his enemies in an enormous final battle (what else?). From this myth materializes many stories that dictate how one should live his life and perform his duties to society. The story was composed between 400 BC and 400 AD (current theory), and it is here the ancient gods of pre-history are established forever in India’s story. The myth blurs itself into history, and it is as real in India today as it was in ancient times. Even in 2010, India’s people dance to the gods of pre-history and their society continues as prescribed so many thousands of years ago in the ancient texts. In the countryside, away from the large cities, the rural people live the same as their ancient ancestors. The houses are the same, they tell the same stories, and live the same religion. The Aryan impact on India has been enduring.
Figure 7 Maurya Empire
The Maurya dynasty united India in 321 BC. This was the first time the subcontinent enjoyed one ruler, as the Aryan clans had practiced constant warfare since their arrival. Following the fall of the Maurya dynasty, the Gupta dynasty unified the northern areas of India in the fifth century, bringing about what most scholars believe was a golden age. This dynasty was ruined when the Huns arrived in the fourth century. There was a resurgence of the northern dynasties in the seventh century, and this allowed a flowering of Indian culture. The Mongols were to arrive again in AD 1526 and unite the subcontinent under an Islamic dynasty; however, Hinduism would survive even under Islamic rule in India proper. The area of modern day Pakistan converted to Islam during the Mongol period, and this division still troubles the subcontinent, and the world, today.
Greece and Rome
Greece and then Rome dominated European, Mediterranean, and Near East history from 1200 BC to AD 1453. Greece, a mountainous area in the northeastern Mediterranean, was comprised of city-states, with each small area being self-governing and each adopting vastly different ways of governance. Rome was a city that grew to govern the entire Mediterranean area, Western Europe (Gaul, Spain, Portugal, parts of Germany and England), Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, and some of Mesopotamia. If one counts the Eastern Roman Empire, Rome lasted from 753 BC to AD 1453 when the capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constantinople, fell to the Turks. The fall of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, about AD 455 and 1453 respectively, are among the most significant events in world history.
The Greeks
800 BC to 338 BC
We will start with the amazing Greeks. Of all the cities in ancient Greece, Athens is the best known. The main Greek city-states were up and running by 800 BC. From about 750 BC, when Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, to 404 BC, when the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens ended, Greek civilization exploded with grandeur. The Greeks, who began with almost nothing, perfected Art, poetry, literature, political values, science, philosophy, warfare, and other areas of Western culture. Greek sculpture is copied even today; modern philosophers still argue with Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato; Herodotus and Thucydides founded the study of history; Homer’s writings about the history of the Trojan War founded epic poetry; the Greek heavily armored civilian soldiers (hoplites) founded the military principles with which Alexander the Great would conquer the East. Athens laid the foundations of democracy, which were eventually passed down to Europe and America. Greece was the foundation for the Western world we know today. And even today, in philosophy, sculpture, history, political thought, poetry, and literature the Greeks remain unsurpassed.
Individual Greater than the State
Most of these new ideas came from Athens. Athens was a democracy where, for much of its history, every male citizen could vote on critical issues of the day in a public assembly. This reflected a new idea, an idea foreign to rulers in the East. The idea, which spread to the Western world from Greece, was the individual is greater than the state. From the point of view of Western democracy this was the greatest political idea ever discovered. It is still the defining factor in governments, both East and West.
A much older idea ruled the East, where the great rulers of Babylonia, Persia, Egypt, and many others always held on to the opposite: the state is greater than the individual. In Athens, a person could oppose the city (read “the government”) and demand satisfaction from the group of gathered Athenian citizens rather than give in to an order from a ruler. Greek citizens considered themselves free men, and they participated in the governance of their cities. One man’s word was not the law. In the East, the old idea of rule by one person maintained its sway. An oriental king could have anyone, one man or an entire army, put to death on his word alone.
If we stop to think about our world in 2010, we see the concept of one person (or perhaps a small group) autocratic rule is still paramount in China, Southeast Asia, North Korea, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, and many places in South and Central America including Cuba. The idea that the individual is more important than the state took hold in England, France (to some extent), Germany (finally), Italy, Greece, Austria, Spain (well, kind of . . . at least since Franco died), some areas of the Balkans, some parts of Eastern Europe (Poland, Latvia, etc), India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. The reader will note that the English colonies are the primary nations that practice democracy and believe the individual is more important than the collective (United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and England itself). This idea divides the world even now.
Of Gods and Governments
The linkup of god and government is a powerful combination for controlling individuals.[23] We do not know when this amalgamation first occurred; however, once the linkup was secure, making god and the state one, any decision became impossible to challenge. Anyone opposing the government was both a traitor and a heretic. This is the pattern for most of history. The oriental dictators of Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, and so many others, coupled religion and leadership of the state; thus, the ruler was anointed by the gods, guided by the gods, and in touch with the gods so his decisions were also anointed by the gods. The priesthood confirmed, on behalf of the ruler, that god (or the gods) agreed, and the common person lacked any power to challenge this powerful duet.[24]
The Greeks broke this pattern. Greek government leaders were not considered gods, or god’s appointees, so their decisions could be openly questioned. It took more than mere opposition to the government to make a person a traitor or a heretic. A person could question the wisdom of the leaders without fearing reprisals; well . . . most of the time . . . err . . . maybe every now and then . . . with carefully chosen words. The west eventually adopted this viewpoint, separating church and state. The kings of the Orient disagreed then, and modern despots disagree now. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, fascism, and communism all agree governments are not ordained by god (in fact, they think there is no god); and they agree the individual is nothing, as only the state gives an individual meaning. Thus,the government becomes god, as Hobbes opined in The Leviathan, published in AD 1651. When the government is separate from god but does recognize god’s existence, its actions can be limited by god’s pronouncements (sometimes called natural law); however, if the government does not believe in or acknowledge god, then there are no limits, moral or otherwise, ongovernment action. Such governments are the most dangerous of all.[25] Greek city-states were having problems with governance, until an outside force came to oppress them.
The Persians Invade Greece
From at least 750 BC to about 490 BC, Greece was a disunited land, as the city-states spent a bunch of time warring with one another. In fact, Greece enjoyed diversity through three separate peoples: the Mycenaeans (also called Arcadians), Ionians, and Dorians. (And you thought diversity was a good thing.)The Dorians, arriving last, about 800 BC, threw the Greek peninsula into turmoil, on top of creating a hundred year dark age;. It seems the only uniting elements were a common language and culture. The Greeks habitually divided the world into two parts, those who spoke Greek and the barbarians who did not. The Greeks also established colonies—many colonies, all around the Aegean Sea. Later they expanded to the Black Sea, Italy, Sicily, and Lebanon and beyond. Still, Greece was an area of small kingdoms and internecine warfare, where unity was unattainable (so much for the benefits of “diversity”).
Figure 8 Battle of Marathon
Persia’s expansion took them to Anatolia in Western Turkey, and contact with Ionian Greek colonies. These Greeks were a tough bunch to govern, and a revolt against Persia was soon underway (the Ionian Revolt—there’s a creative name). The Ionian Greeks requested help, and Athens sent aid to their fellow Greeks. Persia crushed the revolt, but mighty King Darius, ruler of Persia, fumed about diminutive Athens giving aid to the uprising. Darius decided on a strong raid to teach Athens a lesson. The result: a most important battle, and the start of many unanticipated events.
The great battle took place at Marathon on the eastern shores of Greece in 490 BC. The Persians chose the place of battle, but they chose poorly. Sailing from Persia, the army headed west and decided to land at a beach near the town of Marathon, which was a relatively confined area; soon, an Athenian hoplite army opposed them. The Persians were accustomed to battling their foes on the open plains of the Middle East where swiftly moving cavalry could decide battles; but now, in this confined battlefield, cavalry maneuver was not possible. In addition, a Greek force of heavily armored men faced them with huge sturdy shields arranged like a wall in front of them, and this formation could repel Persian arrows that were a significant part of Persian tactics. The type of battle that developed was one in which the strengths of the Persians (maneuver and speed) were of little use. Instead, the strengths of the Greeks, the use of heavy infantry in defense and attack, were favored. The Greeks funneled the Persian attack into a narrow field and then quickly closed in on their flanks. After the Persians broke, the Greeks pursued the fleeing men, slaughtering many before they could regain their ships. It was a considerable victory by a very small force over a much larger one. After the victory, a runner namedPheidippides (these Greek names are tough!) ran from Marathon to Athens and declared, as he dropped dead from exhaustion, “Athens is victorious.” We still celebrate this run today in the Marathon—only the runners do not drop dead at the end (even though they may feel like it). This victory was significant in many ways, but most importantly, it saved the idea of democracy from extinction. Free men defeated the Persian army seeking to enslave them and crush their beliefs.[26]
What the Greeks could not know was the affair was beginning, not ending. Another king of Persia waited in the wings, with plans to overturn Greek miscalculations. Xerxes, son of Darius, eventually assembled an army and designed a powerful invasion to subjugate the Greeks. It turns out that angering people such as the Persians, possessing huge armies and vast resources, is a bad idea.
In 480 BC, Xerxes marched against the Greeks. This time the Persian king assembled a huge army, so vast the chroniclers of the day said it was immeasurable.[27] With such a large army, a sea invasion was out of the question. The Persians crossed the Hellespont using a road constructed over a fantastic pontoon boat bridge, an engineering feat for all time, afterward marching around the Aegean Sea toward Athens alerting the Greeks that all of Asia was coming their way.
Figure 9 Persian Wars—Xerxes Attacks
The Greeks decided to unite against this invader from the east.[28] To impede the Persian’s progress, the Greeks sent a small force north to the narrow pass at Thermopylae (hell’s gate—thermo meaning hot, and pylae meaning gate) because this area was very tight, with the sea to one side and sharply ascending mountain cliffs to the other, and a small warrior group could buy their fellow Greeks time.
The resulting three-day stand comes down to us as one of the most noble and enduring clashes of arms in history. At Thermopylae, six thousand Greeks, including men from Athens and Thebes, accompanied three hundred Spartans in the defense of the pass. The Spartans certainly bore the brunt of the fighting, but to say they were alone is simply inaccurate.
The immense Persian army came upon the Greeks holding the narrow pass and began their assault. Because of the nature of the terrain, the fighting favored the Greeks. As at Marathon, maneuver here was impossible. Persian horses and archers were useless, and the heavily armored Greeks with their ponderous shields, stabbing spears, and cleaving swords were in their element. By necessity, the Persians attacked the Greek wall of shields and men head-on, and a slaughter resulted as the lightly protected Persians failed to penetrate the Greek line. The Persian shields were (probably) wicker, their swords light, and they wore little armor in keeping with their philosophy of speed and maneuver to win battles. Like the German Army at Stalingrad in 1942, the Persian army was committed to a battle it was not designed to fight; consequently, the Persians failed to breach the Greek line. Even after two days of hard fighting, the Spartans and their allies held against the gargantuan eastern army. The Persians needed a new approach or they would likely spend a long time, and lose men unnecessarily, fighting for the pass.
Then the Persians got a break. A Greek who knew the area came to Xerxes telling him of a sinuous mountain trail around the pass that would allow the Persians to surround the Greeks and defeat them quickly. Xerxes sent his troops by night through the mountains, but the Greeks discovered the move and most fled the trap. The Spartans, and about one thousand men from Thebes, stayed and prepared for death. The Persians surrounded the remaining Greeks demanding surrender, but the Spartans and their allies refused. Xerxes ordered his men forward. All the Greeks died, fighting to the last man. Legend claims the Spartans fought until their swords and spears were broken, finally dying while scratching and clawing at their assailants. No man surrendered, so he would die free rather than suffer slavery for even a moment. And so it ended after three days. Xerxes and his prodigious army marched on leaving the blood-soaked ground behind. The Greeks erected a marker at the pass, reading, “O traveler, go tell the Spartans that here we lie in obedienceto their commands.”
Movies and legends ignore the reality of historical situations. Xerxes was dependent on his navy to supply his army and keep him safe from sea raiders. The navy Xerxes brought was huge, in keeping with the way mighty eastern monarchs of the day liked to do things. He was trying to show the small and disjoined Greek states they were powerless against him. The Athenians seemed to agree, since they abandoned their city and fled to nearby islands—but things are not always as they appear.
The Oracle at Delphi played a large role in Greek society. This famous Oracle had the ability, it seemed, to foresee events and give advice about them. The city of Athens sent emissaries to the Oracle asking what to do about the Persian invasion. The answer was mystifying (as usual), “You will be saved only by the wooden wall.” What was that supposed to mean?
Themistocles (another arduous Greek name), a brilliant Athenian commander, thought he knew—the wooden wall was ships. He lobbied for an expansion of the Athenian navy. After a lot of haggling, common in democracies to this day, it was agreed and Themistocles set about preparing for the unequal battle. As the Persian army advanced on vacant Athens and burned it, the new and larger Athenian navy was setting a trap. In a narrow straight between the island of Salamis and the mainland, the Greeks awaited the Persians. The Greeks, under the command of Themistocles, managed to sucker the Persians into attacking into the narrow straight, where the faster and easier-to-handle Greek triremes destroyed a large part of the Persian fleet.[29]
Salamis was THE victory of the Persian wars, more important than Thermopylae or the later victory at Plataea. Without his navy, Xerxes’ supply lines and lines of communication back to Persia were in danger of disruption by naval raids. Very large armies require very large amounts of supply, and cut supply lines were a grave danger to the Persian force. So, Xerxes quickly determined he had won the war. After all, he marched his army into the center of Greece, burned Athens, and beat up many other Greek city-states around the Aegean Sea. Athens, as the chief offender among Greek cities aiding the Ionian Revolt, and the victor at Marathon, was reduced to ashes and therefore suitably punished. Why wait around for the surrender of a bunch of individual cities?
Xerxes declared victory and went home with his huge army, but left a smaller army behind to hold the ground won. The next year, the Greeks assembled in concert against the reduced Persian army, smashing them at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. The Persian defeat freed the Greeks from Persian tyranny, and the individual remained greater than the state.
After the Persians—The Peloponnesian War
The Greeks would celebrate their victory over the Persians for centuries to come, but unity and cooperation dissolved with Persia’s retreat. Soon after the Persian threat departed, Athens decided to build an empire and formed the Delian League. This league encompassed Greek cities around the Aegean, and involved trading partnerships and agreements for mutual defense. Athens was the three-hundred-pound gorilla in the organization, and it soon began to show. Athens raised taxes on their “partners” and generally started acting as if they owned the other city-states. Since Athens’ main rival was Sparta, some of the cities threatened to join with Sparta to escape from the “voluntary” league. Soon, Athens and Sparta were engaged in a long and especially brutal war for control of Greece and its many colonies.
The terrible Peloponnesian War was fought between 431 and 404 BC. Athens foresaw the war (well, they should have since they started it), and knew they could not defeat the Spartan Army in a straight up battle. To counter the Spartan Army, they constructed a walled corridor between Athens and their port of Piraeus (the long walls). When the Spartans invaded, the Athenians withdrew behind their walls and waited the Spartan Army out. The Spartans could not successfully storm the long walls; subsequently, the war degenerated into Athenian naval raids on the Peloponnesian peninsula (the area controlled by Sparta) and Spartan attacks into Athenian territory to burn crops and hold the Athenians inside the long walls.
Athens survived a ghastly plague and the Spartan raids, but they could not survive the death of their war leader, Pericles. A new leader, Alcibiades, advocated increasing aggressive action, eventually convincing Athens to launch an expedition to conquer the city of Syracuse on the island of Sicily. The Athenians put together a massive fleet and an impressive army; nevertheless, distance, mismanagement from the outset, a spirited defense by the citizens of Syracuse, and significant help from Sparta destroyed the imposing Athenian fleet and army.[30] After the debacle, Athens was without reserves or money. Ultimately, she surrendered to the Spartans, dropping the curtain on the magnificent intellectual and artistic pageant of ancient Greece.
Several items are worth noting about the Peloponnesian War. Guess who sponsored the Spartans financially? The Persians financed the Spartans in a brilliant diplomatic move that destroyed their rivals by pitting the Greeks against one another. Only one Greek historian, Herodotus, wrote about the Persian Wars, and only one Greek historian, Thucydides, wrote about the Peloponnesian War. Finally, there was the short-lived Spartan victory. Shortly after Sparta “won” the war with Athens, other city-states defeated the Spartans (Thebes mainly); and, once more, Greece fell back into the warring city-states fiasco. The wars went on until Phillip of Macedonia[31] conquered Greece at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC, and placed it under the rule of an eastern-style king.
The splendor of Greece comes from its many accomplishments in art, literature, philosophy, science, democracy, and more. Its tragedy stems from an inability to unite and quell their desire for more. Athens fed its ambition; and Sparta, though it wanted to be left alone, bowed to its predestined clash with Athens. The failure was diplomatic as well as military. Like the start of World War I, the parties could not put away their human nature, their distrust of one another, their craving for power, their ambitions, the desire to control, and the fear that if they were not in control, others would control them. In Athens, charismatic orators captured the crowds’ attention, convincing them to vote for really dumb ideas. This chapter in Athenian history should convince anyone of the dangers in democratic governments. The divided Greeks could not avoid war any more than a divided world can. Plato, a famous Greek philosopher, wrote, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Thus far, over 2,000 years of history—and human nature—prove him correct.
Alexander the Great
334 to 323 BC
Figure 10 Alexander’s Empire
We must mention one more small item before we move on to Rome, and that “small item” is Alexander the Great. Alexander was the son of Phillip, who died by assassination about 334 BC making Alexander king; thereafter, Alexander set out to conquer Persia.In 334 BC, he landed in Asia Minor, present-day Turkey, and began a conquest that many say is unequalled to this day. He defeated the coastal cities along the eastern Mediterranean to establish a base for supplies, vanquished Egypt, and then turned on the Persian Empire. In a series of engagements the Greeks under Alexander defeated huge, but poorly led, armies of the Persians.
His main victories were at Issus in 333 BC and Gaugamela in 331 BC. At Gaugamela, Alexander went forward even though outnumbered, and on a battlefield chosen by Darius III, ruler of the Persian Empire. During the battle, Alexander moved his cavalry to the right, while he was riding at its head. Darius moved his lines to match, and this caused an opening in the Persian line, near the center, into which Alexander promptly charged. This was the key moment in the action, and Darius, recognizing defeat was upon him, left the field. Alexander decided not to pursue the Great King immediately, because his left flank was in trouble, and he returned to aid his comrades. Darius’ own commander murdered him, but Alexander in turn executed the commander for his actions. Even with Persia at his feet, Alexander was unfulfilled; so he drove on to India. Alexander was primed to go further, but his tired and lonely army wanted to go home. Though undefeated, they had been away from home for years; and the Greek geographers told Alexander the end of the world was right over the next hill. Alexander and his Greeks turned back.
Alexander soon died (323 BC), and his empire was split into four areas (Macedon, Egypt, Syria, and Pergamum) each ruled by one of his chief commanders. What to do with the memory of Alexander? A fantastic general, a good administrator, and a man who wanted to bring the Greek and Asian world together; however, he died soon after his conquest, so his dream of unity failed. The great general died young. Had he lived, he might have been able to do more than any person after him to unite the East with the West. When Alexander died, he may have taken the best chance for a unity of ideas and culture between East and West with him to the grave.
Rome
753BC to AD 1453
Rome was THE CITY ruling the Mediterranean and Western Europe for over a thousand years. Its history is long, and complex; thus, we will break Rome into two eras, The Republic and The Empire. Rome started as a Repubic about 753 BC, and grew to rule Western Europe, and the Mediterranean Sea, before morphing into the Empire era after Caesar’s death in 44 BC. The huge empire was difficult to govern; consequently, the Romans divided it into eastern and western regions in AD 284 with an emperor in charge of each. Pressure from nomads invading from central Asia destroyed the Western Roman Empire about AD 455, but the Eastern Roman Empire lived on and prospered until finally conquered by the Turks in 1453. After the split, the city of Rome remained the center of governance in the west; while in the east, Constantinople became the empire’s center, growing to enormous wealth and power. Under Justinian the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) nearly equaled the size of Rome, and its wealth was vast.
How to describe Rome? Given only one word, it would be grandeur. The Romans lived large. Roman engineers were the best in the world, and those skills were on display throughout the realm. Roman cities boasted wonderful heated public baths, running water at public fountains, paved roads, magnificent buildings, theaters, and sports arenas. The Coliseum at Rome was incomparable. The Romans constructed numerous underground passageways in the Coliseum where people and animals could pass under the stadium, popping up inside the arena to amaze the crowds. The Romans even staged naval battles there by filling the arena with water. Built outside the Coliseum were shops and offices, much like our modern malls. Even underground Rome was a wonder, where excellent outsized sewers carried away the waste products of urban life. Everywhere the Romans constructed a city these amenities were common. Another Roman invention was cement. Not just any cement, but a kind made with volcanic ash that was much harder than cement in common use today and much longer lasting.
Very well constructed Roman roads, running in straight lines for miles, were crowned so water would run off, surfaced with stone, and had distance markers at regular intervals. These roads allowed swift, safe travel. The numerous roads tied the empire together as nothing else could. Along their roads the Roman legions traveled 20 miles per day, if necessary, to reach trouble spots throughout the Roman world. Trade, a bulwark of civilization, moved safely throughout Rome on these same roads.
Roman skill and vision were simply beyond compare in the ancient world. Still standing today, and in use in the twentieth century, are Roman aqueducts that brought fresh water down from the mountains to refresh the citizens of Rome 2,000 years ago. Such aqueducts were common throughout Rome, as well as open-air theaters, ostentatious villas, and arenas for sport and entertainment. At Caesura in Palestine, (modern day Israel) what was probably the world’s first artificial harbor was constructed, and it was huge. All over the Rome, brilliant feats of engineering were commonplace; thus, the incredible became the feasible.
These engineering feats differed from those in other ancient civilizations. In Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Meso-America, royalty and religion reserved the massive building projects. In Rome, the massive construction was for the people. The Coliseum, aqueducts, Trajan’s Forum, fountains, roads, and the wonderful baths were constructed for the citizens of Rome. There were glorious temples to the gods, but the majority of Roman construction was to benefit the people and not kings, queens, priests, or the gods—at least not at first.
Rome established the law as a key component of Western life, a concept still deeply rooted in Western thought. The idea of codified law came to Europe from Rome. Perhaps no other concept transferred from Rome to the West was as important as the way Romans thought about law and its central position in society. Around 451 BC the decemvirs, a board of ten lawmakers, set out the first written laws of Rome, which were then debated, amended, and passed by an assembly of all the people. The laws were written down on Twelve Tables and set in the Forum for all to read. The Roman Forum was a gathering place for the populace where matters of state were debated. The decisions of the Roman Republic were made in public, for all to hear. Open debate, freedom of speech, open government, and voting for who would run Rome were the hallmarks of the Republic of Rome.
The need for written laws was to ease the strife between the patricians, and plebeians. Patricians were the old landholding families; thus, “fathers” of Rome—patrician means father—while the plebeians were the non-fathers, or everyone who was not a patrician, usually the non-landholding masses including slaves. For years these written laws quelled the problems between the antagonistic groups. With the added institution of the Tribune, or person protecting the plebs from injustice, the system markedly improved. Only a plebe could hold the office of Tribune. Through the scheme of reducing laws to writing and plebe protection through the Tribune, Rome achieved societal peace for hundreds of years while waging relentless war on their frontiers.
Rome grew slowly and by conquest.[32] Its first major rival outside of Italy was the city-state of Carthage, located on the coast of North Africa. Carthage was in the way of Roman expansion because it controlled the island of Sicily, the southern coast of Spain, and a large portion of the northern coast of Africa. War was inevitable, and it came in the form of three wars, all of which Carthage lost. The three Punic Wars determined who would rule the Mediterranean.
The Punic Wars
Carthage was founded by a group of seafarers from the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, the Phoenicians (Punic is a form of the word Phoenician). The Phoenicians were expert sailors, and legend has it that they sailed around the continent of Africa. They founded many cities to secure their trading routes since they were traders and good executives above all else. The colonies and cities they founded were footholds in the local areas, expanding their ability to trade with local inhabitants. Carthage became a great city because of its excellent harbor, access to the interior of Africa where gold, ivory, pottery, and many other valuable goods were located, and its site near the center of the Mediterranean. As it accumulated power, Carthage founded colonies in Spain, Sicily, and key locations around the western Mediterranean which were eventually in the path of Roman expansion. The first Punic War began over Sicily. This developed into a naval war,[33] but Carthage and its splendid navy managed to lose it. As the war started Carthage was winning, since its navy was superior to Rome’s. Then the Romans got an idea. Their strength was their ideal land army, so they simply had to get their army into the naval fight and they could prevail. The Romans accomplished this by using grappling hooks to hook the Carthaginian vessels and pull them over to the Roman ships, and then the Romans dropped planks (called ravens) across to the enemy ship. Their army units (waiting on the Roman ship) stormed across and easily defeated the Carthaginian crews. Quite a trick, and one Carthage never managed to counter. The net result was a total Roman victory over Carthage’s naval power. After a twenty-three-year war, Carthage lost Sicily and gained an implacable enemy.
The Second Punic War is synonymous with Hannibal, a brave and resourceful Carthaginian general, who won numerous victories but lost the war. In an unexpected move in the year 218 BC, Hannibal moved north through Spain and France and crossed the Alps into Rome (Italy) with an army of about thirty thousand men. The Romans were stunned by the move, but responded promptly. Several battles were fought which were all significant Carthaginian victories. Fabian, elected consul of Rome after these enemy victories, managed to avoid losing to Hannibal by simply refusing battle. Fabian would keep to the hills where Hannibal’s cavalry was ineffective and then attack the Carthaginian troops where they were weak. The Roman Senate quickly tired of this strategy and relieved Fabian after he failed to stop Hannibal from reaching winter quarters; nevertheless, Fabian did keep the vital local tribes loyal to Rome. After Fabian’s dismissal the Senate decided to take the Carthaginian straight on. The legions finally pulled Hannibal into a decisive battle outside the village of Cannae in Southern Italy in 216 BC. As the Roman legions approached it appeared Hannibal was at last going to be overthrown. He was outnumbered, and the Romans were very certain of their legions’ ability to fight.
In the Republic era of Rome two consuls ruled, which allowed one to go to war while the other stayed to rule in the capitol of Rome. Normally, a consul would have two legions with him, however, in the previous battles Hannibal had destroyed the two legions and its consul. This had never happened before; hence, the Romans decided to respond with a maximum effort. At Cannae, the Romans had assembled both consuls and four legions.
Cannae
Cannae was one of the great military encounters of all time. Hannibal’s outnumbered army annihilated a much larger Roman army through arranging his forces in a shallow crescent formation and allowing the center to give way as the Roman legions advanced. Using his superb cavalry and strong flanks that had not given ground, Hannibal then pushed in both the Roman flanks and surrounded the legions. In the densely packed center, the Romans could not fight, retreat, or maneuver. The resulting victory was total. Out of approximately fifty thousand legionaries, thirty-five thousand found their graves, while Hannibal lost about 5,700. (Some reports say seventy thousand legionaries fought, and fifty thousand died).[34]
Figure 11 Hannibal at Cannae
Hannibal now controlled Central Italy, but he could not take the city of Rome because of its stout walls. Hannibal did pillage the countryside for sixteen years, causing widespread economic problems in central and southern Rome, but his main objective, persuading the numerous tribes in Italy allied with Rome to change sides, eluded him. Since Hannibal now controlled Central Italy, he sent for reinforcements from Carthage to replace his losses and put even more pressure on Rome; but reinforcements did not appear. Enemies of Hannibal in Carthage blocked sending high-quality troops to Italy and this effectively eliminated the brilliant general’s chances of beating Rome.
One Roman general decided he could conquer Hannibal by not attacking him, at least, he would not directly attack right away. Scipio Africanus assaulted Hannibal’s base in Spain thus depriving the Carthaginian of reinforcements and other support. Scipio had hit and hurt the army of Carthage in Italy through his conquests in Spain, and Hannibal’s strength faded even as he continued to engage Roman armies in Southern Italy. Scipio then landed in North Africa thereby causing Carthage to recall Hannibal. In this way Scipio at last extracted Hannibal from Italy by not confronting him. This was a brilliant move, forever placing Scipio among the world’s best generals. Hannibal met General Scipio not far from Carthage at the battle of Zama in 202 BC, where Rome won the final battle of the Second Punic War. Reduced to little more than a small city-state on the Southern Mediterranean, Carthage would slowly grow prospers one last time. To his credit, Scipio did not burn Carthage to the ground or otherwise unwisely harm her citizens. His peace treaty did strip Carthage of its lands and its treasury, but considering what the Romans had done to other enemies, this was a peace long on generosity. Scipio thus won both the war and the peace. This has seldom been accomplished. Through his masterful victories and his thoughtful peace Scipio Africanus placed himself among the greatest men in antiquity. Eliminated as a threat, Carthage remained a semi-prosperous city at the edge of the empire, thus benefiting Rome through trade and taxes. Other Roman leaders destroyed the efforts of the gifted Scipio for reasons of pride and little else.
“Carthage must die” was the dull refrain of Cato, a Roman senator, who ended every speech in the Roman Senate with that slogan. Rome got its chance for another war with Carthage in 149 BC by siding with Numidia (an African state) against their old enemy. Carthage was a shadow of its former self and was quickly defeated by 146 BC, succumbing after a short siege. Rome razed the city, sowing salt on the land (thereby preventing crops being grown there) and declaring northern Africa a Roman colony. The inhabitants of Carthage were either murdered or taken away as slaves. Hannibal fled the city, but the emissaries of Rome followed. Discovered by Rome’s agents in the eastern Mediterranean, Hannibal died by his own hand far away from his beloved Carthage.
The Punic wars gave Rome control of the western Mediterranean and set Rome on the road to a massive empire. The key to its growth was its professional army that was rigorously trained, superbly disciplined, well armed, and well led. The Roman legions worked together and fought as a united entity. Often faced with enemies who outnumbered them dramatically, the Roman legions managed to outgeneral and outfight the less-disciplined throngs that defied them.
The Army, the Republic, and the Empire
The Roman Army after 107 BC centered on the legion, consisting of six thousand men divided into ten cohorts of six hundred men. Each cohort then divided into six “centuries” of one hundred men lead by a centurion. Support troops normally accompanied the legions, such as archers, slingers, cavalry, and skirmishers that may have numbered up to an additional six thousand per legion. The legion in formation had remarkable flexibility, and in the hands of generals like Julius Caesar, Marius, and Sulla, it proved to be nearly unbeatable. With these formations Rome conquered Greece, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Portugal, Gaul (present-day France), part of England and Germany, the Balkans, Turkey, and for a time Mesopotamia.
As Rome expanded, its armies patrolled the empire, protected trade, and enforced Roman law. Whatever else Rome was, it was also an empire of trade. Numerous ships sailed the Mediterranean Sea, many with tons of cargo in their holds bound for the various ports around the empire. For trade the Romans constructed wooden super ships, some over 200 feet long, that could carry up to 2000 tons (that’s right—TONS) of cargo.[35] Obviously, the Romans were serious about trade. Roman conquests around the coast of Turkey, and its access to the Black Sea, permitted Rome’s traders to receive goods from the orient, central Asia, and other faraway places, spreading it about the empire on its fine roads and Mediterranean waterways. Observe that the Mediterranean Sea was at the very center of the Roman Empire; thus, one could travel by boat to almost any important point in the Empire (note the importance of geography . . . again). This successful economy helped made Rome rich, although plunder from its conquests was an important addition. As time went on, Rome ceased to expand and encountered economic troubles beyond its capacity to solve. Splendor has its price.
Rome did not start out as an empire; rather it started as a republic with representatives from the tribes that made up Roman culture having a vote on the management of the state. The elites governed the Roman Republic, and gave the lower classes few rights. Landed nobles (Patricians) ran the Roman Senate, numbering about three hundred men, although it grew larger in the twilight years of the republic (as many as six hundred or more).[36] During the Republic the Romans appointed two men as head of state, both known as consuls. Each man had to agree on any action taken. The Romans wanted to avoid giving too much power to one man; thus, they adopted a system of dual representation at the top post. The Romans rotated the consuls annually. By this method they were trying to keep the consuls’ popularity low, forestalling a mob installed dictator. This fear of a charismatic personality controlling “the mob” in democratic governments remains today. The framers of the US Constitution were well aware of Rome’s problems. During the Republic the Senate adopted the laws, and the citizens elected the Senate anew each year. Not everyone was a citizen, but it was an electoral process where the citizens decided who made the laws. This grossly oversimplifies Rome’s way of government during the Republic, but the keys were a division of power, so no one could win perpetual rule, the vote by Rome’s citizens to decide their leaders, and an opengovernment where decisions were openly debated and openly made. However, away from the forum trouble was brewing.
The real problem was the army. Landowners serving for part of each year originally made up the Roman army; however, as the years rolled on the army became professional and answered to their commanders rather than the Roman Senate. The change came about after a rather minor event in North Africa, where an ally of Rome, Numidia, had a succession problem. After Numidia’s king died in 118 BC, his nephew Jugurtha seized the crown. The new usurper king turned out to be murdering slime and was soon at war with Rome; however, the Romans did not do well in the long and expensive campaigns. Gaius Marius then appeared on the scene and completely reorganized the Roman Army. The early legions used the “maniple” of 60 men, usually arranged in 4 to 5 rows of 15 columns. Each row carried different weapons. During the wars of the later Republic, the number of rows decreased and weapons improved, but by the time of the war with Numidia fundamental changes were necessary. Long campaigns far from native soil were not possible for a citizen army needing to go home and tend to farms and families; thus, Marius introduced aprofessional army that could stay at war indefinitely. He allowed non-land owners to join which attracted numerous recruits of homeless farmers to fill the ranks. The weapons standardized, the standard formation was reduced to three rows, and Marius reorganized the keystone unit from the maniple to the cohort which consisted of 3 maniples or 120 men. [37] This army brought Jugurtha to defeat, and won the rest of the Roman Empire; however, it also welded the men to their commander. As a professional army they followed where the commander led, even if that road led to Rome itself.[38]
The Roman and Latin tribes were unrelated, and Roman arrogance finally drove the Latin people into revolt. This was one of intense rivalry, only ending after a Roman compromise proposed by Lucius Caesar (father of one Julius Caesar) was accepted. Under laws proposed by Lucius, the Latins would at last be citizens of Rome. One war ending and another one starting was typical for this age. As the Latin war raged, Mithridates, a king in Asia Minor, revolted. Mithridates’ revolt was defeated, but along the way to victory Marius and one of his former generals, Cornelius Sulla, started a Roman civil war with one another. Sulla won and then marched on Rome. The Roman constitution forbade such a move, but Sulla had an excellent army and simply entered the city and took charge. He murdered his opponents (a common Roman theme), reformed Roman law, and then left again to finish off the rebels in Asia Minor. Sulla established the precedent of a general at the head of his army entering the city of Rome to establish order. Of course, “order” is in the eye of the beholder.
After Sulla left the city, Marius returned to Rome and purged anyone associated with Sulla (that murder thing again). Marius swiftly expanded the purges which spread fear throughout the city of Rome. Sulla, victoriously finished with rebellions in Asia Minor and Greece, then returned to Rome and once more defeated the followers of Marius. As might be expected, he then purged those aligned with his opponent and became dictator. He retired in 80 BC after a successful rule as dictator. Two of Sulla’s most competent officers were Pompey and Crassus, who would play a role in future Roman political and military intrigue. It was Crassus and Pompey who finally crushed the rebellion of the slave and gladiator Spartacus.
In Rome, as the Republic gave way to popular generals such as Caesar and the establishment of an empire, the crowd (or mob as some would say) gained additional influence. The generals who wanted to expand their clout promised the crowds of Rome great benefits for backing them. A bidding war of sorts began with each popular general promising more if the mobs would back him instead of a rival. [39] In Rome itself, a kind of class warfare prevailed with the Plebes clashing with the Patricians for wealth and power. Later Roman emperors simply bribed the crowds with “bread and circuses,” which was free entertainment in the arena and free bread for the public. The mobs in the city of Rome grew so dangerous that a legion was posted there to protect the emperor from his public. This legion, the Praetorian Guard, became ever more powerful because they could kill the emperor as easily as protect him; however, we are not yet at the death of the Republic and the establishment of emperors. Back to history.
Pompey went on to kick Rome’s enemies sideways from Greece to Egypt, while back in Rome Crassus had joined with Julius Caesar[40] in a financial partnership making them both wealthier. Caesar became consul for one year and began to redistribute land to the poor of Rome, making him the champion of the masses. After serving as consul he took over the governorship of Gaul (France today), and demonstrated that he was a man of outstanding military talents by conquering the whole place. He wrote a book on his brilliant conquests thereby showing himself to be a master propaganda artist as well. Crassus felt he needed to prove himself a general as well, so he invaded Parthia. Parthia was a large empire on the eastern edge of Rome. These Parthian’s had repelled Roman incursions before and were skilled warriors. They were especially good with the bow and arrow. Crassus, the wealthiest man in Rome but no general, died like a ensnared rat in Mesopotamia near the city of Carrhae, along with 70,000 Roman legionnaires doing porcupine imitations because of all the Parthian arrows sticking out of them. The Parthian army had brought up caravans of arrows for the fight. Ouch! After this encounter Rome stayed away from Parthia . . . of course, no Roman general had wanted to invade in the first place.
Caesar, seeing that the informal triumvirate of himself, Pompey, and Crassus, had been undone by Parthia, wanted to march on Rome from Gaul with his victorious army and establish himself as dictator; however, under Roman law a general had to abandon the position of commander upon re-entry into Italy (at the Rubicon River). Caesar marched up to the Rubicon, the boundary no general could legally pass with his legions. Pompey, who was in Rome, convinced the Senate to remind Caesar he must not enter Rome with his army. The Republic was at the brink. The legions were now loyal to their commanders, whom they had served under for years and enjoyed scores of victories. This made the legions servants of their commanders and not the Republic and its Senate. This dividedloyalty doomed the Roman Republic.
Caesar, against the orders of the Senate, crossed the Rubicon (a river in Northern Italy)[41] and entered Rome to the triumphant roar of the greedy citizens. Caesar was loved by the masses of Rome, and by distributing money and land to the plebes he increased his popularity. What followed was a series of civil wars between Caesar and his rivals (Pompey, Crassus, Anthony and their allies) which Caesar won. Caesar returned to Rome triumphant. The mobs of Rome adored him. After his return he was made perpetual dictator; however, not everyone wanted Rome under a dictatorship, no matter how wise the dictator.[42] A few members of the Senate formed a conspiracy to eliminate Caesar, thus regaining the republic. This group murdered Caesar in the Forum on the ides of March (the fifteenth) in 44 BC.
Before going on, we need to discuss a smallish fire. No, not a fire destroying a city, or a fleet, or a forest—just one building. This fire destroyed the Library at Alexandria, the largest library in the ancient world and the depository of all the knowledge of the time. Plutarch said Caesar started the fire accidently while burning enemy boats in 48 BC, but what really caused the conflagration is unclear. The books of the ancient world were scrolls, normally just rolled up and placed in wooden holders like wine racks. The fire easily burned the library and all its contents, depriving our world of the knowledge of their world. When the library burned thousands of years of history and learning burned as well. This was a disaster beyond measure. If I could reverse one event in the ancient world the burning of the Library at Alexandria would be it.
Figure 12 Roman Empire at its height under Trajan—115 AD
In spite of the elimination of Caesar, the republic failed to reassert itself and another period of civil war began with Octavian battling the conspirators. Eventually, Gaius Octavian (later Augustus) won the wars against those who plotted the assassination of Caesar, and he took over as CaesarAugustus.[43] Under Augustus, the office of dictator would transmute into Roman Emperor. Augustus was one of Rome’s greatest leaders. Under his rule, the Pax Romana (Roman peace) initiated two hundred years of peace within the empire, the poor were fed, land was given to the soldiers and numerous building projects were undertaken increasing the opulence of the city. Unfortunately, the civil wars had undermined the Roman Legions, and upon those legions the safety of the Empire rested.
While all these earth-shaking events were transpiring, a small event took place in a remote and grimy province on the very fringe of the Roman Empire. It was an event gathering no notice at the time, but it was a world-changing moment. Jesus the Christ wascrucified outside the gates of Jerusalem in AD 33. Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God (Messiah of the Jews) during his 3 year ministry, but the Jews rejected him and demanded the Romans crucify him as a blasphemer. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, gave Jesus over for scourging and crucifixion with two criminals that same day. Three days later, his infinitesimal group of followers, who fled and hid on his arrest, began to claim Jesus had risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and truly was the Son of God. From this insignificant event in an insignificant place the Christian religion was born.[44]
Caesar had adopted Octavian as his son (Caesar was Octavian’s great uncle) in his will. After Caesar’s murder Octavian became emperor; thus, Caesar found a way to keep the empire intact through a novel method of transferring the power of governance. The death of a dictator often causes problems with the transfer of power. Normally, an heir takes over, however, if there are many heirs wars start endangering the existence of the state. Under Caesar’s concept, as an emperor neared the end of his rule he adopted a person as his son who would then go on to rule in his place after his death. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian Augustus (maybe those Greek names were not so bad after all), for example, chose the best man he could find to rule the empire after his death, in this case Tiberius, and adopted him as his son; thus, the power transfer problem was solved. If Emperors following Augustus followed his example the result would be a kingship based on merit instead of heredity—at least as long as each emperor followed the plan.
Childless Augustus died in AD 14 choosing Tiberius as his successor. Not a great choice, but Tiberius made an even worse choice for his successor, Caligula. Caligula spawned horrendous crimes, including killing his grandmother and engaging in sex with his three sisters. He also dissolved the Senate, making everyone angry in the process. Somehow, through it all, the Roman bureaucracy held on and held the empire together. After Caligula decided he was divine the Praetorian Guard decided to test that out and killed him, showing that being divine is not easy; thereafter, Claudius became emperor. After yet another round of murders and conquests, mostly in Britain, Claudius adopted Nero as his heir. Nero was 16 when Claudius died, and he was a poor leader. Nero drank, ran around with women endlessly, and raised taxes (sounds like most modern politicians). He also engaged in a hideous persecution of Christians.[45] After a life of killing people for no reason, including kicking his pregnant wife to death, the Praetorian Guard put Nero to death. Rome rejoiced.
Their followed a series of emperors rejecting rejoicing, but they held things together: Galba (AD 68), Vespasian (AD 69), Titus (AD 79), Domitian (AD 81), Nerva (AD 96), Trajan (AD 98), and Hadrian (AD 117). In AD 138 Hadrian’s successor, Antoninus Pius took over, ran a good administration, and then, adhering to Roman tradition, named Marcus Aurelius as his heir. Too bad, because Marcus Aurelius broke the long tradition of awarding power to the most worthy man. Marcus gave the empire to his sonCommodus, a worthless man who murdered one of his sisters and slept with another. Commodus, his mind filled with filth from the start, was terminated by a conspiracy of his personal whores in AD 192. Civil War followed, and a rapid succession of emperors that were unworthy of the post.
A group of very poor leaders was at the helm as the empire declined.[46] The empire was not able to hold on to its far-flung territories. Just as before, in the early empires of the Middle East, barbarians from the east and north began to pound the frontiers of the western Roman world. Slowly at first, the empire pulled back, still trying to defend on the boundaries of the great rivers the Rhine and the Danube. Nothing the Western Empire could do stopped the invasions of the barbarians; thus, Western Rome disappeared from history.
Diocletian, who became emperor in AD 284, split the empire into two parts, east and west, to better govern the whole. However, the real economic strength of the Roman Empire was in the east. In my opinion, the Eastern Empire was stronger because it enjoyed a connection to Asia through the Silk Road, and was better able to trade and build its wealth through these contacts. When Constantine became emperor, he moved the capital to Byzantium and renamed the city after himself—Constantinople (is this typical of a politician or what?). Slowly, the two halves of the empire stopped supporting one another, and the west grew ever weaker until it could no longer defend its boarders from the barbarian tribes attacking from the east. As the Western Roman Empire fell, the invaders settled into Gaul, Spain, and Italy itself. Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire would last until defeat by the Turks in AD 1453. The west fell in about AD 455 after numerous sacks of the city of Rome.
It was during the Western Empire’s decline that the Christian religion began to be accepted, and eventually became the mainstay of European culture after Rome’s demise. The emperor Constantine granted Christianity legal status in AD 313 through the Edict ofMilan, thus preventing further persecution of Christians. In 380 it became the official religion of the empire, and by AD 392, Christianity was the empire’s only legal religion. Through a series of church counsels beginning in the 300s, the church settled on which books would comprise the Bible, and settled various questions concerning key elements of the faith (Apostles’ Creed—2d century, Nicene Creed—AD 325). St Jerome (AD 374-420) and St. Augustine (354-430) were major contributors to church doctrine. By the time the Western Roman Empire was at its end in AD 455, the Catholic Church has taken up its position as the philosophical and religious center of Western Europe. In addition, the importance of Rome’s preserving and transferring classical Greek culture and learning to the West cannot be overstated. The ability of Western Christianity to absorb these classics was a key factor in the Renaissance.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire centered on the following problems—in order of importance:
1) Major Economic Weakness. After the empire split into the eastern and western halves the Western Empire became weaker by the year. After losing the oriental trade, and the food supplies from Egypt, the Western Empire degraded incessantly.
2) Total Corruption of the Government in Rome. By the end of the empire in the West, the Roman emperors, the senators, and the administrators were scoundrels of the first order. The great leaders who had built Rome had long since left the government and the army.
3) The Roman Army Failed to Adapt to Changing Warfare. The Roman legions, which emphasized infantry formations, were becoming obsolete because of improvements in heavy cavalry formations. Leadership was also wanting, and strategic thinking was not the forte of the legions and their leaders as the end neared.
4) Rome Always on the Defense. After AD 117, Rome was always on the Strategic and Tactical defensive. Clausewitz in his classic book On War stated that the purpose of a defensive strategy was to hold on until the time came for offensive action, because on the defense one possesses no ability to control the ultimate decision. Rome, somewhat like the USA in the Vietnam War, could not effectively take offensive action against the barbarian tribes accumulating beyond their frontiers. The enemy’s center of gravity was beyond the Rhine and Danube Rivers, in their temporary homelands, and beyond these mighty rivers the German tribes were out of Rome’s reach. The distance and the physical barriers destroyed Rome’s ability to strike at their enemy’s center of gravity. The barbarians could build their strength to strike when and where they wanted. Against this kind of problem, Rome had no effective answer.
Was holding Gaul an overextension of Roman power? The riches of the empire came from Spain, North Africa (Egypt), and the east—not Gaul (my opinion). Defending the Rhine took many legions. Could the Romans continue winning by creating a buffer zone in a small area north of Italy, and fortifying the passes through the Alps and the Pyrenees? By water born trade Rome could maintain prosperous contact with all its major provinces in Spain, the Levant, Turkey, Greece, North Africa and thence the Far East. By not overextending themselves into Gaul, perhaps the Roman Empire had a chance to survive into the medieval era.
The fall of the Western Rome took generations. After about AD 200, the population consistently fell all over the Western Empire. Land once cultivated fell into disuse. The size of towns shrank. Trade, as measured by shipping, fell over one-half. In addition, a rather-bad plague hit the Roman world about 169 to AD 170. The population decline continued until the seventh century. Under Diocletian, the value of Roman coinage fell endangering the finances of the empire; however, Constantine saved the day by instituting gold coinage that held its value because the empire kept the content pure and correctly weighted. However, the Western Empire’s power was waning, and after the Eastern Empire removed Egyptian grain from the city of Rome, the end was near. By AD 500, barbarian tribes settled where they pleased, and Rome’s legions no longer patrolled the roads or kept the peace. Rome slowly became only a ghostly image in the minds of those few once knowing its glory. Soon, even that remembrance faded as history pulled its dark cloak over the Roman West.
Discussion of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire
Let us digress for a moment and discuss an overview of history to this point: the fall of the Western Roman Empire about AD 455.[47] The fall of the Western Roman Empire ushered in a new age in Europe. Rome (in the west) was obliterated, and what took its place was a new society in which the learning and unity of the Romans was utterly lost, replaced by disunity, chaos, and a distinct lack of quality in every aspect of life. Seldom has the world experienced such a complete loss of knowledge. How do people forget how to build frame and panel doors, how to read and write, or how to make light wheels with spokes? In a relatively short period, memories of Roman quality, accomplishments, and innovation faded. Mud huts sprang up under the great Roman aqueducts, and rubble rapidly replaced wonder.
Comparing this total cultural collapse to conquests in Asia, we note that China suffered invasions as brutal as those invasions suffered by Rome (the Mongols for example); nevertheless, China continued as a culture and a people. The invader’s language, dress, and cultural identity were absorbed into China, never to return. Rome fell and its culture, dress, language, heritage, and learning were totally lost for centuries; however, by contrast, China endured the invasions and fundamentally remained the same. It may be that the vastness of both the geography and the populace of China just swallowed the invaders whole. The invaders normally brought a somewhat crude culture into China, so the more sophisticated culture of the Chinese may have been so attractive to the conquerors they were ready to copy and adopt it as their own.
Egypt also survived at least two outside invasions, and their population was much smaller than China’s; still, they managed to retain their ancient traditions, dress, and culture, and in due course, toss the invaders out. Why did Rome fail to do the same?
These questions are impossible to answer, because after the fall of Rome the area fell back into a prehistory of sorts, in that few remaining inhabitants of Western Europe could read or write. The Roman population declined for decades before the conquests, and the invader’s numbers were large; thus, perhaps the more numerous invaders—after killing off many more Romans—simply overpowered the remaining Roman population. We may speculate that since Rome fell slowly, and inhabitants of the West knew of safer areas in the empire, they escaped the descending carnage using the Roman roads; thus, the Romans left and the invaders were all that remained. In the other instances, such as China, the population stayed and eventually overcame the invaders along with reestablishing their culture. In Egypt, their sophisticated society may have kept them apart from a set of crude invaders, or they may have simply felt their gods would eventually bring them through. All this is conjecture, but by making comparisons we can obtain a deeper understanding of history.
This view of the Western world becoming a big heap of debris after the Western Roman Empire fell is somewhat dated as many historians now say the period we once called the “Dark Ages” were nothing of the kind. They say a new vigor was put in place eventually giving the world the Renaissance, the printing press, science, and the flowering of the modern world. In my mind, “eventually” is the key word, because that “eventually” took centuries and a lot of luck. There was no guarantee the world following Romewould produce anything. In fact, the world after Rome looked very much like the one Rome had conquered. Before Rome, Europe was a mass of warring tribes without large well-constructed cities, roads, administrative organization, trade, or safety—all of which came by way of Rome. After Rome, the landscape reverted to the past: a disarray of unconnected crumbling towns, a shrinking population, constant war between local warlords, rampant disease, falling farm production, no protection from lawless bands roaming the countryside, and little or no trade. Thus, the term “Dark Ages” is well applied to Western Europe after the fall of Rome.
Whatever view we take, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire is a watershed in history, as what came after Rome was far different than Rome was or ever would have been. Now is a good time to review the past many thousands of years and see if we can discover some unity in the story of humankind.[48]
The Need for Protection
From the earliest writings of the Bible in Genesis, we find that murder was one of the first acts of humanity. After God expels Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, they have two sons, and soon thereafter one son, Cain, murders the other, Abel.[49] The Bible gives no definitive reason for the murder of Abel. Of course, many view these biblical stories as fables; however, the story illustrates one undeniable truth—people kill one another on a regular basis for no reason.
From the dawn of history, in heroic stories of Gilgamesh, Isis and Osiris, the Iliad, Beowulf, and others we find that bloody conflict is a major theme. It seems men were slaughtering each other as soon as they became Homo sapiens, and the abundance of walled cities is the proof. Since large walls are such an early development, we can assume war developed early on as well. In most areas walls were the rule, and they went up early on, and they were made very strong. Jericho, a very ancient city, built a massive wall by 8000 BC. In the Iliad, Homer describes the walls of Troy as so immense the Greeks failed to breach them after a ten-year war. The Greeks got into the city through a trick (the Trojan horse). Walls, especially very hefty walls, take a lot of time, serious labor, and skill to construct. Such undertakings require major resources in terms of time, food, labor, talent, and materials—precious commodities in ancient times. At the Bronze Age collapse in 1200 BC, archeologists note that several major cities extended and strengthened their walls before the advent of a disaster overwhelming the people behind those walls. The obvious conclusion is they feared an invader, and spent the time and effort required to strengthen their chief defense against attack—the wall. A government that cannot protect its citizens cannot govern. In the final analysis, protection from war, chaos, and starvation is the first order of business for any government. Therefore, security is at the center of governance. People often chose a dictatorial government and security over a democratic government and uncertainty. This is a common thread throughout history.
Murder and war seem to be a permanent part of humanity’s story. Is such vile behavior ensconced in our genes? What does all this say about us as human beings? Why have we consistently conquered, murdered, raped, and pillaged our neighbors—and anyone else we could find? Why this must be so is a root that grows deep in our history and our psyche, but it is logically impossible to explain.[50] It seems people such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, Caesar, and Sargon, who were willing to kill anyone to obtain supremacy, are always around. Even at an individual level, Jack the Ripper’s ilk still walks among us, ever so willing to take the lives of others for pleasure. So it was 4,500 years ago, and so it is today. Just as protection was vital 4,500 years ago, it is still indispensable today. When a government ceases to protect, it ceases to govern.
Invaders from the Center of the World
Observe that ancient civilized areas favored building on great rivers with access to coastlines. This may be so because of the need for trade to build a great city. The traders could travel down these rivers to reach the ocean which is the leading platform for trade. Boats can carry a lot of cargo a long way much easier than people using animals can cross great distances. Until the advent of railroads, boats were by far the preferred choice for moving cargo. Thus, from the Middle East to China we find the first civilizations along great rivers leading to the coast.[51]
From the land mass at the center of the Old World, east of the Urals and west of Mongolia north of the Caspian and Black Seas, came raiders steadily battering the civilizations along the great rivers of the ancient world. These threats came from nomadic peoples living deep in the Eurasian land mass, and apparently living without large permanent cities. The nomadic invaders toppled or weakened empire after empire. We do not know why the invaders kept appearing from the same general location. Experts theorize that a “sea of grass,” stretching from China to Europe, allowed the nomads to travel from one end of the Eurasian land mass to the other while raiding all the way. The sea of grass was essentially non-broken grassland where nomads grazed horses and moved freely from the border of China to Eastern Europe. Still, miles of unbroken grassland cannot explain everything. Certainly, the region of the Black Sea and beyond was vast, and could maintain large numbers of inhabitants, but why move south repeatedly? In addition, why were these invaders so effective in overcoming the civilized people in Mesopotamia, Greece, Italy, Turkey, India, and China? When these clans moved south, they had effective leaders, an excellent military organization, and sometimes superior arms. So far, archeologists have not discovered numerous significant ancient cities to the north of the Fertile Crescent or agricultural societies with great irrigation systems, large buildings, permanent roads, libraries, or other trappings of organized power; thus, the origin of these invaders is tough to establish with certainty.
Recent discoveries (2007-09) of new civilizations in the region of Turkistan dating from 2000 BC by Russian archeologists may explain where the nomadic invaders came from. These cities are large and well organized urban environments that possibly sustained sizeable populations, probably five to ten thousand or more. To date only a few cities are under excavation, but the Russian archeologists are only scratching the surface. Unfortunately, written languages are not part of the present discoveries. Note the climate in the area of discovery is wet, and this kind of climate quickly dispatches evidence of civilization. Pottery that was painted grey is the most common find (painted grey ware). Pottery may be the longest lasting product of civilization because it does not decay easily, although normally found in a shattered condition. The painted grey ware is not located in Mesopotamia or Egypt, but India has numerous examples; thus, we assume the pottery came to India by trade or possibly the people creating the painted grey ware were the Aryan clans who invaded India.
We should note that in areas with significant rainfall ancient civilizations are hard to find. The climate has a marked influence on the remains of civilizations in such areas. Decay, flooding, effects of vegetation growing amongst the ruins, and other climatic impacts, destroys evidence quickly. Numerous insects also have a detrimental impact on artifacts, and such creeping life is most prevalent in wet areas. Dry areas, such as we have in Egypt and Mesopotamia, help preserve the ancient ruins and artifacts; thus, we have a lot more information about civilizations of these desert areas than we do from northern climates.[52]
Accordingly, we do not know why the invaders came, how they developed advanced warfare methods, or even where they lived beforehand. Recall these same types of nomadic invaders eventually conquered the Western Roman Empire. It seems the center of the world incubated warriors capable of conquering well-established built-up civilizations living near the mighty rivers of the Old World. History holds countless mysteries, but it shields its secrets extremely well.
Greek Philosophy
The Greeks invented Western philosophy. Philosophy is a search for truth, but this quest avoids involving the gods. Once god is involved, it is religion or theology. Typical of the Greeks, they usually left god out of philosophy. Philosophy is often summed up as a battle between Plato andAristotle, but the numerous Greek philosophers in Athens and Greece covered every basic philosophic idea.
Plato thought we lived in a world separated from reality. He believed we were as men chained inside a cave watching shadows on a wall. Since the shadows are all we could know we would think they were reality, but reality exists outside the cave. Reality, according to Plato, is impossible for humans to experience because we are trapped in our existence—we cannot walk out of the cave. Plato also believed that an object in the world, say a chair, was an expression of a perfect concept existing somewhere else; thus, there may be many different concepts of “chair” here in our sensory world, but somewhere there is the perfect “chair” from which all our ideas of “chair” originate. Aristotle thought the world we live in is reality, and what we see, hear, taste, and feel are facts. “A is A,” Aristotle might say. Thus the great divide: is our sensory world real or not? Can we trust what our senses tell us? Aristotle says yes, Plato says no. These two views sum up Western philosophy. The argument is “what is reality?” If we fail to agree on what is real, advancing to a discussion of what is truth fails as well.
Western philosophy bogged down in this problem of what is reality and entered into definitional arguments (epistemology) that went nowhere. Hume even destroyed the concept of knowledge from experience. Many Western philosophers tried to meet these challenges. Descartes, Kant, and many other brilliant men gave plausible answers, but other philosophers would punch holes in their concepts and on it would go with no real progress in the search for truth. In the end, Western philosophy has not advanced much past “what is reality” and that is just where Aristotle and Plato left us. Can humans, with human limitations, ever agree on reality or truth? History thinks not. We will take up modern philosophy in the postmodern chapter of our story.
Sophists
Before leaving Greek philosophy, we must address the Sophists. Sophists were teachers of rhetoric and were renowned in 5th century Greece for their ability to win any argument using clever words and logic. The key element was their disdain for the truth, because winning the argument was the goal, and not the truth of any issue. Their methods made a mockery of the idea of truth. The Sophist are still with us today (2010) in the form of “spin doctors” and other consultants and speakers normally working for politicians. Their job is to turn any issue to the benefit of their client. Truth or facts are nothing to these neo Sophist, whose power is multiplied by the visual and print media as the more than willing agents of these modern day truth manipulators. Note that Sophism is a major part of modern day propaganda and big lie techniques, which are used consistently on the pubic of every nation throughout our world (and you thought the past was different . . .).
Of Gods and Men
In the ancient world, the impact of beliefs in a god, or the gods, had an enormous effect on the peoples of the time. In pre-history, even as far back as Neanderthals, humans (or archaic human types) were burying their dead. Often the burials contain common items such as bowls, shoes, jewelry, or weapons. It appears odd that even archaic humans would bury their dead in a common area (cemetery as we say), arrange them in a particular way, such as the fetal position with the legs curled up and the head down, leave personal objects in the grave, and often point all of the dead in the same direction. What does it mean? What were these archaic humans thinking?
Actually, knowing what it means is impossible, because in pre-history folks simply had no written records. Written records can tell us why, but physical evidence can only vaguely point to why. What we learn from physical evidence is mostly how, since without written records of their thoughts the human reasons for the why are impossible to ascertain. Thus, in pre-history we must guess. We can guess that burials and the afterlife had a connection. Common objects placed in the grave, such as jewelry, may indicate the dead would use them in another life. Of course, we bury people today in suits and ties with no concept that these are useful in an afterlife. We do this because it is customary for the dead person to look good at the funeral. In ancient times, perhaps the jewelry and the adornments were simply there to help the body look good for the relatives and clan members. Placing the body in a fetal position may indicate that death was another form of birth. This sounds like a good argument; however, it may be that in the fetal position it took less time to dig the grave. In the final analysis, it is impossible to know.
Prehistory fog spreads everywhere when it comes to believing in a god or gods. Once history begins, we find that people are deeply “religious” since they believed gods controlled nearly every aspect of nature and their lives. This strengthens the argument that prehistoric peoples believed in gods, but it cannot be conclusive. What is conclusive is at the very dawn of written history atheists are hard to find, at least among the kings, queens, and scribes who wrote the manuscripts we read to discover their thoughts. Kings orqueens allude to their power coming from the gods and this is nearly universal in the ancient world. Thus, we find the earliest civilizations with gods, usually a lot of them, and normally the kings or queens claimed that the gods placed them in authority. Even the Greeks, who often ran secular governments, believed in the gods.
Our modern world consistently challenges the belief in a god or gods. Science explains the world through naturally occurring phenomena eliminating the need for gods—say the naysayers. Explaining everything through natural processes is possible, well . . . almost everything . . . and atheists expound endlessly on how worthless and harmful religion can be.[53] Yet, we have a worldwide fact that everywhere and at every time in history people believed in god. Of course, the ancients thought about gods much differently than we currently think about god. Inscriptions by ancient kings show that the image of the god WAS the god. The Babylonians lost their statute of Marduk, a famous god of Babylonia, when the Assyrians ripped it off after winning a war. The Babylonians spoke of Marduk being in Assyria rather than Babylonia. Obviously, believing that god is the stone image changes as history goes on, but we need to try and think on how that belief would change one’s perception of god.
Is religion another example of something programmed into our genes? History seems to say yes, because it is a universal human attribute to believe the gods can somehow guide life or affect events. Another explanation for believing in gods is people realize they must die. Animals do not seem to know they will die, but people do. This necessity to face death, because of humanity’s ability to reason forward to the future, might dictate a belief in something beyond this life; consequently, dying need not be the final moment. Is life hopeless without an afterlife? Why do human minds think up the notion that anything exists after death? How do ideas of god come into our minds? Is it a natural consequence of being human? No one can say, because the human brain hides its operational secrets, but since every identified society with a written history believes in the gods, we must appreciate the notion is a compelling one.
People also confront the problem of good and evil. Greek philosophers endlessly explored these matters, evolving numerous ideas about the nature of man and how good and evil relates to human existence. Other early societies, such as the Hebrews, also evolved such knowledge; however, they claim their knowledge came directly from Yahweh. In the book of Genesis, the serpent tells Eve that if she eats the forbidden fruit “. . . God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil” (emphasis added) (Genesis 3:5). This is a key moment in the Bible, because it turns people into conscience beings knowing right from wrong. Such consciousness brings awareness of life, and a unambiguous future death. This, of course, sets people apart from animals in a dreadfully significant way, as the knowledge of good and evil remains hidden from animals—only humans can know good and evil. Inevitably, the gods played a role in matters of morality. In ancient societies the gods determined what humans faced after death; thus, to gain a pleasant future in the hereafter, one must obey the gods in the here and now. Therefore, the gods’ requirements for entry into the afterlife, or for avoiding a painful now, became virtue in this life.[54] How did people know what the gods’ desired? The priest, shaman, sage, or seer told them.
Now the circle is complete. If the gods tell the shaman to slaughter the neighbors, it must be a good thing. It comes down to who contacts the gods and reveals God’s truth to the poor humans denied contact with the immortals. Somehow, a trusted priestly class developed and gained exceptional power. Trust is the key word, because believing a particular mortal divines the thoughts of god requires trust. Must the priest be obeyed? In society after society, the answer was yes, the priest—god’s representative—must be obeyed.
It often happened that the priest and king were in full agreement about god’s commands, so the king ordered the population to obey god’s demands. A powerful permutation results when the priest and king, often one in the same person, agree. To disobey makes a person a traitor and a heretic. The Hebrews despised their neighbors because they obeyed gods (priest) ordering them to throw babies into the divine fire to appease them. How could a person throw their tiny new child into a roaring fire? The priest and king gave the command, and the people obeyed. Based on this, I opine that the combination of king and priest is the most tyrannical power combination of all time.
Achieving a lasting world peace is a dream reaching back millenniums; however, overcoming ancient human traits to achieve lasting world peace has proven impossible. History tells us these human traits are deep set and unchanging. Today neighboring nations aim powerful weapons at one another because their gods tell them the other nation, with false gods, is evil, fit only for destruction.[55] From 8,000 BC to AD 2010, the fundamentals remain the same.
The Role of Food, Disease, and Administration in Ancient Times
Agriculture, coupled with animal husbandry, was the most important invention in secular history, and this was accomplished in the prehistoric era. After the development of agriculture, good land for growing crops and building irrigation systems became more important. As these lands were discovered and developed, people had to protect them from interlopers who would damage, destroy, and steal what had been built-up. When the world began to move to this stay-in-one-place “urban” lifestyle, a lot changed. The direct result of these changes were relatively large cities, trade with other parts of the world, the wheel, sailing boats, writing, and a growing dependence of people upon one another as specialization became common.
Trade and the compact nature of urban living made disease a common threat. Goods coming in from Asia to the Middle East might carry diseases that the people in the Middle East had never confronted. In addition, living around herd animals, and probably using their waste products to fertilize crops and whatnot, meant more contact with the diseases spread by herd animals and their by-products. There is little doubt that the centuries required for building up urban civilization in the Middle East bought the human race, or at least some of the human race, immunity from herd animal diseases, and maybe disease in general as foreign trade goods and travelers spread viruses and germs around the Old World. In the New World, where herd animals did not exist, the people were not immune to these Old World diseases; thus, millions upon millions of Native Americans died just from contact with the Europeans.
Bureaucrats, a hated word in the modern world, were at the center of early progress. Large and dependable food and water supplies were the foundation for the high civilizations in China, India, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. As men became free to imagine, and then build, they proved exceptionally good at restructuring the world around them for additional comfort and protection. It might be difficult to believe, but the development of administrative capacity (bureaucrats and bureaucracy) in these early civilizations was another key to their survival and growth. We often underestimate the importance of administrative competence. If the city of Rome failed to bring in food and water in abundance, and remove trash and human waste, it could not have grown to any size at all. Administrative organization was required for the competent construction of roads, sewers, and aqueducts. In Rome, efficient bureaucrats were able to discern the need for aqueducts, systems for trash removal, roads for food transport, and sewers to move away the after products of humankind so the city could endure. A lack of water or sewage disposal alone could have doomed the city of Rome, or any other large city of antiquity. As these cities grew, and the need for all these additional improvements became obvious, a system for taxation developed so the administration could afford to construct the public facilities necessary to keep the city alive. All these problems are with us today, and our solutions are the same. Whoever these unknown and unnoticed people were, they were extremely important for the foundation and expansion of urban civilization. Once again, what is not reported is often more important than what is reported. The same is true in modern civilizations. If the bureaucracy fails the entire civilization suffers, but when the bureaucracy succeeds the results are little noticed. If the educational system, the sewers, roads, water infrastructure and whatnot works, no one notices. Let them fail, even a little bit, and everyone notices.
However, what happens if these little noticed things and people somehow fail? What if the competent administrators, tax collectors, artisans, laborers, and farmers leave or die? We are about to discover the answer to this question. After Rome collapsed in the west the competent administrators disappeared, and the resulting world went very dark. We will now travel to the eve of the modern world, as the Dark Ages build the foundation for a colossal leap forward in human thought and technology—after a few bad centuries.
Let Us Learn
What can we learn, for our personal lives, from the ancients? Rome teaches us to be tenacious. Rome lost many battles, but Rome never quit, and that is something for each of us to internalize. Rome also over extended itself; thus, we need to learn to analyze our finances and energy reserves to see if we are overextending ourselves. Can you really work, go to school, and run a home? Some can, but can you? Have you spent too much? Financial over extension can be deadly. Greece teaches us to unite. Squabbles over matters, significant or not, weakens the unit. Find a way to come together and multiply your strengths. Greece did, for a moment, and defeated the greatest empire on earth. India teaches the value of continuity. Being consistent in philosophy and tradition brings stability and progress. Egypt can teach us the same thing. Stability is very important for survival. Egypt also avoided unnecessary wars for centuries which enriched it financially and culturally. Limit your activities to what is reasonable for your situation, and reap the financial rewards of stability. The Fertile Crescent teaches us the importance of trade. Commerce is vital, so try to get involved in trade of some kind. It brings many financial rewards. The era also shows us the importance of protection. When necessary, build good walls (emotional, physical, financial etc), they will protect you from outside problems not of your making.
The ancients knew the sophists spewed evil. Learn to recognize “spin,” and political lies affording the listener nothing in the way of accurate information. In Athens, the sophist led people astray by great oratory. Demand substance, not great oratory. The ancient Greeks taught us the significance of the individual, and the tyranny of the collective. The greatest political ideal ever espoused is: the individual is greater than the state. Never let that ideal die. Object if people say the government must substitute its collective decisions in place of individuals’ decisions. Whenever a government substitutes its thinking for your thinking, its decisions for your decisions, it is saying the government is greater than you are. Object in every way possible! Economic freedom, capitalism, private property, and political freedom brings more prosperity and happiness to the average person than any other system. Trusting the government brings tyranny, regulation of everyday life, and restrictions on private property. Taxes are another way government controls individuals. Money is power, and when the government takes your money, it takes your power to decide. As taxes increase, tyranny increases. Write letters and speak out in public, challenge people pushing the collective viewpoint, run for office, and vote against all saying the individual must bow to the state. The Greeks knew the importance of the individual; now, 2500 years after Marathon, it is your turn to step up and stand against any person or entity claiming the government is superior to you. Tell all who will listen that you are superior to any government. Remember Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis where vastly outnumbered men said no to tyranny. They sacrificed all, you can at least sacrifice a few moments of your time to add your voice to freedom’s call.
Books and Resources:
The History of the Ancient World, From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome, Bauer, Susan Wise, 2007, WW Norton & Company. Great book, easy reading, fun stories.
With Arrow, Sword, and Spear, A History of Warfare in the Ancient World, Bradford, Alfrred, 2001, Fall River Press. Excellent accounts of ancient world, and goes far beyond warfare.
The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Press, 2002. Good historical information.
The New Penguin History of the World, Roberts, 2007 Penguin Books. One of the best histories around. You can’t go wrong with Roberts.
The Outline of History, The Whole Story of Man, Wells, H.G., revised by Raymond Postgate, 1956, Doubleday & Company. Great maps and illustrations.
The War Chronicles, From Chariots to Flintlocks, Cummins, J., 2008, Fair Winds Press.
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon, Edward, 2005, Phoenix Press (Abridged Edition). Hard to read, but a classic none-the-less.
Guns, Germs, and Steel, The Fates of Human Societies, Diamond, Jarad, 20005, WW Norton.
Books and References on Philosophy
The Essential Philosophy, Everything You need to Understand the World’s Great Thinkers, Mannion, 2006, Adams Media Corporation. (The title is overdone, but the book is excellent)
Philosophy For Beginners, Osborne, 1992, Writers and Readers Publishing. (Philosophy in cartoon form, a lot of fun and one can actually learn a thing or two).