CHAP. CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE 9 THE STUDY OF ROMAN HISTORY INTRODUCTION: THE CHAPTER I THE UNIQUENESS OF ROME HE study of Roman History is that of a process first, and, secondly, that of a method. The process is the course of events by which a city on the western side of Italy came in the course of centuries to acquire an Empire which included all Western and Southern Europe, the North African coast, the Valley of the Nile as far south as Assuan, the shores of the Black Sea, and a great part of Central Europe and of hither Asia. The method is that by which the citizens and the rulers of this city maintained their government over races which, though at first alien, were presently in large measure incorporated into the city's franchise; by which these men substituted a civilisation of their own in place of the Oriental or barbarian customs which they destroyed. This civilisation was itself from early days the product of a blend of peoples. It was not purely indigenous. Great part of it was borrowed from a neighbouring folk, the Greeks, whom these men had subdued, but not destroyed. It is thus often found convenient to divide Roman History into two main periods, that of the Acquisition, and that of the Maintenance, of the Empire. The death of Julius Cæsar in 44 B.C. marks a rough boundary between the two. Yet this is but a rough-hewn division. Great parts of the Roman Empire were acquired after that date. And the problem of the maintenance of their conquests had faced Roman Republican statesmen for long years before it. In reality (as was seen a century earlier by a sage Greek historian who had set himself to tell the whole story of Rome's advance to universal dominion)1 it is impossible to dissever methods of conquest from arts of government. The dynamic and the static were two aspects of the same political and military genius which have made the history of Rome the most alluring chapter in the story of Man before the days of the discovery of the New World and of the glory of the conquest of the sea. At the very outset of the study of this subject, it is important to realise a distinctiveness in the underlying conception of Roman as contrasted with all previous history. The main lesson taught by that distinctiveness is of abiding value for all the ages. It has been but emphasised by the story of modern Europe and of the United States of America. "Empires" have been acquired both by races, such as the Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, British, and by "City States," such as Athens, Sparta, 1 Polybius. A "City State" may be defined as a State whose Central and Local Governments are in the main identical: in which small distinction, if any, can be drawn between municipal and State institutions in which sovereignty, whether it resides with the Few or the Many, tends to be exercised directly and is not delegated to Representatives. Examples of such a State are not confined to "Ancient History." 1 and Rome. Of these Empires some have arisen only to decay and pass away quickly. Others have challenged all the vicissitudes of time, and have endured for many centuries. The very foundation of this permanence is the power of inclusiveness, of reconciliation, of sympathy. Of the possession of this power the Roman State gives the first real example in the history of mankind. This is the uniqueness of Rome. That this should be in essence the distinctive mark of a people, hard, warlike, greedy, brutal, and militarist if ever folk was militarist, seems a grim paradox, almost a jest of bitter taste indulged in by a cynically humorous Providence. But the fact remains true. 2 The truth of it is established by a cursory survey of the course of Ancient History. The Oriental Monarchies of the Ancient World, Assyria, Babylonia, Media, Persia, Egypt, were despotisms with little power of any but material development. Any unity won by them was based on force. Our modern belief, now strengthened by the events of the last few years, is that Individualism (i.e. the right to Independence of Thought) and Freedom (i.e. the right to self-government) are essential not only to progress but to political life itself. But these Oriental Monarchies had no room for either Individualism or Freedom. They 1 Empires based on Religion, such as Islam, form a category apart and cannot be considered here. Their permanence depends on the vigour of their propaganda and the vitality of their creed. But here also comprehensiveness is the keynote of success. a The " practical "character of the Roman mind was never more clearly displayed than by the truth of this paradox. I call attention to this again later. |