Download The Evolution and Importance of `Revenge` in Roman Society and

1
The Evolution and Importance of ‘Revenge’ in Roman Society and Culture:
An Ethno-Archaeological Approach
Cynthia Finlayson, Ph.D., R.P.A.
“The Romans are a race who know not how to sit down quiet under defeat;
any scar, which the present necessity shall imprint in their breasts will rankle
there forever, and will not suffer them to rest until they have wreaked manifold
vengeance on your heads.” (Speech of Herennius as recorded in Livy, History
of Rome 9: 4)
Introduction
One of the most important cultural benchmarks of any polity is the way in which
‘revenge’ is collectively understood, as well as how both ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ are
implemented against perceived threats to the individual and the community. For modern
Western societies, cultural assumptions concerning ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ have been
irrevocably shaped by the omnipresence of ancient Rome in the evolution of Christian Europe, as
well as the pivotal role that Roman legal codes have played as foundation paradigms upon which
all modern European and American jurisprudence rest.1 Despite these facts, the evolution of
‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ within Roman culture has never before been studied from an
ethno-archaeological perspective. This paper thus represents an exploration into the genesis and
underlying cultural assumptions of ‘revenge-Roman-style’ as revealed through an examination of
Rome’s mythic history, primary historic and epigraphic materials, and archaeological evidence.2
Such a study not only reveals the importance of ‘revenge’ as an essential driving force within the
collective Roman consciousness, but a phenomenon impacting both the rise and fall of Rome in
the ancient world. This study demonstrates that the Roman paradigm of ‘revenge’ is critical to
understanding many of the ‘illogical’ political and military actions of Rome noted by modern
scholars--actions that have puzzled researchers who have focused on Rome from only a
1
For the essential importance of Roman legal codes in the development of both European and American
jurisprudence see, H. Wolff, Roman Law: An Historical Introduction (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,
1951) 4-5. See also his valuable section entitled “Bibliographical Notes” which includes numerous resources related
not only to the most important primary sources, but also commentaries on the primary sources for Roman law, and
the relationship of Roman law to modern Western legal institutions. Especially see Wolff’s pp. 226-237.
2
The major primary literary sources include Polybius (140’s B.C.), Livy (end of the 1st century B.C.),
Appian (early 2nd century A.D.), Plutarch (early 2nd century A.D.), Tacitus (early 2nd century B.C.), Josephus (end of
1st century A.D.), Ammianus Marcellinus (4th century A.D.), Frontinus (4th century A.D.), Arrian (4th century A.D.),
Vegetius (end of the 4th century A.D., and St. Augustine, (end of the 4th century A.D. to the beginning of the 5th
century A.D.).
2
historical perspective rather than utilizing a more interdisciplinary approach.3
Although Roman law remained influential in the Near East, North Africa, and
Asia Minor due to the incorporation of these regions into the Roman provincial system,
alternative cultural assumptions concerning ‘revenge’ eventually emerged in these areas of the
former Roman Empire. The rise of Islam in the seventh century A.D. with the accompanying
evolution of Sharia Legal Codes grounded in the Koran, the Hadiths, as well as potent regional
ethnic and tribal customs, represented a substantially different legal and political trajectory than
that of jurisprudence in the West with relation to both social and religious assumptions
concerning ‘revenge.’4 While both Roman and Islamic law can be traced to tribally based
origins, each represents diverse approaches to many social issues including those of ‘revenge’
and ‘retribution.’ A comparison between Islamic Sharia law and Western legal structures
highlights the fact that there were, and are, many culturally based alternatives impacting how
‘revenge’ is perceived in the West versus other regions of the world.5 Thus, a discussion of the
evolution of ‘revenge’ as a cultural phenomenon in ancient Rome assists us in more fully
comprehending the genesis of our own Western cultural assumptions and resulting legal and
political systems associated with both ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution.’ This discussion is especially
relevant to both Britain and the United States given the similarities they share with the
establishment of the Roman Republic, as well as the comparisons existing between Roman
military expansion in the ancient world with that of the roles of both Britain and the United
States in world power politics both before and after World War II. Most recently, the reactions
of both Britain and the United States to the terrorist attacks of September 11th in New York City,
and the subsequent London subway bombings are also pertinent. An exploration of the genesis
of concepts of ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ may thus provide us new perspectives related to
3
For example see B. H. Warmington, Carthage (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993) 230-231. This is but
one example of the many seemingly illogical actions of Rome against an enemy force that have confounded modern
historians over time.
4
Interestingly, Sharia legal systems emphasize the important roles of compromise between legal parties as
well as the option of compensation to the victims of criminal acts (or their surviving family members) even in the
case of some types of murder. The roles of compromise and compensation are thus much more important in Islamic
Law than in Western legal systems. This can be explained by the religious foundations of Sharia Law, the proximity
in time of the development of these legal codes to tribal influences, and the necessity of competing tribal forces to
limit the loss of individual life and property in an already challenging environment through negotiation and
compromise. For sources on Sharia Law see (add sources from the extensive Sharia codex after June 29th).
Understanding the Islamic legal paradigm and its contrasts with Western Law based on Roman precedents is one
critical venue to comprehending some of the current cultural frictions existing between Islamic fundamentalism and
the West.
5
Ibid.
3
acknowledging the significance of ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ as basic legitimizing sources of
power for any organized state. More importantly, such a discussion may also enable us to more
creatively limit the negative influences of these forces, and/or restructure the roles of ‘revenge’
and ‘retribution’ in establishing new national policies that will more positively impact an
increasingly interconnected global social polity and economy. In order to formulate these new
perspectives, we must first understand the nature and origins of our own cultural assumptions in
order to be self reflective, self critical, and most importantly, adaptive, given new world realities.
‘Revenge’ Versus ‘Retribution’
To begin this process, we must first carefully define terms. In the modern legal systems
of the West, ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ are often considered to be two different sides of the same
coin. Both involve punishment (either individual or collective) for a perceived offence by an
individual or group. However, ‘revenge’ or ‘vengeance’ are actions often associated in the
modern West with an innate human emotional instinct that may at times be disconnected from
‘justice,’ and thus potentially unchecked in the types or extent of punishments inflicted on
perceived wrongdoers or personal and political enemies.6 ‘Retribution,’ on the other hand, is
associated in Western legal systems with a rational and justified response to a perceived offense.
It is often assumed to be limited by socially and/or legally prescribed boundaries related to the
acceptable extent and types of punishments prescribed for perceived offenders.7 It is important
to note, however, that these subtle legal distinctions between ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ are
modern Western contrivances that may have had differing collective assumptions within the
societies of the ancient world, especially those whose origins were closer in historic time to their
tribal origins. Additionally, many non-Western societies today may also see both ‘revenge’ and
‘retribution’ through different cultural lenses. Ancient Rome, for example, was infamous with
regard to its military, political, and social forms of ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution,’ inflicted on the
perceived enemies of the Roman State. However, many aspects of Roman ‘revenge’ cannot be
separated from ‘retribution’ in a modern legal sense in the Roman paradigm. At the same time,
later Roman law provided one of the foundation sources for the development of these
distinctions within modern legal codes as it related to certain protections provided to individuals
6
See R. Nozick, “Retribution and Revenge, from Philosophical Explanations,” in, R. Solomon and M.
Murphy, (edd.) What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) 281.
7
Ibid., 281-82.
4
who held Roman citizenship. Given the eventual geographical extent of the Roman Empire,
these special forms of ‘revenge-Roman-style’ established historic precedents for many
subsequent civilizations both in the West and the East. The foci of this paper are therefore
pivotal in understanding the genesis of our own cultural assumptions concerning the roles of both
‘revenge’ and ‘retribution,’ and by extension the divergence of our own applications of ‘revenge’
and ‘retribution’ with relation to the rest of the modern world.
Rome’s Foundation Myths and Paradigms of Vulnerability
Language is often an important indicator of deep-seated cultural assumptions. It is thus
significant that the Latin nouns for ‘revenge’ include ultio, vindicta, and vindicatio. Ultio means
‘avenger’ or ‘punisher,’ and the verb form ulciscor or ulcisci ultus means to “take vengeance for;
to avenge or to take vengeance on; to punish.”8 Vindicta is associated not only with vengeance
and punishment, but also with deliverance.9 In fact, the rod used to manumit slaves in ancient
Rome was known by the same term.10 Additionally, vindicatio means defending, protecting, and
avenging, and a close term, vindico means to claim, to arrogate, assume, appropriate, to claim as
free, hence to liberate, deliver or protect, to avenge or punish.11 Thus, in ancient Roman culture,
revenge was closely associated with the ability of the head of a family (the male patriarch), or a
tribal, or other governing entity, to protect and defend, even at times to justify vengeance as a
means of ‘liberation.’ For example, the definitions noted above allow us to more fully
comprehend the many roles of Mars, a patron deity of Rome, as not only a god of war, but also a
deity associated in Roman culture with ‘protection’ and ‘liberation’ as ‘Mars the Avenger.’
Additionally, these basic Roman cultural assumptions are important to understand as they
represent the underlying basis upon which the perceived legitimization of both ancient Rome and
many modern governments in the world rest. If a government both taxes and conscripts its
population for military service, but cannot defend it, the government breaches a perceived public
bond of loyalty that potentially generates revolutionary changes in authority structures and
centralized power. Given this paradigm, a centralized government must therefore be perceived
to be able to perpetuate actions of ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ in order to remain viable in the
8
D.P. Simpson, Cassell’s Latin and English Dictionary (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987)
237.
9
10
11
Ibid., 237.
Ibid., 237.
Ibid., 237.
5
eyes of both the governed, but just as importantly, in the eyes of potential rivals for its political
power and natural resources. The genesis of this multi-faceted perception of revenge within
Roman culture can be seen within the foundation myths associated with Rome’s origins, and the
tribal nature of early Latin societies in central Italy.
Roman concepts of ‘revenge’ were heavily influenced by a social environment of
individual and community insecurity and paranoia. Significantly, the mythic founders of Rome
were all outcasts, separated from the inclusive protections afforded members of a viable family,
clan, tribe, or governing polity. Roman culture was thus often characterized by the almost
frenzied need to provide both the individual and the polity protection through the establishment
of patriarchal patronage, as well as the ability of the patron to exact or threaten revenge as a
pre-emptive amulet that warded off the danger of attack or exploitation.12 Two of the most
well-known myths of Rome’s founding (that of Aeneas and Romulus and Remus) both
emphasize the vulnerabilities of the hero-founders as well as their quest to overcome their
life-threatening challenges through two venues: 1) the intervention of the gods and thus the
responsibility of humans to venerate protective deities through blood sacrifice--a religious engine
that underlay Rome’s emphasis on human sacrifice far longer than many other complex societies
in the Mediterranean Basin, thus entrenching the place of gladiatorial combats and public
executions of perceived criminals and enemies in the arena and the dedication of human
sacrifices to the Spirit of Rome; and, 2) the aggressive usage of revenge (both active and
threatened) as a pre-emptive policy believed to be necessary for both individual and community
survival. For ancient Latin tribal cultures, to be bereft of family or tribal protection was to risk
certain annihilation. Thus, it is important to note that Aeneas, as one of the few mythic Trojans
to survive the destruction of Troy by the Greeks, was an individual stripped of not only his
family, but of the protection of his polis as well as his geographic homeland in Asia Minor.13
The Aeneas myth not only illustrates the initial paranoia of vulnerability integrated into the very
12
It is also interesting to note that a Roman leader granted the right of a Triumph in Rome may have been
perceived by the Roman public to symbolically represent Jupiter the Protector, and from his triumphal chariot a
phallos may have been hung as an apotropaic device also associated with warding off evil. For a discussion of the
ancient sources of this perspective see M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2007) 80-92.
13
See Virgil, The Aeneid (trans. R. Fitzgerald) (New York: Vintage Books, 1983) 3. Aeneid 1:1-10. “I sing
of warfare and a man at war. From the sea-coast of Troy in early days he came to Italy by destiny, to our Lavinian
western shore, a fugitive, this captain buffeted cruelly on land as on the sea by blows from powers of the air--behind them baleful Juno in her sleepless rage. And cruel losses were his lot in war, till he could found a city and
bring home his gods to Latium….”
6
psychological identity of Rome, but it is important to note that Virgil’s Aeneid especially
popularized the Aeneas epic during the reign of Augustus Octavian, emphasizing the emerging
position of the first principate or emperor as savior of Rome from a long era of devastating civil
wars.14 Octavian was thus marketed as avenger of Julius Caesar’s murder, as promoter of primal
Roman virtues, and by the conquest of the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Greater Egypt, the avenger of
Aeneas in the Hellenized East.15 The Aeneas myth also linked Rome’s identity to ancient origins
that rivaled the more cultured Greeks and bolstered Rome’s narional esteem. Additionally, the
story of Aeneas’ mythic descendents, Romulus and Remus, the twins birthed by Rhea Syliva
(also known as Ilia in the Aeneid) and fathered by Mars, also reveals much about the Roman
psyche.16 Growing up as wild animals, the twins were bereft of all human protection and tribal
association, but also outside the norms of human behavior and the confines of tribal laws.
Eventually, Romulus killed Remus in an argument over the kingship of Rome. Romulus then
proceeded to formulate his own tribe, inviting other outcasts to join him. These first male
‘citizens’ of Rome were considered so ‘undesirable’ by others that they were not allowed
intermarriage with the women of Rome’s neighboring tribal groups. Romulus thus craftily
devises the abduction of the Sabine women in order to guarantee the future of his new tribe and
city. Thus, according to Rome’s own mythic history, the original founders and inhabitants of
Rome were outcasts--peoples from a multiplicity of sources, brought together to create a new
tribal identity and a population that faced numerous challenges with relation to self-defense,
ultimate survival, and even self esteem. The mythic histories of Rome thus provide us with the
most pertinent examples of the roles that ‘revenge’ played in the evolution of tribal authority to
the eventual transfer of the powers of ‘revenge’ to a centralized government, as well as the
specific cultural engines that drove these transformations to such extremes within Roman
culture.
Phase I: ‘Revenge’ in Roman Culture, before 509 B.C. and the Rise of Patronage
The evolution of ‘revenge’ as an underlying paradigm of cultural and governmental
power in Roman society was characterized by three major phases of development. Phase I
consisted of the era before the Rape of Lucretia, when ‘revenge’ was seen as the natural right of
14
15
16
See Virgil, The Aeneid (trans. R. Fitzgerald) (New York: Vintage Books, 1983) 410, 414-417.
Ibid., 412.
See Virgil, The Aeneid, I: 365-370 in Fitzgerald, 13.
7
the individual and the tribe. The ability of the family and/or tribal patriarch to execute revenge
legitimized his ability to both govern and protect. This phase eventually provided the underlying
genesis of the functions of patronage in Roman society and even became the fallback structure of
European Medieval society with the eventual collapse of Rome in the West after A.D. 476. With
the Etruscan take over of pre-Republican Rome, the position of patronage as a social and
political engine within Roman society became entrenched, as Rome’s inhabitants struggled to
survive a series of foreign occupying dynasties, and patronage functioned as a means of both
access to, and protection from, these non-indigenous, non-Latin political and cultural forces.
Both archaeologically and epigraphically, this phase of early Roman history remains the least
documented and the least understood due in part to the subsequent overbuilding of early Roman
urban contexts in later periods, and the resultant destruction of earlier occupation levels, and/or
their unavailability to archaeological excavation due to current modern habitation. Additionally,
many early written records of both Etruscan and Roman history known to have existed anciently
were destroyed either in the sack of the city of Rome by the Gauls in 390 B.C., or lost to us over
the past two thousand years.
Phase II: ‘Revenge’ and the Rise of the Roman Republic, 509 B.C. to 31 B.C.
A second phase in the evolution of ‘revenge’ within Roman contexts was initiated
by two major events. The first encompassed the rape of the Roman matron Lucretia by a
Tarquin-Etruscan prince, Lucretia’s resultant suicide, and the foundation of the Roman Republic
through the Latin-Roman overthrow of the Tarquin kings in 509 B.C. This critical event in the
early history of Rome not only highlighted perceived Roman virtues versus Etruscan decadence,
but also took ‘revenge’ to the level of a community engine of liberation, establishing ‘revenge’
as an eventual legitimizing action of the Roman Republic. The second important event of this
era was the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 390 B.C., a catastrophe that reinforced the cultural
paranoia of Roman society as a whole, thus reinvigorating ‘revenge’ as Romans understood this
term as a driving force in the Roman consciousness. This phase in Roman history is marked by
the transition of many types of ‘revenge’ by an individual or patriarch of a family to the
execution of ‘revenge’ as a collective action of the polity, with the eventual formation of the
Roman Senate as an umbrella patron or protector of all Roman society. The birth of the Roman
Republic also formally established the public ceremonies of the Roman Triumph in order to
8
celebrate revenge in a venue that legitimized the right of the Senate to govern.17 The strict rules
regulating the Senate’s exclusive right to award a Triumph to a successful Roman general (thus
formally granting both he and his legions access to the city of Rome), must thus be seen in the
light of ‘revenge’ as the ancient Roman’s understood this concept. In granting such a right, not
only was the Senate concerned with the military power of a successful general as a potential
threat to their sovereignty, but the Senate also had to carefully assess the public’s perceptions of
the conquering general’s abilities to protect the polity, versus the perceived status of the Senate
fathers with this regard in the public eye.18 The linkage between ‘revenge’ and ‘protection’ in
Roman society thus also helps to elucidate the ceremonies of the Roman Triumph. Although the
perceived threats to Rome were often vanquished far from the city itself, the Triumph’s elaborate
ceremonies brought captives of special symbolic status as well as captured booty to be paraded
on a prescribed ritual route through Rome before the Roman public. Captives were then
executed and/or sacrificed to the deities of Rome, and booty disbursed—potent rituals
encompassing cultural symbols demonstrating the Senate’s right to rule through the venues of
‘revenge’ and ‘protection,’ i.e., the symbolic annihilation of Rome’s enemies and the absorption
of their most prized resources and/or religo-artistic masterpieces, as well as the annihilation or
enslavement of conquered populations. This phase in the evolution of ‘revenge’ within the
Roman experience was also characterized by an almost constant state of warfare, driven by the
engines of ‘revenge’ as a pre-emptive strike policy and the primary legitimizing paradigm of the
Roman Senate. Between 509 BC. (The traditional date of the founding of the Roman Republic)
and the formation of the Principate established by Octavian/Augustus in 31 B.C., twenty-seven
major wars and untold skirmishes were fought, principally by a Roman military consisted of a
conscripted militia dispatched by the Senate.19 With relation to the role of ‘revenge’ during this
period, it is significant to note Livy’s accounts of the so-called Latin Wars (conflicts with the
other city-states of the Italian peninsula) that eventually brought Rome’s domination of all of
Italy.20 In almost every case, Rome’s aggression against its neighbors was justified to the Roman
17
See M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007) Romans traced the
origins of the Triumph back to the days of Romulus, the founder of the city (p. 8), however, the Republican Period
provides the only firm literary evidence for its formalized practices (p. 76).
18
For the potential role of a conquering general as a symbol of Jupiter the Protector, see fn. 12.
19
A professional Roman army that received regular pay was not created until the 1st century B.C. See A.
Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames and Hudson, 2003) 7.
20
See Livy, History of Rome (trans. G. Baker) (New York: Harper and Row, no date) Books VII through X
of Livy’s History of Rome concentrate on the many wars the Romans fought against the Samnites as well as other
9
public as a war of ‘revenge’ for some perceived offense by other city-states against Roman
colonists and settlers, or other Roman interests, not as acts of unwarranted bold Roman
aggression.21 Pre-emptive usages of ‘revenge’ were thus enshrined within the Roman polity at
this time, creating the continual need to confront and conquer perceived enemies of Rome as a
means to demonstrate the legitimacy of the governing bodies of the Roman Republic and to keep
Rome’s citizen army in fighting form as a venue of communal protection.22 The engine of
revenge as a preemptive strike, however, set into motion the need to re-legitimize the Roman
Republic through continued territorial expansion obtained through conquest and/or annexation.
Carried to its ultimate extremes, this process eventually stressed the resources of the entire
Italian peninsula, thus necessitating international conquests outside of Italy.
Archaeologically, two major examples of ‘revenge-Roman-style’ during Phase II
demonstrate the role of revenge as a major engine of political evolution for the Roman State.
The sack of the Etruscan city of Veii (one of the twelve great Etruscan urban centers and one of
particular wealth and artistic renown) occurred after a 10-year-long siege at the beginning of the
4th century B.C. In addition to the prolonged and bloody siege, the entire body of water known
as Lake Alban had to be drained to obtain access to the Etruscan city. As recorded by Polybius,
the final sack of Veii was so complete that the entire city lay desolate for years afterward, with
its entire population either slain or sold into slavery.23 Archaeological excavations associated
with the Temple of Veii confirm the destructive nature of the Roman siege and sack of the city.24
With all of Italy conquered, Rome’s expansionist paradigm was forced to
consume broader venues throughout the Mediterranean Basin and Europe. Possibly the best
tribes and city states in Italy before the invasion of Hannibal. In almost every case, Rome’s aggression against
others was couched in terms of justified revenge for perceived offenses by their opponents against Roman citizens or
interests.
21
Ibid.
22
This aspect of an almost constant state of war for a conscripted Roman citizen army was an important
element of social discipline in the minds of many Romans. With the final fall of Carthage and the destruction of
Rome’s greatest adversary in the Mediterranean, Scipio Aemilianus bemoaned the fact that without Carthage, Rome
would now succumb to the ills of soft living and corruption. After the fall of Carthage, Scipio is said to have related
to his companion, Polybius, the words of Hector of Troy, “The day shall come when sacred Troy shall fall, and King
Priam and all his warrior people with him.” When Polybius asked Scipio what he meant by reciting these lines from
the Homeric cycle, Scipio replied, “This is a glorious moment, Polybius, (the sack and fall of Carthage). And yet I
am seized with fear and foreboding that some day the same fate will befall my own country.” See Appians’s
Libyca, 132 as cited in B.H. Warmington, Carthage: A History (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993) 242.
23
Reference to the draining of Alban, the 10-year-seige, and Rome’s entry into Veii from Polybius. Also
reference Livy’s works.
24
Archaeological reports from the excavations of the Temple of Veii.
10
documented war of expansion and revenge (both epigraphically and archaeologically) is
presented by the three Punic Wars that Rome fought against Carthage (First Punic War, 264-241
B.C.; Second Punic War, 218-201 B.C.; Third Punic War, 149-146 B.C.). Hannibal’s invasion
of Italian soil (218-216 B.C.) not only fueled Roman paranoia, but also eventually generated one
of the most brutal acts of Roman counter revenge in the history of the ancient world. After an
unprecedented 118 years of war, interspersed with periods of negotiated peace, Carthage was
destroyed, its city site plowed under and symbolically sown with salt, and its population
devastated. In the last moments of the conflict, Hasdrubal, the Carthaginian leader, had
negotiated a surrender of his wife and two children. Rather than face this humiliation and a
probable display in a triumph in Rome, Hasdrubal’s wife condemned her husband for being a
coward and a traitor. She then flung both herself and their children into the flames of the
collapsing city.25 According to Polybius, an eyewitness to the final siege of Carthage in 146
B.C., only approximately 50,000 half-starved people were spared and sold into slavery.26
Archaeological evidence from Carthage also confirms the vast destructiveness of the Roman
siege and sack of the city.27 While modern scholars can discern no logical reason for this final
confrontation between Rome and Carthage, knowledge of the cultural and political potency of
‘revenge’ in Roman society helps to explain Rome’s actions.28
The elimination of Carthage as a major
military rival and Rome’s subsequent expansion throughout the Mediterranean Basin,
particularly in Greece and the coasts of the Levant, stretched the ability of the Republican Senate
25
The defenses of the region of Byrsa within the city were some of the last to fall to the Roman assault.
Appian records the final blood bath, an account probably taken from the works of Polybius who was an eye-witness
of Carthage’s destruction: “The streets leading from the market square to Byrsa were flanked by houses of six
storey’s, from which the defenders poured a shower of missiles on to the Romans; when the attackers got inside the
buildings, the struggle continued on the roofs and on planks crossing the empty spaces; many were hurled to the
ground or on to the weapons of those fighting in the streets. Scipio ordered all this sector to be fired and the ruins
cleared away, to give a better passage to his troops, and as this was done there fell with the walls many bodies of
those who had hidden in the upper storey’s and been burnt to death, and others who were still alive, wounded and
badly burnt. Scipio had squadrons of soldiers ready to keep the streets clear for the rapid movement of his men, and
dead or living were thrown together into pits; and it often happened that those who were not yet dead were crushed
by the cavalry horses as they passed, not deliberately but in the heat of the battle. (Appian as cited in B. H.
Warmington, Carthage: A History (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993) 236-237.
26
Ibid.
27
M. Alexander reports on the archaeology of Carthage.
28
There were no logical reasons for this final confrontation between Rome and Carthage. Following the
Second Punic War, Carthage had basically been disabled as a major threat to Rome and was in reality paying a high
yearly indemnity to the Roman Senate. See again B. H. Warrington, Carthage: A History (New York: Barnes and
Noble Books, 1993) pp. 230-236 for a discussion of the illogic of Rome’s final attacks on Carthage.
11
to adapt to the economic, social, and administrative challenges engendered by the need to govern
and defend such far flung Roman interests. Additionally, the influx of slaves from conquered
regions coupled with the consumption of luxury goods and war booty wrecked the underlying
structure of Roman agrarianism as well as Roman ethical systems. The ineptness of the Senate
coupled with the corruption and greed of the ruling classes fueled a series of devastating civil
wars characterized by the rise of powerful generals, each attempting to wrest enough control to
bring order out of political and social chaos. This phase in Roman history and the evolution of
revenge in Roman culture ended with the assassination of Julius Caesar, the rise of his nephew
Octavian Augustus as the first principate or emperor of Rome, the eventual defeat of Mark
Antony and Cleopatra VII of Egypt at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C., and the emergence of the
Imperial Period. In essence, the transfer of the powers and duties of ‘revenge’ from the
Republican Senate to the personality of a single ruler marked this phase and guardian of Rome
embodied in the personage of the emperor.
Phase III: The Evolution of ‘Revenge’ in Roman Culture, Augustus to Septimius Severus
(31 B.C.- A.D. 208).
Octavian rose to power astride the coattails of ‘revenge’ as Roman culture understood
and reflected this term. Perhaps no other individual in the history of Rome manipulated the
paradigm of ‘avenger-protector’ more effectively for his own political purposes than Octavian
Augustus Caesar. However, this aspect of Octavian’s political astuteness has never been
discussed by modern scholars as a major reason for his political success, thus compensating for
Octavian’s lack of personal military prowess and both physical and emotional challenges.29 The
perceived ability of a Roman patriarch to inflict avenging punishments on an offender as an
outward manifestation of the patriarch’s right to rule was the primary incentive for the transfer of
political power to an imperial government at the end of the Republican Period. Octavian
masterfully engineered this transfer almost single-handedly by manipulating the roles of
‘revenge’ and ‘avenger’ in the minds of the Roman people. Thus, the emphasis that Octavian
placed on hunting down and avenging the killers of his uncle, Julius Caesar, as an act
symbolizing Octavian’s role as the protector of his genus/family and by extension the will of the
Roman people. This act was also masterfully utilized to eliminate Republican resistance to the
29
Octavian’s description in Seutonius.
12
concentration of governmental power in the hands of one man. Additionally, Octavian’s
eventual confrontations with Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII were also couched in terms of
protecting Rome and avenging Mark Antony’s slights against not only Octavian’s sister, but also
the very political and moral essence of Rome itself.30 From the era of Octavian Augustus, the
emperors of Rome would inherit the cycle of ‘revenge Roman style’ as a foundational principle
that demonstrated their right to rule. As a consequence, the rituals of the Roman Triumph and
the erection of Triumphal Arches in Rome were now almost exclusively linked to the emperor
himself. Significantly, the personality of Octavian Augustus became so associated by the people
of Rome with the roles of ‘avenger’ and ‘protector,’ that at his death, Octavian’s body was
carried as if in a Triumphal Procession through a triumphal gate in Rome.31 As a consequence of
the above, subsequent emperors were driven to demonstrate their abilities as avengers through
increasingly elaborate triumphs and the erection of triumphal edifices not only in Rome, but in
the far flung reaches of the Roman empire. Additionally, this cultural and political phenomenon
generated increasing displays of blood sacrifice in Rome’s arenas and eventually the building of
the Flavian amphitheatre (Coliseum) in Rome.32 Most significantly, the underlying paradigm of
‘revenge Roman style’ hindered the ability of Rome to develop effective long-term policies of
governance throughout its provinces. As a result, ever increasing demonstrations of revenge
became the policy of political legitimization and rule, setting up cycles of territorial
overextension, civilian resistance in the regions of Roman conquest, with the resultant economic
strains and collapse that eventually marked the fall of Rome in the West.
The sack of Jerusalem in both A.D. 70 and A.D. 132, and the policies of revenge
associated with the elimination of Jewish resistance through genocide and Diaspora are perhaps
the events that best demonstrate the height of Rome’s utilization of revenge as a policy of
provincial governance. The eyewitness accounts of the Jewish historian Josephus coupled with
the relief images of the Triumphal Arch of Titus in Rome give us our best narratives of the
30
Mark Antony’s marriage to Octavia and liasons with Cleopatra VII and their impact on the Roman Senate
via Octavian’s role. Utilize primary sources.
31
For a discussion of the primary sources for this event and the possible location of this edifice between the
Forum in Rome and the Campus Martius, see M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2007) pp. 96-97.
32
Evidences for the increase of gladiatorial games and executions of human prisoners in the imperial period,
especially those associated with Vespasian and Titus in order to justify their right to rule after the decline of the
Julio-Claudian dynasty. Utilize Suetonius.
13
events surrounding the first major revolt of the Jewish Zealots against Rome in A.D. 70.33 It is
significant to note that the emperor Trajan in Dacia also initiated similar acts of extreme
genocide during the imperial period in A.D. 101-102 and finally in A.D. 105-106, resulting in the
almost complete extermination of the Dacian people, an act commemorated by Trajan’s column
in Rome.34 Both events demonstrate that the Roman paradigm of revenge crippled the abilities
of Rome to develop more effective procedures of provincial government. They also mark the
watershed of Roman international power based on ‘revenge.’
Phase IV: ‘Revenge Roman Style’ and the Later Imperial Myths of Revenge
By the mid third century A.D. Rome faced unprecedented political and economic
challenges. Invasions of Gauls penetrated the regions of the Black and Caspian Seas. Further to
the East, Rome’s long-term rival, Parthia, fell to an even more aggressive Persian Sassanian
dynasty whose main goal was to re-establish the geographical extent of the earlier Achamaenid
Persian Empire. The Sassanians thus threatening Roman holdings in Greater Syria, Judea,
Arabia, Mesopotamia, and the Levant--important sources of grain, wine, and tax revenues as
well as critical regions of caravan trade to the East. In the West, Germanic tribes as well as the
Goths pressed both the Rhine and the Danube frontiers and threatened stability within the Roman
provinces of what are now Austria, Germany, France, and Spain. Egypt and North Africa faced
a series of droughts that put added pressure on grain shipments to mainland Italy. Inept imperial
leadership and intrigues destabilized the transference of imperial power in Rome. From A.D.
208 and the end of the reign of Septimius Severus, to the rise of Constantine in A.D. 312, sixteen
emperors rose to power and then expired. Of these sixteen, seven were killed by Roman intergovernmental intrigues. Additionally, waves of plague and disease stalked the Roman Empire,
weakening the strength of the legions. Confronted with multiple natural disasters and political
challenges, the paradigm of ‘revenge Roman style’ ultimately brought about Rome’s fall in the
West in A.D. 476. Significantly, the paradigm of ‘revenge’ was so ingrained within Roman
society and political culture, that creative adaptation to changing world conditions was
impossible.
Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon was Rome’s relationship with Palmyra,
Syria, a former Roman allies and guardian of Rome’s frontiers against the Parthians and
33
34
Josephus and accounts of the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Primary sources for the Dacian campaigns and the annihilation of the Dacian peoples in southern Europe.
14
Sassanians in the East. With the death of Odainat (the Palmyrene strategos and supporter of the
emperors Valerian and Gallienus) Odainat’s widow, Zenobia (Bat Zabbai), found herself
confronted with dual onslaughts of both Gauls and Persian Sassanians. These enemies of both
Rome and Palmyra threatened the caravan routes that were the very lifeblood of the Tadmor
Oasis. Bereft of Roman assistance due to the concurrent chaos in the Roman West, Zenobia
moved to stabilize the Eastern Provinces, capturing the Roman mints at Antioch and Alexandria
and briefly creating a viable Eastern Empire and buffer against Sassanian onslaughts. This was
accomplished with the support of Rome’s previous Eastern allies who recognized the dangers
that the Sassanians posed to Greater Syria, Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Arabia. While
Zenobia was apparently willing to share sovereignty with Rome in the East, the new Roman
emperor Aurelian was not, especially given the fact that Zenobia was a woman reputed to admire
both Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra VII. During a time of greatest stress on Rome, instead of
logic reigning, the Roman paradigm of ‘revenge’ and patriarchal machismo dominated. After
re-establishing Roman control of the Danube, Aurelian marched eastward toward Palmyra,
capturing the city and its queen. It is at this point that we find Roman historical accounts
differing from the actual archaeological evidence from Palmyra itself. According to the Res
Augustae and other sources, Zenobia was captured while fleeing the city with the children of her
extended family. Initially Palmyra was spared and Aurelian began to return to Rome with his
captives, leaving a Roman garrison to maintain control of the city. The Roman legion’s
mistreatment of the local inhabitants sparked another revolt that culminated in the massacre of
the entire Roman garrison. Upon receiving word of this event, Aurelian supposedly ordered the
complete devastation of the city and its population.35 However, no archaeological evidence has
yet emerged collaborating this event.36 In other words, no massive destruction levels for Palmyra
are yet forthcoming despite ongoing excavations on the site since the late 19th century.37
Additionally, conflicting reports of the fate of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, also exist in Roman
sources. According to some ancient authors she was forced to submit to participating in
Aurelian’s triumph in Rome, so heavily laden with gold and other spoils of her city that she
could barely stand.38 Some sources indicate that she was executed after wards, others say that
35
Sources for Aurelian’s actions against Palmyra.
Archaeological evidences from Palmyra.
37
Ibid.
38
Zenobia’s multiple fates. Sources.
36
15
Aurelian’s respect for Zenobia’s accomplishments in the East caused this hardened general to
ensconce the Palmyrene queen in a villa outside of Tivoli where she was later married to a
Roman patrician or Senator.39 Zenobia’s offspring from this marriage were reported to have
become influential in the Roman Senate in the later years of the Empire.40 Both the lack of
archaeological evidence for a vast destruction level at Palmyra, and the diverse accounts in later
Roman and Early Christian histories with relation to Zenobia’s fate indicate that by the late third
century the reports of some Roman conquests may have been fabricated rather than reflective of
historic reality. This phenomenon may have been driven by the need to maintain the image of
‘revenge Roman style’ as a justification to rule. Such fabrications are also an indication of the
collapse of the paradigm of ‘revenge’ in Roman contexts as a long-term sustainable cultural and
political construct.
Conclusions
The above discussion has demonstrated that the Roman concept of ‘revenge’ evolved in
unique ways given the genesis of Roman-Latin culture. ‘Revenge Roman style’ was a major
force driving Rome’s cultural and political identity, underpinning the emergence of patronage as
well as creating a legitimizing political basis for both the Roman Republic and the Roman
Empire. Taken to its furthest extremes, this unique paradigm of revenge was also a major factor
causing Rome’s decline and final collapse. The Roman cultural construct of ‘revenge’ thus helps
to explain some of the seemingly ‘illogical actions’ taken by Rome that have baffled modern
scholars over the past two centuries.41 ‘Revenge Roman style’ was so much a part of the cultural
consciousness of Rome itself that it hindered both the Republic and the Empire in developing
more flexible and adaptable policies of governance for Rome’s far-flung provinces—provinces
that included vast geographical regions that encompassed multiple peoples, cultures, and
religions. When faced with extreme manifestations of Roman revenge, increasing numbers of
societies and individuals found that resistance via death in combat was more acceptable than
Roman treatment of the conquered which often encompassed punishments that included
crucifixion, immolation, public degradation and execution via the Roman Triumph, and/or the
utilization of selected victims for the various deadly entertainments of the arena. The extremes
39
40
41
Sources for Zenobia’s marriage.
Offspring of Zenobia.
Examples of scholar’s questions concerning illogical Roman political actions.
16
of punishment and dehumanization associated with Roman conquest and governance thus
engendered extreme counter-reactions among the conquered or governed. While Rome’s
specific paradigm of revenge, coupled with Roman paranoia, fed the need for Rome’s constant
geographical expansion, this cycle also stressed Roman governance beyond its inherent
capabilities. In the end, the Roman paradigm of revenge was unsustainable economically,
socially, and politically. This in-depth understanding of revenge in Roman contexts also
highlights the radical and revolutionary nature of the teachings of early Christianity whose major
focus on forgiveness, rather than revenge, attempted to create a new cultural construct. Given
the place of revenge within Roman politics, we can now comprehend that Christ’s early
teachings undermined the very essence of the legitimacy of the Roman state.
The Roman experience has much to teach us today. While all viable governments
must protect their populations from both exterior and interior threats of aggression, an emphasis
on revenge as an international policy of political viability is not sustainable in the long-term
economically, politically, or militarily. Indeed, the natural human responses of revenge and
retribution must be redirected into more intelligent and positive directions by international
governments and societies. We are now living in a world of diminishing resources and
increasing population pressures where a paradigm shift with relation to revenge is demanded in
order to sustain human civilization into the future. We not only face the horrors of modern
military technology, but also the potential of total worldwide holocaust via weapons of mass
destruction. An exploration of new options with relation to revenge must require creative and
adaptable positive responses to aggression and conflict, as well as an understanding of our own
cultural roots with relation to concepts of revenge versus those of other societies. Rome’s
aggressive nature initially stemmed from a sense of extreme cultural vulnerability, paranoia, and
insecurity. These are all elements that are still exhibited by modern countries and societies to
one degree or another depending on their historical development and natural resource reserves.
Finding productive ways to deal with sources of potential conflict and aggression must be
addressed, especially given the degree of global intercourse emerging in the modern age. One
way to begin this process is to explore how our own culture still reflects latent Roman
characteristics with relation to concepts of revenge that cripple our abilities to adapt to the
challenges of modern international politics. The next step is to explore other viable alternatives
to the innate human responses associated with revenge that may originate from the diverse
17
cultures of the world. As individual nations and societies, we now find our societies drawn
closer in proximity in ways never before experienced in world history. The expanse of the
Roman Empire not only provides us with the closest historic precedent to this phenomenon, but
the Roman paradigm of ‘revenge’ provides us with an invaluable voice of warning for the future.