Roman empire—The cause of its decline—First invasion of
Goths, A.D. 217—Their habits—Defeat the Emperor Decius, A.D.
257—Rebellion of Egypt, A.D. 273—Franks and Allemanni—The Veneti
on the coast of Gaul—Constantinople founded, A.D. 323—Its
commercial advantages and harbour—The extent of its ancient
trade—Black Sea and Sea of Azov—The trading vessels on—Oppressive
taxation—The laws affecting shipping—Constans and Julian—Produce
of certain lands applied to the sea service—Neglect and decline
of commerce, and sufferings of the people—Siege of Rome by
Alaric and the Goths, A.D. 408—Genseric—His capture of Rome—Rise
of Constantinople—Customs’ duties—Silk trade—Naval expedition
of Justinian against the Vandals, A.D. 533, and conquest of
Carthage—Rise of the Muhammedan power, A.D. 622—Rapid conquests;
of Jerusalem, A.D. 636; of Alexandria, A.D. 638; and of Africa,
A.D. 647—Sieges of Constantinople, A.D. 668-675.
[Sidenote: Roman empire.]
[Sidenote: The cause of its decline.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 212-235.]
From the close of the last Punic war to the middle of the third
century after Christ, the Romans were the greatest if not the only
enemies of Rome. The extravagance and heedless folly of her citizens
were in themselves enough to ruin a less powerful nation. Without
competitors, she maintained a position for centuries which, under
other circumstances, the lavish expenditure of her people would have
destroyed in as many years. The mistress of the world could do as she
pleased; and the industry of the country districts was heavily burdened
to support, in indolence and luxury, its rulers at Rome. Under such
circumstances as these a fall must have come sooner or later; and so
we find that even under the excellent government of the Antonines the
decay of the imperial system had fully commenced. On their removal, and
on the accession of such princes as Commodus, Caracalla and Elagabalus,
the decay was much more rapid, till at length commerce, the true index
of the real state of a nation, failed to recover its former position,
even with the willing and active support of Alexander Severus. Nor
was it possible that the corruption of Rome throughout its whole
administration could be long kept a secret. On her distant and outlying
provinces she had jealous enemies, burning to avenge past injuries and
insults, and eagerly awaiting the opportunity of finding or making an
entrance through her armour.
[Sidenote: First invasion of Goths, A.D. 217.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 249.]
Already in the reign of Caracalla, the Goths had begun to move
southwards from their earliest known haunts in south Prussia and
Poland,[325] but their advance was for a time checked by that emperor.
This was their first attempt at marching in the direction of Rome.
A little later, in the reign of Philippus, they seized a great part
of the Roman province of Dacia (Hungary), and from this time their
attacks, though from time to time repelled, became more frequent and
more destructive. Under their two great divisions of Ostro-Goth and
Visi-Goth they waged a continual predatory war against Rome, becoming
able eventually to wrest from the Romans the whole of Italy, and to
capture the haughty city itself.
[Sidenote: Their habits.]
The character of the Goths has probably been sketched with sufficient
accuracy by Tacitus in his famous essay “De Germanis,” as that of a
wild, illiterate, brave nation, preserving in their habits and ordinary
mode of life their original savage character. They possessed nothing
that could be called a city; but dwelt in rude and temporary huts
wherever game and water were abundant. “The characteristic,” says
he, “of all these nations is the round shield, the short sword, and
obedience to their kings.”[326]
[Sidenote: Defeat the Emperor Decius, A.D. 257.]
Such were the people who, more than any others, caused the disruption
of the Roman empire. Devastating the country on all sides, as they
advanced through the Ukraine into Thrace, and having captured the city
of Philippopolis, and defeated and slain the Emperor Decius, they were
for a while checked by an ignominious peace, and by the payment of a
considerable sum in money by his successor, Gallus, which only showed
the weakness of the empire, and stimulated them to fresh attacks. The
province of Dacia, ceded to them by Aurelian, was one of the first
steps in advance they secured; for, though often repulsed with great
loss, their perseverance was indomitable, while they showed an aptitude
for war remarkable among men in other respects so ignorant; their
recovery from crushing defeats being often scarcely less glorious than
their victories. Thus, when joined with the Vandals in the expedition
that ended in the possession of Dacia, they soon made themselves
masters of the Black Sea. An enormous army needs an ample fleet; but it
would seem that the fearless courage of the Goths made up for want of
skill in the construction of their transport vessels. The natives of
the coasts of that sea had for centuries made use of very frail boats
for its navigation;[327] and there is no reason for supposing that the
Goths had better ships than Tacitus describes as on the Euxine in his
day. Speaking of a sudden invasion of Pontus, A.D. 69, that historian
says: “The barbarians even insolently scoured the sea, in hastily
constructed vessels of their own, called ‘cameræ,’ built with narrow
sides and broad bottoms, and joined together without fastenings of
brass and iron. Whenever the water is rough, they raise the bulwarks
with additional planks, according to the increasing height of the
waves, till the vessel is covered in like a house. Thus they roll about
amid the billows, and as they have a prow at both extremities alike,
and a convertible arrangement of oars, they may be paddled in one
direction or another, indifferently and without risk.”[328]
It was in such frail craft as these that the Goths committed themselves
to a sea with which they were wholly unacquainted, yet, under the
guidance of local and impressed mariners, they succeeded in surprising
the city of Trebizond, wherein immense treasures had been collected for
safety, its capture, with many of its merchants, being the reward of
their daring.
Seven years after obtaining possession of Dacia they were, however,
again driven from it by Probus; but the skill and courage of these
barbarous tribes were always conspicuous at sea; and in no instance
more so than in the case of a party of Franks, who had been settled
near the sea coast, and who, being suddenly seized with the desire of
returning to their homes, surprised a small fleet then on the Euxine,
and were thus enabled to carry out their plan. Unskilled in the art of
navigation, and unacquainted with any other except the Baltic and the
Black Seas, these adventurers made their way through the Dardanelles
into the Mediterranean, and, after sacking Syracuse and other towns,
boldly steered through the Straits of Gibraltar, entered the Atlantic
with a degree of hardihood almost unparalleled, and made a triumphant
passage to the Batavian or Frisian coasts.[329]
[Sidenote: Rebellion of Egypt, A.D. 273.]
Though repeatedly defeated, their successes, together with the steady
advance of other barbarian hordes from the north, were sufficient to
destroy the _prestige_ which had for centuries made Rome invincible. A
general spirit of revolt was now awakened in all the provinces. Even
Egypt, so long the most docile of the slaves of Rome, was aroused into
active rebellion by Firmus, a wealthy merchant of Alexandria, who,
after plundering that city at the head of a furious mob, maintained,
though for only sixty days, the imperial purple, published edicts,
and raised an army, supported, as he boasted vaingloriously, from the
profits of his paper trade.[330]
[Sidenote: Franks and Allemanni.]
The dangerous secret of the wealth and weakness of the empire once
clearly discerned, new swarms of barbarians, encouraged by the
successes of those who had gone before them, sprang into existence,
overran the northern districts, flooded Gaul and Spain, and carried
desolation and terror almost to the very walls of Rome. Of these the
most formidable were the Franks, or Freemen, who now occupied the
Rhenish frontier, and the Allemanni, a name now generally held to
imply a confederacy of many tribes of German origin. As in the case
of the Goths, their first successes were of short duration, and,
after three bloody battles, Aurelian was able to drive them out of
Italy, securing, at the same time, by the overthrow of Zenobia and
the destruction of Firmus, a short breathing time for the distracted
empire. But the policy now, though not for the first time, adopted by
the Roman generals, was not one likely to succeed against the hosts
now arrayed against the empire. The principle of building walls of
great size and length, which had failed in England and in Scotland,
failed even more conspicuously when adopted by Probus,[331] who, at
the head of his legions, still maintained vigorously the prowess and
the name of ancient Rome. His wall, two hundred miles in length, from
the Danube to the Rhine, could be of little real value against an
active and experienced enemy; indeed, Gibbon stated the truth when he
said, “The experience of the world has exposed the vain attempt of
fortifying an extensive tract of country.” Nor did Probus’s second
scheme of enlisting in the Roman armies large levies taken from tribes
but partially conquered, prove, as might have been anticipated, a
more effective source of security and strength. It must, indeed, have
been clear to any persons of observation, that no permanent stability
could be secured for a government which wasted its means by acts of
wanton and revolting extravagance, such as those which Gibbon has so
eloquently described in his “Decline and Fall” of the great empire.
The barbarians, ever on the alert, now discovered that there were
traitors within the Roman camps who gave fresh assistance to their
inroads. Such a traitor was Carausius, not, as Stukeley imagined,
a descendant of the blood royal of Britain, but a Dutch soldier of
fortune, of the tribe of the Menapii. Tampering with the fleet he
commanded in the name of Maximian, he crossed with it from Gessoriacum
(Boulogne), and, seizing on Britain, proclaimed himself Augustus
and struck money with his effigy. For seven years he maintained his
ill-gotten power, but, though at length murdered by his lieutenant,
Allectus, Carausius deserves some historical remembrance as the first
creator of a British-manned navy.
[Sidenote: A.D. 287.]
[Sidenote: The Veneti on the coast of Gaul.]
In the reign of Diocletian events somewhat similar occurred. The
Britons again revolted; Egypt was again the scene of fresh discord and
confusion, and though the various attempts to throw off the Roman yoke
still proved abortive, the general decline of intellectual power among
the Roman people became so apparent that fresh enemies arose against
her in almost every quarter. The Veneti, who, four centuries before,
had given Julius Cæsar[332] no little trouble ere he reduced them to
subjection, perceiving the weakness of Rome and the impunity with which
her territory had been ravaged by the Northern hordes, rose in arms
against her, and exercising an arbitrary dominion over the seas that
washed their coasts, exacted tribute from all strangers, and for a
while successfully bade defiance to Rome, whose mariners dreaded the
navigation of the Bay of Biscay.
[Sidenote: Constantinople founded, A.D. 323.]
[Sidenote: Its commercial advantages, and harbour.]
The reign, too, of Diocletian, who seems to have had an especial
dislike for Rome and the senate, saw the commencement of a new system
of imperial government, which, afterwards more fully developed by
Constantine, led to the removal of the chief seat of government to
Constantinople, a change which exerted a vast influence on commerce,
and essentially altered the course of navigation. The splendid
position of Constantinople, especially for all purposes of sea-borne
trade, has been fully noticed by every author who has treated of this
subject; and it seems probable that, when brought into communication
with the whole of Europe, by means of the railways now fast approaching
completion, it will rival in greatness any commercial city of the
continent. The new route to India by way of the Suez canal, of which
advantage will, no doubt, be taken by the establishment of a line
of steamers to Port Said, cannot fail to afford it such facilities
for becoming a great depôt for the produce of the East Indies, that
it will be the fault of its government and of its merchants if it
does not again assume and surpass the rank it held soon after its
re-construction by Constantine the Great. Gibbon’s description of its
position is as applicable now as ever.[333] “The imperial city,” he
remarks, “may be represented under that of an unequal triangle. The
obtuse point, which advances towards the east and the shores of Asia,
meets and repels the waves of the Thracian Bosphorus. The northern side
of the city is bounded by the harbour; and the southern is washed by
the Propontis, or Sea of Marmora: the basis of the triangle is opposed
to the west, and terminates the continent of Europe.”
“The epithet of ‘golden’ in ‘Golden Horn,’” he adds, “was expressive
of the riches which every wind wafted from the most distant countries
into the secure and capacious port of Constantinople. The river Lycus,
formed by the conflux of two little streams, pours into the harbour a
perpetual supply of fresh water, which serves to cleanse the bottom,
and to invite the periodical shoals of fish to seek their retreat in
that convenient recess. As the vicissitudes of the tides are scarcely
felt in those seas, the constant depth of the harbour allows goods to
be landed on the quays without the assistance of boats; and it has been
observed that, in many places, the largest vessels may rest their prows
against the houses, while the sterns are floating on the water. From
the mouth of the Lycus to that of the harbour this arm of the Bosphorus
is more than seven miles in length. The entrance is about five hundred
yards broad, and a chain could be occasionally drawn across it to guard
the port and city from the attack of a hostile navy.”
[Sidenote: The extent of its ancient trade.]
The Hellespont, in its winding course, is about sixty miles in length,
with an average breadth of three miles; its lower end, where Xerxes is
believed to have built his bridge of boats, is celebrated as the spot
where Leander, in ancient times, is said to have swum across, and which
has, in modern days, been certainly so crossed by Byron,[334] Ekenhead,
Colquhoun, and others. Altogether Constantinople would seem to have
been formed by nature as an important entrepôt for commerce; and this
was peculiarly the case in ancient times, as caravan routes placed it
in communication, not merely with the cities of Mesopotamia, but also
with those on the Indus and the Ganges, thus securing for it the trade
with the Euxine and the Caspian, and even the silk trade of China.
With the Bosphorus and the Hellespont for its gates, whoever secures
possession of these important passages can always shut them against a
naval enemy, and open them to the peaceable fleets of commerce.
[Sidenote: Black Sea and Sea of Azov.]
Although the trade of the Black Sea was considerable, even in remote
times, it greatly increased after the foundation of Constantinople.
Across this sea a large portion of the goods of Asia found their
way; while gold from Colchis; and from the surrounding coasts, corn,
leather, flax, honey, wax, flocks of sheep and goats, furs, medicinal
herbs, and timber suitable for ship-building, found a ready mart in the
markets of the new city. The fisheries of the Euxine and the Bosphorus
still maintained their ancient reputation. Sturgeon and tunny-fish,
abundant in the Black Sea,[335] had, of old, fetched excessive prices
in Greece and Italy, and, under the Greek emperors, contributed largely
to the revenues of the state. The city of Byzantium, also, raised large
sums annually from dues levied on shipping passing through the Straits.
The _Palus Mæotis_, or Sea of Azov, and the Tauric Chersonesus, now the
Crimea, became, after the time of Constantine, places of importance;
while Theodosia (now Kaffa) and Tanais (the present city of Azov) grew
to be of great commercial value when occupied by the Genoese. Of these,
Azov, Panticapæum (Kertch), and Odessa (probably at or near the ancient
Olbia), have retained an extensive trade in corn, wool, and tallow,
to the present time, the latter being now the most enterprising
commercial port on the shores of the Black Sea.
[Sidenote: The trading vessels on.]
The rude vessels the Goths used in crossing the Black Sea were probably
fair specimens of the ordinary craft in which the early maritime
commerce along its shores was conducted. The largest of the corn
ships employed within the Euxine and Azov seldom exceeded in capacity
from two hundred and fifty to three hundred and fifty quarters of
wheat, or from fifty to seventy tons. Some of those which passed on
to the Mediterranean may have been larger, for then, as now, there
was considerable difference (though not nearly so great as in our
own day) in the size of merchant vessels. It was not, however, until
Constantinople was founded, and revived the trade with Egypt, that
ships of great dimensions were constructed there, specially for the
purposes of commerce. Gibbon[336] has described as “canoes,” consisting
of a single tree hollowed out, the vessels used on the Black Sea by the
Goths in their descent on Trebizond; but no one will believe that, with
all their rash bravery, they actually trusted themselves to boats so
small as this view suggests; nor, indeed, does the passage in Strabo to
which Gibbon has referred, imply all that he has deduced from it. Many
vessels, vastly superior in build to the simple monoxyle, must have
existed; though their construction may easily have been so inartistic
that they were scarcely safer than canoes.
[Sidenote: Oppressive taxation.]
To increase as rapidly as possible the size and magnificence of the
new capital, the opulent senators of Rome and the great landowners
or merchants of the eastern provinces were, at first, induced to make
it their place of residence by the assignment to them, on the part of
Constantine, of many of the palaces and of the costly mansions he had
erected. In time, however, such encouragements became unnecessary and
were gradually abolished. The court, and the fact that Constantinople
had become the chief seat of government, attracted to it the wealthiest
inhabitants of the provinces; while others were induced to dwell
there through motives of interest, business, or pleasure, so that, in
less than a century from the time of its foundation, Constantinople
rivalled, if it did not equal, Rome herself, in population and in
wealth. Nor does it seem to have been much less extravagant or less
luxurious than the Western capital in life and morals, for the
magnificence of the first Cæsars was largely imitated by its founder.
The natural results followed in the form of an oppressive system of
taxation, which fell heavily upon the trading portion of the community.
Tributes of corn were exacted from Egypt, and the poorest traders, the
industrious manufacturers, and the most obscure retail dealer, were,
with the rich merchants, alike obliged to admit the officers of the
revenue into a partnership of their gains.
This general tax on industry, which was collected every fourth year,
appears to have caused such lamentation, that the approach of the
period for collecting it “was announced by the tears and terrors of
the citizens, who were often compelled, by the impending scourge, to
embrace the most abhorred and unnatural methods of procuring the sum
at which their property had been assessed.”[337] From the nature of
this tax, it may be inferred that it was arbitrary in its distribution,
while, from the rigorous mode of its collection, it could hardly fail
to be both unequal and oppressive in its operation. The income tax
of our own time has been frequently denounced for its inquisitorial
character and the irregularity of the burden imposed on different
sections of the people; and if it be difficult now to ascertain, in
various branches of trade, the actual amount of a trader’s gains, it
must have been far more so in ancient days, when the precarious profits
of art or labour were capable of only a discretionary valuation.
[Sidenote: The laws affecting shipping.]
[Sidenote: Constans and Julian.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 527.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 364 and 375.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 379-395.]
It is certain, however, that laws pressing heavily on the merchant
were now greatly modified in favour of those who followed maritime
pursuits—a remarkable fact, as contrasted with the former legislation
of Rome and the contempt in which seafaring persons had been previously
held. The emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius exempted the
ship-owners and the sailors who navigated their vessels, from the
payment of taxes, on the ground that the merchant was enriched by
foreign trade, while the mariners had all the trouble and risk. The
fifth title of the thirteenth book of the Theodosian code referred
exclusively to their interests; while the ninth law under that head,
enacted by the emperors Constans and Julian, further shelters them
from personal injuries and protects them “from all costs of violent
proceedings, as well as extortions, ordinary and extraordinary.”
Nearly two hundred years afterwards the Emperor Justinian considered
it politic to incorporate this law into his celebrated code;[338]
the same exemptions being granted by that emperor, in his fourth and
fifth law under the same table as the Theodosian code. The laws of
the emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, embodied in the Code
of Justinian, likewise forbid, on pain of death, that any one should
insult the persons of mariners, while the special enactments of
Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius treated them with the like respect.
The same code furnishes another law of Gratian, Valentinian, and
Theodosius, wherein these privileges are confirmed and ordered to be
continued for ever.
Such extraordinary privileges conferred on the seafaring population
of the empire—privileges unknown in any other country or in any other
age—were probably enacted in order to revive the nautical spirit which
had been so long practically treated with contempt. No doubt, special
bounties were needed to ensure the import of corn and the construction
of vessels adapted to this purpose. Indeed, the necessity of a constant
and steady supply of food sufficient to meet the wants of the people,
and to prevent the tumults which too frequently arose whenever there
was a prospect of a scarcity of corn, sufficiently accounts for the
encouragement afforded to this particular trade. But in the later days
it was found necessary to create laws to raise further in the social
scale the seafaring classes. Indeed this seems the only reason why the
emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius should have issued
ordinances to prevent persons adopting the sea as a profession who
had previously exercised any mean and disgraceful employment;[339]
endeavouring thus, so far as laws could do so, to counteract the
deep-rooted prejudice against seafaring pursuits. By the decrees of
Constantine and Julian, sailors were even raised to the dignity of
knighthood; while Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian enjoined that
persons filling the functions of mariners should be admitted into the
society of men of the most honourable and aristocratic parentage, and
even into the senate.
[Sidenote: Produce of certain lands applied to the sea service.]
But while the Roman laws enacted at the new capital conceded so many
privileges to persons who adopted the sea as a profession, the state
also required the possessors of certain lands (making this, indeed, the
condition of the grant) to perform the functions of public mariners;
but this arrangement was so contrived that actual personal service
was not enforced, although the expense of substitutes was charged
on the lands. The nature of this scheme is fully explained in the
Theodosian Code,[340] where the rights of the state and of the parties
are defined. When these lands were sold, the law enforced the same
obligations upon the purchasers; and the emperors Valentinian and
Valens enacted, that if they passed into the hands of strangers, they
should revert to “mariners,” on conditions regulated by the experience
and practice of the previous fifty years. On the other hand, those
persons who were employed in the service of the state were not
permitted, in such voyages, to carry any private merchandise; moreover,
the owners of vessels engaged in certain trades were required to hold
them at the disposal of the state. In spite, however, of all these
laws, the encouragement proposed or provided by them came too late.
[Sidenote: Neglect and decline of commerce, and sufferings of the
people.] But while a new life was being gradually infused into the
empire by the creation of Constantinople, overgrown wealth and luxury,
with the evils following in their train, indolence, waste, and
extravagance, were only too surely working out the downfall of old
Rome. Capital, which ought to have been used as a provision for fresh
channels of employment for an increasing population, was devoted to
pleasure and folly; while no middle class arose to create fresh capital
by its industry and to supply the place of the annual waste. In no
age or country have the extremes of wealth and poverty been so great;
even the provincial merchants came not to the capital to increase its
wealth, but rather to waste their own substance. They sought to rival,
in display, the ancient noblesse; they rented their palaces to enjoy
their society, and were ready to spend fortunes derived from commerce
to win a ready entrance into their salons.
So early as the Augustan age, Livy and Pliny have alluded to the
then enormous accumulation of wealth in Rome; the former describing
the mass of treasure accumulated there as something fabulous;[341]
the latter stating that there were side-boards in his time groaning
under more solid silver than had been transported by Scipio from
vanquished Carthage. Besides all this removable wealth in the shape
of plate, there was, no doubt, a still greater supply in jewels and
precious stones, in gold ornaments and in the current metallic coin
of the empire. Unlike their poor and invincible ancestors, who were
not distinguished from the meanest of the soldiers by the delicacy of
their food or the splendour of their apparel, the nobles of Rome, in
its latter days, were not merely fond of the most ostentatious display,
but magnified the rent rolls of their estates, too frequently living in
accordance with their imaginary rather than with their actual incomes.
The “Satires” of Juvenal portray but too distinctly the corruption of
manners which had in his time (the reign of Domitian) extended to the
female portion of the population.[342]
History, it has been truly said, repeats itself; and the reading of
the lengthened description Ammianus has given of the extravagance of
Rome reminds us of too many of the gay assemblies so frequently met
with in our own time. Nor is his description of the manners of the
Roman nobility wholly unlike what may too frequently be now seen in
the conduct of those persons who measure their importance by their
wealth and gay equipages, or who, by their rapid acquisition of large
fortunes, and their method of dealing with them, used to be known in
England as “Nabobs,” but who now bear a less flattering name.
While such was the state of the upper, the middle classes, who
derived their subsistence from their skill and industry, and who, in
all communities, constitute the mainstay of a nation, had become
comparatively insignificant, the still lower orders being reduced, in
most instances, to abject poverty. Large allowances of bread were daily
served out at the public expense; and, in one year, three millions six
hundred and twenty-eight thousand pounds of bacon are said to have been
distributed to the needy masses, as well as oil, indispensable alike
for the lamp and the bath, to the extent of three hundred thousand
English gallons; but the poor citizens had become almost as indolent
and depraved as their rulers. In the baths, constructed in every part
of the city with imperial magnificence for the indiscriminate use
of the senators and the people, the meanest Romans idled away their
time. For a small copper coin[343] they could there purchase the daily
enjoyment of a scene of pomp and luxury which might well have excited
the envy of princes. Baths, the extent of which we can now scarcely
comprehend, surrounded with granite pillars from the quarries of Egypt
and adorned with the precious green marble of Numidia, with streams
of ever-running hot water from mouths of bright and massive silver,
were the hourly resort of dirty and ragged plebeians without shoes or
mantles.
[Sidenote: Siege of Rome by Alaric and the Goths, A.D. 408.]
Such was the state of the western capital of the once proud and
powerful Roman empire, when the Gothic army first appeared before it.
The barbarian Goths had greatly improved in discipline since they made
their first invasion of Italy; they were well organised, and under the
absolute control of Alaric, a commander in whom they had a confidence
approaching to devotion. Their first action against the city itself was
rather in the nature of a blockade, for they cut off all communication
with it by land, while they held the mouths of the Tiber; hence, in
spite of their rage and humiliation, the Romans saw at once that they
had no alternative but submission, and it is to the credit of the
victorious leader of the Goths that the terms he imposed were neither
severe nor extravagant.
From Rome Alaric continued his march into Tuscany, where vast numbers
of enslaved barbarians flocked to his standard; so that with the
reinforcement of a large body of Goths and Huns, who had fought their
way from the banks of the Danube, he had now, under his command,
an army sufficient to overawe the whole of Italy. By this time the
_prestige_ of Rome had gone for ever; she was now destined to become
the frequent prey of the barbarians of the north, till the tribes of
Germany and Scythia, who had so long coveted her wealth, at length
accomplished her destruction.
[Sidenote: A.D. 409.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 413.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 427-439.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 409-426.]
The first half of the century which saw Rome blockaded was full of
events, all tending towards her final overthrow. Spain, separated from
the enemies of Rome by her insular position and the Pyrenean mountains,
had been almost undisturbed for four hundred years by foreign invaders
or civil wars. It was her turn now. Ten months after Alaric’s attack
on the capital, the Vandals and other barbarous tribes found their way
thither, and plundered her rich and prosperous cities, her valuable
mines, and her fruitful plains. Soon afterwards Africa revolted; the
consul, Heraclian, assumed the title of emperor, and prepared a vast
fleet for the invasion of Italy; but though he failed in his designs,
Carthage and the whole of Africa were prepared, by this outbreak, for
subjugation by the Vandals under Genseric, their able and energetic
leader. Revolutions arose in Gaul. Its most opulent provinces became
the prey of the barbarians, and its fairest and most fertile lands fell
into the hands of rapacious strangers, and were assigned for the use
of their families, their slaves, and their cattle. About the same time
the regular forces were withdrawn from Britain, and the defenceless
islanders abandoned to the Welsh and Scotch semi-savages and to the
Saxon invaders. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that, reduced as
she was by constant wars and invasions, distracted by the folly and
weakness of her own people, and despoiled of her best provinces, the
Imperial City itself fell an easy prey to the Vandal hosts of Genseric.
[Sidenote: Genseric.]
Having made himself master of Carthage, and having confiscated all
the estates belonging to the Roman nobles and senators, Genseric at
once resolved to build a fleet for the blockade of the Tiber, and to
treat the Imperial City as she had treated Carthage. His bold resolve
was executed with steady and active perseverance. The woods on Mount
Atlas afforded an inexhaustible supply of timber suitable for his
purpose, while the Moors and Africans, alike skilled in the arts of
ship-building and navigation, were ready to execute commands which held
out the hope of unlimited plunder. Nor, indeed, was Genseric without
other and certain inducements to act at once on the plan he had
proposed to himself. In the first place, he could hardly have failed
to know that since the invasion of Alaric, the nobles and senators of
Rome had sunk into their former state of apathy and indolence; that
they were giving no heed to the dangers besetting their capital, while
they had taken no warning from the losses they had sustained by the
frequent invasions of the barbarians. “Sufficient for the day is the
evil thereof” had become their maxim and that of the Emperor Maximus,
who, however incapable of administering an empire, might at least have
ascertained the extent and the object of the naval preparations on the
opposite shore of Africa. Yet, like his nobles, he was content to await
in luxurious ease the approach of the enemy, careless alike of any
means of defence, of negotiation, or of retreat.[344]
[Sidenote: His capture of Rome.]
Within three days of a popular tumult which closed in ignominy the
life of another feeble emperor, Genseric advanced from the port of
Ostia to the gates of the defenceless city. An unarmed procession,
headed by the bishop and clergy, met him and implored his mercy. But,
though the barbarian conqueror promised to spare the unresisting
multitude, to protect the buildings from fire, and to exempt the
captives from torture, Rome and its inhabitants were given over to
the licentious mercies of his army—a tardy but terrible revenge for
the Roman sack of Carthage. During fourteen days and nights there was
one almost uninterrupted scene of plunder and sacrilege, and all that
remained of public or private wealth, of sacred or profane treasure,
was transported to the vessels of the Vandal king. The “gold table”
and “the golden candlestick with seven branches,” which, three and a
half centuries before, Titus had carried away from Jerusalem, were
now transferred, by a barbarian conqueror, from Rome to Africa. The
gorgeous decorations of the Christian churches, and of the Pagan
temples, constituted a rich prize to the host of Genseric. Having
time to collect and ships to transport any removable article of value
in the capital, the conqueror spared neither church nor temple,
dwelling-house, nor palace. The magnificent furniture and massive plate
with which the palace of the emperor was furnished, were gathered up
with disorderly rapine; even brass and copper were not beneath the
notice of the Vandals, and were, whenever found, as carefully removed
as articles of gold and silver. The Empress Eudoxia herself, at whose
instigation, it is said, Genseric had been led to undertake his
expedition, was compelled, with her daughters, to follow as a captive
in the train of the conqueror, and to expiate, during a seven years’
exile in Africa, a treason of which her subjects alone had any ground
of complaint.[345]
[Sidenote: Rise of Constantinople.]
When Rome fell, the sovereign of the eastern empire claimed, and long
maintained, the fictitious title of Emperor of the Romans, adopting
the hereditary names of Cæsar and Augustus, and declaring himself the
legitimate successor of the imperial rulers of Rome; and, indeed,
if mere splendour was enough to support such a claim, the emperors
of Constantinople were well justified in all their assertions. The
palaces of Constantinople rivalled, if they did not surpass, the
gorgeousness of Rome in her proudest days; while in barbaric “pomp and
circumstance,” and in their Oriental and tawdry magnificence, they
unquestionably stood alone. Moreover, the emperor at Constantinople
was inaccessible alike to the complaints of his own people and to the
menaces of his enemies, the peninsular position of the city rendering
it during many centuries impregnable against the attack of foes from
without, so that the barbarian armies which had swept Europe and Africa
from end to end, turned aside from a fortress no military knowledge or
skill then available could have reduced.
For some time it would seem that Genseric remained undisturbed, for
Leo, the eastern emperor, was little disposed to avenge his brother
of the west. At length, however, he was obliged, or persuaded, to
join Egypt and Italy in an attempt to deliver the Mediterranean from
the sway of the Vandals, Genseric having become as oppressive on land
as he was formidable at sea. By extraordinary exertions a vast fleet
was collected, chiefly, as the historians inform us, at the cost of
the emperor himself; but it was feebly commanded, and its destruction
inevitable as soon as it should come into collision with so veteran a
general as Genseric. Though it would seem that, at the first landing
near Carthage, the attack on the Vandals was successful, their wily
leader, obtaining from the commander of the Greeks a hollow truce, and
watching the opportunity of a favourable change of the wind, suddenly
launched his fire-ships on his unsuspecting foes. More than half their
fleet was destroyed, and Genseric was again ready to complete the
final destruction of Rome.[346] “Leave the determination to the winds,”
was the favourite reply of the Vandal king when asked whither he meant
to steer; “they will transport us to the guilty coast whose inhabitants
have provoked Divine justice.”
During the fifty years that intervened between the fall of the Roman
empire of the West, and the memorable reign of Justinian, Italy revived
and flourished under the good and wise government of a Gothic king,
who, with abilities equal to those of Genseric, had few of his vices
and none of his predatory habits. During that period, also, the vast
changes which had taken place in the ancient provinces of Rome had
become consolidated, and out of these had arisen various independent
nations destined to occupy a conspicuous position in the maritime
commerce of the world. The rude tribes of the North had, to some extent
at least, been blended with the more civilized and refined inhabitants
of the South; and an admixture of races had taken place, which, though
adverse for a while to the cause of learning, was of solid advantage to
the people, tending, on the one hand, to save from entire annihilation
the little refinement still preserved, and, on the other, softening
and materially improving the hardier and ruder tribes. Constantinople,
undisturbed by foreign invaders, reaped the advantages of a prosperous
commerce, and when Justinian ascended the throne, was one of the most
important commercial cities in the world.
[Sidenote: A.D. 537.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 547.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 553.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 728.]
[Sidenote: Customs’ duties.]
Fortunate in the choice of his generals, and supported by eminent
lawyers, the thirty-eight years’ reign of Justinian was equally
distinguished by his conquests and by his laws, to the maritime
portion of which we have already referred. In his reign, the empire
of the Vandals in Africa was overthrown, and the kingdom of the
Ostro-Goths, in Italy, destroyed by Belisarius and Narses; while
Rome was restored to the Romans, and the chief power placed in the
hands of the descendants of its original population. In their hands
it remained, generally, in a state of peace till, nearly two hundred
years afterwards, it became independent under the rule of the Popes.
But the expenses of the many public buildings Justinian erected—among
which must be mentioned the great church (now the Mosque) of Sta.
Sophia—together with those incurred in his many wars, obliged him
to impose several new and vexatious imposts on his people. Beyond a
supply of corn, free of cost, for the use of the army and capital, he
levied heavy customs’ dues on all vessels and merchandise passing the
Bosphorus and Hellespont, which had hitherto been open to the freedom
of trade.
Happily for the people, the empire of the East possessed vast natural
advantages, which, in some measure, counteracted the injurious effects
of heavy taxation. Blessed by nature with superior soil, situation,
and climate, her people could bear burdens which would have ruined
the inhabitants of countries less favourably situated. Embracing the
nations Rome had conquered, from the Adriatic to the frontiers of
Æthiopia and Persia, the capital of the East had the means within
herself, in spite of tariffs, apparently ruinous, of creating and
maintaining an extensive and lucrative inland and maritime commerce.
Egypt still largely supplied her with corn, and afforded many other
advantages; commerce gradually extended itself along the coast of
the Mediterranean; and as her own wants in food and dress were many,
these combined, afforded a large and varied field for employment. The
Asiatic love of dress was duly—if not unduly—exhibited by the ladies
of Constantinople; and if Aurelian complained that a pound of silk at
Rome cost twelve ounces of gold, we may well believe that Justinian saw
with concern the Persians intercepting and obtaining a monopoly of this
important trade, and the wealth of his subjects continually drained by
a nation of fire-worshippers.
[Sidenote: Silk trade.]
An unexpected event, however, afforded Justinian the means of
cultivating in his own dominions that much prized article. Christian
missionaries were then, as they have often been since, the harbingers
of commerce, as well as of peace and good-will towards all men. Some of
them who had settled at Ceylon, or, perhaps, more probably on the coast
of Malabar, were induced, with a view of proselytising the Pagans,
to follow the footsteps of trade to the extremities of Asia. Two of
their number remained in China, and, in the course of their missionary
occupations, observed that the common dress of the Chinese consisted of
silk, at the same time noticing the myriads of silkworms, whence the
raw material was produced. Having carefully collected a large number
of the eggs in a hollow cane, they conveyed them to Constantinople,
and, imparting their discovery to Justinian, were liberally rewarded,
and encouraged to pursue the propagation of the valuable insect.
Under their direction the eggs were hatched at the proper season by
the artificial heat of dung; and the worms thus produced living and
labouring in a foreign climate, Europe ceased to be dependent for
her supply of this now necessary article on the chances of war or of
Asiatic caprice.[347]
[Sidenote: Naval expedition of Justinian against the Vandals, A.D. 533,
and conquest of Carthage.]
But the mind of Justinian was more occupied by foreign conquests than
by commerce. Among his earliest maritime expeditions may be ranked the
invasion of Africa and the overthrow of the Vandals, the preparations
for which were not unworthy of the last contest between Rome and
Carthage. Five hundred transports, navigated by twenty thousand
mariners of Egypt, Cilicia, and Ionia, were collected in the harbour
of Constantinople. If the smallest of these are computed at thirty,
and the largest at five hundred tons, the average will supply an
allowance liberal, if not profuse, of about one hundred thousand tons,
for the reception of thirty-five thousand soldiers and sailors, and
five thousand horses, with military stores and provisions sufficient
for a three months’ voyage. When the fleet lay moored ready for sea
before the gardens of the palace, the Patriarch, amid great pomp and
solemnity, pronounced his benediction for its safety and success; and
when the emperor had signified his last commands, the expedition, at
the sound of a trumpet, got under way. It was attended with the most
complete success. Carthage became subject to Justinian; and the Romans
were again masters of the sea—a position they maintained until a more
formidable power arose in the East, which declared war against the
empire both by land and by sea.
[Sidenote: Rise of the Muhammedan power, A.D. 622.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 633.]
It is not our province to trace the progress of that power, nor indeed
of that of any nation, except as may be necessary to furnish an idea of
the extent of its maritime commerce, so far as this can be ascertained
from the limited sources of information now extant. Muhammed had not
only introduced a new religion, but his warlike successors propagated
their newly accepted faith by the sword with a success unparalleled
in the history of the world. Nor were their exploits confined to the
land. The Arabians, distinguished by the name of Saracens (that is,
specifically “the _Easterns_”),[348] who, from the earliest period
of history, were skilled as navigators, and daring as seamen, had
by this time become not merely an important but a powerful maritime
people. Masters of Persia and of the whole of the Arabian Gulf, the
“true believers,” soon extended their conquests into Syria, nominally
to abolish “infidelity,” but with a clear eye to the advantages of
commerce.
[Sidenote: Rapid conquests;]
[Sidenote: of Jerusalem, A.D. 636;]
[Sidenote: of Alexandria, A.D. 638;]
[Sidenote: and of Africa, A.D. 647.]
Hatred of the Christians, love of spoil, and contempt for danger were
the ruling passions of the Saracens; nor could the prospect of instant
death shake their religious confidence, nor stay a course of conquest,
on all occasions made in “the name of the most merciful God.” Bozrah
and Damascus soon fell into their hands, as well as Abyla, thirty miles
distant, where the produce and manufactures of the country were then
collected at a great annual fair. Three years afterwards Jerusalem
was besieged and taken, and the Syrian seaports captured. The
possession of Tyre, not yet wholly obliterated, and of the province
of Cilicia, secured them the command of the whole of the eastern
Mediterranean. Extending their conquests to the shores of the Euxine,
they threatened—indeed, for a short time, besieged—Constantinople,
though in this, and in subsequent attempts, they failed with heavy
loss.[349] These facts show how early in their history they were able
to extend their conquering and marauding expeditions both by land and
by sea. Egypt was an easy and rich prey to them. But Alexandria, still
a great and flourishing city, offered the most strenuous resistance
to the invaders. Abundantly supplied, and easily replenished with the
means of subsistence and defence, her numerous inhabitants fought for
the dearest of human rights, religion and property; and if the Emperor
Heraclius had been awake to the public distress, fresh armies might
have been poured into the harbour before the fleet of the Saracens
had taken up their position before it. But the power of the Infidels
prevailed, and after a siege of fourteen months, and the loss of
twenty-three thousand of their men, the standard of Muhammed was
planted on the walls of the capital of Egypt. In ten years more Africa,
from the Nile to the Atlantic Ocean, fell into their hands. Shortly
afterwards Cyprus, Rhodes, and Sicily were taken; Spain overrun, except
the Asturias and Biscay; and Capua and Genoa became their possession by
conquest.
[Sidenote: Sieges of Constantinople, A.D. 668-675.]
Although it cost the Saracens a siege of fourteen months, and a heavy
loss of men, before they were able to take Alexandria, Constantinople
from its stronger position offered a still more determined resistance.
In the first siege thirty thousand Moslems are said to have been slain;
but the destruction which awaited them on the occasion of the second
was by far the heaviest reverse their arms had as yet sustained.
Commanded by their ablest general, at the head of one hundred and
twenty thousand men, they had deemed success certain, and little
anticipated the serious resistance the city really made. The Greeks
were, however, resolved at all costs to force back these terrible
invaders, who had plundered almost with impunity so many lands. All
persons not provided with the means of subsistence for a year’s siege
were ordered to leave the city, the public granaries and arsenals
were abundantly replenished, the walls restored and strengthened, and
engines for casting stones, or darts of fire, were stationed along
the ramparts or in vessels of war, of which an additional number
were hastily constructed. The Greeks, on perceiving that the Saracen
fleet had been largely reinforced from Egypt and Syria, were at first
induced to offer the large ransom of a piece of gold for each person
in the city; but, on the contemptuous rejection of this proposal, the
Muhammedan chief imagining he had the game in his own hands, they
determined on a most daring expedient to get rid of the fleet that
threatened their destruction. As it slowly approached, with a fair wind
and over a smooth sea, overshadowing the Straits like a moving forest,
the Greeks suddenly launched fire-ships[350] into the midst of the
dense mass, and involved in one general and terrible conflagration
their own and every vessel of the invading squadrons. The destruction
of the Saracenic Armada was complete.
The fate of the Saracen army, though not quite so disastrous, was one
of heavy loss and great suffering, materially increased by a severe
frost which covered the ground with snow for more than one hundred
days. In the spring the survivors, aided with new levies of troops from
Africa, made a fresh attempt to storm the city; but, on this proving as
futile as their former efforts had been, they at length withdrew, and
for seven hundred years more Constantinople was spared the desecration
of the Infidel flag.
FOOTNOTES:
[325] Much confusion has been made by various writers on the subject
of the Goths and Vandals, and, perhaps, by the majority of them, these
tribes have been somewhat carelessly classed together. The real fact
is, they were two distinct branches of the one great nation of the
Suevi. The distinction of Ostro (or Eastern) and Visi (or Western)
Goths was made in the third century, when they broke into Dacia. Those
from Mecklenburg and Pomerania were called Visi-Goths; those from south
Prussia and north-west Poland took the name of Ostro-Goths.
[326] Tacit. De Germanis, c. 43.
[327] The Ukraine and Black Sea boats of the middle ages resembled in
most respects, but with little or no improvement, those of more ancient
times. They usually had ten or fifteen oars of a side, and rowed
faster than the Turkish galleys. They had one mast, which carried an
ill-shaped sail, used only in fine weather, as their crews preferred
to row when it blew hard, and when, to prevent the waves from washing
on board, they formed temporary bulwarks of reeds, which were more
conveniently carried than planks. If about to undertake a hostile
expedition by sea, it was not uncommon to employ at once from five
to six thousand Cossacks skilled in seafaring matters, to construct
the necessary number of boats, and as sixty hands could complete one
in a fortnight, they could finish at least two hundred of them in a
month, well-armed and ready for action. In these frail craft, the hardy
mariners of the north frequently crossed the whole extent of the Black
Sea, sometimes performing the voyage from the Borysthenes to Anatolia
in from thirty-six to forty hours.
[328] Tacit. Hist. iii. 47. Strabo, xi. c. 12, notices the same native
boats, to which, like Tacitus, he gives the name of “cameræ,” or
“house-boats.” They carried, on an average, twenty-five men each.
[329] Gibbon, ch. xii. Zosimus, i. p. 66. Panegyr. Vet. v. 18.
[330] Ibid. ch. x. Vopiscus, ap. Hist. Aug. Script. pp. 220-242.
[331] Gibbon, ch. xii.
[332] Cæsar, Bell. Gall. iii. 8.
[333] Gibbon, ch. xvii.
[334]
“He could, perhaps, have pass’d the Hellespont,
As once (a feat on which ourselves we prided)
Leander, Mr. Ekenhead, and I did.”
BYRON, “Don Juan,” cant. ii. 105.
[335] Plin. ix. 15. Horat. ii. Sat. v. 44. Ovid, in Halieut. v. 98.
[336] Gibbon, ch. xxvi.
[337] Gibbon, ch. xvii.
[338] Cod. Justinian, bk. ii. tit. i. sec. 3. By this code six per
cent. was pronounced to be the ordinary and legal standard of interest;
eight was allowed for the convenience of manufacturers and merchants,
while twelve was granted to nautical insurance.
[339] Theodosian Code, bk. xiii. tit. v. secs. 14, 16, and 18.
[340] Book xiii. tit. vi. secs. 5-10.
[341] Livy, xxx. 45. Plin. xxxiii. 50. Gibbon, ch. xxxi., quoting from
Ammianus Marcellinus.
[342] Juvenal, Sat. iii., and passim.
[343] About half of a farthing. Horat. i. Sat. iii. 136. Juvenal, Sat.
vi. 146.
[344] Gibbon, ch. xxvi.
[345] Gibbon, ch. xxxii.
[346] Procop. Bell. Vandal, 1.
[347] Gibbon, c. 40. Procop. Gothic. iv. c. 17. Anced. c. 25: Theoph.
Byzant. ap. Photium.
[348] _Al Sherki._
[349] Gibbon, vol. ix. ch. 51, p. 425.
[350] The Greek fire was prepared chiefly from _naphtha_, with which
there was mixed sulphur and pitch, extracted from evergreen firs. The
admixture, when ignited, produced a fierce and obstinate flame, which
burned with equal vehemence in every direction, and, instead of being
extinguished, was nourished and quickened on the application of water.
Sand, urine, or vinegar, were the only known applications which could
damp its fury; the Greeks styled it appropriately the _liquid_ or
_maritime_ fire. For the annoyance of the enemy, it was employed either
by sea or by land, and with equal effect in battles or in sieges.
Sometimes it was poured from the ramparts of a besieged city from large
boilers, or launched in red-hot balls of stone or iron, or darted in
arrows and javelins, twisted round with flax or tow which had been
soaked in this inflammable oil. On other occasions it was deposited
in fire-ships, and thence often, by some unexplained contrivance,
blown through long tubes of copper, which were planted on the bow of a
galley, and fancifully shaped into the mouths of savage monsters, that
seemed to vomit a stream of liquid and consuming fire. Its composition
was jealously concealed, and the Greeks terrified their enemies, not
merely by the fire itself, but by the reports currently believed that
its knowledge had been revealed, by an angel, to the first and greatest
of the Constantines for the special use of the people of the eastern
portion of the Roman empire. The secret was kept by them for more than
four hundred years.