Trump and the role of executive versus ceremonial rulers

During the last US presidential elections several pundits expressed concerns over whether Trump represented a returning trend towards the populist and authoritarian politicians that took over Europe and Latin America for several decades. Honestly, I do not believe such reasons for alarm, since the US has constitutional checks and balances in the Senate and Congress that should counteract a President that goes too far in his agenda.

However, for me the greatest surprise of the election was that some of the promises of Trump are so unrealistic that they sound a bit like the projects of ancient Roman emperors or Chinese rulers. After all, it must be in the mind of many that the proposed Mexican wall would be many times bigger than Hadrian’s Wall and quite comparable in size to the Chinese wall.

The fact that so many candidates in different countries decide to go for the election of head of state for reasons of fame and prestige with vague slogans like “make the country great again” makes me think that there are some advantages to countries in which the maximum head of state plays a mere ceremonial role. The reason is that the head of state is required to be a part of many ceremonies, such as receiving other heads of state, which can distract him from the harder tasks of ruling. Therefore some countries elect a head of state which has mostly a ceremonial function, while keeping some core powers that can be used to balance abuses from others (such as being able to dismiss a dysfunctional government and calling for new elections). The President gets to keep fame and the right to major speeches during all the important holidays, while the real decision power and unpleasant details such as negotiating a parliamentary majority are left to a prime minister or head of government.

A good thing about this is that candidates that are passionate about fame, but bored by the actual negotiations of real politics run for the Presidential election and get the right to do their harmless speech a few times a year. Politicians who actually have a project for the country will run for Prime Minister and get a less prestigious role, but a much more relevant one and with all the onerous tasks of negotiations and administration. This could be seen as Political Economy case of a separating equilibrium – offer two different contracts to politicians and each candidate will choose the role that suits them best. If America had such a system, then they could have fame-seeking Trump as President and Hillary as Prime Minister.

Curiously, the Western Roman Empire had learned this before their demise in the 5th century. After Theodosius, his descendants became prestigious Emperors with a glory similar to the Pope. However, the real source of power lay with the magister militum, which was a professional general in charge of the army plus negotiating taxation, administration and budgets.

Halloween: My favorite word in Portuguese means Sorrow

One word for the day of the lost, the departed, the abandoned and the grieving.

All languages are special but the saying goes that one’s feelings are always stronger in one’s native language. Language theory says that different cultures add more words to their vocabulary according to the objects and feelings that are more frequently used by the people. As one word becomes too much in use, its meaning is deemed to be too general and people create more specific words to denote more precise meanings and create a more complete communication. Say, for example the word computer originated in the English/American culture which created such objects first, but, as the term became too widespread, new words appeared to differentiate objects with different usages: computers became desktops, laptops, playstations, notebooks, readers, smartphones and smartwatches. Words are also "borrowed" from other cultures with whom we have trade (for example, "boutique" or "rouge" are borrowed from French). Some words come into disuse and disappear or "die" from the vocabulary, remaining perhaps only as archaisms, left to poems, novels, dictionaries and museums.

Well, the same principle applies for the feelings or immaterial ideas that each culture expresses. Cultures where people more often feel nostalgia, happiness, gloom or indecision will create more words to denote more specific emotions. If a culture stops expressing certain emotions or discusses them less often, then the words for such emotions will disappear from daily use.

In Portuguese my favorite word is “mágoa”, which could be translated as “sorrow” or "burden". Portuguese use “mágoa” to denote a feeling of sadness and grief that is often not so extreme (unlike depression or suicidal thoughts), but it is felt permanently and lingers with you for a long time, often for one’s entire life. The loss of a loved one or a bitter painful disappointment early one's life and yet never entirely forgotten could be said to be "mágoa" or a deep wound inside one's heart. "Mágoa" is a feeling of discordant emotions, an inner conflict, it can both be sad and beautiful, as something forever lost and yet even with its pain you wished it here always with you. The word can also be used in a less common way as "resentment" or "feeling deception".

“Mágoa” comes from the Latin “macula” which means “stain” or "flaw" (do not confuse macula with dracula, dracul and vampire lore). However, popular tales also say that the word “mágoa” originates from the combination of the Portuguese words for bad water (“má agua”) and what is bitterer than drinking the devil’s water? That is why I both love the meaning, feeling and sound of this word. What could be more tragically beautiful than a feeling so acutely yours that it lingers a lifetime, it penetrates deeply as an unwashable stain,  it bleeds like a wound that never fully scarred, and yet it sounds just like water, the most precious thing of all? "Mágoa" denotes lasting sorrow and yet it resonates as beautiful as water, a symbol of life and hope. The British poet Auden in prison once remarked "Thousands have lived without love, not one without water." I believe many live despite their "mágoas". Some scholars believe that the deep origin of the words "mágoa" and "mácula" comes from the Proto-Italic (smatlo) or from the Proto-Indo-European (smhatlo) and Ancient Greek (σμάω, smáō), which means "wiping, cleansing". Therefore all these burdens and "mágoas" cleanse us from the grief and deceptions we all lived through.

All Latin languages have one or two words from the root “macula” and yet Portuguese has seven! Therefore one could say Portuguese feel seven times the sorrows of other western Europeans. In several countries, however, the word descendants of "macula" do not mean sorrow at all, like in Portuguese. In Spanish and English "macula" means the iris or the oval stain of ink inside the eye. In Portuguese "mácula", besides the anatomical meaning, is most commonly applied to mean sin. See why I absolutely love such a word? If the eyes are the doors to the soul, then they must also be the mirror of our sorrows and sins.

One can see the descendants of the Latin root “macula” in nearly any Romance language and even some other European languages: Asturian (mancha), Catalan (malla, macula), Czech (machule), English (macula, mail, macle, mackle, macule, macchia, maquis), French (maille, macule), Friulian (magle), Galician (mágoa, mancha), Italian (macchia, macula), Occitan (malha), Sicilian (macchia), Slovak (machuľa), Spanish (mancha, macula, mangla), and Venetian (macia).

The Portuguese have seven different kinds of stains either to express abstract feelings or real stains such as those caused by blood or ink: mancha, malha, mágoa, mácula, macla, mangra, maquis. Both Portuguese and English had a tradition of navy and sailing from its medieval and renaissance times. Perhaps their vocabularies drew on words heard in ports all over Europe. Travel opens the windows to the eyes, the ears and the heart! It is interesting to note that several of the Portuguese and English words derived from "macula" had its origin in medieval French and yet those words came into disuse in its original French culture.

What do you think readers? The famous singer, Amália Rodrigues, once sang that Fado was born from the bosom of a sailor on whose lips died a sorrowful song full of wasted desires and nostalgia. Amália also had the feeling that Portuguese women felt burdened with sorrows, seeing their husbands and children leave on sea trips or immigrate to distant countries. Fado may have been at first born in ports and sang by sailor men, but it eventually bloomed in the voices of sorrowful women, with hair and dress as black as ravens, that sang despairingly their heartfelt emotions of abandonment and loneliness. I leave you now to listen to Amália, whose voice means so much more than its words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YriVM8sC7M

Challenges of being a Mom and Dad: Roman Emperor Augustus and Empress Irene

Mother’s month is gone and Dad’s month as well. That made me think that being a parent is always a challenge, even among the most powerful. Ironically, while many men and women have sought power in order to create their dynasties, history does not lack examples of successful men who failed at being good parents. There are the obvious cases of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great who did not live long enough to provide for the safety of their children, while emperors Trajan and Hadrian did not leave descendants. Revered emperors such as Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus were followed by their reviled offspring, Commodus and Caracalla.

Yet perhaps most surprising of all is that Augustus, first Roman Emperor and perhaps the most powerful man in European history, was also a failed parent. Augustus only biological child was his daughter Julia. Being forced into an unhappy marriage with Augustus’ stepson Tiberius, she was found later to be guilty of adultery and treason, being accused of plotting with her lovers against her husband’s own life. Among ancient writers Julia is almost universally remembered for her flagrant and promiscuous conduct and even prostitution behavior, although some of the worst tales are likely to be exaggerations of her actions. Her father Augustus loved her deeply, admired her wit and indulged her, hesitating for some time to accuse her. Reluctant to execute her, Augustus decided on Julia's exile, in harsh conditions. She was confined on the small island of Pandateria, with no men in sight, forbidden even to drink wine and only allowed the visitors approved by her father. Suetonius reports that Augustus would remark "If only I had never married, or had died childless". Historian Macrobius, however, writes that Julia was loved by the roman people due to her gentleness and generosity. Unfortunately, perhaps due to male sexism, the sex scandals give a reputation as negative to historical characters as the murderous behavior of power hungry men.

Perhaps even more surprising is the case of byzantine Empress Irene, the first woman to be an official empress of the Roman Empire which at the time was limited to its eastern half. Her real story is even more bizarre and full of cruelty than the fictional Cersei’s life in Game of Thrones!

Irene became Empress Regent after the death of her imperial husband, being responsible for the care of her son, the official emperor Constantine VI. As Constantine approached maturity he began to grow restless under Irene’s influence. Her son Constantine VI was proclaimed as the sole ruler. Once in control of the state, Constantine proved incapable of sound governance. His army was defeated by the Arabs and Bulgarians. A movement developed in favor of his uncle Nikephoros. Constantine had his uncle's eyes put out and the tongues of his father's four other half-brothers cut off. Constantine blinded his Armenian general Alexios Mosele and then cruelly repressed the revolt of his supporters. He then divorced his wife Maria of Amnia, who had failed to provide him with a male heir, and married his mistress Theodote, an unpopular and illegal act.  On 19 April 797 Constantine was captured, blinded, and imprisoned by the supporters of his mother, who had organized a conspiracy, leaving Irene to be crowned as first Empress regnant of Constantinople.

As a sole ruler Irene restored the adoration of icons in the Byzantine Empire. In 800 Pope Leo III crowned the Carolygian king Charlemagne as Roman Emperor. Irene had previously failed to make a marriage between her son and Charlemagne’s daughter. Relations between the two empires remained difficult. Irene is said to have endeavoured a marriage alliance between herself and Charlemagne, but according to Theophanes the Confessor, who alone mentions it, the scheme was frustrated by Aetios, one of her favourites.

In the end Irene’s grasp for power did not last and her end was an unfortunate one. A conspiracy of noblemen deposed Irene in 802, exiling her to Lesbos, where she was forced to support herself by spinning wool. She died the following year.

A peaceful emperor haphazardly started the first Jewish genocide and their European diaspora

Hadrian is the Roman emperor associated with the longest period of peace. Although the definition of peace is somewhat difficult to define in an empire with such large borders, Hadrian made serious attempts to make peace in the East with the Parthian empire and strengthened the defensive borders along Scotland, the Rhine and the Danube. In general Hadrian’s reign was marked by an absence of major conflicts and the Roman army was so peaceful that Hadrian decided to create fake alarms and drills to keep the soldiers disciplined and to signal that the army was always alert to possible invaders. Imperial policy was also benevolent towards business, including trade relations with the Arabs and the Parthians.

However, while Hadrian (see his bust on the left) is often labelled as one of the “five good emperors”, it is nevertheless true that his reign witnessed a brutal war between Romans and Jews, which resulted in over half a million victims (according to Dio Cassio, although some modern historians believe this number to be exaggerated) and the general depopulation of Judea. There were large numbers of victims caused by both sides, including internecine fights among opposing parties of Jews. After the 2nd century Hadrian became the prototype of the antisemitic Evil King in every Jewish tale and in the teachings of rabbis, which often mention “Hadrian, may his bones be crushed”. However, most modern historians believe that the idea of an antisemitic Hadrian is an anachronistic image written well after the events and that the war started due to bad planning and communication of the Roman authorities. Using a bit of an anachronistic example I would suggest Hadrian’s mistake was trying to impose a pagan Hellenistic culture (which was tolerant of naked sports, homosexual love, and all sorts of religious rituals with drugs and animals such as serpents) upon a conservative, traditional and monotheistic population. Just imagine how people would react nowadays if a powerful politician would announce the building of an arena for drugs, sex, and rock n’roll, right in front of a major church and a sanctuary of holy ground. Such was the mistake of Hadrian almost 2000 years ago. I make this remark as a metaphor and do not intend it to be either a criticism of modern culture or a precise description of the Roman-Jewish conflict.

After the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, which lasted from 132 to 136 AD, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was killed, exiled, or sold into slavery, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed. Archaeological remains show that the depopulation impact of Hadrian’s Jewish War was much worse than the First Roman-Jewish War fought by Vespasian and Titus. Jerusalem was rebuilt as a purely Roman city. Hadrian forbid the Jews and Christians from entering Jerusalem, and his persecutions started the Jewish diaspora towards other Roman provinces. In order to erase any relationship between Jews and the land, Hadrian changed the name of Judea to Syria-Palestina. Several historians view the Roman actions as so brutal that these should be classified as genocide. Jews disappeared from history as a political nation until the 20th century and remained only as a religious-ethnic community.

Unfortunately, there are few reliable historical documents about how and why both sides started the war. The scanty Greco-Roman texts are either too brief (as in the case of Dio Cassius’ book) or tainted by the stain of untrustworthiness (as in the case of Historia Augusta). Cassius Dio, 69, 12, 1, relates: “At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there”. There are also several ancient Jewish and Christian documents mentioning Hadrian’s hatred of Jews, but such texts were written one century or more after the events.

There is archaeological evidence that Hadrian visited Israel in 130 AD, just 2 years before the war, therefore it is quite possible that the rebellion erupted after some measures he proposed then. However, some modern historians believe this particular passage of Cassius Dio was modified by the late Byzantine author Xiphilinus. Building a pagan temple on top of the Holy Temple of Jerusalem would have been an obvious catalyst for war, since the traditional Jews would have rebelled against it. This plan is therefore judged to be highly unlikely to be part of Hadrian and the Romans’ intentions. Hadrian had at his disposal plenty of examples of the Jewish sensitivity to the presence of idolatrous cults or simply images on the Temple site. Also, Hadrian’s was more inclined to peace rather than provoking wars.

Some modern historians speculate that Hadrian's real plan may have been to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman colony. Perhaps Hadrian expected that a new Roman colony would have been well received by the Jewish population, since these colonies had honorific and tax privileges. Several wealthy Jews and business men may have seen benefits in a better Roman administration. However, the local Jewish population in these Roman colonies could be recruited as soldiers and even be used to fight against their countrymen. Epigraphic texts show that Jewish citizens from Caesarea Maritima (see images above) fought in favor of the Roman army during the Roman-Jewish wars of 66 and 132. Another aspect of a Roman colony in Jerusalem which could have offended the traditional Israelites is the introduction of pagan and imperial cults in the future city, even if standard Roman policy exempted Jews from participating in Roman religious rituals.

Also, perhaps some of the younger generations and the more liberal minded may actually have enjoyed the Roman and Hellenistic culture, with its temples and baths where men would exercise mostly naked. Archeological and numismatic evidence shows that Hadrian’s policy gained some approval because of its privileges and benefits, which is particularly clear in the ruins of cities such as Tiberias (see image on the left) and Sepphoris (see images below) in Galilee where a majority of the population was Jewish. In these cities elegies were dedicated to the cult of the emperor Hadrian. This evidence demonstrates the rationality of Hadrian’s project which was not a mere provocative act against Israel, but could have met some approval.

Another sign of local Roman support is that the Jewish rebel leader, Simon Bar Kokhba, punished severely any Jew and Christian who refused to join his ranks, applying mutilation of fingers and hands to the disobedient. The images below are of the Cave of Letters which was found in the Judean desert in 1960. In this cave they found a tied bundle letters from Bar-Kokhba, next to a woman's belongings: wool, cosmetic tools, beads, a perfume flask and a mirror. Most of the Bar-Kokhba letters are orders to punish and steal the crops of wealthy Jewish landowners who refused to cooperate with him. Therefore not all Jews were against Rome.

Some historians also speculate that Hadrian may have been driven by a religious syncretism policy in an attempt to unify the imperial religions as a support for his autocracy. Roman-Greco culture rejected circumcision as a violence exercised on a perfect human body and also because circumcision was seen as a political symbol of hostility towards the Roman-Hellenic world. Hadrian may have therefore implemented harsher measures against circumcision in an attempt to impulse Israelite assimilation. Historian Giovanni Bazzana compares Hadrian’s policies to Saint Paul’s suggestion of abandoning circumcision in order for Christianity to be accepted in the wider world. Saint Paul's ideals were successful because they were only about social and religious precepts and not about a new political order.

Hadrian had already tried to unite the traditional Greek cults by creating a coherent belief system that could be spread across the whole empire, a project that had already been devised earlier by Hellenized Jewish intellectuals such as Philo. In Judaea there was already a Hellenized Jewish population, the Samaritans, which integrated their religious rites with Hellenistic ones such as the worship of Zeus. Although nowadays the Samaritans are only a few thousands of people, there were around one million Samaritans in Roman times, which can be easily confirmed by the large number of times a Samaritan appears in the New Testament or in the ancient Jewish literature. This attempt at conciliation between Judaism and Hellenism foundered when faced with strict Jewish traditions and monotheism, which caused the uprising against Rome.

Perhaps the biggest historical surprise is that Christianity became the Roman Empire’s dominant religion less than 200 years after Hadrian’s visit to Israel. Undoubtedly, Hadrian saw Jews and Christians as backward fanatics, which were destined to disappear in the middle of an enlightened Hellenistic-Roman era. My bet is that almost all Romans and pagan scholars shared Hadrian’s opinion that Jewish-Christianity was a backward and dwindling faith. Who would have guessed then that almost two thousand years later both Christianity and the Jewish religion represent the most vibrant communities of the western world? Even more surprising is that such different and opposing sources merged so well that our entire law systems are now jointly supported by these three pillars: Jewish-Christian faith and love, Hellenistic philosophy and knowledge, and Roman legislation. And as Saint Paul would say in his Epistle to the Corinthians, from all of these pillars the greatest and most important one is Love.

Inflation and Unpaid Wages destroyed the Roman Empire

Historians still debate the decline and end of the Roman Empire, a subject which inspired Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece, perhaps the most widely read history books ever. This blog will just add my personal views on a topic that has been covered many times by other authors. Many hypothesis have been proposed for the Roman decline. Some point to Christianity as a source of imperial Rome's weakness. However, the Eastern Empire was also Christian and remained a strong power until the 12th century at least. Others point out that too much lead in the water supplies was slowly poisoning the Roman population. However, it feels to me that the barbarians that penetrated the Roman empire, such as the Vandals and Visigoths, were also getting water from the same sources as the Romans, therefore I feel this to be a weak explanation.

The Roman Empire started a slow decline after the Antonine plague, which some estimate killed five million people or more than 10% of the empire’s population. The plague ended the period of greatest economic prosperity of the Roman Empire. It happened just at the climax of the greatest political and military influence of the Empire, since their major rivals, the Parthians, had been repeatedly defeated by the Romans. However, a plague does not always imply the decline of a civilization. In the late middle ages the Black Plague killed a substantial part of the European population and some economic historians say that this disease increased the wages of workers (since now there were fewer people than land) and this increase in wages may have given impulse to new industries and the long term development of Europe.

The reason why the Roman Empire may have declined and eventually disintegrated is therefore probably not due to a plague nor due to military defeats. Urban populations after a plague can employ new workers at higher wages and find new arts and industries in order to recover their wealth and splendor. Also, the Roman Empire had suffered defeats far worse than the famous disaster of Adrianopole in the late 4^th century. In particular, it is easy to argue that the military defeats against Hannibal during the Punic wars, the disasters against the Teutons around 105 BC, or the rebellion of the Italian provinces during the Social War of 88 BC, were far bigger than the battle of Adrianopole. The long lasting nature of the Romans was not that their armies were always invincible, but their ability to persuade their citizens to form a new army even after suffering major defeats. Presumably, persuading your citizens to join the military effort was easier in an oligarchy or autocracy that had some respect for citizen rights. However, after the 2^nd century the Romans became a military regime in which only the generals and their troops counted for something, a bit like the Soviet Union which had the largest army in the world and yet was unable to produce decent products such as toilet paper or bread. In such a military regime probably the citizens were afraid of their Roman oppressors as much as of their barbarian invaders. After a military defeat in the 4^th or 5^th century few Romans would cooperate with their generals and authorities, because Roman generals feared that their fellow citizens could be rivals in the competition for power and therefore even if the new generals were successful these could be murdered afterward when they were no longer convenient. This meant that the late Roman authorities would find few allies and would lose power easily after military defeats.

In my view perhaps a decisive moment in Roman history were the budget and monetary policies adopted by a very successful emperor Septimius Severus. Severus is one of the few generals in history who won large battles in three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. Some historians believe that the battle of Lugdunum in which Severus confirmed his power was the bloodiest battle in all of roman history. Severus then enlarged the army in order to make further wars in Asia, Africa and Britain. He also increased the wage of each soldier by 30% in order to guarantee their loyalty. Above I show a picture of me and my twin brother – I am the one with longer hair – on top of the Roman wall in the city of York, England, which was where Severus died in sickness while planning to conquer Scotland. Below I show a picture of the roman theater in the African home town of Severus, Leptis Magna.

In order to pay for this large army expenses, Severus debased the coins and started an inflationary period from which Rome never recovered. As economists know, debasing the currency and creating rampant inflation is the worst possible way for a government to make revenues. It is much better to raise taxes, since the more inflation you make to pay something then you need even more inflation in the future to pay for the same things. The inflation process can go out of control and the government is unable to use money anymore. Also, ordinary business men and people stop using money and lose their confidence in the government. Inflation was already understood as a bad decision even in ancient times. Severus only adopted this bad measure because he came to power as a military dictator and only valued his soldiers. In fact Severus famous last words to his sons in York were: "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men". Being unable to persuade the Senate to cooperate, Severus was limited to the worst policy option to finance his wars, which was inflation.

During the  3^rd and 4^th centuries it was clear that inflation was damaging the roman economy and their government system. Laws were passed authorizing generals to directly seize products and valuables for use of the army, therefore ordinary taxes paid in money fell out of use. Also, since workers and business men did not want to work in industries that were more easily “taxable” or “seized”, the Roman authorities ended up passing laws obliging people to stay in the area where they had been born and to work in the same occupation as their parents. Feudalism had started. The free and vibrant economy had been replaced by a planned and rigid system.

The Roman army was never actually defeated by the barbarian invaders. Even after losses such as Adrianopole the Roman leaders were able to persuade the “winners” to become cheap mercenaries for them. Therefore the barbarians could be described as a form of cheap labor in the official Roman army. Some historians, such as Peter Heather, even argue that these cheap Barbarian soldiers were actually what kept the Roman Empire running well and efficiently during the 5^th century. However, the Western Roman Empire was dependent on revenues from the large olive oil fields and other agricultural farms in modern day Tunisia. When a corrupt province governor and a group of barbarians, the Vandals, managed to occupy Tunisia, then Roman emperors lost a major source of revenue. After a few decades and an exhaustive war with the Huns, the Western Roman Empire was out of revenue and the Barbarian soldiers employed by the Emperor decided to rebel and simply run Italy as a kingdom for themselves. Therefore one could say that mismanagement in the form of inflation to pay for a military dictatorship and a lack of money to pay the wages of soldiers was the end of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was much more urbanized, had a stronger economy, and was therefore able to resist invasions from the Balkans, the Middle East and from Central Asia for several centuries more.

Chariot Racing and Sports Stars in the Ancient World

(Neither Messi, Ronaldo, Federer, Jordan, Schumacher or Tiger Woods are the best paid sports player in history. In fact Cristiano Ronaldo is not even the top athlete in Portuguese history! The top earnings prize goes to a Lusitanian (old Portuguese) chariot racer born in 104 AD. Also, in Roman Races even a dead man could win if his horses finished the race, a true posthumous glory! And fights among ancient “hooligans” reached a violence far above today.)

The predecessors of most sports started as Funeral Games in Ancient Greece. All of the Pan-Hellenic Games – the Olympics, Pythian, Nemean and Isthmian festivals – honored a patron god and a deceased human hero. Homer in the Iliad describes how sports in the Bronze Age were already a tradition during funerals of great warriors. In a previous post I wrote how Alexander the Great paid for an elaborate set of athletic games for his deceased friend Hephaestion.

The Olympic Games were the oldest of the four festivals and according to tradition begun in 776 BC. Some of the games played by the Hellenic peoples still exist such as wrestling, boxing, foot races, long jump, discus throw and the pentathlon. Chariot racing was perhaps the most popular of all ancient sports. While chariot races no longer exist it is easy to imagine them as a close predecessor to some modern sports, such as equestrian races and car races such as Formula 1. Chariot races in Greece and Rome were done at special venues, the hippodromes, which resemble quite well the elliptical shapes of modern horse or car race circuits. Above I show a modern recreation in France of how a roman chariot race could have been like. Another pic shows a gymnasium in Olympia where Hellenic athletes would train to improve their skill.

In Greece and Rome the owner and driver of the chariot were different persons, since the drivers were often slaves or men of low birth. Even nowadays in equestrian races the owners are often more prestigious than the jockeys. Races were risky events where drivers and horses would often crash or be trampled to death by the other competitors. Women were not allowed to drive, but they could own the cart and horses, a prominent case being Cynics, daughter of a Spartan King. Unlike other Hellenic sports which were practiced by males in the nude, charioteers wore sleeved garments and a leather helmet to protect themselves from the dust and the crashes. Below I show a mosaic with a Roman charioteer. Greeks and Romans no longer used chariots for battle at this time, since they were unstable and riders could be thrown out of their cart. However, the most enthusiastic moments of these races were really the round turns when the spectators could expect incredible crashes with deadly results for both horses and driver, sometimes of several cars in a row as competitors would knock and crush into each other around the post.

The largest hippodrome ever built was the Circus Maximus in Rome which could seat up to 250,000 people. In this circus you could do extensive betting on the winners of a race. There was an extensive market of bookies and professional betters willing to take advantage of the naïve and greedy. Some people would lose their fortunes and even their freedom from lost bets. Rules of winning were tricky at times, because the winner of the race was the first chariot passing the finishing line – even if the man had been trampled to death way behind. Nowadays we celebrate deceased athletes, but the Roman racers could actually claim a truly posthumous glory for their victory! In the center of the race there was a series of pillars with sculptures and engravings on top. These pillars and adornments increased the number of crashes (the Romans called these accidents, naufragia or "shipwrecks"). and the death risk of the races. Racers would want to be as close as possible to the center of the track in order to reduce space and pass their opponents, but the closer to the center the riskier their moves were. In general the bravest and most intelligent horse had to be the one closest to the center of the track, since his movements would be the ones to either lead him to glory or to death. Above I show a picture of the Circus Maximus in Rome which is pretty much an abandoned field nowadays and below I show the hippodrome of Constantinople which forms part of the city center of Istambul. There were four teams disputing the championship of races in ancient Rome and Constantinople, with their identities being given by their colors – Red, Blue, White and Green. Fanatics of these teams often descended into violence and hooliganism and their power was enough to topple down big politicians. In 532 AD the Nika riots started as a dispute between different chariot teams and threatened the reign of emperor Justinian, ending up with half of Constantinople burnt and tens of thousands of people killed.

Finally, no modern athlete, neither Messi, Ronaldo, Federer, Jordan, Schumacher nor Tiger Woods can claim to be the best paid sports player in history, since even the richest of these have only earned slightly more than 1 billion USD. In fact Cristiano Ronaldo is not even the top athlete in Portuguese history! The top earnings prize goes to Gaius Appuleius Diocles, a Lusitanian (the roman name for the ancient Portuguese people) chariot racer born in 104 AD. Diocles earned the sum of 35,863,120 sesterces which amounts to roughly 15 billion USD and all of these winnings came from race prizes, not advertising revenues. Diocles was known for being a strong finisher, who would wait for an opportunity and then pass his opponent from behind at the finish line.  He won 1,462 of his 4,257 races and finished second 861 times. Through his long career Diocles raced for three teams – White, Green and Red – and retired at 42 years of age, still quite able to enjoy a good life. His supporters erected him a monument in Rome detailing his victories. Most of the chariot champions died young, with one example being Scorpus who won over 2000 races before dying in a collision at 27 years of age. As a finish note, Cristiano Ronaldo does not have to mind being passed by his Portuguese ancestor. I am a Portuguese and a fan of Sporting, therefore he is still my big hero.

The Curse of Memory: how the first Christian emperor erased his family from history

The greatest punishment in Roman law was not the death penalty, but the damnatio memoriae: a mix of a death execution, the seizure of the person’s property, and the removal of all traces and memory of his life. Such a sentence implied that statues of the condemned person could be destroyed, his face would be erased from paintings and his name could be erased or blotted out from written documents, coins and even from the stone inscriptions in monuments.

Many of the “evil” emperors such as Caligula, Domitian or their relatives (such as Livilla, the daughter-in-law of Emperor Tiberius, and Geta, the brother of Emperor Caracalla) suffered damnatio memoriae sentences. Above and below I show pictures of a stone pillar in Spain where the name of Emperor Domitian was erased after his death and a portrait of the Severus imperial family where Caracalla’s brother Geta was erased from the painting. I also show a cameo portrait of Livilla, daughter-in-law of Emperor Tiberius, who was executed in 31 AD because of accusations that she had conspired with her lover Sejanus to kill Emperor Tiberius and take over the imperial throne. Also, Livilla’s own mother accused her of having poisoned her husband (Emperor Tiberius’ son) and that perhaps her children were the result of adulterous liaisons. The Senate removed all mentions of Livilla after her death, so there are no absolutely certain portraits of her, but some scholars think that this cameo fits her description and could be a rare portrait that survived the harsh legal sentence.

The term damnatio memoriae was actually created in the 16th century by the German legal scholar Christoph Schreiter in a thesis of 1689. In practice the Romans applied several different measures to reach the joint effect that the condemned individual would lose all the honors of being a Roman citizen and its memory. For example, the removal of all the written inscriptions of the name of the condemned was a sentence called the abolitio nominis. For the Romans the removal of memory was the opposite of the Apotheosis, which represented the glorification of a deceased person (such as an emperor or empress) to divine honors. Since Roman society stressed the importance of honor, respectability and fame, then erasing one's memory was the most severe punishment of all.

The Roman emperor who became perhaps the biggest user of the “curse of memory” sentence was Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor. In particular Constantine I applied the damnatio memoriae to several of his family members who at certain point aroused his anger or stood in his path to power. While Christianity is a religion that values forgiveness, apparently such teachings do not preclude erasing the memory of your enemies and relatives. Perhaps if one simply forgets their hated memory, then it is not really necessary to forgive them at all.

Constantine lived one of the most turbulent periods in history, since those were the decades in which Christianity was on the point of being either the largest minority religion of the Empire or its major religion. This was a breaking point at both the political and social levels. At the political level the Empire was divided among four co-emperors and each one resented the power of its colleagues. Each single emperor was waiting for a moment of weakness from its rivals in order to invade its territory and stripe away his powers. Constantine started as the weakest of the co-emperors, being in charge only of Britain and Gaul. These territories were weak in terms of economic resources and armies, and were also continuously threatened by invasions of Scottish and Germanic tribes. Therefore Constantine was the weakest of the four co-emperors and the most likely candidate to be humiliated and eliminated from the political scheme. However, Constantine and also his eldest son Crispus were extraordinarily good generals. Constantine won wars against each of his co-emperors which had much larger armies and stronger navies. Even if Constantine was not known today as the first Christian emperor, he would certainly be remembered as a general of the same importance as Caesar or Alexander the Great. Below I show a picture of myself and my twin brother in front of Constantine’s bronze statue in York, England, where he was first acclaimed as Emperor in 306 AD. In the next few years Constantine would often receive messages and ultimatums from his co-emperors asking him to resign himself to a lower imperial role. However, in less than twenty years Constantine would have taken over all the territories of his rival co-emperors and by 324 AD he was the complete master of the Roman Empire. In 337 AD Constantine was planning a big war against the powerful Persian emperor Shapur II, justified as a crusade to protect the Christian followers in the Persian Empire.

At the social level the Roman Senate and its old aristocratic families now realized the traditional pagan cults were irrelevant to most of the population and were only practiced at official ceremonies which no one cared about. Think of those boring speeches that politicians give nowadays on TV and then no one remembers a single sentence in the next day? Well, that was how the top pagan priests felt like around 300 AD. Besides Christianity other sun religions such as Mithraism were now popular all over the Empire and clearly the traditional Roman paganism was withering away rapidly. Traditionally, Rome was a state with complete religious liberty (as long as its religious supporters did not defy the imperial laws and paid their taxes). One could even think of Ancient Rome as a “market of religions”. There were temples of all sorts of deities standing side by side. One could go worship a snake fertility god or go listen to an Egyptian cat-goddess speak through a statue (with a hollow space inside where a priest or priestess could hide and speak). Others would participate in the mysteries of obscure eastern religions with different grades of tests designed to evaluate their worshippers’ worth as they climbed the orders of their religion. It was during Constantine’s adolescence that the main Roman Emperor Diocletian launched the greatest persecution of Christians during Roman history. Most of the stories of Christian martyrdom come from this time period. Some estimate that the Diocletian’s persecution could have made around 3,000 victims, which was a significant number by Roman standards (although much less than the 20^th century religious and political conflicts).

Constantine lived through turbulent times, therefore he hit his adversaries as hard as he could even if these were close family members. Constantine first applied a damnatio memoriae to his father-in-law (and also his step-grandfather), the old co-emperor Maximian. Actually, Constantine had good reasons for such a measure. Constantine had treated well his father-in-law and given him some powers with his army, but a few months later Maximian decided to rebel and support his own son against Constantine. After this Constantine quickly won against Maximian and forced him to commit suicide. However, some years later, after Constantine had won the war against Maximian’s son, the co-emperor Maxentius, he re-habilitated Maximian’s memory and gave great honors to his deceased father-in-law. Later Constantine started a war against his powerful co-emperor in the East, Licinius, who was also his brother-in-law. After Constantine and his eldest son Crispus won several large scale battles, he became the undisputed master of the Roman world and issued a damnatio memoriae against Licinius, accusing him of killing the families of other co-emperors and of the persecution of Christians. Modern evidence shows that Licinius in fact supported Christian rights, had a Christian wife and may even have been a Christian himself, therefore Licinius was a victim of Constantinian propaganda.

Just two years after Constantine became master of the world, he ordered the execution of his eldest son Crispus by “cold poison” and a damnatio memoriae against Crispus, his wife and his only grandson. This must have been a big surprise to all of the world, since Crispus had been a good and reliable general of Constantine and was his only adult son, therefore his most plausible future heir. One month later Constantine also ordered the execution of his own wife, Fausta, by an “overheated bath” and her damnatio memoriae. Fausta was the mother of three male children and one daughter of Constantine, therefore again this must have been a hard decision. Also, Constantine had Fausta in high esteem and had given her the divine honors of Augusta just three years before. Below I show a coin with Crispus image and a bust of Fausta.

Historians speculate that the death of Crispus and Fausta are related, but no one knows exactly how since the “curse of memory” erased historical records that would have been essential for our understanding. Crispus was Constantine’s son from a previous marriage, therefore Fausta was only his step-mother. Ancient historians Zosimus, the anonymous work Epitome de Caesaribus, the 8^th century fiction Passion of Artemius, and the 12^th century scholar Joannes Zonaras, say that Fausta wanted her own children to become the future emperors and told Constantine that Crispus wanted to rape her or begin an adulterous affair. In this possible version of the story Constantine orders in rage the execution of his eldest son and after one month realizes that Fausta lied and kills her too. However, other historians point out that an “overheated bath” could indicate an attempted abortion and therefore a possible adulterous affair between Fausta and Crispus which resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. Significantly, Fausta’s sons later became Roman Emperors after Constantine’s death and none of them tried to rehabilitate their mother’s reputation, therefore this points out that they believed her to be guilty of something.

There is, however, a third possible explanation of this story. An article by historian Patrick Guthrie in 1966 suggests that Constantine ordered both deaths on political reasons. Constantine wanted to build a dynasty for his children, but that created difficulties in managing their ambitions. Therefore he orders the death of Crispus to prevent his ambition and remove a threat against the three sons of Fausta. Then he orders the death of Fausta as a signal to his other children and relatives that Constantine is firmly in the grasp of absolute power and that he would not hesitate to kill anyone if he deems it necessary. While this explanation may sound a bit off, we must remember the ancient world often had harsh struggles for power. The previous rulers of the Seleucid or Ptolemaic empires often had to order the deaths of their siblings to keep power. Also, many Roman emperors before Constantine and also his Byzantine successors often ordered the imprisonment and death of husbands, wives and sons, in order to keep their power. Therefore it is not impossible that Constantine himself feared treason from inside his own family. Whatever happened the erasing of memory leaves a lot to our imagination for solving this mystery novel.

Socialism versus Capitalism in Ancient Rome: finding an old Allende and Pinochet

Some days ago I watched the news about the Chilean government demanding a monetary restitution from the widow of the deceased dictator Augusto Pinochet. In 1973 Chile was divided in a brutal conflict between a popular left party seeking wealth redistribution and an elitist conservative group that made a coup and gained power. The left wing leader Salvador Allende had actually been responsible for a big career boost of Augusto Pinochet, the right wing general who led the coup, since Allende had no idea of the true political views of his appointed general. The picture on the right shows Allende and Pinochet together in the presidential palace in Chile. Now and in old times no friendship survives a political conflict. Historian Plutarch and the novels of Aussie writer Colleen McCullough portray a real historical conflict that mirrors the class struggles in the 20^th century and how old friendships are broken for the sake of power.

Santayana said those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. In my view there are at least two aspect in which the Chilean 70’s conflict parallels the Roman Republic of 100 BC. One, ancient Rome had a sharp conflict between the Optimates (the party of those who defended the old traditions and privileges of the rich) and the Populares (those who defended the redistribution of agrarian lands and the extension of political votes to the masses). There were several strands in each group, with moderate Populares and also more radical branches that defended a real dictatorship based on popular acclaim. The political rivalry between Optimates (right wing) and Populares (left wing) explains much of roman history between 133 BC and 44 BC, when Julius Caesar, a general who capitalized the anger of the Populares to gain absolute military and political power, was assassinated by members of the Optimates.

Two, just like in Chile where President Allende believed – until it was too late – that general Pinochet would be a possible ally, the Roman left wing between 110 BC and 88 BC had a charismatic leader, Gaius Marius (left pic above), who unwittingly promoted the career of his friend, Lucius Cornelius Sulla (right pic above), who would become the Optimates leader and his most fierce enemy! These two former allies fired up all the class struggles in Rome and neither gave up until the former friend and all of his supporters were brutally killed.

Gaius Marius was a Roman general and politician who won two wars between 108 and 101 BC. The first war was in North Africa around 108 BC in the area of modern Argelia. The second war between 103 and 101 BC was against teutonic peoples who migrated from Germany to invade north Italy. This Teutonic invasion was one of the worst crisis in Roman history and there was a generalized fear in the Italian population that their civilization would be beaten and destroyed. To win this war Marius decided to recruit poo men for the Roman army, something unthinkable until then! This decision broke the political power that the wealthy had over the army and in the future decades armies were more loyal to their generals than to the political institutions. Over the short term the decision saved Rome. Over the long term this measure created endless revolutions in which generals used their armies to become new dictators!

Marius also introduces many innovations in terms of the organization and equipment of the legions and turns the legionnaire into professionally trained soldiers. The classic image of a professional and extremely organized Roman army that we see in Hollywood movies was only made real by Gaius Marius! Above I show a painting of Marius leading his newly trained armies to fight a much larger Teutonic army in the forests of northern Italy.

Marius became the most powerful politician of his time and certainly one the most relevant in the entire history of Rome. The most important political office of the Republic was consul and Marius was elected consul seven times, while before him none had been consul more than three times.

Sulla was possibly an in-law of Marius and started his career as Marius' trusted second in command. However, during a brief mission in Asia, Sulla consulted a fortune seer who foretold his death would come at the peak of his fame and glory. Sulla returns to Rome and becomes one of the generals fighting the Social War, a large conflict in which Rome fought rebellions in many Italian regions. In this war Sulla won the Grass Crown, the most important prize of valor given in Ancient Rome. In all of Roman history only eight men won the grass crown, since this trophy was only given to a man that by his courage had saved an entire army!

Sulla was then elected consul and nominated general for the war against Mithridates of Pontus, a western nation in northern Turkey which was threatening the roman territories of Greece and west Asia. Sulla's success triggered a conflict with his former friend Gaius Marius. Marius, then an old man, remained popular with the crowds and dreamed of being the commander in the new war. Marius used his prestige and wealth to finance popular mutinies and rebellions against his former friend. Sulla is persecuted by fanatics through the streets of Rome and saves his life by seeking refuge in Marius’ home. Marius agrees to save Sulla’s life from the raging crowd, but only if he promises to support Marius’ party and his nomination for the war. Sulla pretends to agree, escapes from Rome and then returns with his loyal army. Sulla does the unthinkable by marching upon Rome, something that was forbidden by the sacred laws of Rome. In Rome’s previous six centuries of history no one had broken this rule. Sulla enters Rome and his army kills several of the Populares and Marius’ supporters. Afterwards, he leaves for Asia and wins surprising battles against the greek-asian enemies of Rome. Sulla becomes famous among his followers as a mad genius, one who makes elaborate plans that always work. Sulla destroys the forests around Athens to build catapults and siege engines to destroy the city. Then he wins two battles against much bigger armies. In the first battle he orders the building of trenches and palisades which rumble his enemy's organization. In the second battle, Sulla orders the building of water dams and then floods the plain in front of the opposing army. His opponents are stranded with horses and men in the mud and unable to move are slaughtered. Sulla gains a reputation of invincibility against all odds and becomes one of the most famous generals in world history.

While Sulla stayed in Asia, Marius returned to Rome and then orders the murder of many of Sulla’s supporters. The Populares take control of Rome and send several armies against Sulla. But all of the armies sent by the Populares are useless, because Sulla had gained the fame of an invincible commander. No army wants to fight Sulla and his adversaries end up surrendering and joining him. Marius dies sick in Rome just 17 days after he became consul for a 7^th and last time. Plutarch relates that Marius was by then a deluded old man, bragging to people about his accomplishments and then behaving crazy as if he was in charge of battles in Asia.

Sulla returns to Rome in 83 BC and publishes a long list of his enemies, whom he convicts to death without a trial. Sulla promises to pardon the people who cooperate with his executions. Some men are executed by their own wives and children who are then allowed to keep the family estate. Sulla rewards his friends and punishes his enemies. The young Julius Caesar is included in the death lists of Sulla, since Caesar was related by marriage to Marius. Sulla lets the young Caesar live, but warns that he sees in the young man “the ambition of many Marius”.

Sulla was Dictator (then a real office which gave its holder the power to decree martial law and act as he pleased for a limited period) of Rome for two years of political terror. At the end of his dictatorship, Sulla leaves Rome for his countryside villa to write his memoirs. Sulla lives a dissipated life with a young wife and a male actor called Metrobius who had become his lover a long time ago. He still intervenes with politics, but remains open to discuss his policies with any man who approaches him. Sulla dies of old age, a mysterious man for all who knew him. It was said he could drink and party with the poorest and simplest persons, celebrating with great joy, but then would change to be a tyrant ordering deaths with no cause at all. It is estimated that around 1000 persons died from Sulla’s political persecutions. I wonder what the ancient Romans would have thought of the 20^th century dictators who murdered far more people.

The First Financial Crisis: Rome in 33 AD

A large part of the world has been in a financial crisis since 2008, therefore it is quite opportune to remember the events of what for many historians was the First Financial Crisis in our history. During the reign of the second Roman emperor Tiberius a big financial crisis shook the elites across the empire from its provinces in Asia and Africa to the financial center in Rome. At the time the Empire had an international economy where cereals, olive oil, preserved fish, and precious metals were constantly traded between Rome and its provinces. The financial center where many banks and companies opened their doors was in Rome’s Via Sacra, which was the Wall Street of the empire. Below I show an image of Rome’s Via Sacra.

This crisis followed a pattern very similar to our own: 1) austerity policies that reduced Government Expenditures and Money-Lending implied a reduction in the supply of money and in the liquidity and profitability of businesses, 2) bankers and business men reacted by paying off their loans too quickly and had to sell their properties at fire-sales, 3) the austerity, low money supply and fire-sales of real estate caused a massive deflation, 4) some big business men in Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey were reported to be in dire problems and their two banks in the Roman Via Sacra closed doors, and, finally, 5) due to the suspicion that many banks had interweaving credits among themselves these events led to a widespread contagion across the financial system. This wiki article plus this and this academic papers explain this financial crisis in detail, with ancient historian Tacitus as a main source.

To solve these problems Emperor Tiberius had to: 1) create large amounts of loans for bankers at a 0% interest rate against good real-estate collateral just like the FED and the ECB did in recent years with their 0% interest rates, balance sheet expansion and quantitative easing, and 2) the imperial loans did not charge any interest for three years, which is very much like the current maturity easing policies with the FED and ECB promising to keep interest rates low for as long as it takes for the economic recovery to start.

Here I show a Roman coin of Tiberius with his mother Livia, wife of the first emperor Augustus on the other side. It is worth noting that Tiberius was a son of Livia from a previous marriage and had been adopted by Augustus in the absence of male children of his own. You can see more coins of Tiberius reign in this link or here.