End of Pax Romana

[TaylorS]

IMO the Pax Romana ended with the assassination of Alexander Severus, which was followed by about 50 years of near-anarchy until Diocletian temporarily stabilized things. After 235 it was pretty much all down-hill for the Western half of the empire, while the Eastern half of the empire started losing it's "Roman" character (staring with Diocletian, emperors dropped all the Republican pretenses and started donning diadems and royal robes).

[GhostOfClayton]

I always considered that aqueducts seemed to be a good litmus test of the Pax Romana. Living in a colonia, or similar settlement you were very dependant on your water supply, which was extremely vulnerbale, snaking as it did for miles over unguarded territory. You would have had to have a pretty strong faith in the Pax Romana to rely on it. When the aqueducts stop being maintained, the reason may be the gradual loss of faith in the Pax Romana, and something as subjective and conceptual ceases to exist when the people lose faith in it.

[caldrail]

Personally I think the idea that the Pax Romana suddenly stopped on a particular date is nothing more than the usual human desire for categorisation. It eroded over a long period of time. I've always considered that there was the Principate, the Pax Romana, and finally the Dominate, but the border between them is a bit hazy. I don't think any soecific event or date is actually relevant, although for the purposes of historical study I'll probably have to think about when the oldm order had functionally ceased to be.

[Northern Neil]

Personally I think the idea that the Pax Romana suddenly stopped on a particular date is nothing more than the usual human desire for categorisation. It eroded over a long period of time. I've always considered that there was the Principate, the Pax Romana, and finally the Dominate, but the border between them is a bit hazy. I don't think any soecific event or date is actually relevant, although for the purposes of historical study I'll probably have to think about when the oldm order had functionally ceased to be.

 

I agree with this entirely. Incidentally, and admittedly a little tangential to this subject, the initials S.P.Q.R. appear on a monument dedicated to Stilicho, and I remember elsewhere on this forum reading that even in Julian's time references were still being made to the 'Republic'. The categorization Caldrail refers to can sometimes blind us to these small but significant reminders that, for the people of the Empire themselves, the Pax Romana was very much alive and ancient traditions considered obsolete in the later Empire to modern historians were in fact continued.

[Dickonbard]

As a non-specialist, I find the Pax Romana a helpful concept. Actium to the death of Severus Alexander defines the period in which the empire was, with the exception of 69AD, free of internal civil wars and successfully defended its borders. There were local troubles, of course, in some provinces. Of my two home towns, one (Verulamium) was trashed by Boadicea and the other (Paphos) suffered the massacres inspired by Artemion in 115/6. But, if we focus on the big picture (which is helpful from time to time), 31BC-235AD marks a distinct 'period of peace'.

 

Rome also delivered a 'period of prosperity' in which average per capita GDP rose more rapidly than was normal in the ancient world. We often talk of 'peace and prosperity' in one breath, partly because the phrase has a nice ring to it, but also because peace is generally more conducive to prosperity than war. However, the evidence for more rapid economic growth - shipwrecks, silver production, CO₂ emissions, public works and private philanthropy - suggests that the 'period of prosperity' started well before the 'period of peace' and that it began to tail off earlier, too.

 

It is legitimate to set start and end dates for a 'period of peace', just as it is for a war. A 'period of prosperity' is slightly different. If we had a run of average per capita GDP data for the empire for the period 150BC-150AD (which we never will, of course), it would probably be something like this.

 

The Ancient World did deliver economic growth (shown by the red line), although it was much slower than Post-Industrial Revolution growth (shown by the blue line). The expansion of the empire allowed Rome's economy (purple line) to outperform the Ancient World average. But, of course, economic output fluctuates from year to year and decade to decade - as we all know from bitter experience at the moment. In Rome's case, war would disrupt it, as would bad harvests, bad weather disrupting the sailing season, mining disasters disrupting metal outputs, etc.

 

So, if we limit Pax Romana to the 'period of peace', I'm happy to go with the death of Severus Alexander. If we extend it to mean 'peace and prosperity', there is no neat end date. I suspect that the Antonine Plague was probably a huge shock to an already slowing economy, but maybe that's a question to pursue in another post or thread ...

[Dickonbard]

Sorry about the link in the above. I couldn't insert the graph into the post as an image.

[Artimi]

Personally I think the idea that the Pax Romana suddenly stopped on a particular date is nothing more than the usual human desire for categorisation. It eroded over a long period of time. I've always considered that there was the Principate, the Pax Romana, and finally the Dominate, but the border between them is a bit hazy. I don't think any soecific event or date is actually relevant, although for the purposes of historical study I'll probably have to think about when the oldm order had functionally ceased to be.

 

I agree, very few events in human history have a knife edge finish. Usually a rip and tear and bad patching and tear.

 

but one example of a knife edge might be the defeat of the Assyrians in 612 BC with burning of Nineveh.

[Axel Wers]

Ironically, the reign of Commodus, after 180, was far more stable than that of Marcus Aurelius.

 

Commodus ended Marcomanic wars, maybe for this reason his reign could be more stable, more peaceful respectively. But it's weird why Commodus withdrew from Danube when german tribes were almost defeated? Maybe Commodus didn't know how many barbarians lived in today parts of Czech or Slovakia, so marcomanic wars would be "infinitely". Withdrawal of roman legions from northern parts of Danube river allowed restoration of germanic tribes who lived there.

 

 

I incline toward the view, expressed in a former schoolbook, that the pax Romana ended with the death of Alexander Severus, inasmuch as civil wars and internal insecurity were the exceptions prior to 235-284, and commonplace during that period, and subsequently.

 

Severian dynasty wasn't very stable era in empire for more reasons: During reign of Septimius Severus raised influence of roman army. Caracalla hated Geta. It's not worse when is rivality between emperors. Elagabalus was very influenced by oriental mysticism. Lot of Roman citizens didn't like it. And Alexander Severus wasn't very successful in his eastern military campaigns. For this reason was murdered because unable emperor is evil for empire. But after this I must to say that Severian era was much more stable than era after Alexander. That know every.