Like Greece, Italy has sandy, well-draining soil, lots of rocks and good access to the sea, although it also has some interior valleys that are wonderful for agriculture. Also like Greece, most of the area is good for olive trees and grapes, leading to exports in the long-storing versions of these products (olive oil and wine). And as in Greece, because the areas of Italy were separated from each other just enough to cause distrust, there was competition and misunderstanding between the regions.
By the 8th century BC, the Latin tribes in the middle shared the peninsula with the Etruscans in the north and the Greeks in the south, and these two peoples provide the foundation for Roman culture. The Etruscans were excellent engineers and warriors, and the Greeks brought Greek culture and learning. Although we are unsure exactly how much influence each has on Rome in earlier times, by 500 BC it was clear that the combination of Etruscan, Latin and Greek contributions had created something unique.
Much of this contact and cultural combination came through conquest, as Rome expanded to conquer the Etruscans and form alliances with the Greek colonies. As it developed in wealth and power, Rome came under attack by tribes and kingdoms nearby. In defeating each of these, Rome was able to establish a narrative of self-defense. But in practical terms, Rome was expanding, first under a monarchy and by the 6th century BC as a Republic. By then their main enemy was Carthage, a city in north Africa that had been founded as a Pheonician colony.
Despite their expansion, and ultimately the creation of a huge empire, the Romans saw themselves as farmers by nature, making the geography properous. Cato the Censor (243-149 BC), although he served the Roman state as a plebeian in the highest jobs in government, saw himself as a farmer. His book of advice on agriculture is still useful today.
Although surrounded by the countryside that fed it, and to which public figures would go for vacations and retirement, Rome was a city. In the Republic, two houses represented the people of Rome. The Senate was comprised of patricians, those who had inherited power through historic land owndership. Plebeians filled the Concilium Plebis, or the Assembly. Plebeians who took part in the Concilium were not poor -- they tended to be the most educated, wealthy and respected non-patricians in Rome.
One of the most important things to understand about the development of the politics and political ethics of ancient Rome is virtú or, as it was called then, virtus. Although often translated as "virtue", the word encompassed a whole perspective. Men with virtus exhibited strength and talent in public life, and were morally upstanding. Model behavior in the service of the state was the goal. We can see this perspective represented in Cicero's Dream of Scipio. In this excerpt, a man named Scipio meets up with the man for whom he is named, Scipio Africanus, a hero during the Punic Wars over a century before. Scipio Africanus not only gives us a great idea of the Roman knowledge of the world, but he also advises young Scipio on virtus.
The moral values of leadership played a significant role in the Republic. Cicero would ultimately be killed by continuing to support these values in a time of Empire.
As the Roman Republic expanded, life changed for the people in Rome, who were primarily of Latin descent. With each new territory came new responsibilities for the government, and new trade arrangements.
The grandsons of Scipio Africanus, the brothers Gracchus, attempted to reform the land laws that favored patricians and left little for the plebeians. Before the late 2nd century BC, land had been obtained by either inheriting it or being granted it. Soldiers could acquire land through service in the early Republic, but over time that became more difficult as land speculators and patricians controlled large areas. As tribunes, the brothers implemented such measures as citizenship for Latins outside the city of Rome and fixed prices for grain. This price fixing was important, because as Rome had expanded, she had acquired grain-growing areas such as Sicily. Sicilian grain was cheaper than that grown near Rome, and could be imported at low cost, undercutting the profits of Roman farmers.
Populist reforms such as those the Gracchi implemented were unsuccessful. Both men were clubbed to death by mobs in 133 and 121 BC, horrible and unusual acts that seemed to set up some kind of precedent of solving political problems through violence.
By 107 BC, it was clear that the dysfunctional Republic was in need of leadership, and generals seemed natural choices. General Gaius Marius, fearing barbarian attack on the expanded territories, worked on expanding the army by advancing on ideas originally proposed by the Gracchi. The army was expanded using lower-class plebeians, who were completely dependent on their generals to provide enough conquered land to reward them. This had the effect of creating "private" armies who were more loyal to their commanders than to the Roman state. Brutal civil war followed, between armies of Marius and those of General Sulla. The Roman constitution had a provision for a "dictator", a temporary emergency leader who would have full power. In 82 BC, General Sulla took advantage of this provision to enforce reforms designed to balance the power of the patrician Senate and the plebeian Tribunes. He then, in accordance with the constitution, resigned his power.
The prevalence of private armies and civil war as a method for obtaining land to pay soldiers was the background for the death of the Republic. Might became right, and virtus seemed to disappear in the battles for power. The question is when exactly the Republic became an Empire, in terms of leadership rather than territory.
Some say it happened with Julius Caesar, who returned from his far-flung battles against the Celts to march on Rome and obtain power. Caesar engaged in further reforms and expansion of the empire, particularly into Egypt. There he encountered Cleopatra, the descendant of General Ptolemy and co-ruler of Egypt with her brother. Caesar and Cleopatra formed an alliance that allowed her to rule alone, and favored Rome to engage in trade with the wealth of Egypt. Caesar fathered a child with Cleopatra, whom his mother named Caesarion (in case there was any doubt about his parentage).
Although he was proclaimed by the Senate "dictator in perpetuity" (undermining the idea of a constitutional dictator), continued power struggles led to Caesar's death by stabbing, in the Senate chambers, in 44 BC. Succession was a problem. Caesar had been very popular with plebeians. Mark Antony, his top general, assumed that he was the natural heir, but Caesar had named his grandnephew Octavian as the heir to his name and position. Antony, needing soldiers and money, went to Egypt to create a military base for ultimate action against Octavian's control of Rome. He fell in love with Cleopatra, whose interests were served by keeping him in Egypt (possibly to defend Egypt against Octavian). When Octavian came, and the Battle of Actium was fought in 31 BC, Cleopatra would turn her ships away from the battle, and Antony would follow, losing Rome forever. Fearing Octavian's plan to parade her through the streets of Rome, Cleopatra committed suicide.
Octavian became Augustus Caesar, and his power was such that it could force peace among the various factions. Some say there is no Empire until Augustus. Even at the height of his power, however, Augustus insisted that he was only "princeps", first citizen of the Roman Republic, not emperor. The Pax Romana over which he presided was not peaceful in the sense that war on the frontier was almost constant, but inside the Empire many places (includeing Rome) experienced extraordinary prosperity and stability. The Senate promoted this stability by heaping honor upon honor upon him, even the title "father of his country". We say his name all the time, when we refer to the month of August, the sixth month in the Roman calendar and renamed for him. (Of course, the calendar itself, which held sway until a few hundred years ago, was called the Julian calendar after Julius Caesar.)
Augustus died in AD 14, and unfortunately the emperors who followed him were not of his caliber. Some, like Tiberius and Nero, appear to have been insane, at least according to historian Tacitus (who wrote from the comparative safety of the early 2nd century, the time of the "good emperors"). Nero was reputed to have built a marble stable for his horse, whom he appointed consul. He was also known for commanding attendance when he played the lyre at concerts, where no one was allowed to leave even if dying or giving birth. Under these Julio-Claudians, the emperors became increasingly removed from all but their own wealthy and private lives.
Roman politics is fun, but in terms of the modern West, the leadership styles and political problems don't provide very good models. With the exception of Roman law, which became highly developed, the main contribution of the Romans was their technology
The city of Rome was huge by the end of the millenium. About 1/3 of the city of Rome was comprised of the villas of the elite, about 1/3 was the slums where most people lived, and about 1/3 was public spaces. Fires were frequent, and got out of control. Rome's fire department was privately run. Crassus, one of the consuls with Julius Caesar, would appear with the fire trucks and offer to buy the buildings as they were burning, becoming one of the great Roman slumlords. The public spaces were necessary because of the slums, where people lived in even more crowded conditions than they do in urban slums today. People who don't have enough space spend a lot of time outside, on the streets.
To prevent urban violence, Rome provided public spaces with baths, fountains, gymnasiums, and places of entertainment. Tickets to the Forum (chariot races!) and the Colisseum (lions eating Christians!) were cheap. The city of Rome also provided flour, for free, to citizens. This "bread and circuses" approach was designed to distract people from their misery, and thus prevent revolt and mobs supporting opposition parties. In providing everyone with flour, Romans developed a technology that had been used in smaller settings: water-powered flour mills. Centuries before in India, the first wheels (noria) had lifted water from rivers onto fields. And small horizontal wheels had used rivers to turn millstones to grind grain. The Romans combined both with gears to allow a vertical wheel to provide more power.
Then they built them one after another, creating a factory to grind grain to feed Rome.
The Romans built a huge road network around Europe. The important thing to keep in mind is that these roads had only one purpose -- getting the army quickly from place to place. They were not built between towns or ports, but rather to connect one fortification to another.
Although initially created by laying planks of wood on wooden rails, Roman road technology developed over time to create roads that are so stable they are still used today (though many have been paved over with asphalt).
The roadbed was concave, and filled with stones and gravel in layers to create perfect settling of the roadbed, which consisted of thick paved stones fitted together over gravel. The top of the road was often curved for good drainage to the sides.
The Appian Way, leading from Rome to the sea, is one of the few roads used today without asphalt overpaving.
In cities, stepping stones not only helped pedestrians get across the street. They also were of standard width, so they controlled the width of carts that could move around the city. This led to smooth traffic and few obstacles within the city.
Water was brought into the cities from the mountains via aqueducts. Although fuctional for moving water, the aqueducts crossing the landscape also provided a visual reminder that one was in the Roman Empire and controlled by Rome.
I used to wonder where the water was in an aqueduct. Turns out it is on the inside, run in channels usually sealed with clay. Several channels could be used to more easily divert water to different places. An extra channel along the top could also be used.
This aqueduct in southern France gives an idea of how huge they were, a continual reminder of who was in charge as well as a source of fresh water.
In addition to monumental architecture, bridges and roads, the Romans built one building that has outlasted barbarian attack and the ravages of time. The Panthenon gives us an idea of the Roman obsession with perfect forms. The temple is dedicated to all the Roman gods (thus the name), and is so beautiful that according to legend the barbarians were literally stopped in their tracks and didn't destroy it.
As with their other arts, Roman literature frequently harked back to that of ancient Greece. One of the most famous works is Virgil's Aeneid, an epic story of a warrior journeying from the Trojan War to found the city of Rome. It is the story of a man's odyssey to become a man of virtus, the universal theme of Gilgamesh and the Odyssey being translated into Roman culture. The lyric poet Horace wrote of politics and poetry. Ovid developed classical mythology with his stories and set up much of what we know of the Roman gods (themselves modelled on Greek gods). Juvenal wrote satire, a Roman genre which commented on social mores. His satire on women is a good example:
This can also tell us something about how Imperial Rome considered women. As in the other cultures we've studied, wealthy women had the opportunity for education and a role in political life, although women were not permitted to vote or hold office. Tacitus tells us how powerful royal women were, even poisoning their enemies to further the political careers of their relatives.
As the Roman Empire expanded, Roman armies encountered many different kinds of people. The Gauls in what is now France, the Celts in Britain, and the Germanic tribes of central Europe all were influenced by Roman conquest. As the empire expanded, conquered peoples were offered alliances, and sometimes even citizenship, in return for providing military support at the borders against foreigners just outside the new edges of the Empire. Those military leaders who collaborated with Rome were rewarded with high political position, representation in Rome, and control of their own lands. In their villas in the countryside, these collaborating rulers lived a life that was very Roman.
How they were to be represented in the government was a huge question. Tacitus reports on the conflict in the Senate:
The 3rd and 4th centuries were a time of internal corruption and external violence in the Empire. At the same time a new faith, Christianity, was emerging and uniting large groups of the poor. In 285 Emperor Diocletion divided the empire into two halves, each ruled by an emperor and a deputy (the tetrarchy). This was only the first step in what would become a permanent division under the Emperor Constantine. Over the next century, the western half of the empire was continually under attack by tribal groups, particularly the Goths. In 476 the city of Rome itself was sacked by the Visigoths, and the west would not see another truly Roman Empire. The east would become the Byzantine Empire, predominantly Greek-oriented and Christian.
In deciding what happened to cause this "fall" of Rome, historians have come up with many theories. Edward Gibbon, a 19th century historian, believed the empire had been weakened by Christianity. Modern historians have developed a "lead poisoning" theory that is quite interesting. Wealthy Romans used lead-based makeup on their skin, drank wine out of lead cups (wine leaches lead out of metal), and had their water delivered in lead pipes. Poor Romans couldn't afford lead items, drank milk (an antidote to lead poisoning) and received water through clay pipes. Lead causes sterility and insanity, and the theory is that the wealthy became insane and infertile, struggling with leadership roles and not leaving enough children to succeed them.
Other historians focus on the overextension of the empire. The army was stretched thin, and the collaborators at the edges of the empire couldn't hold their areas in the face of the "barbarians" (foreigners). Also, climate change was a factor, since the invaders were in retreat from invaders in their own territories, who were looking for better climate and conditions for their animals.
It is most likely that all the proposed reasons have some truth in them, though none would account for everything.
1. "Captive Greece held Rome captive" -- Horace
2. Technology can help hold an empire together.
3. "Bread and circuses" can distract a population and cause them to become complacent, giving a government more power.
It is generally considered that the “fall of Rome” was much more complex than just the invasion of an empire. In the first place, only the Western half of the empire “fell” in the sense that it was taken over by entirely different peoples. The eastern half had prospered since Diocletian, and then Constantine, had divided the empire into two areas of rule. Because it was still primarily Greek and Asian, traditions of monarchy made the eastern empire easy for an emperor to rule.
Another complication was inherent in the Western Roman Empire itself. Over several centuries, “barbarians” (foreigners, non-citizens, non-Romans) had collaborated with the empire to rule and patrol the edges of the empire. Their loyalty was one of the justifications the emperor used to argue for their admission to the Senate in the last lecture’s document by Tacitus. In a sense, it was “new barbarians”, those who had never had any connection to Rome (and didn’t want one) who were the problem.
The new barbarians were not just invaders who came to raid Rome’s riches and run back home. They came to stay. New work in climate change history gives us one reason why. Maps for Western Civ classes usually show the invasions like this:
This makes it look like they were an internal, European affair. This map has been shrunk a lot, but at least it includes all of Eurasia:
Climate change began in China, where pastoral peoples had to move westward to look for better pasture for their animals. Since there were already tribes there, those groups were forced westward into the territory of other groups, and so on across the continent. The Roman Empire is at the edge of the continent, so in a sense the new barbarians were essentially pushed into the Empire by peoples east of them.
So they were coming to settle, not just to raid and run. To me that means that “invasion” isn’t the right word, and other historians have also begun to call what happened a migration instead. These peoples moved militarily to gain control of an area, then to settle it. Since they arrived from many different directions, and in many disparate groups, the Roman military found it hard to defend the very long borders. As these new people arrived, they encountered a Rome that was primarily Christian, which some have suggested made the Romans who were already there less likely to fight. I think it’s much more likely that the Church was pulling all the talent that would normally have gone into political leadership. If you wanted upward mobility in the 4th and 5th centuries, the Church was a better place than government service. Thus the decline of virtus as a principle is also blamed for both the fall of Western Rome and the rise of the Church.
Christianity originated in the followers of Jesus, and the term “Christian” was apparently used to define them by AD 50. Our primary source of information for the early era is the New Testament, which began as a collection of texts in the late first or second centuries. In addition to the Gospels narrating the life of Jesus, the letters of Paul provide much information about the Christians, who believed that Jesus was the last Messiah of Jewish tradition, and had been resurrected after his execution to save the souls of believers. The Roman state saw the new sect as threatening, and Christians were persecuted, most famously by the Emperor Nero in the 1st century, who used them as scapegoats for the great fire of AD 64 that destroyed much of Rome.
It was through Paul that Christian ideas achieved a more universal dimension. Paul travelled through the eastern part of the Roman Empire, where there was a combination of religious traditions, including Zoroastrianism and the worship of Isis. By the 2nd century Christians were defining their faith as separate from Judaism (in both its rabbinical and Hellenistic forms), and by the 3rd century Christianity had developed communities and traditions that continued to be seen as threatening by the Roman Empire.
Ironically, persecution, which continued until the 4th century, increased the number of conversions. Christians, as an underground sect, were much influenced by the Hellenistic philosophy of Stoicism. Stoics believe in the individuality of the human soul, and its connection to the cosmos. Real life lies in between, and is an illusion. So, as I've mentioned previously, a Christian being thrown to the lions in the Coliseum was not likely to provide good entertainment for the crowd, since he would pray and wait to go to heaven. The audience, instead of witnessing an X Games of emotion and blood sport, would see human strength and dignity. Without much other source in the culture for such personal dignity, many converted.
As with Judaism, Christianity’s mere survival (as well as its foundation in morality) made it a powerful force. In the early 4th century, Emperor Constantine halted persecution, which had really become politically ineffective, and he later became a Christian himself. By then, Christians had organized churches throughout Europe and created territories controlled by bishops. In 325, the First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council, and it decided on the common beliefs that would be the foundation for the orthodoxy of the Christian Church (such as the diety of Jesus and the idea of the trinity). At the same time, the idea of “heresy” was created. Heretics were those who opposed the ideas the council had sanctified. Arius, an elder in the church in Alexandria, Egypt, promulgated the idea that Jesus, as the son of God, was lower than God in the trinity. This “Arian heresy”, which became popular among the Germanic tribes, was denounced by the Nicene bishops. In areas where Christians controlled politics, persecutions of heretics began. Here's a brief timeline of early Christianity:
|Spread of Christianity to AD 600|
Late 1st c. BC-Early AD 1st c.: Life of Jesus
AD 1st c.: Paul and the spread of ideas, universality
AD 2nd c.: Christianity defined, separated from Judaism, beginning of orthodoxy
AD 3rd c.: Christianity as an organized order with own rituals, Roman persecutions
AD 4th c.: Constantine's imperial Christianity, new Jerusalem, persecutions of non-orthodox Christian sects
The era of western Rome’s decline has often been called the Dark Ages (the term is also used to refer to the Homeric Greek era). This pejorative designation reflects the Roman view. The new barbarians who migrated into Rome had no respect for or interest in “civilization" -- that is, society organized in cities. They were farmers, pastoralists, and warriors. Most were not literate, because literacy requires leisure, and they had no leisure. Elite Romans had the leisure to become educated and literate, partly because they had slaves to do the grunt work of life.
At this point we begin referring to the newcomers as “Germanic” barbarians, because the Goths and others spoke a common language. In many ways their society and customs were the opposite of the Romans. Their warrior culture was based on merit and testing in battle, not birth. They were fierce fighters who often engaged in internal battles for tribal dominance. Because they were often at war, and wanted warrior sons, women were respected and expected to become not only healthy, strong mothers but managers of lands and possessions. This was in stark contrast to elite Roman women, who were “protected” and isolated. The Visigothic code on inheritance and the Laws of the Salian Franks make it clear that men and women were equal in law and inheritance. Such laws were, of course, written down much later, but they were based on a vast oral heritage.
We have not seen such legal or social equality for females since the Hellenistic era, or such a social role for women since the Spartans.
In many ways, the Middle Ages (that thousand year period between the classical Greco-Roman past and the Renaissance) are dominated by Germanic traditions of these migrants. And in many ways, our customs today are based on theirs.
The best example of this is our use of witnesses, people who view major life events such as marriages, deaths and trials of civil and criminal cases.
Why witnesses? In pre-literate cultures, memory is important. It is also much better than memory in literate cultures. People who are not literate can retain far more information in their heads. Many of the epic poems of the Middle Ages, which lasted hours in the telling, could be repeated verbatim by their listeners. Most of us today can’t even remember a shopping list of more than seven items. Children in our culture retain huge amounts of learning in their minds, but once they start to write they lose that ability. It’s as if knowing we can write it down means we can forget it. Imagine a pre-literate personal memory on a large scale and you have a major difference between tribal people and ourselves.
Since nothing was written, life events had to be recorded in memory. When land was exchanged, or a treaty between warring parties was made, witnesses were needed to attest to the event years later if there was any question. This meant that (also unlike our culture) tribal cultures not only respected older people, but relied upon them.
Another significant difference between them and us is demonstrated in trial by ordeal. This was used in cases where there were no reliable witnesses, or an unusual crime, where somehow the verdict could not be made clear. An ordeal was designed to give the accused the opportunity to clear his name through appeal to a higher power. In the ordeal by cold water, for example, the accused tried to float in sanctified water (after Christianization, that would mean blessed by a priest). If the holy water accepted him, and he sunk (yes, they would fish him out), he was innocent. Or an ordeal could take place as a battle between accused and accusor, with the victor assumed to be right. Other ordeals were about divine intervention in healing. The accused would be handed a hot iron or coal to hold, then the injured hand would be wrapped, and if it healed after three days he was considered innocent.
My word "considered" is important here. Most modern people see trial by ordeal as "barbaric", in the derogatory sense. And it was. But it also allowed the community to move forward. Trials serve the same purpose today, even when the public doesn't agree with the verdict.
The oldest surviving epic poem in old English, Beowulf was written down in the late 10th century, but it was probably composed during the 7th. And it may have been based on real historical events from Scandinavia in the century before that.
The story and personalities reflect both Scandinavian (Viking) and Germanic (particularly Anglo-Saxon) culture. This is the longest reading for the class, but it's worth doing. We still want in our heroes many of the values shown here.
Here is a modern rendition of what it likely sounded like to listen to the beginning of this epic poem:
In the 4th century, when Rome became the official religion of the Empire, Diocletian set up "diocese", or large administrative areas run by bishops. These bishops worked alongside the secular rulers of Rome. With the fall of the Western Roman empire in the 5th century, the Roman church became the only power in that region that could claim any authority, even if it wasn't political authority. The writings of the early Church fathers helped define doctrine, but they also sometimes revealed their own conversion experiences as lessons to others.
In St Augustine's Confessions, we have such a work. He puts his life in the context of his acquired faith.
Even more importantly for history, Augustine developed the idea of the City of God. This was in the early 5th century, at the time of the largest barbarian incursions into the Western Roman Empire. St Augustine's approach separates holiness from the chaos going on around him (actually a very Stoic thing to do):
In 479, Clovis I, a Frankish king, coverted to the Roman form of Christianity, ending the conflict between the many Germanic tribes practicing Arianism and the Roman Church. Since this is close to the time of the sacking of Rome by the Goths (AD 476), the decline of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of Latin Christendom create a convenient chronology.
As the western and eastern halves of the empire separated, the diocese in the east lost touch with the main diocese in Rome. The bishop of Rome was isolated from the remaining bishops in the east when the barbarians invaded. Thus the Bishop of Rome became the main administrative figure in the European church. If the Church was the only central authority in the West, since the barbarian tribes ruled locally, then the Bishop of Rome could be seen as the highest authority in the west. The word "pope", or father, came to be applied to the Bishop of Rome, and the office itself developed its own philosophy. Pope Gregory I (Saint Gregory) was pope from 590-604, and developed the "Petrine Theory". The idea is based on St Peter's martyrdom, which took place in Rome. In the gospels, Peter had noted, "I am Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church". In Greek, his name (petra) is the same word as that for "rock". Thus Peter was the foundation of the church, and his death in Rome meant that Rome was the center of the Christian Church. Thus the "pope" was the center of authority in Europe, although in fact most of the Germanic states ignored the Church as a political entity. To encourage a united Christianity, Gregory sent out missions to those in Europe who had not yet been converted.
The hierarchy of the Roman Church begins with the pope, and goes through the archbishops and bishops down to the priests who served towns and village areas (parishes). But at the same time, there was a long tradition of hermits and ascetics who had been true Christians for generations, some of whom lived in communities designed to serve God through prayer. The Church came to sanction these communities, allowing the founders and abbots (and abbesses) of monasteries to exercise considerable independence.
St Benedict of Nursia was the 6th century founder of the Benedictine order. Instead of withdrawing from the world, Benedictine monks engaged in manual labor. This focus on work as another way of getting closer to God was later picked up by other orders, and made many of them very wealthy.
During the 6th century, there were the beginnings of conflict between church and state that would continue for centuries. Monarchs, like their previous tribal chieftains, exacted taxes from those who lived on their land. Some would try to tax churches and monasteries to raise money, but popes and bishops continually objected to this, usually effectively.
In 800, an event took place which connected the political rulers of Europe with the Church. Charlemagne was descended from the Frankish ruling tribe, and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the pope. This meant not only that he was seen as having a divine mandate to rule (because the pope crowned him, rather than someone else) but that the pope was seen as being a person who crowns emperors.
1. What has been known as an invasion of barbarians into Rome is more accurately described as a migration of Germanic peoples into the western Roman Empire.
2. The Germanic peoples, while they destroyed the foundations of Roman life (such as baths, villas, written law, and long-distance economy), brought their own culture which contains elements we still use today.
3. The Roman Church, through the leadership of the Church Fathers and popes, came to be a central power in a fragmented Europe.
The text by Lisa M. Lane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
The voice audio by Lisa M. Lane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
|Other materials used in this class may be subject to copyright protection, and are intended for educational and scholarly fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the TEACH Act of 2002. This page has been checked for web accessibility using WAVE.|