the Teutoburg Forest (near modern-day Bremen) and annihi-
lated it; the victors dedicated the slaughtered legions’ battle
standards to the Germanic gods in sacred groves. Th is stun-
ning victory eff ectively ended Roman ambitions in Germany,
though renewed Roman military actions and diplomacy
among Germanic rulers eventually broke up Arminius’s alli-
ance, which depended on nothing more than the magic of his
name. Th e emperor Claudius (r. 41–54 c.e.) conquered Britain
(43 c.e.). A ft er years of occupation a local queen, Boudicca (d.
60 c.e.), managed to stage a revolt against Roman rule, but
her eff orts were quickly suppressed. Th ereaft er the Romans
reverted to the traditional policy of controlling events in Eu-
rope through diplomacy and bribery of local leaders, with
only occasional limited military interventions.
In late antiquity (third to fi ft h centuries c.e.) the situa-
tion in Europe changed dramatically. Because of the richer
economic prospects available in Roman territory and because
of pressu re f rom new m ig rat ions f rom t he ea st of such peoples
as the Huns and Slavs, Germanic tribes, who had been par-
tially romanized through centuries of contact, wanted into
the empire, not to plunder but to live. Now huge war bands
of Goths, Vandals, and Franks penetrated especially into the
western part of the empire, ranging as far as North Africa,
establishing independent kingdoms.
Because of population changes brought about by the mi-
grations themselves, as well as the inability of central gov-
ernments based in Rome and Constantinople to provide
security despite an ever-increasing burden of taxation, local
people in its western provinces ceased to support the empire
as a unifi ed political entity, and it collapsed. Th e last western
emperor, Romulus Augustulus (b. 463 c.e.), was deposed by
the Goths in 476 c.e. Th e Eastern Roman Empire (now called
by historians the Byzantine Empire), secure for the time be-
ing, no longer had reason to intervene to try and impose its
authority in the West.
GREECE
BY JEFFREY S. CARNES
Th e Greeks thought of themselves as a free people, particu-
larly in contrast to the Persian Empire. Th is encompassed not
only freedom from political domination but also the positive
freedom to engage in open debate about political matters and
to live as one pleased with a minimum of interference from
the state. Th is was particularly true in democratic states, but
oligarchies as well valued freedom, albeit for a much more re-
stricted class of citizens. Th is attitude is evident in two works
of the Greek poet Homer (eighth or ninth century b.c.e.), the
Iliad and the Odyssey, where kings regularly hold councils to
receive advice from other nobles. Th e limits on this sort of
speech are evident as well: Th ere is an open acknowledgment
at the start of the Iliad that angering a great king is dangerous;
when a common soldier named Th ersites speaks out against
Agamemnon, he is publicly humiliated by Odysseus, with the
approval of the entire army.
Although many tyrannoi were good rulers, the Greeks
made the fi gure of the tyrannos—a term that describes a sole
ruler without hereditary claim to the throne—a sort of bo-
geyman, emblematic of the ways in which a sole ruler might
exercise power capriciously and quash dissent. Th e Greek
historian Herodotus (ca. 484–ca. 425 b.c.e.) tells the story of
Periander (r. ca. 627–586 b.c.e.), tyrant of Corinth, taking to
heart the metaphoric advice of a fellow tyrant to cut down
the stalks of wheat that stood higher than the others, that is,
to kill the most powerful people in the state, who might pose
a threat to his rule. Th e king of Persia was seen in a similar
light, and all Greek cities, even the most repressive, viewed
themselves as bastions of liberty and were proud of their abil-
ity to be self-governing and open to debate, whether the de-
liberative body was a small council of elders or an assembly
of the entire people. “Slaves to none, nor are they subject”
marvels the chorus of Persian elders in Persai, a drama by the
Greek dramatist Aeschylus (525–456 b.c.e.).
Political factions existed everywhere and at all times in
the Greek world, a culture in which dozens of independent
and frequently warring states existed in an area the size of
Iowa, less than 60,000 square miles. Th e word stasis (literally,
“standing”) was used for a faction that took a stand in a po-
litical dispute and also for the political unrest caused by such
groups. Sometimes these stands were based on class or re-
gional antagonisms. Sixth-century Athens, for example, ex-
perienced civil strife between those who lived in city, seaside,
and hillside districts. By the sixth century it was common for
a faction to present itself as the champion of an economic or
social class (such as landowners, debtors, or the poor) even
where the connection was tenuous. Larger states also were
ready to off er aid to factions elsewhere as a way of extend-
ing their spheres of infl uence: By the time of the Pelopon-
nesian War between Athens and Sparta, virtually every polis
(or city-state) in Greece had oligarchic and democratic fac-
tions. Th e extremely bloody stasis on Corfu in 427 b.c.e. was
the fi rst of many. Th e Greek historian Th ucydides (d. ca. 410
b.c.e.) paints a grim picture of the extent to which faction-
alism led to revenge, paranoia, and the utter breakdown of
Greek civic life.
Apart from the more violent forms of stasis, political
disagreement and dissent were tolerated to varying degrees
throughout the Greek world. As is oft en the case, the best
evidence comes from Athens. Th is is not only because of the
relative abundance of Athenian sources compared with those
from other cities but also because Athens was the freest and
most open of t he cities now k now n; if At hens fai led to tolerate
certain types of dissent, it is therefore likely that other cities
also failed to do so.
Th e Athenian democracy was based on the principle of
isonomia (equal protection of the laws); closely related to this
was the principle of isegoria (equal right to speak, such as
in the Assembly and other political fora). Later in the fi ft h
century b.c.e. the term parrhesia (frankness or freedom of
speech) appears as a quality in which the Athenians pridedresistance and dissent: Greece 877