Veni, Vidi, Vici: Why, How andto What Extent Did Egypt BecomeA Frontier of the Roman Empire?

By: Pilar Smyth

Pilar Smyth

S1574779

Frontiers of the Roman Empire

1044E05Y-1415ARCH

Dr C. van Driel-Murray

University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology

31 March, 2015

Word Count: 2.981

Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 1

The Battle of Actium ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1-2

Establishing the Frontier …………………………………………………..………………………………………………………. 2-3

The Roman Forts of Egypt ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3-4

Water in the Sahara ...……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….4-5

Trade in the Sahara and the Red Sea ….………………………...……………………………….….…………………..…. 5-7

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………. 7

Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….... 8

Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9-13

~ 0 ~

IntroductionFor over five millennia, Egypt has captivated mankind. Scholars

have dedicated their entire professional lives to uncovering just

one of Ancient Egypt’s many secrets; from agriculture and

horticulture practices, to military tactics, to religious

traditions, to food and clothing preferences, to the complexities

of the various dynasties – the areas of research are practically

endless! Some areas of research have been extensively studied and

reported on and some areas not quite as much. I will focus on one

of those ‘not quite as much’ areas. This essay will give a brief

introduction to why, how and to what extent Egypt became a frontier

of the Roman Empire during the late 1st century BC to the 3rd century

AD. In the coming pages I will discuss how Egypt was not taken by

Rome simply to expand into a new region and conquer the locals, but

that it was done so for strategic and economic reasons relative to

the trade routes throughout eastern Africa and, thereby, into Asia.

The Battle of ActiumThe Roman occupation of Egypt has a long and complicated origin,

but what sealed Egypt’s fate, put the final nail into the coffin so

~ 1 ~

to speak and ended an age of Egyptian pharaohs and dynasties was

the Battle of Actium.

Marc Antony, whom had been responsible for turning the Senate

against the murderers of Julius Caesar and had unsuccessfully

attempted to succeed Caesar a year or so after his murder, had

allied himself with the then twenty-year-old Octavian (who would

later become Caesar Augustus) and would eventually become his

lieutenant. Octavian had been adopted into his great-uncle Caesar’s

will as his sole heir and probably even his son (Tucker 2011, 72),

so Antony’s alignment with such a significant and powerful person

must have been very strategic on his part. Together, the two of

them formed a partnership that was meant to reform the state and

enact vengeance and justice on those who had killed Caesar. They

did this by executing some 2.000 people, including 300 senators and

Cicero (whom had persuaded the Senate to rally against Antony’s

efforts to succeed as Caesar) and by defeating the republican

armies at the Battle of Philippi in Macedonia in 42 BCE. This

significant battle is what lead to the suicide of two of the main

conspirators in Caesar’s murder, Brutus and Cassius (ibid).

With justice served, Octavian and Antony entered into what

would be called by historians the Second Triumvirate in which

Octavian, Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (the pontifex maximus)

governed over three separate parts of the Republic: Octavian had

everything west of the Ionian Sea, Antony had everything east of

~ 2 ~

the Ionian Sea and Lepidus had northern Africa.1 However, this

Second Triumvirate did not last long and was broken up for three

main reasons: first, Lepidus’s failed attempt at rising against

Octavian and his subsequent loss of power of northern Africa to

Octavian; second, Octavian’s rising concern over the threat of

Cleopatra VII and her son, Caesarion (whom Cleopatra had boasted

was the son of Julius Caesar); and third, once Antony had decided

to abandon his wife and sister of Octavian, Octavia, and

officially enter into a relationship with Cleopatra and become a

de facto stepfather to Caesarion. The third reason was perhaps the

most significant, for Antony could not have thrown a stronger blow

at Octavian than by entering into cahoots with two of Octavian’s

most powerful enemies. All of these perceived issues culminated on

2nd September, 31 BCE during the naval Battle of Actium, a battle

that Antony and Cleopatra lost and that lead to both of them

committing suicide (Tucker 2011, 72-75).

Establishing the FrontierWith the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra, Octavian, who had then

become Caesar Augustus – which marked the end of the Roman Republic

and the dawn of the Roman Empire – Egypt was able to be immediately

absorbed into the Empire (Jackson 2002, XXIV). Augustus’ most

important motivation of occupying Egypt was to control its trade

routes throughout the sub-Saharan desert and the import of Asian

goods coming into the Egyptian ports, goods that would bring many

riches into Rome and the other provinces of the Empire. Therefore,

1 Figure 1 of a map showing the division of land among the three men of the Second Triumvirate.

~ 3 ~

Augustus acted immediately on controlling his new territory. The

first things that he initiated were to assign a trusted Roman

governor to manage the region and send in a substantial amount of

the newly fashioned Roman Imperial soldiers to protect it from any

internal and external adversaries, as well as three Roman legions,

each of which consisted of 5.600 men to occupy the province (ibid).

By the time of Hadrian, only one legion remained in Alexandria and

the rest of the troops were spread throughout the province,

especially along the Nile (Breeze 2011, 129). By the time of the

later period of the Roman occupation of Egypt (early 4th century AD

onward), the region east of the Nile was styled a limes, however

this may have been the case prior to the fourth century as well

(Bard 1999, 683-684). Despite at some point being designated a

limes, I do not feel that Roman Egypt truly followed the model of

linear barriers expressed in David Breeze’s book, The Frontiers of

Imperial Rome, because, as it will be demonstrated throughout this

essay, the Roman occupation of Egypt and the forts that were set up

along the trade routes were meant to oversee, protect and control

these trade routes, meaning that the Romans were economically

motivated by the value of the items that were brought through the

desert trade routes and on their way to the rest of the Roman

Empire.

Although one of their chief concerns was maintaining control

over the trade routes and ensuring peace between the Egyptians and

the Jews in the more populous areas, the soldiers were also engaged

in a myriad of public works, such as building bridges, roads,

canals and serving as supervisors in the mines and quarries of the

~ 4 ~

Eastern Desert (ibid; Jackson 2002, XXIV). The soldiers were also

commissioned with building Roman forts near the ports, the various

oases and, most particularly, along key points of the trade routes,

which would aid in overseeing them.

The Roman Forts of EgyptCurrently, over one-hundred Roman forts exist throughout Egypt with

construction and occupation dates spanning the late 1st century BC

to the 6th or early 7th century AD (Bard 1999, 682-683). The shapes

of the forts varied in plan, however a rectilinear plan was the

most popular, with the less popular shapes being oval, circular or

a combination of the two and rectilinear. The combination of these

three shapes seem to fall in the Ptolemaic or earlier period of

Roman occupation rather than the later. There does exist one unique

semicircular fort at Wadi Umm Gariya located in the Eastern Desert

along the Berenike-Nile road. Nile forts were built of stone with

some brick2; those in the desert were built mainly of locally

acquired dry laid stones and mudbrick3, with fired brick used

sparingly in hydraulic contexts (ibid). The larger forts had either

rectilinear or circular/oval shaped towers at the corners,

neighbouring the gates and halfway along the walls, whereas the

smaller forts had fewer towers or lacked them entirely. Hydreumata

were installed usually inside the walls to get water into the

Eastern Desert forts (ibid). Of the seventy or so forts that were

set up along the routes through the Eastern Desert between the Nile2 Figures 2, 3 and 4 show digital reconstructions of the Nile Roman fort of Nag el-Hagar.3 Figure 5 shows a photo of Umm el-Dabadib, a desert Roman fort made of mudbrick.

~ 5 ~

and the Red Sea, most were small in size, many only thirty metres

square and it is only known of three that exceeded in half a

hectare in size (Breeze 2011, 129).

The main role of these forts and the Roman army was

maintaining internal security within Egypt because there was little

threat of invasion by major forces from outside the province

throughout most of the Roman period. The forts and their garrisons

performed multiple functions, including monitoring activities of

peoples living in and passing through the regions. Most importantly

though, they were literally and figuratively able to oversee and

protect the trans-desert routes or key locations along the Nile and

Delta from hostile peoples, like bandits and, in later periods,

from Bedouin marauders like the Nobatae and Blemmyes (Bard 1999,

682-683). The Eastern Desert forts guarded the key roads leading to

ports, mines or quarries and/or protected the more significant

quarries and mines themselves, such as Mons Porphyrites. The forts

in the Western Desert guarded the trade routes coming from Sudan,

especially along the Darb el-Arba’ein, the key oases and routes

leading to the Nile. The forts in Fayum monitored the more densely

populated areas, whereas those in Sinai, such as the one at

Pelusium, guarded vital urban centers, while others protected

various mines and quarries (ibid).

Water in the SaharaEgypt’s Western Desert was punctuated by five isolated depressions

that were carved by wind erosion into the limestone of the Libyan

Desert plateau; these depressions were the oases of Fayum, Siwa,

~ 6 ~

Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhla and Kharga (Jackson 2002, 159). These

oases range in depth from thirty to 120 metres above sea level and

the porous sandstone that underlies the limestone is fairly close

to the surface, thereby making the water trapped within the

sandstone accessible either by digging and installing wells or,

occasionally, simply by tapping natural springs that flowed through

the area. The water itself came from rain that had fallen far to

the south in the Sudan and from outflow that occurred in the upper

stretches of the Nile River. In both instances, this water

permeated the sandstone and drifted northwards under the

depressions of Egypt’s Western Desert where, when tapped, it

facilitated substantial populations of people to live in these

oases and support themselves by farming (ibid). This is why some of

the larger desert Roman forts, such as at Siwa, can be found around

these oases.4

When not within an oases vicinity, the Romans and the

Ptolemy’s before them were still able to recover water in more

inhospitable areas of the Western Egyptian Desert by digging deeper

into the desert sand and installing wells and cisterns that could

sustain a significantly smaller population than the areas around

the oases. Therefore the Romans were able to have smaller forts and

outposts installed and successfully manned in the more remote areas

of the desert trade routes. To make these remote areas even more

fiscally successful by means of the trade routes, the Romans and

the Greeks before them, constructed or rebuilt hydreumata, which

were fortified watering stations, that both commercial and military

travellers, independent traders and camel caravans had access to4 Figures 6 and 7 of Siwa Oasis and its archaeological remains.

~ 7 ~

while passing through. Another function of these hydreumata, along

with the watchtowers that were often near them, was to defend the

vital wells from attacks by marauding desert peoples (Jackson 2002,

98).

Trade in the Sahara and the Red Sea“The Eastern Desert, a hyper-arid area devoid of permanent,

agricultural habitation, was an area of intense commercial

activity-trade with the East and South via the Red Sea ports

(Myos Hormos and Berenike) and exploitation of the rich

mineral resources of the Red Sea Mountains. Protection and

control of this commerce accounts for the plethora of small

military posts which line the roads and oversee the quarries”

(Maxfield 2005, 201).

The minimal literary evidence that remains and, most importantly,

the archaeological excavations in Egypt and elsewhere in the Red

Sea-Indian Ocean region suggest that in the early Roman occupation

maritime commerce with Southern Arabia, India, Sri Lanka and

coastal sub-Saharan Africa reached its zenith (Bard 1999, 685). The

Asian goods coming in from the Red Sea had to be brought in through

one of the seven main Egyptian ports: Clysma, Abu Sha'ar,

Philoteras, Leukos, Limen, Myos Hormos, Nechesia, and

Berenike. Most of these ports were established by the Ptolemies,

but the Romans were responsible for largely expanding their

economic significance (Jackson 2002, 76). All of these ports had

routes connecting them to emporia on the Nile and all the trans-

desert Red Sea-Nile routes had way-stations, many of which were

~ 8 ~

hydreumata, that were closely monitored by the Roman military (Bard

1999, 685).

One of the most vital of these Egyptian Red Sea ports was

Berenike. Since excavations began at Berenike over twenty years

ago, archaeologists have uncovered many fascinating artefacts that

span nearly eight centuries. These artefacts include “papyrus

fragments, ostraca, Persian Gulf and Indian pottery, enameled

glass, Axumite (Ethopian) Indiana and Sri Lankan beads, coins,

Indian resist-dye textiles, coconut, rice, teak wood, pieces of

shell jewelry, an ivory bracelet, emeralds, and several fake

emeralds made of chloride” (Jackson 2002, 87). There is also

evidence which shows that goods brought into Berenike constituted

the bulk of Asian and Sub-Saharan merchandise that the Romans

imported to other parts of the empire along the desert trade

routes. Some of these items include from Ethiopia – ivory (such as

rhinoceros horns), tortoise shells and myrrh; from northern Somalia

– myrrh, frankincense and slaves; from Arabia – myrrh, white

marble, aloe and frankincense; from northwestern India – nard (a

type of perfume), myrrh, indigo, turquoise, lapis lazuli, onyx,

agate, ivory, cotton cloth, fine cotton garments, silk cloth and

yard, Chinese pelts and pepper; and from

south and southwestern India – malbathron, pearls, transparent

gems, diamonds, sapphires and fine cotton garments (Jackson 2002,

87). All of these imported goods nurtured the Romans taste for

showy extravagance of expensive items (Jackson 2002, 88).

Loaded with such luxurious goods, the cargo of one single ship

could earn merchants astonishing profits, regardless of the 25% tax

~ 9 ~

imposed on all goods imported into Berenike. One remaining papyrus

concerning a shipment from Muziris, India to Alexandria included

some 700 to 1.700 pounds of nard, more than 4.700 pounds of ivory,

and 790 pounds of textiles all of which valued at 131 talents,

which would have been enough to purchase 2.400 acres of the finest

farmland in Egypt! Perhaps most outstanding of all was that this

shipment was only a small portion of the entire cargo (ibid)!

Acquiring ethnic material riches from the south of Egypt and

Asia into the Empire from the various Red Sea ports and along the

desert trade routes was certainly beneficial to the Roman economy,

but the most important product was the grain that was produced in

the extremely fertile Delta, Nile Valley and in the large western

oases. With often providing two or three harvests per year (Jackson

2002, 158) the annual output of the grain in these parts of Egypt

would provide approximately one-third of Rome’s total grain

consumption (Jackson 2002, XXIV). Although not now as verdant as in

antiquity, since much of the water supply has disappeared, the

various oases, particularly Kharga, operated as a rich agricultural

center that was capable of producing wheat, barley, a wide variety

of fruits and vegetables all of which began its venture to other

parts of the Roman Empire on the desert trade routes of Egypt.

The maintenance and protection of the trade routes and

hydreumata in the Easter Desert was expensive for the Roman

military. To compensate for these expenses, the Romans established

the Coptos Tariff for all people who used the desert trade routes.

“While the purpose of the toll was clearly fiscal, the mechanism by

which it was enforced will have meant that all who passed by the

~ 10 ~

customs post into the frontier zone beyond the Nile Valley could be

recorded, whether or not they had to pay a toll. And likewise,

those moving in the opposite direction from the desert frontier

zone into the settled area, could be monitored” (Maxfield 2005,

202). In the late 19th century, excavations at the tollhouse in

Coptos uncovered an inscription, dating to AD 90, gives the various

rates of fees charged for people and animals crossing the desert

(Jackson 2002, 103). 5

All of these extravagant items and the amount of them that

were imported to the rest of the empire, particularly items like

myrrh, frankincense, fine silk or cotton clothing and precious

jewels, shows me how valued these goods were to the Romans. A few

years ago, I learned from my classical archaeologist professor that

in Roman gardens and peristyles, Romans, at least the wealthy ones,

were fascinated with harnessing and controlling the power of nature

by bringing nature into their homes through water features and

various plant life. Personally, I would correlate this fascination

with that of the fascination and value of foreign items. Acquiring

such treasured items would not only prove your wealth to society,

but I think that it could have also symbolised harnessing and,

therefore, controlling different parts of the world all in the

comfort of one’s own home.

ConclusionLooked at as a whole, the literary and archaeological evidence from

the Egyptian Sahara provides a remarkable picture of the day-to-day

functioning of a desert limes during the Roman occupation (Maxfield5 Figure 8 showing a table of a translation of the inscription found at the Copotos tollhouse.

~ 11 ~

2005, 205-206). Upon occupation of Egypt by as many as 20.000 Roman

soldiers, they rapidly began building fortified camps and

eventually established forts that spread throughout the desert and

where inclusive of desert trade routes, the five major oases in the

Egyptian Sahara and the ports along the Red Sea. This essay has

demonstrated that the placement of these forts was both

strategically and economically focused, meaning that the primary

motivation Rome had in occupying Egypt was to control the trade

routes to the Red Sea and the wider Indian Ocean and to protect its

trade routes from bandits, all of which connected the Roman Empire

to the East through commerce and, therefore, profit.

Bibliography

Bagnall, R.S., A. Bülow-Jacobsen and H. Cuvigny, 2001.

Security and Water on Egypt’s Desert Roads: New Light on the

Prefect Iulius Ursus and Praesidia-Building under Vespasian.

Journal of Roman Archaeology 14, 325-333.

Bard, K.A., 1999. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt.

London: Routledge.

Boozer, A.L., 2013. Frontiers and Borderlands in Imperial

Perspectives: Exploring Rome’s Egyptian Frontier. American

Journal of Archaeology 117(2), 275-292.

Breeze, D.J., 2011. The Frontiers of Imperial Rome. South Yorkshire:

Pen & Sword Books Ltd.

Ikram, S., 2008. Egypt’s Frontier Oasis: A Visual Journey

Through Egypt’s Frontier. Archaeology 61(6), 36-41.

Jackson, R.B., 2002. At Empire’s Edge: Exploring Rome’s Egyptian Frontier.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

~ 12 ~

Karelin, D.A., 2011. Imaging of the Late Roman Castrum.

Hypothetical Computer Reconstruction of Nag el-Hagar in Egypt.

Architecture and Modern Information Technologies 2(15), 1-20.

Kirwan, L.P., 1957. Rome Beyond the Southern Egyptian

Frontier. The Geographical Journal 123(1), 13-19.

Maxfield, V., 2005. Organisation of a desert limes: The case

of Egypt. In: Z. Visy (ed), Limes XIX, Proceedings of the XIXth

International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, September 2003. Pécs,

Hungary, 201-210.

Tucker, S.C., 2011. Battles That Changed History: An Encyclopedia of World

Conflict. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Wiseman, R., 2011. On the Back of the Army: A Comparative Study of

Romanization in Britain and Egypt. Las Vegas (unpublished MA thesis

University of Nevada, Las Vegas).

Figures

~ 13 ~

Figure 1: The division of the Second Triumvirate(http://dustinsimmons.blogspot.nl/2011/09/too-crowded-at-top-antony-octavian.html).

~ 14 ~

Figure 2: Digital reconstructions of the Nile Roman fort of Nag el-Hagar (Karelin 2011,6).

Figure 3: Digital reconstructions of the Nile Roman fort of Nag el-Hagar (Karelin 2011, 8).

Figure 4: Digital reconstructions of the Nile Roman fort of Nag el-Hagar (Karelin 2011, 8).

~ 15 ~

Figure 5: The 3rd to 4th century AD desert Roman fort at Umm el-Dabadib,which was made of mudbrick (photo curtesy of Ken Garrethttp://archive.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/egypt.html).

~ 16 ~

Figure 6: Siwa Oasis(http://www.alwaysegypt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Siwa-Berbers.jpg ).

Figure 7: Siwa Oasis ancient remains (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Siwaoasis.JPG).

For a captain in the RedSea trade

8 drachmae

For a lookout man 10 drachmaeFor a shipwright 5 drachmae

For a sailor 5 drachmaeFor an artisan 8 drachmaeFor courtesans 108 drachmae

For women of marines 20 drachmaeFor women of soldiers 20 drachmae

Figure 8: A translation of the inscription found at the Copotostollhouse (Jackson 2002, 103).

~ 17 ~

~ 18 ~

Figure 9: Map of Roman forts, oases and trade routes (Karelin 2011,3).

~ 19 ~