Factors Contributing To The Pax Romana

[Guest Hastatus]

Ave Amicas

 

What do people think were some of the main factors in contributing to the creation and maintenance of the Pax Romana. The Pax Romana being from the ascension of Augustus in 27 B.C to the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 A.D.

 

I have some ideas so far, but I was wondering if anyone else had anything to add.

 

1. The military might of the Legions as a deterrent to foreign invasion and as a force in supressing internal rebellion.

 

2. The incorporation of the native peoples into the Legions and the workings of the Roman empire as auxilaries and burecrats.

 

3. The growth of the Roman infrastructure network, such as roads, aquaducts, and forums which increased the trade within the empire and increased the standard of living for the conquered peoples

 

Thanks

[tflex]

Well the main factor has to be the fall of the republic. Caesar and Augustus have to be credited in ending such an unstable and outdated system. The late republic brought nothing but civil wars, and an absolute ruler with absolute authority was the perfect ingredients for peace, prosperity and stability at least for the next 200 years. Hail Caesar!

Edited February 21, 2006 by tflex

[Sextus Roscius]

The End of major Political upheavals. I think after 3 very bloody civil wars almost directly after each other, Rome and her people wanted to relax.

 

This was aided by An Emperor, all of Rome under one Decisive Rule.

Infastructure

Military might

Etc.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

More specifically, a competent imperator who commanded respect from the senate and had total control of the legions.

[Primus Pilus]

Well the main factor has to be the fall of the republic. Caesar and Augustus have to be credited in ending such an unstable and outdated system. The late republic brought nothing but civil wars, and an absolute ruler with absolute authority was the perfect ingredients for peace, prosperity and stability at least for the next 200 years. Hail Caesar!

 

C'mon tflex, I appreciate the imperial era as well, but posts such as this seem to have the purpose simply to incite a reaction. Don't Caesar and Augustus have to carry just as much guilt for their involvement in the wars of the late Republic? Was Rome prosperous while Nero squandered the imperial treasury? Was it peaceful after his death? Was the succession of Claudius following the butchering of Gaius and his family, or the 'reign' of Sejanus truly stabilizing?

 

Essentially, the Pax Romana is a bit of a mistranslation. There were revolts, wars and conflicts taking place all throughout the early imperial era. I do concede that the key difference is that most major conflict was outside of the borders of the empire, but to say that peace reigned supreme while Roman legions marched through Britannia, Caledonia, Germania, Dacia and essentially the entire east is the equivelant of putting on blinders. In comparison to the debacle that was the 3rd century, I don't think there's any question that the Julio-Claudians through the Antonines was a 'golden age' but peaceful it was not. Pax Romana is perhaps better defined as the 'great Romanization of the world' including the use of the legions to accomplish it.

 

Otherwise, you have a solid foundation for how this Romanization occured.

[tflex]

C'mon tflex, I appreciate the imperial era as well, but posts such as this seem to have the purpose simply to incite a reaction. Don't Caesar and Augustus have to carry just as much guilt for their involvement in the wars of the late Republic? Was Rome prosperous while Nero squandered the imperial treasury? Was it peaceful after his death? Was the succession of Claudius following the butchering of Gaius and his family, or the 'reign' of Sejanus truly stabilizing?

 

But the difference is Caesar and Augustus were trying to find a permanent solution and at the end Augustus implemented the solution and it worked. There were civil wars before but they were all unsuccessful in bringing about stability for a long period of time. The cycle of destructive civil wars finally took a backseat in the Pax Romana and the empire was finally free to prosper and flourish again and it did for 200 years.

 

Essentially, the Pax Romana is a bit of a mistranslation. There were revolts, wars and conflicts taking place all throughout the early imperial era. I do concede that the key difference is that most major conflict was outside of the borders of the empire, but to say that peace reigned supreme while Roman legions marched through Britannia, Caledonia, Germania, Dacia and essentially the entire east is the equivelant of putting on blinders. In comparison to the debacle that was the 3rd century, I don't think there's any question that the Julio-Claudians through the Antonines was a 'golden age' but peaceful it was not. Pax Romana is perhaps better defined as the 'great Romanization of the world' including the use of the legions to accomplish it.

 

Compared to the late republic, yes the early imperial era was 10 times more stable. You can't count the early republic because it did not have half the responsibilities of the late republic and early empire. During the Pax Romana internal revolts were fewer and the system was able to recover after a Caligula or a Nero, the same cannot be said for the late republic.

Edited February 21, 2006 by tflex

[Kosmo]

Pax Romana was much longer then the reign of Commodus because it was the mediteranean world that had peace not the borders. War was limited to the border regions that never had a long period of peace (for example Dacia in 150 years had suffered 4 major invasions and many other wars) while the most important regions like Italia, Iberia, Africa, Greece, Asia Minor had centuries of peace broken only by brief civil wars.

[Kathleenb]

So at what point did the term "Pax Romana" come into use? I've been told it was used by the Romans themselves, but I haven't seen an actual creditiable source saying who/when/how the term originated.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Compared to the late republic, yes the early imperial era was 10 times more stable. You can't count the early republic because it did not have half the responsibilities of the late republic and early empire.

 

Where do you get 10 times? Why not .1, 1, or 100 times? You pulled this number out of your ... head. In fact, during the first 250 years of the empire, there were more unconstitutional transfers of power than during the last 250 years of the republic.

 

Moreover, ignoring the stability of the first 300 years of the republic is completely unjustified. The 'responsibilities' of the republic prior to the Roman revolution were not "half" that of the late republic (the source for this figure is also manufactured whole-cloth). Moreover, any objective measure of 'responsibilities' (indexed, for example, by the number of provinces) has to be adjusted by the total manpower available for the administration and defense of those provinces.

 

As has been pointed out many times, the problem of succession for the principate was never really solved, and the political chaos and erosion of civic spirit that it engendered completely undermined the so-called Pax Romana and contributed to the ultimate collapse of the classical world.

[tflex]

Where do you get 10 times? Why not .1, 1, or 100 times? You pulled this number out of your ... head. In fact, during the first 250 years of the empire, there were more unconstitutional transfers of power than during the last 250 years of the republic.

 

Yes I pulled it out of my head, it was painful!

 

It doesn't matter if there was more unconstitutional transfers of power, it did better than the late republic and held it's own anyway. The good Emperors of the Pax Romana were far more effective than the good consuls of of the late republic, that is if there were any good consuls. The same way the bad emperors were worse than the bad consuls of the republic. The Imperial state had both extremes and the Pax Romana was extereme success.

 

Moreover, ignoring the stability of the first 300 years of the republic is completely unjustified. The 'responsibilities' of the republic prior to the Roman revolution were not "half" that of the late republic (the source for this figure is also manufactured whole-cloth). Moreover, any objective measure of 'responsibilities' (indexed, for example, by the number of provinces) has to be adjusted by the total manpower available for the administration and defense of those provinces.

 

It's not as simple as Provinces and manpower. A city state can be run a lot smoother than an empire with no comparison in responsibilities. After Scipios conquests the republic slowly started feeling the strain of managing such an enormous empire and slowly began to crumble under it's own weight. Then Caesar came and added even more to the growng empire and consequently the republic collapsed. Not a coincidence.

Edited February 24, 2006 by tflex

[coolgolfer]

So at what point did the term "Pax Romana" come into use? I've been told it was used by the Romans themselves, but I haven't seen an actual creditiable source saying who/when/how the term originated.

 

To answer your question, I believe based on facts that the PAX Romana is a term/phrase to describe the economic, growth and stability the Roman Empire experienced during the rule of Augustus. This said that the PAX Romana lasted a good 100 years from the time Augustus assumed the throne from 27AD till the time the Romans went to War with Dacia. In the ensense, if you really think about it, the Romans really didn't have a serious military threat for a good 100 years, with a few small exceptions such as the defeat of two legions in Germany around 9AD, or a few skirmishes with Dacia around 89Ad or with th Macedonia Pirates during Tiberias rule. But overall, the Romans didn't have a serious threat until the time of Emperor Trajan. Eventhough Trajan went to war with Dacia and even went to war with Parthia.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Yes I pulled it out of my head, it was painful!

Still more painful to watch--why don't you try actually consulting a list and counting the number of unconstitutional transfers instead of making numbers up?

 

It doesn't matter if there was more unconstitutional transfers of power

It matters for your claim that one system was more stable than the other. If the principate were more stable, then it's laws needn't be ignored every other emperor!

 

After Scipios conquests the republic slowly started feeling the strain of managing such an enormous empire and slowly began to crumble under it's own weight.

 

Your characterization of "strain" and "crumble" is a metaphor, not a proof. Support your arguments with facts not analogies.

 

if you really think about it, the Romans really didn't have a serious military threat for a good 100 years, with a few small exceptions such as the defeat of two legions in Germany around 9AD, or a few skirmishes with Dacia around 89Ad or with th Macedonia Pirates during Tiberias rule.

 

lol! Just a few exceptions! I guess the Punic War was nothing but a string of Roman victories (with a few small exceptions like Cannae, Lake Trasimene, etc)!!!

[tflex]

Still more painful to watch--why don't you try actually consulting a list and counting the number of unconstitutional transfers instead of making numbers up?

 

Because, I stand by my position that unconstitutional transfers didn't matter if the system was able to withstand it. It's the result that counts. The fact is for 200 years Rome prospered even with the illegal transfers of power that took place. Ofcourse, I'm only talking about the Pax Romana.

 

It matters for your claim that one system was more stable than the other. If the principate were more stable, then it's laws needn't be ignored every other emperor!

 

Laws were ignored under both systems, but it was still more stable than the late republic. Also, power transfer is not the only factor that determines stability, it's an important one but by no means the only one.

 

Your characterization of "strain" and "crumble" is a metaphor, not a proof. Support your arguments with facts not analogies.

 

Thats too easy Cato, just go back and look at the events leading up to the Gracchis and the civil wars that followed. Surely you are familiar with the events that took place during that period and their negative effects on the system in place? Or do I have to dictate them to you, I don't think so.

As a result of civil strife and unconstitutional activites, the republic was strained, crumbled, collapsed, fell, suffocated etc. Are these metaphors? yes. Are they accurate? absolutely. Are they backed up by facts? yes.

 

The uncostitutional transfers that you talk about obviuosly hurt the imperial system at the end, but during the Pax Romana (200 years) the system survived and prospered even under such power transfers, the republic didn't because it was more unstable and weaker.

Edited February 24, 2006 by tflex

[Ursus]

Ave Amicas

 

What do people think were some of the main factors in contributing to the creation and maintenance of the Pax Romana. The Pax Romana being from the ascension of Augustus in 27 B.C to the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 A.D.

 

I have some ideas so far, but I was wondering if anyone else had anything to add.

 

1. The military might of the Legions as a deterrent to foreign invasion and as a force in supressing internal rebellion.

 

2. The incorporation of the native peoples into the Legions and the workings of the Roman empire as auxilaries and burecrats.

 

3. The growth of the Roman infrastructure network, such as roads, aquaducts, and forums which increased the trade within the empire and increased the standard of living for the conquered peoples

 

Thanks

 

 

I'm going to ignore some of the subsequent banter and address the original topic, assuming anyone still cares.

 

Yes, I do believe that is a fair list up top, and they are all interconnected, really. With the boom of the Roman economy following the civil wars, the elites of the native cultures in the Western Mediterranean were fairly easily assimilated into Roman culture as decurions, equestrians, and senators. At the same time, while Italians deserted the legions to become traders and merchants, the lower classes of the native peoples became legion troops for a hope of citizenship and land. Meanwhile, the Varrus disaster notwithstanding, the barbarian tribes on the border entered into a complex trading and military relationship with Rome.

 

As PP said, it wasn't a paradise, but it was a time when the Western Mediterranean became Romanized. The East was a separate entity and didn't partake much of the Senatorial class until philhellenic Imperators like Hadrian, but nontheless it largely accepted Roman hegemony. Good times all around. A nice time to be alive, at least if you were rich.

[Neos Dionysos]

So at what point did the term "Pax Romana" come into use? I've been told it was used by the Romans themselves, but I haven't seen an actual creditiable source saying who/when/how the term originated.

 

To answer your question, I believe based on facts that the PAX Romana is a term/phrase to describe the economic, growth and stability the Roman Empire experienced during the rule of Augustus. This said that the PAX Romana lasted a good 100 years from the time Augustus assumed the throne from 27AD till the time the Romans went to War with Dacia. In the ensense, if you really think about it, the Romans really didn't have a serious military threat for a good 100 years, with a few small exceptions such as the defeat of two legions in Germany around 9AD, or a few skirmishes with Dacia around 89Ad or with th Macedonia Pirates during Tiberias rule. But overall, the Romans didn't have a serious threat until the time of Emperor Trajan. Eventhough Trajan went to war with Dacia and even went to war with Parthia.

 

 

27BC, not AD... and Rome lost 3 legions in Teoutoberg Wald, the 17th, 18th and 19th.

 

But overall your description is accurate to what the term "Pax Romana" is coined.