Rome's peaceful expansion

[Kosmo]

Not all roman conquests were made by the power of the gladius. The roman republic expanded often peacefully.

The clearest example it's the inheritance given to Rome of the kingdom of Pergamum that became Roman Asia, a large and rich province. Cyrene was given by it's ruler to Rome.Cyprus was annexed by a single envoy of Cato. etc

Other examples are city-states that were allied of Rome, but were never formally anexed: Massalia, Rhodos, Callatis etc. Others kept a theoretical independence: Athens, Sparta etc

Rome acquired client kingdoms and after a while this were annexed by decree and not by warfare.

 

I see roman expansion as a mighty force that brakes in pieces his large foes, gets a form of mild and beneficial protectorate over the pieces and then gently swallows them sometimes leaving in place legal fictions as alliances and independence. This proces was not a shock but a gently evolution that sometimes lasted for many years, too long for individuals to feel the change.

 

Of course, the roman military power left few choices beetween cheering submission as friend or brutal destruction, but I don't know many cases in world history of this kind of expansion. Despite brutality mongols were resisted everywhere. I think it has more to do with the positive aspects of roman rule including a large degree of local autonomy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Rome's peaceful expansion is an interesting topic. Is there a comprehensive list of territories that Rome acquired without invading?

[ASCLEPIADES]

The Gasden Purchase from Mexico by the Pierce administration in 1854 was certainly a "peaceful expansion" of the United States, but it was clearly made under the threat of military intervention. Could it be that the peaceful expansion over Pergamum, Bythinia, Cyrenaica, Cyprus and others was analogous?

Edited July 9, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

Could it be that the peaceful expansion over Pergamum, Bythinia, Cyrenaica, Cyprus and others was analogous?

 

One might include Mauretania in that list. Rome exerted some influence there since the Punic Wars and, of course, the defeat of Jugurtha in Numidia as well as Caesar's civil war played a major role in Mauretania's eventual annexation. However, Mauretania was a client kingdom for roughly a century prior to that official annexation by Claudius in AD 44. As suggested... was it peaceful by choice or the evolution of much earlier military threat/success.

 

Edit:

 

Additional provinces of interest:

Lycia et Pamphylia (affected by the wars with Mithridates and Pompey's Lex Gabinia)

 

Cappadocia (incorporation seems mostly a result of changing allegiances in the civil wars)

 

The other provinces of modern Turkey could all be argued as peaceful annexations but all were directly effected by the Mithridatic wars and the Lex Gabinia. Galatia as an example, was made a client state in 64 BC after the invasions of Lucullus and Pompey, but wasn't made an official province for another 40 years (25 BC after the death of client king Amyntas).

[Pantagathus]

Cappadocia (incorporation seems mostly a result of changing allegiances in the civil wars)

Massilia was much the same way. Because the tremendous assistance it gave Rome during the 2nd Punic War (both finacially and maritime support) it operated independantly under its own constitution and government but with a high level of Roman rights until they shut their gates to Caesar during the Civil War.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In a sense, all government action takes place with an implied threat of force, so one can always make that case for Rome's expansions.

 

The case of Cyprus illustrates this point just fine. Here are the salient facts:

 

According to Tenney Frank in Roman Imperialism:

The two Ptolemies, Philometor and Euergetes, nicknamed Physcon, could not agree as co-rulers, and in 164 Physcon, the younger brother, drove the elder out. When the latter appealed to Rome, the senate sent him back with arbitrators, who arranged that Philometor should have Egypt and Cyprus, while Physcon should rule over Cyrene. This seemed to be satisfactory to all parties at the time, but presently Physcon asked the senate for a more even division, in fact, for the addition of Cyprus to his allotment. The senate, seeing the advantage that would accrue to Rome if Egypt were weakened, treacherously suppressed the decision of the envoys and voted in favor of Physcon

[Primus Pilus]

Cappadocia (incorporation seems mostly a result of changing allegiances in the civil wars)

Massilia was much the same way. Because the tremendous assistance it gave Rome during the 2nd Punic War (both finacially and maritime support) it operated independantly under its own constitution and government but with a high level of Roman rights until they shut their gates to Caesar during the Civil War.

 

Indeed... in the cases of all the "Asia Minor" territories they might all be considered direct results of the invasions of Lucullus and Pompey, including my afore-mentioned Cappadocia and Lycia et Pamphylia. Other than Asia Minor/Pergamum which had already been established prior to both invasions, all the remaining (eventual) provinces had Roman forces marching through at some point.

 

The difficult thing to judge here is whether or not these territories may have come under Roman political control even without Lucullus or Pompey. Such a scenario seems unlikely because Mithridates and successor kingdoms would have continued to exert themselves. Despite the fact that the Romans established theoretical autonomous rule after the invasions, the vassal/client status was a direct result of those invasions. Perhaps this is semantics, but we might also find that there is no true example of Roman acquisition without some sort of prior military involvement.

[Primus Pilus]

Other than Cyprus, Cyrenaica and Pergamum (later a part of Asia Minor), it would seem an argument could be made for military involvement in the expansion in every other territory. Even Bythinia, which was peacefully bequeathed by Nicomedes in 74 BC, might be viewed as the direct result of Sulla's intervention against Mithridates in the first war (roughly 10 to 15 years earlier).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Other than Cyprus, Cyrenaica and Pergamum (later a part of Asia Minor), it would seem an argument could be made for military involvement in the expansion in every other territory.

 

But in how many of these latter cases was the military involvement retaliatory rather than initiated by Rome?

[Kosmo]

Most of possesions in Asia, from Bythnia to Judeea, came as anexations of client states.

 

If we take as an example the conquest of Greece the pattern becames obvious. First romans "free" Greece thru war from macedonian rule. The new status it's difficult to keep and to provide the needed security for roman interests. Divided Macedonia still rebels, several greek cities use their freedom against romans tempting strong foes to challange the status quo. The result was roman direct rule in Greece and Macedonia.

Was this a desired policy when Rome made her first intervention?

I don't think so. Direct rule in Greece was a result of the inability of maintaing a peaceful status quo.

The same it's true about Anatolia. Roman defeated the seleucids and brought the western part of their empire under the control of several client states like Pergamum and Rhodos with the intention of keeping out both seleucids and macedonians. Even after the anexation of Pergamum and the long wars against Pontus some clientelar states were kept in the area.

Where roman rule was not challenged clientelar states had a long life. Numidians are a perfect example being under roman protection between 206-25 BC.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Not all roman conquests were made by the power of the gladius. The roman republic expanded often peacefully.

The clearest example it's the inheritance given to Rome of the kingdom of Pergamum that became Roman Asia, a large and rich province. Cyrene was given by it's ruler to Rome.Cyprus was annexed by a single envoy of Cato. etc

Other examples are city-states that were allied of Rome, but were never formally anexed: Massalia, Rhodos, Callatis etc. Others kept a theoretical independence: Athens, Sparta etc

Rome acquired client kingdoms and after a while this were annexed by decree and not by warfare.

 

I see roman expansion as a mighty force that brakes in pieces his large foes, gets a form of mild and beneficial protectorate over the pieces and then gently swallows them sometimes leaving in place legal fictions as alliances and independence. This proces was not a shock but a gently evolution that sometimes lasted for many years, too long for individuals to feel the change.

 

Of course, the roman military power left few choices beetween cheering submission as friend or brutal destruction, but I don't know many cases in world history of this kind of expansion. Despite brutality mongols were resisted everywhere. I think it has more to do with the positive aspects of roman rule including a large degree of local autonomy.

Plainly stated, I don't believe there is such thing like a free lunch or peaceful roman expansion. I think that if we inquire enough in all of the aforementioned cases, we will find evidence of active persuasion, meaning that those annexations were made ultimately by the power of the gladius.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Most of possesions in Asia, from Bythnia to Judeea, came as anexations of client states.

 

If we take as an example the conquest of Greece the pattern becames obvious. First romans "free" Greece thru war from macedonian rule. The new status it's difficult to keep and to provide the needed security for roman interests. Divided Macedonia still rebels, several greek cities use their freedom against romans tempting strong foes to challange the status quo. The result was roman direct rule in Greece and Macedonia.

Was this a desired policy when Rome made her first intervention?

I don't think so. Direct rule in Greece was a result of the inability of maintaing a peaceful status quo.

The same it's true about Anatolia. Roman defeated the seleucids and brought the western part of their empire under the control of several client states like Pergamum and Rhodos with the intention of keeping out both seleucids and macedonians. Even after the anexation of Pergamum and the long wars against Pontus some clientelar states were kept in the area.

Where roman rule was not challenged clientelar states had a long life. Numidians are a perfect example being under roman protection between 206-25 BC.

I consider that the jugurthine war and the fate of Juba II are perfect examples of the danger inherent to roman protection and of the long life of clientelar states EVEN when they challenged the roman rule.

[Primus Pilus]

I put together a list of Roman provincial acquisitions and organized it by date of initial influence (rather than actual provincial incorporation). Whether military involvement is aggressive or reactive in nature might be subjective so I left that off and leave it for open discussion.

 

[EDIT]

Oops! I accidentally left Mesopotamia (including Osrhoene) and Armenia off the list. Considering the military nature of these acquisitions, they aren't terribly necessary for this exercise anyway.

 

[EDIT 2]

 

I incorporated this document and revised an old page here... http://www.unrv.com/provinces/province-chronology.php

Provinces.pdf

[ASCLEPIADES]

X-cellent work, X-traordinary document. Congratulations, PP.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Apparently like a lot of empires, Rome's own account of its conquest of the World was perpetual self-defense. My point is that most (if not all) of Rome's military involvements were ultimately aggressive in nature.

Edited July 11, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES