Roman Civil Wars

[M. Porcius Cato]

Did Roman civil wars prevent conquest? There's no need to wax poetic about human nature here. Just look at a timeline of Roman history and count up the years that Rome invaded other nations WHILE being at war with herself and the years that Rome invaded other nations WHILE NOT being at war with herself. The years accumulating in the second category far outweighs the first. Surely this lends credence to Cassius' point.

 

Looking beyond the timeline, I think one can also make the reverse case: not only did civil war prevent foreign conquest (at least temporarily), foreign conquest itself tended to be destabilizing and at least facilitated future civil wars. Had Caesar's Parthian legions not been assembled, the troops marshaled in the field at Phillipi would have been much smaller. Had Caesar not had an army to play with in Gaul, his crossing of the Rubicon would have been a big yawn. Had Pompey not been campaigning in the East and gobbling up foreign clients, he would have had no cause to join in the tremendously destabilizing triumvirate with Caesar. Had Sulla and Marius not been waging war outside Rome, their civil war would have been a toothless squabble as well. Even the Social War was all about the drafting of Italian troops who had no share in the spoils and no say in their mustering. From the moment that Tiberius Gracchus jumped over the walls of Carthage, nearly every generation of Roman was plagued by victorious warriors who forgot the arts of peace once they were home.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve! The Cassius Longinus' quotation is probably this one: (Cicero, Oratio Philippica Secunda, Ch.XXXIV-XXXV)

 

"quamquam si interfici Caesarem voluisse crimen est, vide, quaeso, Antoni, quid tibi futurum sit, quem et Narbone hoc consilium cum C. Trebonio cepisse notissimum est et ob eius consili societatem, cum interficeretur Caesar, tum te a Trebonio vidimus sevocari. ego autem--vide quam tecum agam non inimice--quod bene cogitasti aliquando, laudo; quod non indicasti, gratias ago; quod non fecisti, ignosco. virum res illa quaerebat. quod si te in iudicium quis adducat usurpetque illud Cassianum, 'cui bono fuerit,' vide, quaeso, ne haereas. "

 

"Although, if it be a crime to have wished that Caesar might be put to death, beware, I pray you, O Antonius, of what must be your own case, as it is notorious that you, when at Narbo, formed a plan of the same sort with Caius Trebonius; and it was on account of your participation in that design that, when Caesar was being killed, we saw you called aside by Trebonius But I (see how far I am from any horrible inclination toward,) praise you for having once in your life had a righteous intention; I return you thanks for not having revealed the matter; and I excuse you for not having accomplished your purpose. That exploit required a man. And if any one should institute a prosecution against you, and employ that test of old Cassius,

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

BTW, your Maths is inherently biased because there were simply too few years of Civil War (no more than 20) against the total lifetime of the Roman Republic (some 482 years).

 

I agree foreign conquers tend to have a destabilizing effect over the conqueror's internal affairs; it's amazing the Roman Senate was able to prevent civil war for more than a Century after the II Punic war. I think the turning point was the so called "Marian" reforms.

 

let's not forget that as ASCLEPIADES says that there were only 20 years, in which the whole of the Roman conquered lands turned on each other, most of the time it was just two senatorial factions eg Marius v Sulla and Caesar v Pompey

 

vtc

[M. Porcius Cato]

BTW, your Maths is inherently biased because there were simply too few years of Civil War (no more than 20) against the total lifetime of the Roman Republic (some 482 years).

 

Obviously you should divide by the number of years in each of the two categories.

 

Also, there were more than 20 years of Civil War just in the last century of the republic.

Social War: 91 - 89 (~3 years)

Marian Civil War: 88 - 82 (~+7 years)

War with Sertorius/Lepidus: 83 - 72 (~+10 years)

Catiline: 62 (~+1 year)

Caesarian Civil War: 49 - 45 (~+5 years)

 

To this, add all the years of civil war during the principate and dominate. Cassius' thesis wasn't restricted to the republic, but generalized over all Roman history.

[M. Porcius Cato]

BTW, this thread doesn't belong the Humanities folder.

[ASCLEPIADES]

BTW, your Maths is inherently biased because there were simply too few years of Civil War (no more than 20) against the total lifetime of the Roman Republic (some 482 years).

 

Obviously you should divide by the number of years in each of the two categories.

 

Also, there were more than 20 years of Civil War just in the last century of the republic.

Social War: 91 - 89 (~3 years)

Marian Civil War: 88 - 82 (~+7 years)

War with Sertorius/Lepidus: 83 - 72 (~+10 years)

Catiline: 62 (~+1 year)

Caesarian Civil War: 49 - 45 (~+5 years)

 

To this, add all the years of civil war during the principate and dominate. Cassius' thesis wasn't restricted to the republic, but generalized over all Roman history.

As Social War and Sertorius War were basically between Rome and non-Romans, it's disputable if you should take those as Civil wars' years. Anyway. I think the bias persists, even if you make a correction for the Principate (there was virtually no conquest during the Dominate, peaceful or not). Even without the Maths, your hypothesis is indisputable.

 

PS: And you are right, the Republican unrest was just (exclusively) during its last Century, making the comparison even more biased. What's really amazing is the magnitude of the Roman Republic's growth during such an unrestful Century.

Edited August 29, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

Anyway. I think the bias persists, even if you make a correction for the Principate (there was virtually no conquest during the Dominate, peaceful or not). Even without the Maths, your hypothesis is indisputable.

A bias in which direction--to inflate or deflate the effect of civil war? I don't see how my measure is biased in either direction, which is to say--it's not biased.

 

And you are right, the Republican unrest was just (exclusively) during its last Century, making the comparison even more biased.

If you mean that there is a confound in the comparison (as opposed to a bias), then it's easy to rectify: simply compare years in the last century during and not during civil wars. Again, you'll see that Roman rule expanded less during periods of civil war than during other periods.

[ASCLEPIADES]

If you mean that there is a confound in the comparison (as opposed to a bias), then it's easy to rectify: simply compare years in the last century during and not during civil wars. Again, you'll see that Roman rule expanded less during periods of civil war than during other periods.

Good point.

Gratiam habeo, MPC.