Was this war justified? Did it even help Rome?

[ASCLEPIADES]

The questions above were posed in a thread dealing with CJ Caesar's Gallic Wars.

 

Actually I don't see why they shouldn't apply to any other Roman war of conquest.

 

Have we asked that to virtually any Roman historian, from Fabius Pictor to Zonaras, it seems the answer would have been almost unanimously straightforward:

 

Rome conquered the world in perpetual self-defense.

 

What would you answer to the same questions?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

The questions above were posed in a thread dealing with CJ Caesar's Gallic Wars.

 

Actually I don't see why they shouldn't apply to any other Roman war of conquest.

 

Have we asked that to virtually any Roman historian, from Fabius Pictor to Zonaras, it seems the answer would have been almost unanimously straightforward:

 

Rome conquered the world in perpetual self-defense.

 

What would you answer to the same questions?

Ave Asclepiades

That self-defence answer would have been a classic during the European colonial expansions of the 19th century. Nowadays it might sound a little absurd, unless, of course, you belong to the Bush/Blair School of Preemptive Military Strikes.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve GH

Ave Asclepiades

That self-defence answer would have been a classic during the European colonial expansions of the 19th century. Nowadays it might sound a little absurd, unless, of course, you belong to the Bush/Blair School of Preemptive Military Strikes.

Of course we entirely agree; but in your own word, why do you think did Rome conquered the world?

[Ingsoc]

The Roman themselves always try to made it look like their were defending themselves or their allies, however they could be several explanations to Roman Imperialism, none of them are without problems.

 

Economic Imperialism: the problem with that explanation is that we don't have any evidence indicate that the Roman extort privileges from provincials and client kingdoms to Roman citizens.

 

Defensive Imperialism: the problem with this explanation is that after the 2nd Punic war their wasn't a real power which could challenge Rome.

 

Expansion Imperialism: Again the problem with this explanation is that the senate usually prefer not to make new provinces (see fir example the case of Macedonia) and the great number of provinces were created in the late republic as result of the initiative of generals (Pompeius and Caesar) and not the senate.

[Primus Pilus]

Does the entire expansion of Rome need to be pigeon-holed into a single strategic explanation. Some wars were aggressive and others defensive by nature. Some were in response to allied requests (or so the politicians wished the world to believe), others in response to real or perceived affronts. The Claudian invasion of Britain for example, where no threat existed to the mainland continent, can hardly be compared to the the Pyrrhic War or the 2nd Punic War in their nature. While Rome may have played an explicit role in causing both the latter confrontations and both clearly resulted in expansion of territory, it's far less difficult to determine if that was the ultimate goal of the conflict (though it assuredly played a role).

[Kosmo]

They did it because they could and the rest is propaganda. Even the mongols claimed they had serious reasons for their conquests like a stereotype killing of mongol ambassadors or traders.

I know NO example of a state self denying expansionism until recent times.

[Primus Pilus]

At least from the sack of Veii to the battle of Carrhae, Absolutely ALL (I can't emphasize enough the absolute) Roman neighbours (ALL Roman allies and friends included) were eventually conquered by Rome.

It's extremely unlikely that this was just a coincidence.

 

Conquered or incorporated? Semantics in some cases, but there were many people who were willingly absorbed by Rome peacefully, even if the threat of violence was constantly looming.

[Ingsoc]

At least from the sack of Veii to the battle of Carrhae, Absolutely ALL (I can't emphasize enough the absolute) Roman neighbours (ALL Roman allies and friends included) were eventually conquered by Rome.

It's extremely unlikely that this was just a coincidence.

 

Conquered or incorporated? Semantics in some cases, but there were many people who were willingly absorbed by Rome peacefully, even if the threat of violence was constantly looming.

 

In addition to what PP said I think that the Roman themselves thought about Roman "allies" (which were in fact client states) as being part of the Roman rule and in their eyes the transfer of a territory from being rule by a local ally to being ruled by a promagister from Rome wasn't that radical.

 

"He also united the kings with whom he was in alliance by mutual ties, and was very ready to propose or favour intermarriages or friendships among them. He never failed to treat them all with consideration as integral parts of the empire, regularly appointing a guardian for such as were too young to rule or whose minds were affected, until they grew up or recovered; and he brought up the children of many of them and educated them with his own." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 48)

 

"His friends and allies among the kings each in his own realm founded a city called Caesarea, and all joined in a plan to contribute the funds for finishing the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which was begun at Athens in ancient days, and to dedicate it to his Genius; and they would often leave their kingdoms and show him the attentions usual in dependents, clad in the toga and without the emblems of royalty, not only at Rome, but even when he was travelling through the provinces." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 60)

[ASCLEPIADES]

In addition to what PP said I think that the Roman themselves thought about Roman "allies" (which were in fact client states) as being part of the Roman rule and in their eyes the transfer of a territory from being rule by a local ally to being ruled by a promagister from Rome wasn't that radical.

60)

Even if most Roman allies eventually finished as client states, both terms are not synonymous, not even for the Romans.

For example, Carthage was a Roman ally during the Pyrrhic Wars; it became a client state only after the end of Punic War II.

 

"He also united the kings with whom he was in alliance by mutual ties, and was very ready to propose or favour intermarriages or friendships among them. He never failed to treat them all with consideration as integral parts of the empire, regularly appointing a guardian for such as were too young to rule or whose minds were affected, until they grew up or recovered; and he brought up the children of many of them and educated them with his own." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 48)

 

"His friends and allies among the kings each in his own realm founded a city called Caesarea, and all joined in a plan to contribute the funds for finishing the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which was begun at Athens in ancient days, and to dedicate it to his Genius; and they would often leave their kingdoms and show him the attentions usual in dependents, clad in the toga and without the emblems of royalty, not only at Rome, but even when he was travelling through the provinces." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 60)

By consideration, do you mean...

... Archelaus of Judea, freezing at his exile in Gaul?

... Or the executed Antiochus of Commagene?

... Or the deposed Malichus of Nabatea?

 

Please remember who wrote this; Caius Suetonius Tranquillus was the number 1 fan of Divus Augustus' club.

[Ingsoc]

By now, let me just say that "peaceful" (ie without open battles) is not the same as "willingly" and that threatening is frequently the wisest use of force.

 

Anyhow, I don't think we need to be perplexed; then, as now, no real nation freely renounces to its independence; period.

 

The case of Judea is noteworthy, because it is far better documented than the hellenistic kingdoms of Asia Minor; Judea's "will" was never involved in the issue.

 

The Judean example just strengthen my point, the objection was to the Roman rule in itself, whatever it was via the Herods or a direct rule made no different, in fact on several occasion embassies went to Rome and try (and in 6 AD succeed) to persuade Augustus to abolish the "independence" of the kingdom and put it under Roman prefects.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Economic Imperialism: the problem with that explanation is that we don't have any evidence indicate that the Roman extort privileges from provincials and client kingdoms to Roman citizens

 

I wouldn't be too sure of that. I think we have sufficient evidence about the various procurators and prefects in Judea from the pens of Tacitus and Josephus.

[Primus Pilus]

Were so many wars justified?

(By justification I mean if they were proittable for Rome; I'm not dealing here with ethical issues for now).

 

Did it ever help Rome? How?

 

Yes and no... Rome's economy, while agricultural, was supplemented by a semi-regular influx of war spoils, whether it was in currency, valuable luxuries or slaves. The great majority of Rome's military conquests resulted in such an influx. While there are many factors involved, it wasn't really until the over-extension of the empire and the inability for Rome to continue under such a methodology that we see the failure of the economy.

[Kosmo]

Why were the Romans regularly so eager to conquer and acquire new territories in almost a compulsive way?

 

Romans often showed surprising reluctance in annexing foreign lands. In contrast with some "imperial" campaigns like those of Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Trajan etc that are typical wars of conquest the Republic moved very slowly and usually regions were transformed in provinces only after a long period of roman hegemony.

Conquered people had time to adjust with romans because this process often lasted several generations (even if we see it on the same page in the history books)

Also there was a blur between the inside and the outside of the empire as it was a foedus-ration. Even within a province the relations between the governor and the cities were often based on treaties. Many allies like Rhodes, Massalia or Callatis were never formally annexed.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Yes and no... Rome's economy, while agricultural, was supplemented by a semi-regular influx of war spoils, whether it was in currency, valuable luxuries or slaves. The great majority of Rome's military conquests resulted in such an influx. While there are many factors involved, it wasn't really until the over-extension of the empire and the inability for Rome to continue under such a methodology that we see the failure of the economy.

I understand the spoils from the campaigns of Scipio Asiaticus (DLXIV AUC / 190 BC), Pompeius Magnus (DCXCI AUC / 63 BC) and Octavius Caesar (DCCXXIII AUC / 31 BC) were each one of them enough to produce significant deflation and other persistent macroeconomical effects.

 

Anyway, spoils came just once from any conquest. I would be more interested in the long term economic effects; revenues, explotaition and so on. The more subjugated territories, the better?

Edited November 25, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ursus]

I think, as with many Indo-European cultures, military valor was a central cultural trait, perhaps the central. For most Greek city-states, warrior arete was the cultural ideal. For the Celts, distributing conquered booty to their vassals is what kept chieftans in power and the people happy.

 

In the Roman case, military valor (virtus) translated into political capital. While the Romans had a sense of economic and strategic imperatives, they couldn't possibly apply it as scientifically as we do it today. More to the point, those were not always the chief considerations. Claudius invaded Britannia not because it was necessarily profitable from a long term perspective, but because he needed a perceived military victory to cement political legitimacy.

 

By Augustus' time, the cultural enshrinement of conquest turned into a belief in Rome's right and duty for universal conquest to 'civilize' the world. This is not to say they didn't have cost-benefit ratio considerations, but I don't think they were applied as consciously as this discussion implies.