Rome Provoked

[dianamt54]

I read somewhere (brain toot I don't remember where) that in Acient Rome didn't start a war unless provoked. I am not versed in the Punic Wars or any other wars in Rome for that matter, but what is the real story? Thanks

[Ingsoc]

The term of "Bellum Iustum" (Just War) was important to Romans, basely it's say that a war is legitimate only if you to recover you rights from an enemy who inflicted harm upon them.

 

Of course this don't mean that the Romans were never the aggressive side but they always try to find some excuse so they could say that their rights or the rights of their allies were being hurt.

 

See chapter 2 in this book.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I read somewhere (brain toot I don't remember where) that in Acient Rome didn't start a war unless provoked. I am not versed in the Punic Wars or any other wars in Rome for that matter, but what is the real story? Thanks

 

 

 

A very good book about the question, with regard to the Punic wars, is this - "Unplanned Wars: The Origins of the First and Second Punic Wars‎", by B. Dexter Hoyos - 1998

[caldrail]

The Romans fought wars for the same reasons everyone else did. Security, resources, territory, politics. Sometimes it was justified, sometimes it was greed, sometimes simply personal ambition of the leader, or that he needed military victory to remain popular.

[Northern Neil]

Rome always seemed to need an excuse to maintain a veneer of legality or moral high ground - at least during the Republic. The second punic war developed after the Carthaginians used force to expel moorish raiders. Because it did not apply to Rome for a 'permit' to use armed force, this gave Rome the legal pretext for finally ridding the world of the Carthaginian state. Again,Rhodes had no option but to 'provoke' Rome into open war, but only after Rome had declared Delos a tax-free port in the first instance.

[caldrail]

I think the excuses had more to do with political credibility of those supporting campaigning in the Senate. Rome never excused itself to other nations, nor was there an international forum for such disagreements.

[CiceroD]

I definitely get the sense that Bellum Iustum was another form to simply follow.

Take their archaic method of declaring war. Early on they sent a messanger with a spear to the enemy capital. This guy would beat his chest (figuratively) and declare the Romans' grievances.

Then later on this was moved to a little patch of "enemy territory" on the Campus Martius. It no longer mattered that the enemy was informed of the Romans' reasons. Just that the ritual could still be "performed".

 

So long as the proper forms were obeyed no Roman would sweat that their causus belli had alterior motives or was prompted by their own actions.

[Maty]

The second punic war developed after the Carthaginians used force to expel moorish raiders.

 

Weren't Hannibal and Saguntum involved in some way?

 

You refer to the third, naturally, when the Numidians knew that whatever they did to Carthage, Rome would adjudicate in their favour. Tthe Romans had insisted that all Carthaginian disputes with Numidia be arbitrated by the senate when they made a peace treaty after the second Carthaginian war. Thereafter the Numidians used Rome's indulgence to plunder Carthaginian lands at will, knowing that Rome would not only find in Numidia's favour in a dispute, but sometimes also made Carthage pay a fine to Numidia for being plundered by the Numidians.

 

Finally the Carthaginians tried a bit of unilateral military action to stop the Numidians (from besieging one of their cities, no less). Not only did this finally give Rome it's excuse for war, but the Numidians also defeated the Carthaginian force sent against them. Even when the Roman army landed, the Carthaginians kept agreeing to whatever surrender terms the Romans demanded, and their generals had to keep making the terms harsher and harsher until the Carthaginians realized that there would be war no matter what, so they might as well repudiate the terms and get it over with.

 

A 'just' war only in the very strictest of legalistic definitions ...