Some guys see Rome as a war machine.

[root]

Hi:

I am lately in the habit of seeing a lot of television, much against my wishes. As a result, not a few times I have watched historians speaking in front of a camera --a somewhat suspicious action for one who calls himself a historian. And in this way, I have learned the policy of Rome towards their neighbours was ruthless and the legions a machine of destruction.

As, by the reason just stated, I read but very little and have therefor almost no opportunity to know if these historians' opinions are representative of those of cultivated and well informed people, I would very much like to inquire whether you guys, have anything to say on that matter. All the best and Latin for ever.

-- Enrique.

 

[Akela]

Rome as a war machine... Interesting...

Well, let's take the Republic, for example. Two Consuls, settled in for a short term of one year.

Who will remember you if all you did was keep peace? No one.
But, if you win a good war... potentially, everyone.


Under such circumstances, who wouldn't arrange a good war as soon as their term began?

 

[root]

Well then, I see no difference between Rome and modern democracies. For in these, are not politicians willing to gain fame? And to sacrifice human lifes in order to adquire it? Besides, why the necessity for aquiring fame? Perhaps because he needs --consider a tribune of the people, his law to be passed and, for this, popularity is indispensable.

Now consider the whole body of jurisprucence build by Rome. Would you not say it justifies a war here and there? Or even hundreds of wars against foreign peoples? Thanks for your kind reply.

P.S.: I now see you were not speaking about Rome in particular but about belicism in general and that you declare yourself a pacifist.

 

[root]

Or even hundreds of wars against foreign peoples?

In fact, the apparatus of the Roman conquest worked in combination with diplomacy. And Romans excelled in diplomacy. Another thing: although Romans were landowners by nature, there were many and powerful busyness men among them. And what do you think bring about war with Carthage. Remember it was a war about who dominated the Mediterranean see. And because the aristocracy was formed by owners of vast extensions of land, oversees adventures disgusted them. It was a war they did not wanted.

In general, what I have or could have to say on the matter would be uninteresting, there being some people in the forum with good historical knowledge. Therefor, I shall limit myself to quote books, mostly from late 20th century except, of course, on receiving some feedback, I'll gladly reply. The theme, not very precisely defined in post #1, would be: Is there a tendency to despise the achievements of those men who build the republic? Or of that people who made our civilization be what it is today?

 

[echidnas brown]

The doors of the temple of Janus closed twice between Numa and Livy. That is quite a lot of self defence...

 

[Eden]

Rome became what is known for by war. A small place in Italy, that became one of the greatest and most influential empires in history. The seized control over Italy and its surrounding states, fought wars against Carthago and conquered far lands.
Most of their wealth was kept by getting more and more places to bow to them, often by military power, I believe.
I don't think modern societies work this way anymore.

By the way, Akela is probably right. People like Caesar got the money and backing of the citizens by his successful war. Through this he rose to the highest of the offices.

 

[echidnas brown]

Most of their wealth was kept by getting more and more places to bow to them, often by military power, I believe.
I don't think modern societies work this way anymore.

In the interests of peace in the forum we should steer clear of 21st century politics, however a quick google of something like "Opium war" or "British Empire" should provide a couple of counter examples. The Chinese have certainly not forgotten!

 

[Eden]

Most of their wealth was kept by getting more and more places to bow to them, often by military power, I believe.
I don't think modern societies work this way anymore.

In the interests of peace in the forum we should steer clear of 21st century politics, however a quick google of something like "Opium war" or "British Empire" should provide a couple of counter examples. The Chinese have certainly not forgotten!

As you wish, but I accept your premise.
Some resemblances survived the centuries.

 

[Akela]

We cannot completely forbid religion-related conversations due to the close connection of Christianity to Latin, but modern politics is indeed out of question. Too many long-lasting emotions tend to spring up from that.

The doors of the temple of Janus closed twice between Numa and Livy. That is quite a lot of self defence...

Poor little defenseless Rome

People like Caesar got the money and backing of the citizens by his successful war. Through this he rose to the highest of the offices.

If that were only Caesar's problem, Rome would've had a very different reputation

 

[Eden]

I personally don't get too emotional about those things, but I understand your reason.
And yes, it wasn't only Cesar's problem and not the only his in general ^^

 

[Quasus]

Is there a tendency to despise the achievements of those men… who made our civilization be what it is today?

No, we’ll always remember the Greeks!

 

[MrKennedy]

There does exist more recent and worse examples of modern militaristic ventures than the Anglo-Chinese Wars which were anyhow, rather limited campaigns to carve out trading emporiums and impose free trade principles. There exists quite a few from living memory, e.g. the 20th century conquests in Central Europe. You could argue that the last one hundred years have been the dominant period of the militaristic-state - from the whole of human history!

Has anyone read a book called After Tamerlane by John Darwin? It charts a global history of imperialism from Columbus to today. Darwin's central thesis is that the history of the world is a history of empire. For although he is not concerned with classical examples, I personally believe his argument equally applies to the ancients. From the Persians to the Athenian Empire, from Carthage to Rome, the dominant institute of government has been empire with all its connotations, e.g. militarism and conquest.

Darwin focuses more on the Ching Dynasty and the Moghals etc than the usual suspects so it is clear that his argument applies outside the west as well.

It is only from the 19th century onwards where more institutionalised forms of anti-militarism, more concerted beliefs in ‘nation-state’ principles, ‘self-determination’, have arisen. These are relatively recent concepts. It is us in other words who are the odd ones out here, not the Romans. Roman conquest has to be placed in an ancient context therefore and not judged from our ethical viewpoints which anyhow, do not sit upon a higher pedestal.

 

[Bitmap]

just look at the Roman self-conception:

Verg. Aen. VI 847-853
Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera -
credo equidem - vivos ducent de marmore vultus
orabunt causas melius caelique meatus.
describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent.
Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento -
hae tibi erunt artes - pacique imponere morem,
parcere subiectis et debellare superbos."

 

[Nooj]

Now consider the whole body of jurisprucence build by Rome. Would you not say it justifies a war here and there? Or even hundreds of wars against foreign peoples? Thanks for your kind reply.

Um...no.

 

[Quasus]

By the way, one can hardly see Rome as a war machine after Marcus Aurelius. A broken‐down machine, perhaps…

 

[simplissimus]

I am the member formerly known as Simplissimus. I have re-established membership under a new name when my password did not work, the substitute password that was e-mailed to me did not work, and the name “Simplissimus” was apparently not recognized. I have never had an easy time with computers. I suspect that they just don’t like me.

I wanted to join this discussion to pose a question on a similar, if tangential, line.

It is very doubtful that any country has ever taken control over another country for the purpose of improving the life of the people of the subordinated country – whether we are talking about ancient times or modern ones. Yet, even though the conquest was undertaken for the benefit of the conqueror, sometimes it happened that the conqueror was socially, economically, and/or technologically superior to the country it conquered to such a degree that the net result was a benefit to the conquered country, even though that conquered country might not like to admit it.

Speaking specifically about the Romans, while the British talk about the injustices done to Boudicca/Boadicea, they still seem to recognize the civilizing effect of the time they spent as a Roman colony. The Germans are proud of the defeat their Hermann/Arminius inflicted on the Romans, but I have heard a German literature professor speak enthusiastically about the technological advances that the Romans brought to the Germans, as evidenced by in the vocabulary they left behind: Mauer from murus, Ziegel from tegula, etc. The French took on the Latin language completely, but they still love to make up stories about the clever Gaul Asterix outwitting the Romans dullards. The popular culture is full of stories about the nastiness of the Roman occupation of Judea in the time of the Jesus, but when I go from the history shown in Hollywood movies to real history, I have found that Hellenistic, and then Roman, rule may have been the best thing that ever happened to the people of ancient Judea.

I would be interested to hear, from you who have studied so much about the history of the Romans from the viewpoints of so many different cultures, what your feelings are. What peoples were advanced by being brought under Roman Rule, and which were not? What were the advantages the Romans brought, and what superior traits did the Romans suppress?

 

[C Crastinus]

What peoples were advanced by being brought under Roman Rule, and which were not? What were the advantages the Romans brought, and what superior traits did the Romans suppress?

The effect of Roman rule on the conquered varied considerably from province to province, and also varied during the different periods of Roman history.

When Asia became a Roman province during the late Republic and was being plundered mercilessly by the publicani, I doubt that many of its inhabitants saw much benefit to Roman rule. Such crushingly high taxes were imposed on their cities that many were forced to take out major loans from Roman financiers just to pay them. They would then be charged exorbitantly high interest rates on those loans. Talk about a double whammy! There was such deep resentment against the Romans that Mithridates had little trouble inciting the so called Asian Vespers. Roman aristocrats saw provincial commands chiefly as a means of personal enrichment. Even Romans of reputedly high moral character, such as M. Junius Brutus, were not above engaging in fleecing the locals. When Cicero was governor of Cilicia, during his audit of the province he discovered that Brutus was charging a city in Cyprus 43% interest on a loan. Those who would label him "the noblest of all Romans" must turn a blind eye to his illegal loan-sharking.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Gallic provinces experienced quite an economic boom during the early years of the principate. Of course, wealthy magnates were the major recipients of this economic upturn. It's difficult to say how much things improved for the common people.

I think a province by province account through each period of Roman history is far beyond the scope of this post. Instead, I'd just like to mention one thing about the way the Romans treated conquered states in the earlier days of their history which I think was most instrumental in their rise to power.

When the Romans were first burgeoning as an Italian power, the yoke they imposed on those cities who submitted to them was quite light in comparison to that imposed by other states at the time. The Romans did not normally demand financial tribute from their subject states, unless a state had dealt with them dishonorably or given them some cause for offense. The only requirements Rome imposed on its new allies were that they provide troops when required, and that their foreign policy would match that of Rome. They were free to conduct their local affairs and government as they saw fit. If states rebelled against Rome, however, they were treated quite harshly. This policy gave Rome vast reserves of manpower and allies who were very hesitant to rebel. These factors were to prove crucial to Rome's success in the Second Punic War. No other state at the time could have absorbed the catastrophic losses at Lake Trasimene and Cannae and kept going, and even in Rome's darkest hour, few of her allies defected to Hannibal.

 

[Bitmap]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso[/youtube]

 

[C Crastinus]

^^ One of my favorite scenes from my favorite movie.
I also love the scene where the Roman soldier corrects Brian's grammar.

 

[Quasus]

@Bitmap
Awesome!