- This topic has 6 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
There seems to be two schools of thought on this. One, which I agree more with, is that the expansion was more of a defensive imperialism. Others say that imperialism had very little to do with defense and was more a 'because we can' policy of the government.What do you think?
I'd pick more of the latter. Rome was bringing down potential threat after potential threat….basically attacking using the rationale that these were pre-emptive strikes. I can see doing this maybe a few times, but Rome seemed to do it a lot. Also, I know what you meant by "imperialism", but I wonder how good it is to use the word in this context seeing how there's a need to distinguish between activities under the Republic and the emperors.
I guess it would matter how one defines imperialism. What about the late Republic? They seemed to be precursers of what the emperors did. No?
Isnt taking down potential threats the definition of defensive imperialism? If you wait too long to remove a threat you end up with the Punic Wars.
Basically it seems to me that Rome's use of preemption was a bit tenuous after a while.
I guess it would matter how one defines imperialism. What about the late Republic? They seemed to be precursers of what the emperors did. No?
The word "imperialism" has two meanings - 1) unilateral aggression (military or political) against other, often times weaker nations, and 2) something done by an emperor. If one talks solely about the "imperialism" of Rome, which meaning is applicable? Depending on which it is, the answer could change greatly. So my point was that use of the word in the context of Rome, which had an emperor and also seems to have engaged in unilateral aggression, could lead to some confusion.
Basically it seems to me that Rome's use of preemption was a bit tenuous after a while.
Why?
The word "imperialism" has two meanings - 1) unilateral aggression (military or political) against other, often times weaker nations, and 2) something done by an emperor. If one talks solely about the "imperialism" of Rome, which meaning is applicable? Depending on which it is, the answer could change greatly. So my point was that use of the word in the context of Rome, which had an emperor and also seems to have engaged in unilateral aggression, could lead to some confusion.
Using Carthage and the Macedonians as examples, I'd go more with #1 because Rome viewed them as threats and wanted to preemptively weaken them. In that sense, it was defensive imperialism. Rome defeated their alliances and in the aftermath some became allies of Rome. If I'm understanding what I'm learning so far, there seems to be quite a few instances where the alliances of Rome's enemies becoming enemies of each other (some of the Greek leagues for example). Many of Rome's former enemies saw it as a strategic benefit to align with Rome in future conflicts. (That's interesting, IMO, because we see a lot of this in recent conflicts)Maybe that's a not a pure or the only definition of imperialism, but I still think it is a type of imperialism. But I could be wrong.
Upon re-reading the question, I may agree that it was #1. I guess I didn't read it closely enough the first time around. In any case, I think that Rome used a rationale to attack its enemies as a means of expanding its territories even though I don't think those enemies posed much of a valid. In other words, Rome used preemption as a rationale to (wrongly) justify itself....at least that's the sense I've gotten from my (incomplete) study.
Imperialism:n.The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
Rome made war to keep its core confederate members together. The Romans always made political “pretexts” to justify their military actions as “defensive” so that their allies could be brought on board more easily. Rome understood that if things stagnated, the allies would get restless and seek to go off on their own. Rome couldn't allow this, therefore, they kept them occupied with war which fed everyone's coffers with booty.
If it walks like a duck....
Daffy: Duck season!!! Bugs: Wabbit season!!! Daffy: I say it's Duck season, and I say, FIRE! BLAM!? "Rabbit Fire", 1950 ::)
If it walks like a duck....
Daffy: Duck season!!! Bugs: Wabbit season!!! Daffy: I say it's Duck season, and I say, FIRE! BLAM!? "Rabbit Fire", 1950 ::)
Scwewy wabbit....
Rome made war to keep its core confederate members together. The Romans always made political "pretexts" to justify their military actions as "defensive" so that their allies could be brought on board more easily. Rome understood that if things stagnated, the allies would get restless and seek to go off on their own. Rome couldn't allow this, therefore, they kept them occupied with war which fed everyone's coffers with booty.
I bet it also had to do with selling the idea of combat internally to Rome's own citizens. From what I recall the Romans thought that the gods only looked favorably on war that was based on self-defense. By coming up with self-defense rationales, they created religious justifications that their people could believe in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
