Bibliography

Primary:

Josephus, F. (n.d.). The Jewish War.

                In this text, Josephus gives us a detailed description of the events leading up to the Jewish War of 66-73 CE and those of the war itself. Including the period beginning with the capture of Jerusalem by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (in 164 BC), and up to the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. The causes of this war are a great example of the greed involved in Roman imperialism as the Romans had been taxing the Jews for 60 years before the Roman emperor Nero needed money and demanded Gessius Florus (a representative in Judaea) to confiscate it from the Temple treasure. This and underlying class divisions contributed the most to the actual cause of the war. Josephus as both a general (elected by temple authorities) and a historian looking with hindsight gives an account of the causes of the war, events of the war, and the horrific destruction of Jerusalem.

Livius, T. (n.d.). Chapter 6. In T. Livius, The History of Rome, Book 31.

                Livy’s “History of Rome” gives an exhaustive account of Roman history. Livy writes about various aspects of Roman history and culture such as arguments in the senate concerning issues like extending a commanders term or granting a triumph. This chapter takes a closer look at the assembly’s authority in declaring war and Livy gives only one account of the assembly raising objections (during the 2nd Macedonian War). The tribune Q. Baebius convinces the people to reject the proposal for war, but the consul then convinces the assembly to reverse their decision soon after. This helps display how factors such as politics complicated the process of war and how Roman imperialism was not as simple as following an aggressive or defensive strategy. 

Cicero, M. T. (n.d.). Secondary Orations Against Verres. In Book 4.

                Cicero takes a unique approach to his first case and spends much of his time convincing his audience of Verrus’ “evil” nature, but also tries to make him look ridiculous. Cicero begins by reviewing Verrus’ history before being named governor of Sicily, avoiding the main charges of extortion against him. Cicero focuses much of his attention on the theft of statues, paintings, and other art. Though odd at the time, this gives us the basis for ethical acquisition of art and what should be considered unethical.

Secondary:

Harris, W. (1979). War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C. OUP Oxford.

                Harris shatters the conventional image of Roman imperialism being defensive in nature. He suggests a theory of “aggressive imperialism” and makes the argument “that the most important of the factors which brought about the wars was the Romans’ desire for the glory and economic benefits which successful warfare conferred.”

Malamud, M. (2009). Imperial Consumption. In M. Malamud, Ancient Rome and Modern America (pp. 229-252). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.            
          
                  An interesting article on the comparison and relation of the imperial consumption found in ancient Rome and the comsumption of modern america. In particular, Malamud examines the consumption exhibited in Las Vegas by the casinos.

Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

                Perkins describes the imperialistic strategy of our nation in the modern world along with his personal experience carrying out our country's missions of conquest. In the book, Perkins describes how we use debt to conquer nations and force them into acting in our best interest. The underlying mechanics of the strategy work by us first identifying a nation of interest (with desired resources for instance), then a loan to the nation (typically from the World Bank etc. and these are very large loans), the large loans will end up going to an american corporation to develop infrastructure etc., the nation clearly cannot pay off the loan and is then forced to accept terms such as access/rights to resources we desire. This presents an interesting contrast between Roman imperialism based upon greed and glory and the modern form of imperialism with greed at its heart (but taking a more subtle form).

Rich, J. (2004). Fear, Greed, and Glory. In C. B. Champion, Roman imperialism: readings and sources (pp. 46-62). Blackwell Publishing.

                Rich takes a look at the applicability of roman imperialism theories, including a defensive theory and an aggressive theory (as presented by William Harris). Roman society was thought to be a militaristic culture which valued military achievements and was geared towards fighting wars continuously to maintain the flow of opportunities and profits that result from war. War generated a cheap supply of slaves, slaves which transformed Italian agriculture. In addition, one of the main benefits ordinary Romans received as a result of war was land. Although Harris’ categorization of Roman imperialism as “aggressive imperialism” is more intuitive than the previously held notion of “defensive imperialism”, the assumption of constant warfare and expansion is inaccurate. In all reality, Roman conquest was irregular and not constant by any means. Many expansive opportunities were passed up and in many cases warfare was avoided all together.

Woolf, G. (1992, February). Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy. World Archaeology, 23, 283-293.

                This article explores the relationship between Roman imperialism and the Roman economy. The two main arguments provided are that of a locally/regionally based economy and a completely integrated economy in which politics were important. Support for the notion of an integrated Roman economy can found in evidence of wide spread trade throughout the empire. Looking at the remains of trade such as the amphorae (a ceramic jar commonly used by Romans to store goods like wine and olive oil), the extent of Roman trade and the rate of trade throughout different periods of the Roman Empire are explored.  The basic conclusion reached by the article is that while trade within the empire rarely took an integrated form above the regional level, the integration of trade throughout the empire during the last two centuries BC was created not by the infrastructure of a staple Roman Empire but by the imperial expansion at the time.

(2009). The Pleasures of Empire. In M. Malamud, Ancient Rome and Modern America (pp. 150-185). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hazewell, C. C. (1857, November). British India. The Atlantic Monthly, 1, pp. 85-93.

                This article is a juxtaposition of the Roman Empire and the British Empire, specifically British ruled India. The scale of the British Empire outweighs that of the Roman Empire, a fact that is not well-known. While both empires differ greatly, they share the resemblance of conquering a multitude of divided nations who failed to unite against them.

(2008). Conquests and Glories, Triumphs and Spoils: Caesar and the Edeology of Roman Imperialism. In W. J. Tatum, Always I Am Caesar (pp. 42-60). Wiley-Blackwell.

                Caesar represents the height of Roman greed and Conquest, giving us an example of how greed played a role Roman culture and how it helped to fuel countless Roman conquests. Rome can easily be identified as an imperialistic state, but Rome was the result of a grand transformation with a humble beginning in a small village along the Tibur. Much of this is due to Roman imperialism which was at the heart of Roman ideology.

Other:

Apted, M. (Director). (2005). "The Stolen Eagle" Rome (HBO Series) [Motion Picture].

Tykwer, T. (Director). (2009). The International [Motion Picture].

Lendering, J. (n.d.). Wars between the Jews and Romans: the subjugation of Judaea (63 BCE). Retrieved March 2011, from Livius: http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar01.htm

               

Bibloigraphy for Just War Theory

1. Isaac, B. (2004). The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
a. Secondary
b. This book touches on how racism was used in the ancient world. There is one section in the book that talks about how ancient peoples were discriminated against based on race by dehumanizing them. The dehumanization of the enemy is also an important part of fighting an enemy in a just war. I used this book in my comment on the ancient slavery blog
2. White, C. M. (2010). Iraq: The Moral Reckoning. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
a. Secondary
b. This book talks about ancient just war theory in a modern context. It focuses on how the ancient just war theory was used on the American public while the federal government was justifying the Iraq War. This was used in my midterm post.
3. Jones, J. D., & Griesbach, M. F. (Eds.). (1985). Just War Theory in the Nuclear Age. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
a. Secondary
b. This book explores an interesting area of modern just war theory. It proposes that there is a new just war theory due to the fact that we are living in a “nuclear age.” President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize winning speech also makes note of just war theory in a time when the stakes of war are so much higher than they have been in the past due to nuclear weapons.
4. Fiala, A. (2008). The Just War Myth. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
a. Secondary
b. This book asserts that there is no such thing as a “just war.” The ancient accepted war as a natural part of life. This book, on the other hand, says that there is no real way to apply just war theory and that war is inherently unjust.
5. Fotion, N. (2007). War & Ethics: A New Just War Theory. New York, NY: Continuum.
a. Secondary
b. Fotion goes through how just war theory was applied to a variety of wars and military conflicts in the twentieth century. This source was used in my midterm post.
6. Bethke Elshtain, J. (Ed.). (1992). Just War Theory. New York, NY: New York University Press.
a. Secondary
b. This book by a variety of authors goes through the entire history of just war theory from antiquity to how it can be applied in the nuclear age.
7. Evans, M. (Ed.). (2005). Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh, Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press.
a. Secondary
b. Various authors go into detail about the just causes of war and the just practice of war. This book explores the two sides of justice war theory. Justice in going to war, and the actual practice of a just war.
8. De Officiis by Cicero
a. Primary
9. City of God by St. Augustine
a. Primary
10. Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas
a. Primary
11. Politics by Aristotle
a. Primary
12. History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
a. Primary

Holy Wars and Jihads Compared to Just War Theory

The idea of a Jihad, or a Muslim Holy War, can be seen in conflict with the Western world's idea of a just war. This is an interesting area to see how just war theory applies to other cultures.

The Institute of Islamic Information and Education goes into detail about the criteria of a jihad. To Arabic speakers, the word "jihad" literally means "struggle." For example, a student may struggle to get an education or pass a test; this would be considered a jihad. This institute asserts that westerners incorrectly equate a jihad with a holy war, although there is a great deal of overlap between jihad and holy war.

There are several applications of jihad in the Qur'an. One example of jihad is putting Allah before all other loved ones in your life. Another application of jihad is striving for righteous deeds. There are also other examples of jihad that are more applicable to the idea of jihad as a holy war. The Qur'an talks about having courage to convey the message of Islam to non-believers. The Qur'an says, "The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful." 49:15. This is one example of how jihad can be used by Islamic terrorists to "justify" their actions. This is also a point that differs from the classical western views of just war. None of the ancient writers that I have discussed in my blog thus far have used spreading of religion as a just cause of going to war.

Defending Islam and the community is one way that jihad is similar to ancient western just war theory. There are many instances in the texts that I have discussed in the past where waging a defensive war is considered to be just. Allah declares in the Qur'an, "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'.... " 22:39-40.

There are also passages in the Qur'an that allow for jihad in cases of helping allied peoples, removing treacherous rulers from power, defending through preemptive strikes. All of these reasons are consistent with western just war theory.

It is very interesting to note the similarities between the justifications for jihad and the classical western just war theory that I have studies this semester. It seems as though the same rationale is used for Islamic holy war as western war, however, it differs because it uses vague religious texts to justify violence. Islamic terrorists view western society as a threat to Islamic teachings, and therefore believe that they are justified in attacking the west. The passages in the Qur'an referring to jihad are vague and to not outline in detail what is considered a just war like the western theories do. This is most likely a major reason why Islamic holy wars are fought so differently than western wars.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy on Just War

http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

Here is a link from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is a peer-reviewed academic resource.

The article provides a great deal of information in Just War theory from ancient times, all the way to its revival in the twentieth century with the rise of the nuclear age.

The article also touches on how just war theory was applied to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11th, 2001 attacks.

Timeline of Just War Theory

(1000) BC: The Bible

(426) BC: Augustine's City of God

(400) BC: Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War

(350 BC): Aristotle's Politics

(44 BC): Cicero's de officiis

(1265 AD): St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica

(1486-1546): Francisco de Vitoria

(1548-1617): Francisco Suarez

(1583-1645): Hugo Grotius

(1632-1704): Samuel Pufendorf

(1679-1754): Christian Wolff

(1714-1767): Emerich de Vattel

In the twentieth century, just war theory has undergone a revival mainly in response to the invention of nuclear weaponry and American involvement in the Vietnam war. The most important contemporary texts include Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars (1977), Barrie Paskins and Michael Dockrill The Ethics of War (1979), Richard Norman Ethics, Killing, and War (1995), Brian Orend War and International Justice (2001) and Michael Walzer on War and Justice (2001), as well as seminal articles by Thomas Nagel “War and Massacre”, Elizabeth Anscombe “War and Murder”, and a host of others, commonly found in the journals Ethics or The Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs.

Comment on Ancient Slavery Blog

...a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such instruments; and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods; if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves. Aristotle Politics Chapter 3, Book 1,

There are many ties between ancient imperialism and ancient slavery. A large part of the Just War Theory is justifying wars against “lesser” people. The same thought process goes into the dehumanization of slaves in the ancient world. In ancient times it was not uncommon to dehumanize your enemy thereby justifying a war with a less than human people.
In Benjamin Isaac’s book, “The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity”, he talks about Aristotle’s thoughts on cannibalism. It is important to note, as discussed in my earlier posts, that Aristotle was a key figure in theorizing about slavery and the just war theory. He dehumanized cannibals and in ancient times cannibalism was attributed to peoples that did not even practice it as a means of justifying war or slavery with these people. Aristotle also said that people who live in excessively hot or cold climates are naturally beastlike in both habits and appearance. In ancient times, this was a well-known extension of the environmental theory.
Aristotle said that people of the Pontus area show “an inclination for murder and cannibalism”. Herodotus also calls people from this area “Man-eaters”. It is interesting how ancient thinkers attributed cannibalism to beastliness. It is interesting that ancient people would attribute this trait to enemies and people that they wanted to enslave. Saying that you are enslaving or fighting a war against cannibals or murderers “justifies” war and slavery to the ancients.
Slavery was always closely tied to imperialism in the ancient world. As Aristotle’s theory suggests, those who win the war are naturally superior to those who lost and it is permissible to enslave these lesser people. Although slavery is not as common as it was in the ancient world, we still attribute sub-human characteristics to our enemies in war in order to justify killing them. The war-time propaganda during World War II depicted the Germans and beastly animals and the Japanese as apes. The dehumanization of the enemy is a very important part of justifying war both in ancient times and modern.

This is an ancient Greek depiction of a slave being punished.

Jewish Genocide Across Cultures

Genocide vs. Jews
Rome
The Romans led by Titus, during the first Jewish-Roman war, in 70 tried “to wipe out completely the Jewish people, since they alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies.”

Titus wanted to destroy Jews so they destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem because in their religion you needed a sanctuary and if they destroyed this the Jewish religion would be abolished.

Titus was able to destroy the entire city in his siege. In this siege over 1,100,000 people were killed. Most of them were Jewish and of the Jews that did survive they were then sold into slavery.

Josephus describes this siege in detail in his book.  He talks in length about how the people in Jerusalem were cut off from food and therefore were starving.  He even goes into such detail to describe a women who had no choice but to eat her own baby.

Josephus then tells of the tactics used in the siege.  How the Romans stormed the first two of the thee walls and destroyed them without much trouble.  Then they were sent in to capture the temple and castle where the Jews where fortifying themselves.  The Castle was taken and all the Jews inside were killed.  Then, even though Titus had not wanted to destroy the temple, it was made clear that this would be the only way to defeat the Jews.  So they burnt down the temple, killing those inside.  Finally they finished their capture of the city and took the rest of the Jews to be slaves.


This genocide was similar to the genocide of Melos. This is so because Titus, the roman leader, gave the Jews many chances to save themselves and their city which they did not take. Just as the Melodian leaders chose to bring war upon themselves, the Jew refused to surrender into slavery and instead were killed and their civilization was destroyed.  This, however, is simplifying the situation.  It was not as if these people wanted to die.  They could not live with themselves if they were to stand idly by and let their home be destroyed by the Romans.  As the first group to really attack a Roman occupation, they were not willing to sacrifice their freedom without a fight.  So they decided to fight and in the end lost.  

After destroying Jerusalem the Romans then went to the next Jewish hot spot on Masada. There they had trouble taking siege to the city since it was well barricaded on a mountain top. However, by the time they were able to break into the city, all of the inhabitants had committed mass suicide. So this was a complete annihilation of these people since none of them survived.

http://www.truthnet.org/Spiritual-warfare/10pulling-down-strongholds/pulling-down-strongholds.htm

Germany
Hitler tried to do get rid of all Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and other minority groups. He killed 6 million Jews and around 12 million total people. It was his dream to create a master race and the Jews did not fit into this plan.

Hitler created concentration camps where Jewish people were taken to provide free labor and then to be killed. These camps were very highly organized and were very effective in the mass murder of the Jewish people.

Hitler, however, was unsuccessful in his genocide. The Allied nations were able to defeat the Hitler and save the Jews that remained alive. Although this was not a complete genocide on the Jewish population, it wiped out a huge part of it population which the effects can still be seen today.

This genocide was more like the one committed by Rome. This was a major nation at the time trying to gain more power by wiping out completely other people that got in their way. The Romans did this with Carthage during the 3rd Punic War. This is a struggle for world domination but in the end both parties failed to do this.

Genocide Bibliography

1)War and Imperialism in Republican Rome by Harris
In this work he describes the struggle between Rome and Carthage the main genocide that I have been studying in the ancient world. In this he tell how this was one powerful state looking to decimate another state. He tells how this Carthage did not really bring this war upon themselves but instead had it thrust onto them by Rome. He goes into length how Rome would find any excuse they could muster to get this war started. They blamed in on a skirmish they had with Roman allies in North Africa and the fact that they were experienced a very prosperous time in their history. This infuriated the Romans because they though themselves to be far superior and they therefore attacked and eventually destroyed Carthage.

2)The Worlds Bloodies History: Massacre, Genocide, and the Scars Left on Civilization By Joseph Cumming
This book goes into even greater detail of this genocide. He first gives another reason for the attack on Carthage. He gives proof of the child sacrifices that the Carthaginians had been performing. This was against the Roman way of life and therefore was another reason they wanted to destroy Carthage. He also tells of how the Carthaginian people did all they could to try to avoid this war from coming upon them. They gave up 300 of their most noble youth and sent them to Rome. They also gave every weapon that they had to the Romans in hope that they would not attack. However, this did not stop the Romans and when they did attack the Carthaginians had to scramble to make new weapons.

3)Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization by Richard Miles
In this book he describes how before the Roman destruction, Carthage was experiencing one of the most prosperous times in their history. One reason for this may have been the fact that they no longer had a standing army that they had to finance and keep, since part of the treaty at the end of the Second Punic War had made it so that they could not have an army. During this time they had used their location on the Mediterranean Sea to continue their high levels of commerce. So even though they had to pay taxes to Rome, another part of the treaty, they were still able to maintain a high level of success in their other facets of life.

4)History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
He describes the Athenian genocide of the island nation of Melos. This is called the Melian Dialogue. In this passage it is the Athenian envoy telling the leader of Melos that they need to either surrender to Athens and become part of its empire or it will be destroyed. In the end the Melian leaders decide that it is better to die free then to live as part of the Athenian state. After they decide this they are then destroyed by Athens and the remaining people sold into slavery. This shows how this was another genocide committed in the ancient world. It was interesting in this text about how the leaders of Melos were given a choice and they basically chose genocide, which the Athenians then brought down upon them.

5)Appian's History
The part of Appian's History related to genocide describing the conflict between Rome and Carthage. His text really gets into the heart of the conflict. It describes in detail the Roman advance into the Carthaginian city and their complete destruction of its people. There is one passage that describes the brutality of the genocide that was taking place. It tells how the Romans were just running through the street slaughtering every man, woman, and child in their path. Then it describes how they level all the building, many of them with people still inside and how in the rubble there were limbs sticking out all over the place. His description of the genocide is very in depth and thorough.

6)The Jewish War By Flavius Josephus
This text was useful to describe many attacks on the Jewish people. It detailed some genocides like the attack and mass suicide on Masada. He goes into great detail on these subjects and give a firsthand look at these wars and each side.

7)Periochae 48-50 by Livy
This is a text describing the Third Punic War. This is the attack by Rome on Carthage. He goes through what let up to and how the conflict went. He gives very good detail about the genocide and this work give us another inside look into this genocide.

8)The Third Punic War, 149-146 BCE [The Histories, Book XXXVI-XXXIX] by Polybius
This is another look inside the Carthage genocide. This gives a strong view from the Carthaginian side before they are wiped off of the face of the earth. Goes into the decisions that were made prior to the war and then what happened. Again gives a good look at this genocide.

In Defense of War Video Clip

Double Click to Play Video Clip

You must be logged in to Ctools to view this movie

This video clip is from an anti-Iraq War demonstration. The demonstrator is explaining to the interviewer, an Iraq War supporter, why the Iraq War is immoral and thus not a Just War.

This clip is an example of how ancient Just War theory is applied to modern wars. It is interesting to note how the demonstrator explains what a just war is in much the same way that ancient authors did.

Boudica

Double click to play. You must be a member of this course to view this video.

This clip, while most certainly not an accurate portrayal of Romans, show the changing view we have of the Roman Empire today.  Instead of seeing the Roman Empire as infallible, more people view it as oppressive.  Here the Romans themselves see that.  It is most clear when the general rhetorically asks what they are fighting for, for the Britons are fighting for the livelihood. 

Schindler's List Clip

Double Click to play, Click to stop. Only those signed into ctools can view this clip.

This clip shows the Jews being rounded up by the Nazi's during WWII. This shows the way in which genocide is carried out. It shows how the extermination of a race/culture is done at the base level.

"The Stolen Eagle"

            This clip is from the first episode of the HBO series Rome. The following scene is set in 52 B.C., the day after the Seige of Alesia denoting the end of Caesar's eight-year-long Gallic Wars which brought him further wealth and popularity. The king of the Gauls, Vercingetorix is brought before Julius Ceasar, stripped of his clothes and forced to kiss the the Aquila of the 13th Legion. The Aquila being the eagle standard of the Roman Legion. This act signifies the end of the Gallic Wars.

            Caesar himself represents the pinnacle of Roman greed and conquest. While a consul (around 59 BC), Caesar was granted significant military command due to legislation proposed and passed by Publius Vatinius. Going against tradition, Caesar became the proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for 5 years with three (later ten) legions under his command. Pompey the Great then added Transalpine Gaul to Caesar's command. As a proconsul for 5 years then 10 years, Caesar was immune and could not be touched by Roman courts. Consequently though, much was expected of Caesar considering his exceptional command. Caesar eventually decides to execute this power by conquering the Gauls, a conquest that saw both women and children murdered and millions sold into slavery. As a result, Caesar ammassed great wealth and was provided with enough legions to give him a position of "absolute power". His conquest of Gaul became recognized as his greatest achievement and today many celebrate him as "the founder of Europe".

              Rome is easily identified as an imperialistic state, but it was not always so. Rome was the result of a transformation from a small village along the Tibur into a historic world power. Much of this is due to Roman imperialism which was at the heart of Roman ideology. However, imperialism is "never a simple or straightforward matter". Military requirements formed the basis of Roman organization. Command of troops and the right to give orders to civilians was granted to magistrates, consuls, and praetors. In latin, power is imperium from which imperial and imperialism are derived.

(2008). Conquests and Glories, Triumphs and Spoils: Caesar and the Edeology of Roman Imperialism. In W. J. Tatum, Always I Am Caesar (pp. 42-60). Wiley-Blackwell.



Roman Greed and Conquest and their role in Genocide

The one major genocide by the Romans was on Carthage during the 3rd Punic War. Was this a defensive or aggressive imperialism at work? This question was raised about the Roman Empire during their imperialistic age. The answer for this was pretty obviously aggressive. Since the Carthaginians at the time did not pose a real threat to Roman control, this was not a defensive attack.

They had even taken all of the weapons from the citizens of Carthage so they would had little to no defense for their civilization. This shows that Carthage was not a threat and therefore there was a total aggressive action to destroy their civilization.

Now Carthage had been a big threat earlier on in Roman rule but by this point they had already relieved that threat in the first two Punic Wars. So this furthers the hypothesis that the Roman conquest was an aggressive attack and not a defensive necessity.