Cicero Against Verres, Secondary Oration, 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.

                Cicero’s fourth oration against Verres is of specific interest as he digs into Verres’ nature of greed and theft. Cicero points out that Verres had not only stolen from the likes of individuals, but he had even stolen artifacts from temples, valuable statues which would today be considered historically and culturally important, and other works of art. In particular, Cicero comments on several of Verres’ best known plunders including that of Heius, a Messanian, Philarchus, Centuripa, Antiocus the king, and of the temples of Diana, Mercury, and Ceres. The sacking of temples carries significant importance as the act can be seen as disregard for the gods.

                As part of his defense, Verres often “plays dumb” and tries to portray his ignorance with respect to painting and sculpture, even to the point of seeming to take pride in his ignorance. He also suggests that a taste for art is a taste unworthy of a Roman.

                Cicero takes a strategy of not dwelling on how horrible Verres’ actions were and instead focuses on trying to convince the audience of Verrus’ ridiculousness. He has no problem with making fun of Verrus and plays with his name which means boar, likening him to “the boar of Erymanthus”. At one point Cicero refers to him as “the dragnet of Sicily” due to the resemblance of his name with the word everriculum referring to a dragnet.

                Cicero shines a spotlight upon the greed of Verres and in doing so he gives us a detailed look at how greed actually played a role in the Roman Empire. Although Verres’ case may seem extreme, we are able to see just how ridiculous greed became in certain instances throughout Rome. A passage from this oration captures the extent of this greed.

“I will speak even more plainly; I will say that he has left nothing in any one's house, nothing even in the towns, nothing in public places, not even in the temples, nothing in the possession of any Sicilian, nothing in the possession of any Roman citizen; that he has left nothing, in short, which either came before his eyes or was suggested to his mind, whether private property or public, or profane or sacred, in all Sicily.” (Oration 4, Ch. 1)

I felt this quote was a good representation of Verres’ greed and how his greed in turn affected the lives of those living in Sicily.

               

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

The Jewish War by Josephus

                Josephus was born as the son of Matthias in Jerusalem in 37 AD; he was the combination of priestly descent on his father’s side and supposedly a royal blood line on his mother’s side. Although he claims to have studied all three Jewish political/religious movements including the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Pharisees, we see that this was not possible within the time frame he suggests. He was however, born as an aristocrat and a Sadducee which was the more conservative movement of the three and largely comprised of wealthy Jews. Josephus has a tendency to twist the truth and we see he likes to align his interests with those of the prevalent movement at any given time. This is evident as he is not very fond of the Pharisees in some of his earlier works such as The Jewish War, but he becomes a Pharisee as the movement becomes popular. Josephus witnesses the beginning of the Jewish revolt against the Roman governor at the time, Gessius Florus. Contrary to his roots as an aristocrat, he joins the rebels in the revolution against the Roman oppression of the Jews. The rebel destruction of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem was an important event in this revolt and shortly after Josephus was assigned by Temple authorities to organize and lead the resistance in Galilee. The Romans approaching Galilee were led by Vespasian who would later become emperor of Rome and an important alliance in Josephus’ life. In 67 AD while under siege in Jotapata, Josephus surrenders to Vespasian after a strange twist of fate in which he and his countrymen drew lots to determine who would kill the rest and then commit suicide, Josephus by the will of God (or so it is suggested) comes out the lucky one and decides against suicide.

"However, in this extreme distress, he was not destitute of his usual sagacity; but trusting himself to the providence of God, he put his life into hazard [in the manner following]: 'And now,' said he, 'since it is resolved among you that you will die, come on, let us commit our mutual deaths to determination by lot. He whom the lot falls to first, let him be killed by him that hath the second lot, and thus fortune shall make its progress through us all; nor shall any of us perish by his own right hand, for it would be unfair if, when the rest are gone, somebody should repent and save himself.' This proposal appeared to them to be very just; and when he had prevailed with them to determine this matter by lots, he drew one of the lots for himself also. He who had the first lot laid his neck bare to him that had the next, as supposing that the general would die among them immediately; for they thought death, if Josephus might but die with them, was sweeter than life; yet was he with another left to the last, whether we must say it happened so by chance, or whether by the providence of God. And as he was very desirous neither to be condemned by the lot, nor, if he had been left to the last, to imbrue his right hand in the blood of his countrymen, he persuaded him to trust his fidelity to him, and to live as well as himself. "(Book III, Sec. 387)

He manages to escape death after surrender by convincing Vespasian of an oracle (believed to refer to the Messiah) implying Vespasian would become emperor. Vespasian likes his idea and decides to keep Josephus under detention instead of crucifying him. Josephus befriends Titus, Vespasian’s son, and begins to create ties that would ensure his well-being. In 69 AD, Vespasian becomes emperor and makes Josephus an advisor to Titus and awards him with Roman citizenship, a wife, etc. Titus is tasked with ending the war and so begins to lay siege to Jerusalem with Josephus at his side. From this viewpoint, Josephus sees the war from the Roman perspective while witnessing the atrocities like the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. He then follows Titus back to Rome and lives under the protection of the house of Vespasian until the murder of Domitian in 98 AD, after which we have no record of Josephus.
              An overview of Josephus’ life is important to note in order to set the context for his book The Jewish War in which he 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. Aside from the connection to greed, this book also gives an interesting look at conquest from different perspectives. Josephus begins on the side of the Jews during the revolution against the Romans and then gives us a look at the war from the Roman perspective as he accompanied Titus on his siege and sacking of Jerusalem. 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. It should be taken into account though, that there are many inaccuracies in Josephus’ tale of the war and that he was under the censorship of the Roman Empire as he wrote this book, granted permission by Vespasian.

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

British India

                 Although the grandeur associated with the Roman Empire seems unrivaled, the British Rule of India may have been a little grander.  The peak population of the Roman Empire around the age of the Antonines is estimated at 120,000,000, with the Italian population included in this figure. The population of India at the time of British rule was no less than 150,000,000 without including any of the British population.

                 It should also be noted that Rome had the advantage of location on its side with Italy perfectly situated in the Mediterranean, the basis of the Roman Empire’s power. The Mediterranean was a clear “boundary” of this power as, “a short journey in almost any direction from it would have taken the traveller completely from under the protection of the eagles”. England did not have this same advantage as India and England are separated by sea, land, and some of the most powerful European nations. It is no coincidence then that England’s conquest of India can be solely attributed to the superiority of the British navy. As Hazewell phrases it, “The condition of Indian dominion is ocean dominion”.

                While there are some considerable differences in the British and Roman Empires, they share one resemblance. Both empires were comprised of a multitude of different countries and cultures. This is obviously more evident in the case of the Roman Empire which ruled over Syrians, Greeks, Egyptians, and other Eastern peoples. India was at the time, made up of ten different civilized nations with entirely different cultures. In both cases, this division played into the hands of the conqueror. With so little in common, the nations and cultures on the defensive did not combine against their conquerors. Without this key factor at play, both empires would have been hard-pressed to build the grand empires remembered in history.

 (http://georgeorwellnovels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/british-indian-empire-map-1909.jpg) 

(http://sis-giantempires-afroeurasia.wikispaces.com/file/view/746px-Roman_empire_395.jpg/50792219/746px-Roman_empire_395.jpg)

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

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

               

"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.



Midterm Post

The issue I am looking at is how greed and conquest relates to ancient Roman imperialism. I am particularly interested in what fueled the Roman’s desire for conquest. Were the Romans acting defensively, aggressively, or was conquest primarily fueled by greed. These three concepts of defensive imperialism, aggressive imperialism, imperialism fueled by greed, along with the role economy and politics will serve as the main parameters of this discussion.

The first of my sources Fear, Greed, and Glory discusses the notions of defensive imperialism and aggressive imperialism. Before 1979, the widely accepted theory pertaining to Roman imperialism was that it served a primarily defensive purpose. By constantly going to war with neighboring states and those that presented a threat, Rome was able to keep their enemies weak. However, the author William Harris shattered this theory in 1979 with his book War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C. which presents the theory of aggressive imperialism. Harris argued 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.” While 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 largely inaccurate. Factors such as politics complicated the process of war and how Roman imperialism was not as simple as following an aggressive or defensive strategy. Some of these politics become apparent when looking at the assembly's authority in declaring war or lack thereof. The ancient Roman historian Livy gives one account of the assembly raising objections to declaring war (during the 2nd Macedonian War). The overview of the event includes the tribune Q. Baebius convincing the people to reject the proposal for war, but the consul then convincing the assembly to reverse their decision soon after.

        "This province fell to P. Sulpicius, and he gave notice that he should propose to the Assembly that "owing to the lawless actions and armed attacks committed against the allies of Rome, it is the will and order of the Roman people that war be proclaimed against Philip, King of Macedonia, and against his people, the Macedonians." The other consul, Aurelius, received Italy for his province. Then the praetors balloted for their respective commands. C. Sergius Plancus drew the City; Q. Fulvius Gillo, Sicily; Q. Minucius Rufus, Bruttium, and L. Furius, Gaul. The proposed declaration of war against Macedonia was almost unanimously rejected at the first meeting of the Assembly. The length and exhausting demands of the late war had made men weary of fighting and they shrank from incurring further toils and dangers. One of the tribunes of the plebs, Q. Baebius, too, had adopted the old plan of abusing the patricians for perpetually sowing the seeds of fresh wars to prevent the plebeians from ever enjoying any rest. The patricians were extremely angry and the tribune was bitterly attacked in the senate, each of the senators in turn urging the consul to call another meeting of the Assembly to consider the proposal afresh and at the same time to rebuke the people for their want of spirit and show them what loss and disgrace would be entailed by the postponement of that war." (Livius, T. (n.d.). Chapter 6. In T. Livius, The History of Rome, Book 31.)

My second source Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy explains the role the Roman economy had in conquest. First it’s worth describing who had the most influence on the Roman economy and conquest. The Roman Empire was largely imperialistic in its nature and the surpluses extracted from Roman citizens and provinces under Roman rule were reinvested by the elites of society on infrastructure and other means of maintaining their power. Much of the Roman  Empire's resources and energy was spent on securing revenue streams and supplies of labor and agricultural produce from the regions under Roman rule. Due to the hierarchy of power in ancient Rome, the profits extracted were distributed to groups of Roman elites which help them to consolidate their power. Taking a closer look at the economy it is important to examine both local trade and trade reaching throughout the empire and how they relate to imperialism at the time. The two main arguments describing the Roman economy and empire are that of a locally and 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. By researching remains of trade such as the amphorae (a ceramic jar commonly used by Romans to store goods like wine and olive oil), we can understand the extent of Roman trade and the rate of trade throughout different periods of the Roman Empire.

(Ancient Roman amphorae)

An interesting discovery which sheds light on the relationship between economy and conquest is the distribution of Italian wine which began gradually in the 3rd century BC, reached its peak during the 3rd quarter of the last century BC and then declined rapidly afterwards. This pattern of wine distribution matches that the rhythm of Roman imperial expansion which supports the notion that the Roman economy and therefore the prosperity of the Roman elite was fueled by Roman imperialism.

For contemporary culture, I juxtaposed ancient Roman imperialism and modern American imperialism. I was interested in which aspects of conquest were different in the ancient world and which aspects continue to this day. In examining modern imperialism, the source I looked at was I Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins along with the corresponding documentary. At the beginning of the documentary there is an interesting quote from one of this country’s founders, John Adams. Adams pointed out that, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt.” This statement captures the essence of imperialism in ancient Rome which took the visible form of a sword and bloodshed and the modern form of imperialism which is much more subtle. Roman imperialism was highly publicized with large events celebrating a conquest known as triumphs. Conquering other regions was glorified and was turned into a spectacle. Modern imperialism has taken on a subtle form which uses economic tools such as debt to obtain and consolidate power throughout the modern world. In his 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 is one example of how conquest takes place in the modern world, with other tools such as fluctuating monetary values also being applied.

Imperialism in the ancient Roman Empire was utilized for a variety of reasons including defensive reasons, aggressive reasons, and those solely due to greed. Today however, greed plays a much larger role in imperialism. The true reason behind modern conquest is financial not for “the glory of Rome”.  This is the largest difference I determined.

                                                                                                                   

Modern American Imperialism and Conquest

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, The other is by debt," (John Adams). During the Roman Empire, conquest took place by sword making it easy to determine which nations had been conquered and which had not. The act of conquering a nation was simpler during these times; if Rome wished to "acquire" a region which in turn defied Rome's wishes, Rome likely went to war in order to conquer the desired region. Aside from politics which did play a role in the process of declaring war, the act of conquest itself was a glorified public display of the Roman Empire's power.

Today, conquest takes on a more machiavellian nature, primarily in the form of debt. Many believe that in the current day America is not an imperialistic nation, the evidence however points to the contrary. America is in control of a modern day global empire, one which conducts itself more on the basis of pure economics and leverage of debt than the use of "sword". In high school I read a book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins who describes in depth 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 and the four parts of the corresponding documentary attached below, 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.

The first four clips below go into detail about the birth of this form of conquest along with the different methods of obtaining/maintaining power. The last clip is from the film, The International, which is about this concept of debt as a tool of power and even (economic) enslavement.

Roman Economy

"Empires are political systems based on the actual or threatened use of force to extract surpluses from their subjects." The Roman Empire was largely imperialistic in its nature and the surpluses extracted from Roman citizens and provinces under Roman rule were reinvested by the elites of society on infrastructure and other means of maintaining their power. The hierarchy of power within this imperial society led way to profits from these extracted revenues being distributed to the groups of Roman elites. As this process continued, elites were able to retain their power and wealth.

Due to the fact that pre-industrial empires such as the Roman Empire could not sustain large government institutions which are commonplace today, the elites within the empire retained their power by building a "community of interest". On the economic side, much of the Roman  Empire's resources and energy was spent on securing revenue streams and supplies of labour and agricultural produce from the regions under Roman rule.

This environment of power and the effort to retain it supported the notion of a political economy. The two main arguments describing the Roman economy and empire are that of a locally and regionally based economy and a complelely 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. By researching remains of trade such as the amphorae (a ceramic jar commonly used by Romans to store goods like wine and olive oil), we can understand the extent of Roman trade and the rate of trade throughout different periods of the Roman Empire.  

                                                        (Ancient Roman amphoraes)

One interesting discovery was that the distribution of Italian wine which began gradually in the 3rd century BC, reached its peak during the 3rd quarter of the last century BC and then declined rapidly afterwords. This pattern of wine distribution matches that the rhythm of Roman imperial expansion. This supports the notion that the Roman economy and therefore the prosperity of the Roman elite was fueled by Roman imperialism.

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.

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

Roman Imperialism Theories

           War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C. written in 1979 by William 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.” 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. In many of these instances, the majority of those who did not stand to gain the highest prizes of war (the lower tiers of society) made it difficult for the minority of those standing to benefit the most (those in power) to capitalize on opportunities. These cases are confirmed by historians such as Livy who write of arguments in the senate over such issues as extending a commanders term or granting a triumph. The decision making process of whether or not to go to war should also be considered because while in theory the assembly of Roman people were needed to authourize wars, very few wars were submitted for approval from the assembly. 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. Many wars began due to greed and lust for glory, while others were fought for "legitimate" reasons of a more defensive or imperialist nature. Taking a closer look at the assembly's authority in declaring war or lack there of, we turn to Livy who in his book The History of Rome 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 province fell to P. Sulpicius, and he gave notice that he should propose to the Assembly that "owing to the lawless actions and armed attacks committed against the allies of Rome, it is the will and order of the Roman people that war be proclaimed against Philip, King of Macedonia, and against his people, the Macedonians." The other consul, Aurelius, received Italy for his province. Then the praetors balloted for their respective commands. C. Sergius Plancus drew the City; Q. Fulvius Gillo, Sicily; Q. Minucius Rufus, Bruttium, and L. Furius, Gaul. The proposed declaration of war against Macedonia was almost unanimously rejected at the first meeting of the Assembly. The length and exhausting demands of the late war had made men weary of fighting and they shrank from incurring further toils and dangers. One of the tribunes of the plebs, Q. Baebius, too, had adopted the old plan of abusing the patricians for perpetually sowing the seeds of fresh wars to prevent the plebeians from ever enjoying any rest. The patricians were extremely angry and the tribune was bitterly attacked in the senate, each of the senators in turn urging the consul to call another meeting of the Assembly to consider the proposal afresh and at the same time to rebuke the people for their want of spirit and show them what loss and disgrace would be entailed by the postponement of that war." (Livius, T. (n.d.). Chapter 6. In T. Livius, The History of Rome, Book 31.)

         We can conclude that Roman imperialism cannot be categorized simply as defensive or aggressive. Instead, Roman imperialism was a "complex phenomenon" with many contributing factors.

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