Roman Occupation

If we want to compare ancient cultures to our culture today the first step is to see exactly how similar these cultures are.  Afterall, if they hold no parallels then then this endeavor can prove to be very difficult. The first step will be to examine how the ancients viewed occupying and controlling foreign lands using both primary sources from the time and modern discussion on the issue.  Then in the end, we can use this information to compare the cultures to ours today and to examine how similar they are.

The first telling insight into how Rome felt about occupying and conquering foreign lands can be seen in the creation of the triumph, a type of ancient parade where the newly defeated people would be led through Rome so all the citizens could see the spoils of war.  Mary Beard’s The Roman Triumh paints a vivid picture of exactly what a triumph would entail.  She details just how violent these triumphs could be, with the captives being put to death at the end. She goes on to say how this was an exercise by the Roman empire to show its clout. It is difficult to argue with that point; the descriptions of the triumphs by Pliny are nothing short of amazing in terms of the spoils. The main point of Beard’s writing is to show the importance of the triumph to the Roman leaders.

The next is an examination of live burials performed under Roman Imperialism.  This article interprets human sacrifice of Gauls and Greeks in Rome as showing how little we know of the psychological effects of continuous warfare on the Romans. The author argues for the connection between warfare and religion that does not support the idea of defensive Roman imperialism. That is that Rome had to go to war to protect her own interests.

The final source is based around the ideas of the Roman military and what values they held. This is important to examine because these were the people often in charge of occupying the Roman held lands. Dr. Hanson’s book The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern, examines the similarities of the Roman military to that of ours today. What he finds is quite striking. He claims that the strength of the these militaries comes from the egalitarian nature from which they are founded. He also looks at how Rome and America today use their military to control the foreign people and lands.

We can also examine how Roman rulers controlled conqeured lands by examining ancient texts. The first of these is Caeser’s Gallic Wars, a personal account on how he counquered the land of Gaul. The book outlines basic princilples of how Rome conquered and ruled. If the subjects under Roman law would pay taxes and support the Imperial cult then for the most part they would not be bothered. It was only in the case when Rome was acquiring new land or controlling an uprising was this not true. Which begs the question what was the reason for the uprising in the first place.

One such instance is characterized by Josephus’ account of the Jewish War. Josephus was himself a Jew who believed in the compatibility of the Jewish custom and Roman rule. (wish I had more time to write more)

This image shows how pervasive violence and the idea of conquering was to the common Roman. The picture is from a Roman general's sarcophagus and it depicts a cavalry battle between the Romans and barbarians. The average Roman was no stranger to violence. Most Romans I would argue were quite alright with conquering and controlling foreign lands.

The question now is can we compare ancient Roman imperialism to our culture today and just how relevant is it. The idea of American imperialism does not come as surprise to some. If we examine the principles of imperialism but disregard the means, then the two cultures are strikingly similar. The United States would most likely not conquer a nation for the outright control of that area. But if we examine the spread of American culture throughout the world, striking similarities can be drawn between the impacts of both the Roman and American cultures. In this way, we ancient Rome and our modern nation are very similar.

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.

                                                                                                                   

Midterm- Genocide

The issue that I have been researching for this class is genocide.  Genocide as defined by dictionary.com is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”  In simpler terms it means the wiping a way of life off of the face of the planet through the killing and destruction of its people and property.   

            The first secondary source that I read was 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.

            The next source I read The Worlds Bloodies History: Massacre, Genocide, and the Scars Left on Civilization By Joseph Cumming it 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.

The third secondary source I read on this topic was Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization by Richard Miles.  In this literature 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.

One of the ancient authors that I looked at was Thucydides in his book History of the Peloponnesian War.  In the passage that I focused on was of a different genocide then that of Carthage.  It was of the Athenian genocide of the island nation of Melos.  Here is the passage that I was able to find on the internet.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

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.

The second ancient source I read was Appian and his description of the Carthaginian genocide.  Here is the online version of his writings.

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_punic_00.html

  His description is one of the ones used by the previous author I wrote of about 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 you can read here http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_punic_26.html#%A7130 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.

Carthage Before and After:

These two images are the before and after shots of Carthage.  The first one is an artist animation of what Carthage would have looked like right before it was destroyed by Rome.  The second one is a modern day picture of what is left of Carthage.  As one can see it is ruins.  This is a living picture of genocide and what it actually looks like.

            Genocide is an issue that was not left in antiquity.  There are still many examples of genocide in modern times.  One such example is that of the genocide in Rwanda.  In this conflict two rival groups both based in Rwanda were struggling for power.  The group with a majority in the country was the Hutu people and they set out to destroy to minority group, the Tutsi in 1994.  In the end they were pretty successful in their genocide.  The death toll estimate reached 800,000 people slaughtered. 

            Now this genocide is different than the two I discussed earlier, Carthage and Melos.  In genocides in antiquity were done by empires looking to expand and they saw these states as getting in their way, and therefore destroyed them.  In the case of Rwanda these were two groups in a third world country that despised each other.  This was not one people trying to take over the world and the other group was standing in the way. 

            For a moment let us compare ancient Rome to the modern United States.  Were the USA to try and take over another nation and genocide its people, they would be stopped almost immediately by other nation and by the UN.  However, in the time of the Romans this infrastructure was not yet set up and since Rome was the most powerful state in the world, there were no other nations to keep them in check.  This is the main difference between genocide in modern times and antiquity.  Not since the time of Hitler has a modern genocide been similar to that of the ancient Romans or Athenians.