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.