1. The Peace and Imperialism of Pax Romana
Curated Blocks: October 14th, 2023
Block 1 of 1
Page: Y1 (Curated Book) | Pax Romana: War, Peace and Conquest in the Roman World by Adrian Goldsworthy (2016)
— BUY BOOK
Section: NA
Kindle Pages: 9 - 18
The Peace and Imperialism of Pax Romana
Edward Gibbon, a renowned 18th-century historian, regarded the period of the Roman Empire from AD 96 –180, spanning from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus, as the pinnacle of human happiness and prosperity. The empire was a monarchy, thinly veiled by what Gibbon described as 'the image of liberty,' but it provided universal good when governed by a virtuous and wise monarch.
The peace within the empire was palpable, symbolized by enduring monuments like temples, roads, aqueducts, and arches that even survived into Gibbon's day. This period of internal calm, known as the Pax Romana or Roman Peace, allowed not just Rome but the greater part of the known world to thrive.
Adrian Goldsworthy, the author of this book, notes that peace is a rare commodity, as true today as it was during Gibbon's time. The Romans had a dual understanding of peace and war. They celebrated peace, with the term "pax" closely resembling our modern understanding of 'peace,' yet they were pragmatic enough to understand that war was a frequent and necessary event.
Roman emperors often boasted about maintaining peace, but their reputation hinged significantly on their military victories. The term "Imperator," from which the modern word 'emperor' originates, literally means a 'victorious general.' This juxtaposition of war and peace reveals the complexity of Roman governance.
Goldsworthy draws an interesting parallel between the modern Western world and ancient Rome. Just like many of us today, the Romans took peace for granted, considering it the natural order. This complacency could be dangerous, as peace, both then and now, is often more fragile than it appears.
The Violent Cost of Roman Rule
While many are still amazed by Roman technological prowess, the empire was not without its darker aspects. It was a society that also entertained mass slavery, brutal gladiatorial games, and had its share of tyrannical rulers. Despite these, Rome was seen as the cradle of civilization, contrasted against a world beyond its borders that was considered bleak and uncivilized. When the empire fell, Europe descended into the Dark Ages, where knowledge, peace, and prosperity seemed to evaporate. Goldsworthy points out the sheer longevity of the empire as one of its most impressive attributes.
The Romans were masterful conquerors, stretching their empire from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, and from the Sahara to Northern Britain. They were unapologetically aggressive and warlike, a fact Goldsworthy states is almost too obvious to mention. Empires are not born or sustained without violence, and the Roman Empire was no exception.
Over the centuries, millions were killed, enslaved, or lived under Roman rule, often against their will. They were successful precisely because they were adept at the politics of domination and had a knack for absorbing other cultures into their fold.
Interestingly, Goldsworthy mentions that even when Rome began to crumble, there were no significant independence movements in any of the provinces. This suggests that Roman rule, despite its violent tendencies, also provided some level of stability that people didn't want to lose. In fact, the majority of the Roman army was stationed at the empire's fringes, acting as a protective wall. Inside these fringes, large areas were entirely free from warfare for centuries, a feat almost unparalleled in history.
The Complex Narratives of the Pax Romana
Goldsworthy underlines that Rome did not initially seek to build an empire for the sake of peace. The empire's expansion was driven by a desire for wealth and glory. Even so, the Romans did speak often of peace as a desirable condition, once again highlighting the complex and multifaceted motivations behind Rome's long-lasting empire.
In revisiting the concept of Pax Romana, it's essential to dig into the etymology. The Latin verb "pacare," which shares its root with "pax," refers to "pacification" but was often used to describe aggressive warfare against foreign people. Goldsworthy enlightens us that the Roman peace was not an altruistic endeavor but a calculated move. Wars were initially fought for Rome's benefit and security. Once dominance was achieved, there was a newfound sense of duty to govern the conquered well. This governance wasn't just about maintaining order; it was intrinsically tied to Rome's economic ambitions. Peace allowed for increased prosperity, which in turn led to higher tax revenues and other forms of income for the empire.
The Romans' imperialistic tendencies aren't unique to history, but public perception of empires has undergone a significant transformation. Goldsworthy highlights that up until a century ago, the idea of an empire was often viewed as a positive force. However, contemporary perspectives, particularly in academic circles, have grown increasingly critical of imperial histories. This skepticism extends to the Roman Empire, questioning its efficiency and the very concept of "Romanization" that once excited archaeologists. Recent interpretations even depict the Roman Empire as essentially perpetrating "robbery with violence."
While many modern views paint a grim picture, questioning the reality of any Pax Romana, Goldsworthy insists that the empire's longevity can't be easily dismissed. Some scholars attribute the empire's lasting power to factors beyond Rome's control, such as a common Mediterranean economic model. However, Goldsworthy challenges this, stating that such a long period of success can't merely be coincidental.
Goldsworthy questions the often-assumed notion that the Roman Empire was a constant battlefield. Contrary to this, evidence of warfare is sparse in many provinces for extended periods, and the idea of frequent revolts lacks robust justification. The existence of lower levels of violence, like banditry, is contested and far from straightforward.
He underscores the necessity of re-examining the Pax Romana and argues that understanding this period requires a look into how the empire was created and managed. More importantly, the focus should be as much on the conquered peoples as on the Romans. The empire's imposition had a transformative impact on the regions it conquered, and the evidence to assess these changes is often archeological, subject to interpretation, and varying in quality and quantity across provinces.
Goldsworthy closes by reminding us that any discussion about the Pax Romana should be contextualized within the broader Roman strategies of conquest and governance. While the book touches upon peace and defense, it cannot escape the themes of aggression, warfare, and exploitation that are inherent in any empire's story. And it's crucial to remember that Rome was not the only aggressive, imperialistic state in the ancient world. In essence, the Roman Empire was not merely an imperial overlord but started as a conquering force, and this duality should guide our understanding of its long-lasting impact.