Scroll the sidebar to vote in The Punch Die's new poll: Is History an art or a science?

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Roman Ways of War and Peace

Some advice on peace, from the Roman way of waging war:

Stability was restored to the lands surrounding Transalpine Gaul, but the
cost in human lives had been high. ... Many--perhaps tens of thousands--must
have been killed, but we should not let the modern horror at such huge loss of
life blind us to the response of Caesar's Roman audience to such statistics. For
them, a dangerous movement of hostile peoples had been stopped and their
province, which was not far from Italy itself, secured for the future. In
the "Commentaries" Caesar often makes use of the verb "pacere" which meant "to
pacify" and was used for the defeat of any people, anywhere, who had refused
when challenged to submit to Roman authority. "Pax" or "peace" was the outcome
of a Roman victory. From the Roman perspective, peace had returned to the
northern frontier. [From Goldsworthy, Caesar: Life of a Colossus, p.
223.]


Some historians and enthusiasts believe the Roman Empire was the height of human political and military achievement before the United States. Rome was a de facto empire by 242 BC, when it acquired Sicily, its first province outside of Italy, an astounding 700+ years. One must realize, however, the staggering loss of life such a political and military entity was responsible for. In the end, does Rome's achievements, many of which she bequeathed to the modern world, justify the Roman way of war?

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

2 comments:

jimmyk said...

Well we see what happened when Rome fell, so that should answer the question.

Anonymous said...

Sort of a silly question: "staggering loss of life" by our current standards was pretty much the norm until recently. The Taiping rebellion in the 1850s to mid 1860s is estimated to have killed about 25 million people, and accomplished exactly nothing. The Roman "way of war" was much more succesful, but not more cruel or ruthless than anyone else's way of war at the time. But the Romans made positive contributions afterwards, which most others did not. This is particularly true of Caeser's conquest of Gaul, from which this example was taken.

Owen Johnson