A Summary of "Roman Power"

Armstrong, J. and M.P. Fronda (eds.) Romans at War: Soldiers, Citizens, and Society in the Roman Republic. Routledge: London., 2019

This volume addresses the fundamental importance of the army, warfare, and military service to the development of both the Roman Republic and wider Italic society in the second half of the first millennium BC. It brings together emerging and established scholars in the area of Roman military studies to engage with subjects such as the relationship between warfare and economic and demographic regimes; the interplay of war, aristocratic politics, and state formation; and the complex role the military played in the integration of Italy. The book demonstrates the centrality of war to Rome's internal and external relationships during the Republic, as well as to the Romans' sense of identity and history. It also illustrates the changing scholarly view of warfare as a social and cultural construct in antiquity , and how much work remains to be done in what is often thought of as a "traditional" area of research. Romans at War will be of interest to students and scholars of the Roman army and ancient warfare, and of Roman society more broadly.

Spoils in the Roman Republic, 2023

When one thinks of the fall of the Roman Republic, names such as Caesar, Pompey, Antony, and Octavian leap to mind. Yet the devastating civil wars between 49-31 BCE that brought the Republic to its knees had far deeper roots. In order to understand the political and military opportunities that ultimately led to the rise of Augustus and the beginning of the Roman Empire, we must go back almost two hundred years to the Second Punic War in the late third century BCE. It was during the Hannibalic War that Rome first became militarily involved in the Iberian Peninsula. This commitment would prove daunting and arduous, breaking down the traditional Roman military recruitment system. The traditional military system of a Roman army of landed citizen soldiers continually became less achievable as the pool of available candidates dwindled under the pressures of long foreign wars and loss of property. Faced with this lack of qualified soldiers, an ambitious statesman named Marius enacted radical military reforms that would make Roman soldiers beholden to the desires of their generals over the traditions of the state. A powerful “warlord culture” quickly developed in the first century BCE, which ushered in the climactic events of the final fall of the Roman Republic. Although we can attribute a combination of numerous intricacies found outside of the following major points to the failure of the Roman Republic, this paper argued that the consequences of Roman involvement in Spain, the ramifications of Marius’ reforms, and the rise of the warlord culture at Rome were the three main factors that transformed Roman republicanism and allowed for the founding of Augustus’ empire. Annual Mid-American Conference on History at Missouri State University, September 2012.

2024

Rome, during the period of the Middle Republic, came of age as an imperial power. Yet, this trajectory from one-of-many city states of La um to hegemon of the Mediterranean world was one that involved a complex mix of endogenous and exogenous factors. The objec ve of this thesis is to use evolu onary theory to re-examine this o en-described phenomenon. The historiographical tradi on related to this subject ma er is long and fascina ng but has, at mes, fallen short of providing theories with not only explanatory power but with some form of scien fic basis. Interna onal Rela ons theories (IR) have gone some way to rec fying this deficit by foregrounding the ecological factors that affected Rome's interfacing with other groups of people in the Mediterranean. However, to produce a more nuanced explica on of Roman expansive aggression during this period, an evolu onary approach is both efficacious and elucida ng. Humans are a product of evolu on by natural selec on; that is, we possess certain behaviours that are, to a degree, determined by genes in a par cular environmental situa on. Thus, from this perspec ve, the Romans were li le different from contemporary cultures or even our own society. The ancient Mediterranean world of the Middle Republic was one of anarchy, self-help, and power maximiza on; it was a zero-sum world and so aggression was o en adap ve. Nonetheless, learning and cultural transmission have become the true determinants of human behaviours, guided by and altering our evolved psychological mechanisms. Therefore, cultural processes did indeed make the Romans idiosyncra c in many respects. Humans are highly social, and we evolved in a small group environment. Mul level selec on tells us that selfishness is o en a successful strategy within a group, but groups that are cons tuted of altruis c members, and are thus integrated, will out-compete groups of selfish individuals. This, in a nutshell, is the key to Roman success. Roman society evolved norms and ins tu ons that created a society that was highly amalgamated and focused on ac ng for the good of the state because that was also beneficial to the individual in tangible ways. Service to the state could bring poli cal power, pres ge, and wealth to one's family and it could be genera onal. Moreover, Rome itself was the product of cultural group selec on. In short, its norms and ins tu ons were more adapted to be successful in inter-group compe on. To be sure, this need not have been violent conflict, but in the ecological condi ons of the me, it o en was. One externality that is emphasised in this thesis is the shared fron er with the Gauls, as II well as the lesser fron er with the Etruscans. Fron ers were where poten al empires were formed because of the highly intensive and vola le condi ons which drive groups towards higher solidarity. The overall objec ve in this thesis is to highlight that the Romans were, like all species, a product of their genes, culture, life history and ecology. They were both all-too human, and, at mes, excep onal in their expression of their humanity. For us, the biggest danger is not that demonic males are the rule in our species. A er all, other demonic male species are not endangered at their own hands. The real danger is that our species combines demonic males with burning intelligence-and therefore a capacity for crea on and destruc on without precedent. The great human brain is nature's most frightening product. 1 The human capacity to wage coali onal violence on each other is inimitable. Yet, we also possess a capacity for pro-sociality, altruism, and coopera on like no other species. We are truly a paradoxical wonder. In many ways, Middle Republican Rome exemplifies this paradox. Demonstrably aggressive and imperialis c, it was also o en circumspect and re cent to become fully engaged or commi ed, and some mes looking for diploma c solu ons rather than recourse to war. O en hesitant and tardy, it was some mes petulant and vengeful. At mes, Rome looked to accept and pursue moral obliga ons to its interna onal friends but at the same me it rejected its enemies' own responsibili es to their friends. Moreover, the-defensive-imperialist. To be sure, to advocate one or the other-a false dichotomy-is to be guilty of reduc onism 2 to the extreme, but reduc onism, per se, is not intrinsically nega ve, in fact, it is necessary. Nevertheless, in this context, to reduce Rome to either excep onally aggressive or mo vated primarily by defensive concerns is to denude the period of the many complex and convoluted forces in play as well as the myriad of variables and unforeseen determinants that played their part. Some historians have advocated for a mul -causal explana on but also emphasised one side of the divide over the other in such a way that it is essen ally a mono-causal explana on that is presented. Naturally enough, many studies of the past have focused exclusively on Rome, and therefore, there is no considera on of the wider environment and the other states, chie ains, and tribes that existed in the ancient Mediterranean contemporaneously with Rome. The issue is then exacerbated by the ancient sources which pay li le substan ve or unbiased a en on to other states. Lacking any comparison with contemporaneous states, it is a difficult task to capture any insight into Roman mo va on for war and whether it was a state any more belligerent than others. It is impera ve that we interpret Rome's ac ons in the light of the wider environment as it did not operate in a vacuum. In this thesis, in acknowledgment of the fact that the interna onal environment exerted substan al force on the behaviour of both states and the individuals that lived within the state system of the ancient Mediterranean, due diligence is given to several theories that help elucidate the systemic context that the Republic operated in. There will not be a great amount of detail offered on other individual, contemporaneous states, but it is implicitly acknowledged that Rome was affected by and influenced other states opera ng in the Mediterranean state system. Moreover, the search for human universal behaviour manifested by the Romans in this thesis is, indeed, an admission that, in certain aspects, Rome was not idiosyncra c but was itself a product of a par cular ecology which induced the Republic and its popula on to act adap vely to the environment. The singularity of Rome, as will be argued here, was in its poli cal ins tu ons and culture-its meaning systems, which engaged and intensified the human evolved psychology for coali onal violence. To offer a more nuanced approach and to produce a thesis with more explanatory power, the following arguments and analyses use a theore cal approach, analy c eclec cism, 3 by which several theories are employed in the search for a consilience of induc ons, 4 wherein several lines of disparate inquiry produce evidence that converges and mutually supports any one hypothesis. In the broadest terms, the theore cal framework in the following is centred on evolu onary theories, predominantly cultural and biological. This evolu onary lens is then applied to IR (Interna onal Rela ons) theory. These theories enable us to gain a more fine-grained understanding with, in the case of evolu onary theory, a good number of empirical studies that add a scien fic founda on to some of the following claims of human universals and cultural differences which are o en applied to the Romans. To be sure, claims of scien fic evidence do not make proposi ons infallible. A er all, such a claim would not be in the tradi on of the scien fic method. Nevertheless, to a empt to explain Roman expansion in the mid-Republic through not only IR, but also through an evolu onary lens is a worthwhile endeavour that has the poten al to yield some edifying results. Do we need theories from other disciplines to be applied to the subject of Roman imperialism when it has been covered and debated intensely from the me of Polybius? The answer is a resounding affirma ve. In fact, theory has always been applied to the study of history whether explicitly or not. What is more, A. Eckstein's 5 use of Realist IR theory has not been a mere anomaly in the historiographic tradi on, but his contribu on has been significant in that he has been consciously and systema cally applying theory and simultaneously being unequivocal about its use. In the twen eth century, various 3 Sil & Katzenstein 2010. 4 This concept was offered by William Whewell 1847. 'The prediction of results, even of the same kind as those which have been observed, in new cases, is proof of real success in our inductive processes…But the evidence in favour of our induction is of a much higher and more forcible character when it enables us to explain and determine cases of a kind different from those which were contemplated in the formation of our hypothesis. The instances in which this has occurred, indeed, impress us with conviction that the truth of our hypothesis is certain. No accidence could give rise to such extraordinary coincidence…And as I shall have occasion to refer to this peculiar feature in their evidence, I will take the liberty of describing it by the particular phase; and will term it Consilience of Inductions.' Whewell 1847, 2: 65. 5 E.g., Eckstein 2006. In order to gain a deeper understanding of our species, and all other biological organisms, an evolu onary approach is crucial. If one u lises the theory of evolu on in its broadest sense, we can organise certain ideas about any species in such a way that their a ributes and behaviours make sense in the ecological context that they exist in. The theory itself consists of only three components, but its explanatory power is unmatched once its implica ons are fully realised. Indeed, the theory of evolu on is the founda on that other theories-such as IR theories-rest on, although this is rarely explicitly stated. To understand how this...

BRILL eBooks, 2007

Lukas de Blois and Elio Lo Cascio-978-90-47-43039-1 Downloaded from Brill.com07/13/2022 11:33:54AM via free access nature and impact of the roman war effort in spain 31 that in 217, 211, 210, 206, 204, 201 and 200, the leges regarding the supreme command in Spain were always passed on the initiative of the Senate, which was doubtlessly also the case for the extraordinary proconsulships of M. Claudius Marcellus and Sempronius Tuditanus in 215 and 205. Especially Livius 30.41.4f. offers a striking example of how the Senate, if necessary, took the initiative to involve the Comitia in the decision-making within a preconceived framework, although this instance necessitates an important annotation. A number of indirect or secondary but valuable indications in the account of Livius and, to a lesser extent, Appianus and Dio Cassius, indeed point to the fact that during the Second Punic War some important tensions and frictions arose between the Senate on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the decision-making in the Comitia at the instigation of/for the beneÀ t of charismatic protagonists like M. Marcellus and Scipio Africanus. At the outset of 210, Scipio's rather unexpected election by the comitia centuriata was contested by the powerful senatorial seniores to such a degree that Scipio decided to call for an additional contio to strengthen his position. After Scipio's position as proconsul and summus imperator of Spain had become unquestionable in this way, the Senate sent the senior praetorius M. Iunius Silanus along with Scipio, obviously with the intention of providing Scipio with a more mature counsellor and of having a kind of 'supervisor' in the À eld. The Senate moreover raised the imperium of pro praetore Silanus to the level of a consulare imperium and entitled him to share the supreme command, which, among other things, must have served the purpose of strengthening his position vis-à-vis young P. Scipio. At all events, Scipio departed for Spain in 210 against the will of an important and inÁ uential part of the Senate, armed with the powerful and quite exceptional legitimation of a lex centuriata. The careers and extraordinary prouinciae/ imperia of C. Claudius Nero and especially M. Claudius Marcellus and P. Scipio Africanus reveal that even after the crushing defeats at Lake Trasimene and Cannae in 217 and 216, the advocates of an aggressive military policy could continue to depend on the undaunted support of the Roman People, and that the protagonists of the hawkish faction in Rome eventually did not refrain from making use of their popularity among the commons in order to pressure the Senate and, if necessary, obtain imperium and/or prouincia 'extra ordinem'. Nonetheless, the authority of the Senate remained by far the foremost factor in the Roman decision-making process during the Second Punic War. Polybius in 6.51.5f. expressly explains the Roman victory Lukas de Blois and Elio Lo Cascio-978-90-47-43039-1 Downloaded from Brill.com07/13/2022 11:33:54AM via free access 65 As has been conclusively demonstrated with respect to the annexation of Macedonia À fty years later by W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in the Roman Republic 327-70 bc (Oxford 1979), 74ff. 66 This practice seems to have been an unwritten law in the Roman administration

Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World, 2013

K. Berthelot, ed., Reconsidering Roman Power: Roman, Greek, Jewish and Christian Perceptions and Reactions, l’École Française de Rome 2020, 255-67. , 2020

Rome's Empire prompted historians to think universally. From the Second Punic War, the history of the oikoumenē was for Greek and Latin historians a history of Rome's empire. Polybius said this first. In the Preface to his innovative and ambitious History, he explained that «previously the doings of the world had been, so to say, dispersed, as they were held together by no unity of initiative, results or locality; but ever since this date [of the second war between Rome and Carthage] history has been an organic whole». 2 Polybius claims not only that world history had entered a new, unprecedented age, in which everything is connected, but that his account of it will perforce be a unique (idion) way of writing history. Many others followed, their names familiar even if their texts have not survived: Posidonius, Pompeius Trogus, Nicolaus of Damascus; the remains of Diodorus Siculus' compilation are illuminating about the genre. These writers often-logically-began their histories long before the rise of Rome to emphasize not only the theme of unifying conquest but also the pattern of rise and fall, the fate of empires. 3 Even histories solely of Rome from its foundation, and even accounts solely of early Rome before its empire, could have a kind of universalizing purpose, to explain the