Imperium ideology

[Vitruvius]

Ave, Roberto,
I have to agree with The Magister in a number of ways. I believe that it was St. Augustine who came up with the "Just War" concept....which IMO was just his way of keeping God off of his civilizations back.
The Romans expanded their Imperium because they could..and financially needed to. Besides, the Romans wanted the rest of the world to know,"Resistance is FUTILE!!!!!!" Yes, I too am a 1st Generation Classic Trekkie and proud of it! lol
Salve,
Vitruvius...aka Larry Mager

[Roberto Romani]

Uh! Trekkies popping out even on RAT! I don't know if I have to be glad or worried...

[Vitruvius]

Dont worry; be happy!!!
Triek is a sideline...lol

Larry

[Diocle]

IMO the key word of the Imperial Ideology is 'Pax',, the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace in which each citizen was sure to be able to live, to work and to die with dignity and justice. A system that guaranteed peace and security to all those who were part of it.

Augustus invented or better developed the whole idea, if we are looking for an image showing the whole meaning of the Pax Romana what's better than the Ara Pacis? It's the basis of the whole Imperial Building:



Now we should ask ourselves if the Pax Romana, brought everywhere by the Roman Army, it was only an immense hypocrisy, in the end we are on Roman Army Talk :razz: , so was this beaurocratic construction really just a gigantic hypocrisy?

In my opinion yes and no, that is: actually Rome was bringing something very similar to the peace in a world in which the permanent tribal warfare or the feudalism couldn't guarantee a true peaceful existance in great part of the Ancient world. But the Romans to obtain this result had to build an immense Army and a gigantic and oppressive beaurocratic system.

My personal view on the matter is that until Rome was able to be a cultural bridge between the Hellenism and the North European Tribal Cultures, as to say until Rome worked as transmitter of Civilization and Cultrue, the Imperial Ideology had some true meaning.

I've many doubts about the matter if you ask me when the Imeprial Ideology ceased to work. The III century Military Anarchy? The Military and Beaurocratic system restored by Diocletianus? The Monotheistic Tyranny of Constantinus? Or the Theocracy of Theodosius? When the Imperial Ideology of the Pax Romana has become only an instrument of oppression?

My personal answer is when the Empire ceased to respect the innumerable and different faiths of the peoples living into its immense territory, as to say the Roman Peace ended with Constantinus, but this is only a personal interpretation of the matter o.c., many might be the answers.....

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Christianity Broke down the Roman Idealogy IMO.

[Robert Vermaat]

Christianity Broke down the Roman Idealogy IMO.

That, and Germanics moving into the Empire, and (very much) the State not looking after the provincials but more after itself, social inequality (big time!) and an economic crisis. All of that meant that 'Rome' was no longer an ideal, while 'Roman values' had become next to meaningless a long time before.

[Timianus]

In a nutshell:
"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

I think the imperial ideology traces its roots back to the story of the rape of the Sabines. Rome needed wives. Rome took them.

Later, this was "justified" with the rationale Rome was able to so so because she was favored by the gods.

In terms of "selling" Rome, I think local elites and client-states were "sold" based on the increase in material wealth/ local power Rome brought. Commoners didn't need to be "sold" on anything.

I think the effect of Christianity is a little more nuanced. Intellectuals at the time were already gravitating towards monotheism, whether Sol Invictus, Helios, etc., backed by the teaching of neo-platonism Constantine simply replaced Sol Invictus with Jesus. I think the more important time period was during Theodisius' reign, when one form of worship was mandated under penalty of death and free thought was suppressed.

IMHO, Roman "ideology" broke down over a long period of time, but the deciding factor for any locale was the moment in time when the army stopped protecting them and/or became a force of oppression. Why buy into a "system" when your taxes and crops are being taken to fund civil wars that ravage your own lands or draw the army away and allow the barbarians to invade? Why support a system that after Diocletian, effectively treated the entire empire as a massive logistical resource base for the army. Why support a system that is paying the same group of barbarians that invaded your lands last year to be part of the army and "protect" those lands?

Like all empires/totalitarian regimes, there came a moment in time when the "Rome" no longer existed to benefit its citizens, rather, its citizens existed to benefit the empire. At that point, you may as well swear loyalty to the local barbarian federates, because at least they are there.

[john m roberts]

In the ancient world, conquest was perceived as good in and of itself. Alexander the Great was elevated to near-deity because he conquered so much territory, not because he had any good reason for what he did. Benefit to the conquered was of no account whatever. Rome, after an early period of getting kicked around by greater powers, wanted to be safe. That meant putting some distance between Rome and its enemies.The provinces became in effect a demilitarized zone. Of course, there were always enemies on the other side of the border. This kept the Romans on their toes and their military strong for a vary long time. If they needed divine justification, Vergil provided it in the Aeneid.

[Maiorianus]

Two quick remarks:

a) from my understanding, the Romans did not just go to war like that. The entire process of going to war, and in particular the liturgy involving the fetiales and the pater patratus, show that they felt the need to prove that they had a good reason to go to war and that this was done in the respect of the proper religious rules. This may have been out of genuine conviction that they needed to have the gods on their side or out of propaganda needs (or out of a combination of both) but, at least in Republican times, they felt the need for a "proper" reason to justify their going to war. When it was no longer religious, war was still justified in political and legal terms. Think of Caesar's Gallic campaign: he went to war to "make a name for himself" and establish himself as a great Roman conqueror but still, in the Commentarii, he feels the need to justify his actions as the need to remove a threat to Rome (Helvetii) and to help a Roman ally (Aedui);

b) as for the imperium ideology, I always found very interesting the legend of Romulus' last words as reported by Livy (I,16): "Go tell the Romans, that the gods so will, that my Rome should become the capitol of the world. Therefore let them cultivate the art of war, and let them know and hand down to posterity, that no human power shall be able to withstand the Roman arms". This might well express the standard justification for Rome's imperium in use in Augustan times (pretty much in line with Vergil's famous passage) but is also likely to reflect a consolidated tradition and a kind of "standard lines" on Rome's role and destiny...

[AMELIANVS]

Hi Maiorianus,you're among my favorite late Roman emperors :grin: .

[Epictetus]

When it comes to Rome and war, there are two very fascinating schools of thought you might be interested in. William Harris' War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (1979) basically said that the Romans were unusually bellicose. This was countered in 2006 by Arthur M. Eckstein's Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Eckstein said that Harris was incorrect, and the every state in the Mediterranean was more-or-less equally eager for war. It's a fascinating debate.

Edit: Here is a good review of Eckstein that compares him with Harris. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-06-44.html

[Jori]

Cassus Belli

Romans needed to justify wars. The ideology behind : peace and security for romans and their allies.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Cassus Belli - the bane of EU3 :evil: