Timeline for Did Rome attempt to justify its conquests?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2016 at 0:50 | comment | added | DrZ214 |
@MarkC.Wallace Why would Rome justify activity that every state viewed as the normal, natural behavior of a state? What's effectively being asked is, Did Rome publicly state any Casus Belli for their offensive wars? It's more of a modern concept. One reason for Casus Belli today is to prevent other powerful nations from interfering with your war, or maybe even get them to help you. Back in those days, I don't think there was any other power that could meaningfully interfere with Rome.
|
|
| Nov 14, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | MCW♦ | Ideology changes over time. During the Roman era the only way to earn wealth was through conquest. They didn't need to justify the war, because the war made Rome more wealthy and improved the lives of Romans. They believed the world was zero sum and the only way to advance was by taking wealth from others. They did not have the modern concept that nations were equal; strong nations took from the weak and Rome was the strongest. | |
| Nov 14, 2016 at 19:20 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackHistory/status/798244132045004800 | ||
| Nov 14, 2016 at 11:29 | history | reopened |
Alex Brasidas Matt congusbongus NSNoob |
||
| Nov 13, 2016 at 19:31 | comment | added | Matt |
Rome wanted the slaves and treasure and so they just went ahead Economics is economics, but ideology is ideology. Yes, they needed treasures, yet they always justified their wars by some reason. Seems like "national security" was the most usual type of argument.
|
|
| Nov 13, 2016 at 18:35 | comment | added | Jeff | @Mark C. Wallace -- The old "asking a dog to justify breathing" cliche? Seriously, Rome was a nation made up of people and some of them, if they were anything like modern people, which they well may have not been in this respect, might have said, Why is this being done? Why are we bothering these other nations? But according to one history prof, they did not. | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 18:17 | history | edited | Jeff | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Nov 13, 2016 at 15:15 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 14, 2016 at 1:52 | |||||
| Nov 13, 2016 at 15:09 | comment | added | Doctor Zhivago | This is a good question too. The first answer is no. This was Rome, they were Romans you were not. But I would argue from my albeit limited reading on the subject that unlike most "conquerors" there was always an attempt to engage in discussions with their adversaries and enemies alike. I would not call it Diplomacy per se but certainly to be Roman was to be engaged. They certainly weren't the Mongols for example. | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 15:02 | comment | added | Alex | On my opinion, the question makes sense, as stated. I answered and nominated to reopen. | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 14:52 | history | closed |
Rathony MCW♦ Pieter Geerkens CGCampbell SMS von der Tann |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 14:28 | comment | added | Brasidas | Some conservative senators wanted to charge Julius Caesar for waging an "illegal war" against the Gauls (or the Germanic tribes, can't remember well). | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 14:19 | answer | added | Alex | timeline score: 15 | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 12:13 | comment | added | MCW♦ | Why would Rome justify activity that every state viewed as the normal, natural behavior of a state? | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 11:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 13, 2016 at 14:52 | |||||
| Nov 13, 2016 at 11:35 | comment | added | Rathony | I don't understand your question. Can you elaborate on what to "justify its conquests" means and how it is justified with examples and references? | |
| Nov 13, 2016 at 8:02 | history | asked | Jeff | CC BY-SA 3.0 |