This. The Roman Peace was neither Roman, nor peaceful.https://twitter.com/jpnudell/status/1266148060725420038 …
-
you clearly point out in your post, and really goes big on it in all those examples you point out) - but for my money he's giving a name to a pre-existing Roman policy, rather than creating one.
While you can posit consistent Roman values in those periods, I do not think you can posit consistent Roman policy. Second century Roman focus on Fides != Caesarian Concordia != Augustan Pax.
-
-
Pax is just not what the Romans talk about when thinking policy in the Middle Republic. They talk Fides ('trust,' 'faith-keeping') which demands the avenging of slights, the defense of friends, and the ruination of enemies (cf. Thucydides' time, https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thucydides-fear-honor-and-interest/ … )
-
For most of the Republic - and I have to stress this - war was not seen as a bad thing. It was a *normal* state of affairs and potentially a moral positive. It is only after decades of civil war that the Romans fix on 'peace' as a positive, unmitigated good.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
A really fair point, which then leads us to the question of how cohesive is Roman policy, vs how far is it merely the individual interpretation of values? Given consular abuses in the late republic, leading into the principate? Can we even identify distinct policy in this period?
-
Ah. You want E.L. Wheeler, "Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy" Parts I and II, Journal of Military History 57.1 and 57.2 (1993). Complex topic. Much debate.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.