This. The Roman Peace was neither Roman, nor peaceful.https://twitter.com/jpnudell/status/1266148060725420038 …
-
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.
-
If you haven't, take a read through J.E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts for a sense of the Roman value-set of the Republic (check out also Barton, Roman Honor and Lendon, Empire of Honor). There is a real shift in attitude in the first century brought on by the civil wars.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.