Bret Devereaux

Yes, but it is possible for the Pax Romana to not be terribly peaceful (by modern standards) and at the same time represent a reduction in overall levels of violence. Just going by demographic evidence, it very likely was the latter - a relative, if not absolute, peace.

Is this anecdotal or supported by statistical analysis of data? Was the Julian-Trajanic period numerically less violent than the Republican or Marian eras?

And this also pre-supposes that we can locate the concept of Pax Romana in the Julian-Trajanic period, rather than as a geopolitical belief which might stretch back, arguable, as far as the early/mid Republic (thinking Macedonian & Illyrian wars here)

It's pretty clearly located in the rhetoric of Augustus and not as strongly earlier. Pax wasn't so much a thing to be desired for much of the Republic. It's not a key buzz-word. But then civil wars and Augustus and he's putting 'pax' on everything, building altars to it, etc.

would humbly disagree; the concept of pax romana exists, I would argue, well in advance of Augustus' rhetoric (the political *necessity* of the concept is, without doubt, truly Augustan). It's hard to see, e.g., intervention in Pontus etc. in any other than the same hypocritical/

/light as the Pax Romana though - same potentially with the dealings as an intermediary between Greece and Macedon. Indeed, what is the simultaneous sack of Carthage and Corinth but the epitome of the concept of pax romana? Augustus coins the term (in exactly the same ways as/

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.