Roman Britain came to be under Emperor Claudius in 43 A.D.
Seeking to flesh out his credentials and gain land and wealth for Rome, the
Emperor sent forty-thousand troops to the British coast. The value
of this expedition was unknown, but the prospect of a great reward was too
much to pass up. There was no initial opposition, and the soldiers were able
to quickly claim the land. Rome has a history of not apologizing for
conquest, and this was the case with Britain. As Rome had for centuries before,
and would for centuries to come, they came, they saw, they conquered; or in
Latin “Veni Vidi Vici”.
(The Pantheon, Seat of Government, Rome Italy, Photo Courtesy of Me!)
Parsons suggests one definition of empire as “a direct and
authoritarian rule of one group of people by another”. In this case, Rome would
fail to be classified as an empire because when they conquered a new land like
Britain, they turned the subjects into Roman citizens, thus making them all one
people group. While Rome might have failed the Empire test in this category,
assimilating their newly acquired subjects into Roman life, had its advantages.
This new citizenship provided identity and connected people on the fringes of
Roman control, with those at the heart. It created unity and a sense of
togetherness. Some people groups were enslaved, but in the long run it was more
profitable to get people to work and pay taxes, than to make them free labor.
From the 2nd century B.C to the 2nd
Century A.D much of the Roman empires wealth came from slaves working large
farms in the Italian countryside. At times slaves out numbered the free Roman
citizens, but slave revolts were dealt with such severity, few were wiling to
take the risk. While Rome often enjoyed a peaceable takeover, if violence was needed,
violators could be assured that swift actions would be taken to regain control.
Above all else, Rome was a organized controlled state. The Roman military did not
have any significant technological advantage. The neighboring armies use more
of less the same sort of weapons in more or less the same manner. Romes
strength came from their superior organization and ability to quickly obtain control.
At the beginning Rome was not consciously trying to build an
empire. They acquired property from weaker states seeking protection, and
occasionally by overpowering a foreign state. Over time as they expanded their
grasp and went in search of new territory, war became more commonplace. As Rome
grew, so did their prestige, wealth, and value. Contrary to popular opinion,
Rome did not fall in a day. It took quite some effort by invading Muslim forces.
Rome, like all things, came to an end. But its glory far outlived it time.
Whether accidentally or intentionally, Rome grew to be one
of the most feared and revered empires of all time. Today we define modern
empires by comparing them to Rome. Rome not
only exhibited the characteristics of a empire, but did so well an equal match
is yet to be found.
So, Kenney is right. Rome is the best thing ever.
Is it the best thing ever?
ReplyDeleteParsons seemed to say that Rome was pretty uncaring and aggressive in many aspects. Should we just sign that off as "Oh well, it's an empire", or must we remove the "Best Empire Ever" stamp that has been placed on Rome?
As we talked about in class, I think we need to give some consideration to criteria for evaluating empire. We clearly should be cautious about judging them by our own 21st century standards, but did Rome in any way fail to live up to its own aspirations or declared values?
DeleteI think it's probably important to note that Rome did not immediately or universally impart citizenship to conquered peoples. And class difference continued to matter immensely (regardless of time period), so I think one can safely talk about Rome as ruling over other peoples.
ReplyDelete