The Roman empire is a unique model in the ancient West as it rose and spread over the Mediterranean region against all odds and remained united and effective for a long time. The Romans were successful in winning the loyalties of the conquered lands that lay between the Euphrates and the Tyne and creating a culture that was assimilated by at least the elite among the provincial people. Military power is no doubt necessary for winning wars, annexing new regions to the empire, and crushing the revolts. However, a long-lasting rule can only be insured with the help of a shared ideology and culture which enables the conquerors to move forward and the vanquished to accept the new rulers. This ideology also offers the nation justification for expansion, and continual rule over a vast subject. The Romans could provide such a consensus justification for their empire. This essay studies the ways the Romans envisioned their empire and argues that the expansion and durability of the empire was possible due to a combination of the ideological foundations anchored in Roman religious and cultural ideas, cultural progress achieved by making the subjects assimilate the Roman ideals, and the military might that was secured due to the prestige attached to war.
One important concept uniting the Romans and lending them a sense of nationhood and ambition was their history and legend as well as their political ideology. It was thought that the Romans were the descendants of the people of Troy who, with special protection of the gods, were able to settle in Latium. They were destined to flourish and rule as the gods wished it. Though the Roman historians trace the appearance of the city of Rome later, it is believed to have existed about a thousand years before the common era. After the initial rule of the kings, who ruled from the eighth to the six century BC, the Romans saw the rule of Tarquin the Proud (534–509) who exercised huge power. However, he was ousted by the aristocracy due to his tyrannies and dictatorship and the republican city was established which did not give the ruler unrestricted powers. There were first consular and later also the Senate as well as the general assembly to share power. The Romans idolized this form of shared power and a system of check and balance which they thought gave them a kind of superiority and a reason to bring others who needed protection and liberty under their rule. Rome posed itself as a protector against all forms of tyrant rule.
Therefore, one finds Virgil popularizing the idea that Romans were the people who had “left the land of Troy and came to Italy to the shores of Lavinium”. Later in the same work, he reminds the Romans to remember to “rule Earth’s people” by their strength. The gifts of the Romans have been given a clear purpose: “to pacify, to impose the rule of law, to spare the conquered, battle down the proud.” These pronunciations from a celebrated poet give expression to the national ethos and show how the Romans perceived themselves as the establishers of order, peace, and stability. In this sense, they believed themselves to be superior to others and thus in a way obliged to act.
However, mere intention to spread civilization and impose the rule of law upon the barbarian nations do not enable a nation to achieve its stated objectives. Rather, it needs a resilient nation with strong power. According to Polybius, Roman constitution and the form of government gave it the necessary qualification to be able to accomplish the onerous responsibility it was destined to perform. The nature and structure of the government were ideal to him. Polybius argues that the Roman constitution beautifully combined kingship in the form of consuls, aristocracy represented by the Senate, and democracy allowing the general public to participate in the affairs of the state. To him, when power resides in any of these there emerges an imbalance leading to corruption. Therefore, the combination of the three gives the state the necessary power and resilience such as that exhibited by the Romans after, for example, a defeat in war. Moreover, a strong sense of loyalty to the state and duty to the nation was instilled in the Romans. According to Cicero, the Roman virtue resided in “dedication to social and civil duty”. The army, for example, was highly disciplined and the personnel sacrificed everything they had including their life for the sake of the empire.
A second justification in the minds of the Romans was that they were fighting for peace. It was a sort of defensive measure on their part to engage in war. According to this view, Rome was “primarily as a defensive power, reacting to events rather than creating them.” Cicero remarks, “our people in defending the allies has now gained control of all lands”. To him, just war meant fighting “in order to live in peace without harm”. Similarly, Livy tells that Romans are “the one people in the world which would fight for others’ liberties.” The main thrust of the argument is that the Romans were committed to the protection of the liberty of their allies. They were not eager to annex territories. Rather it was their duty towards their allies who needed to be rescued from various plights. An example of this type of obligation can be seen Levy’s narration of the Roman engagement with the problems of the neighbors. Similarly, another example is Caesar’s Gallic War which too was undertaken out of threats felt from Helvetii against not only Roman provinces but also one of their allies, Aedui. These explanations served to establish the image of the Roman empire as the savior of the people living in its domain and outside. Therefore, one finds the historians of the time praising Roman system and culture and the elite in the vanquished lands being Romanized.
Closely linked to the theme of protection of the people’s liberty at home and that in the neighborhood is the justification on the basis of self-defense. It has been argued that the Romans fought mostly in self-defense and did not have imperialistic intentions in their advance. They had to cope with the hostile enemies who were posing threat to their existence. If they did not timely act against for example the threat posed by Carthage, the damage could not be controlled. Livy’s history, for example, provides enough evidence to the fact that “Rome’s initial interventions in the East, like her expansion in the West, was motivated by fear.” Moreover, the Romans did made sure that they made the public at home and in the lands realize their war was just. Even a special class of priests was engaged in such propagation of the justness of a war. Regardless of the nature of war whether it is defensive or offensive, it gives people a sense of glory. The aristocrats, as well as commoners, realized the importance of war and glory attached to it. The system itself promoted glorification of war as a person with military experience of years could hope to join public office and Senate more easily. Thus the war experience brought with it huge status and opportunity. The notable leaders and consuls in Rome were great military men who proved themselves in the battlefield as well as in other required qualification such as advocacy, eloquence, and political acumen.
Most importantly, the Romans also championed the cause of civilization and freedom. Though the Romans demanded loyalty and natural citizenship was considered the best, they were also assimilating and accommodating. They extended the Roman citizenship to others with the condition of loyalty. Among the ideas they sold was the best constitution which Polybius praised in the following words, “it is impossible to find a better” constitution than the Roman constitution. To him, it was marked by a perfect equilibrium and was based on quality and justice. He declared that the power resided ultimately in the hands of the people and the nature of the constitution was democratic. Being a Greek in origin, his assessments reflected the thinking of the subjected nations just as they connected to the Roman aristocracy. Moreover, the Romans introduced extensive laws over the time as reflected by the introduction of the Twelfth Table originating from as early as the middle of the fifth century BC. This code was “of fundamental importance” in the “further development” of the Roman Law. Another achievement that the Roman boasted was the fact that they brought prosperity to the land which had hitherto been fighting among themselves and destroying each other. This is why Virgil could call Rome as a “new hope for the human race, a hope of peace, of order, of civilization.” Aelius Aristides could assure his countrymen that before they took over “the world was in confusion” and once they had under them “an era of universal order” was ushered.
The Roman empire emerged from a relatively small town in Italy during the first century B.C., quickly overpowered the neighboring lands, and defeated the major world powers of the time. It proved very resilient and lasting longer than most empires in known history. Besides a strong military establishment and resilient armed forces, Rome was equipped with a proper imperial ideology and cultural capital through which it won the hearts of its soldiers as well as the vanquished nations. The chief qualities that it could market and attract people towards itself were its history, culture, a successful political system, and peace and stability it dominion offered.