IMPERIALISM

1. Introduction:
   1. Definition: in its most basic meaning, imperialism is the extension of power of one group over another.
   2. The Problem: After the decisive defeats of Carthage (202), Macedonia (196), and the Seleucid (i.e., Macedonian) Empire based in Syria (189), Rome was in a position to annex the lands of the Mediterranean basin immediately. It took, however, almost one and a half centuries for her to complete this process.
   3. The Question: Expansion (imperialism), given the power and resources, requires perhaps no explanation, but how can we account for Rome's reluctance to take advantage of the opportunity when it was first offered? What attitudes dictated both the reluctance and then the acceptance of the position she had won?
2. Hegemonial [and annexational] imperialism (250-80 BCE): the period in which Rome tried to control by indirect means (by developing of system of subject-allies or client states).
   1. Roman policy
      1. Principles of Rome's foreign policy
         1. Peaceful co-existence of equals possible for Rome only when the equal was beyond her self-defined sphere of influence.
         2. She wanted to maintain order both within and on the borders of her sphere of influence. What kind of states?
         3. Regardless of what was claimed publicly, Rome went to war when she believed one or both principles had been violated. Generally the other party felt it, too, was within its traditional and legal rights.
      2. After the initial defeat, Rome acted in the following manner: Macedonia is the classic case, but policy clear in other areas.
         1. The defeated government paid an indemnity, but was restored to power and autonomous as an ally. It was hoped that the defeated government would be strong enough to maintain order in and on its borders, and do so without becoming a threat to Rome. Limitations on foreign policy, size of military, etc.
         2. As it was impossible to be both, Rome was constantly forced to intervene.
         3. When the initial policy (of using client allies) failed, Rome then had recourse to fragmentation.
         4. This policy also failed because the fragmented state was no longer capable of defending its borders or maintaining internal order.
         5. At this point Rome had no choice but to annex and to assume formal and direct responsibility for the maintenance of order.
   2. Attitudes and Values at play
1. Utile (=expediency)
   1. The administrative problem: how to adapt the constitution of a city-state to the governance of an empire.
   2. Standards of behavior of magistrates were difficult to maintain. The Senate was reluctant to defend the legitimate interests of allies by punishing its own members for maladministration.
   3. The manpower problem.
   4. Hence the Senate, as a corporate body, preferred to avoid annexation and to rely instead on alliance with (client) allies who could perform the administrative duties; and yet also allow its members to win some glory by fighting minor wars against barbarians
2. Honestium (the values and morals of a society)
   1. genus (descent) and virtus (military prowess) were the most important qualities for political success. Tombs of the Scipiones also §184
   2. The Senate, however, was opposed to any one man winning excessive glory. To defeat civilized (and historically minded) Greeks was more prestigious, glorious, and lucrative; hence, such victories were also more threatening to the egalitarian working principle of the elite.
   3. Success brought not only dignity, but also clientele.
3. Sources: §184 (epitaphs); §90 (triumph); also §140; and §91
3. In sum: there are conflicting motives. The values of individuals within the governing class encouraged military adventures. All senators understood this much and were ready to tolerate their colleagues' pursuit of glory for oneself and for one's family. On the other hand, corporate feeling discouraged the excessive glorification of any individual and is very cautious about annexation and the responsibility of empire. Hence, hegemonial imperialism..

Demonstration of Roman reluctance