The Roman Empire as a synthesis

[Ibrahim]

So, the question Ca Putt asked has the answer, as far as I can see; no. We don't need to subjugate, massacre, control, defeat other peoples. What we need is for a balance between individual and state/polity where neither becomes comprehensively subject to the other. A difficult balancing act, but not beyond contemplation.

not beyond contemplation, but I cannot help but wonder if it is beyond physical possibility.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

not beyond contemplation, but I cannot help but wonder if it is beyond physical possibility.

So, if I lived as a neighbour to you, should I watch my possessions, be wary of my personal safety? A rhetorical question, doubtless you would regard 'others' as being the suspect perpetrators. That's the real secret of statehood...to ensure that the populous believes that there is no other way it could be, that the 'other' is a danger to your freedom - no matter how limited you might think that is.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The Greeks, and Iberians, and Gauls, and Britons, and probably many others, all enjoyed the primary benefit of being conquered by Rome - being forcibly prevented from constantly fighting their immediate neighbours in endless territorial squabbles, which is how they passed their time until Rome conquered them.

As a modern-day Briton myself, I think I'd rather live as a subservient vassal of Rome, than 'enjoy' the 'freedom' and 'honour' of having my head hacked off by a big brute from the neighbouring tribe, which would have been my likely fate absent Roman law.

With that in mind, I don't subscribe to the revisionist theory that Roman rule was bad for the inhabitants of the Empire. It was better than the alternative.

[Arjos]

The Greeks, and Iberians, and Gauls, and Britons, and probably many others, all enjoyed the primary benefit of being conquered by Rome - being forcibly prevented from constantly fighting their immediate neighbours in endless territorial squabbles, which is how they passed their time until Rome conquered them.

Yeah, garrison duty at the limes, being levied to fight for somebody's right to call himself emperor or for the sake of the 'republic', or being sent to Persia to die is much better XD

Much of what you are referring to, applies only to the higher class of those communities. Overall hardly anything changed, except for the "colour" of the banner...
Actually after Roma, most people would be pressed much harder fiscally...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The Greeks, and Iberians, and Gauls, and Britons, and probably many others, all enjoyed the primary benefit of being conquered by Rome - being forcibly prevented from constantly fighting their immediate neighbours in endless territorial squabbles, which is how they passed their time until Rome conquered them.

As a modern-day Briton myself, I think I'd rather live as a subservient vassal of Rome, than 'enjoy' the 'freedom' and 'honour' of having my head hacked off by a big brute from the neighbouring tribe, which would have been my likely fate absent Roman law.

With that in mind, I don't subscribe to the revisionist theory that Roman rule was bad for the inhabitants of the Empire. It was better than the alternative.

This reminds me of David Dimbleby starting his 'Seven Ages of Britain' BBC series off with the line "What the Romans ddi was, they brought order where there was chaos". Absolute twaddle, but a sign of how good a PR job the classical writers and their followers have done.

What Arjos said, but I'll add just a little. This is exactly the 'history' of the pre-Roman barbarian world that the Roman historians would have us believe. When one looks at the archaeological evidence warfare does not seem to have been as endemic in these areas as we are lead to believe. We hear from Caesar, as he marched across North-West Europe with a large military force, of certain tribal groups being 'particularly war-like'. See anything ironic in that? Is there, perhaps, a chance that the war footing that these tribes were on might have been a reaction to his large military force? When we do see shifts in behaviour, in particular the notion of 'kingdoms' it is almost always as a reaction to contact with a neighbouring empire. It is the result of a limited number of individuals being brought into that relationship and becoming wealthy, and seemingly aspiring to the kind of life they have witnessed; such dislocations in societies can be seen in the archaeological record.

Slavery almost certainly wasn't an aspect of life in Northern Europe (to the point that I've seen an argument that claims we should stop looking for evidence for it and just 'accept' that it was likely endemic!?) - look at Caesar's description of the Aedui; there he says there are two classes of people, the nobility (including the druidic class) and the rest who - he says - are almost like slaves.... but no slaves; even in one of the most 'Romanised' of barbarian groups.

So, what did the warfare of the pre-Roman world look like? There is a warrior class, tied to a chieftan. There are client relations between chieftans, chiefs and rural farmsteads whereby cattle are deposited with those people. Most raiding revolved around the capture of cattle, and the wars were between those who went raiding. We know that one on one combat was generally preferred, and the warrior class was boastful about their prowess.

For the majority of the rural population warfare only becomes their problem when they end up under some ruler (or state) who decree that their land is under their jurisdiction and that they, while 'free', must also offer up their services if required in order to 'defend' that freedom.

Even historians I admire tend to use rather...odd language when they wrote of the Romans. In Cunliffe's brief summary of the changes that took place in rural land use between the fourth and late second centuries BC Italy he describes the Roman rural population as having a 'suficer mentality', as an almost abject and pejorative term, and explains how "the peasantry" were in danger of "having too much free time on their hands"?!! How did the Roman state cope with these 'problems'. They sent the men of on longer and longer campaigns, thereby indebting and ruining their holdings and bring in slave labour. What is really being said here? The Roman rural populace had a pretty good life and had a little leisure time on their hands. We can't be having that now. Certainly there is no profit to be had in that.

I'm going to cut myself short because I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that in terms of such as land use, use of resources (including labour), economic structures...and more , because of our historical 'love affair' with Rome and the apologia it's institutions are offered (I've even heard the institution of slavery referred to as a great opportunity..... I kid you not, within a BBC or Channel 4 TV documentary) we are blind to how those institutions still pervade our modern world and how deep rooted their problems are. So entrenched are these ideas that we see the world as only being able to operate in those ways, as if they are 'natural' and 'progressive'.