Could the Late Roman Empire have thrived as an 'Empire of Trust'

Skallagrim

Banned
But they did allow assimilated barbarians to become Roman after multiple generations of having been conquered.

Yes. They were absorbed into the Roman state. They were to be loyal to Roman authority thereafter. If they become Roman collectively, in a group, their erstwhile leaders/chiefs/kings would regularly be integrated into the Roman elite somehow. Those leaders stopped being sovereign rulers.

And that is an option. I even mentioned it earlier:

And now we come to the latter days of the (Western) Roman Empire, and areas formerly held by Rome have fallen away. There are barbarian kingdoms there, whose ruling classes have often adopted Roman culture to a nice degree, but who are still barbarians. From the Roman perspective, these areas can of course re-join the empire (barbarians and all, one assumes), and renounce any claims to independent sovereignty. That shouldn't be a problem. It'll even turn a lot of barbarians into citizens. But there will be no independent kingdoms anymore. They'll just be a part of Rome again. This is unlikely to be something those barbarian kings would want. For starters, they'd have to stop being kings...

If Rome can get any or all rulers of the post-Roman states to agree to that kind of a deal, that's fine for Rome. But I doubt those rulers would go for it without very good incentives, as I said. More importantly: we'd then be looking at a resurgence of the Empire-that-was, rather than at the emergence of an alliance-based Empire of Trust. Personally, I think both options allow for very interesting avenues of exploration, but the OP specifically asks for the Empire of Trust.
 

Deleted member 97083

Really the idea of Empire of Trust is interesting but I'm not sure if it's accurate or possible in most cases or any cases. Almost every empire that ever expanded, used alliances, intermarriage, or treaties as an excuse for its expansion and then it ballooned from there. Even empires that were self-admittedly expansionistic, had a "defensive" casus belli for almost every war--such as the Mongol invasion of Khwarezmian empire which was in response to the execution of a Mongol envoy by the Shah. One can look at Napoleon Bonaparte who dominated Europe and invaded many countries, but technically did so through a series of wars that were all justified defensively, whether counterattacking a direct invasion from the Coalition, supporting an allied ruler, or directly responding to a treaty violation (such as Russia's violation of the Treaty of Tilsit, making Napoleon's most egregious war, about as defensive as any Roman war). If the Roman Republic and the USA, but especially the Roman Republic, are Empires of Trust, then so is basically every state that ever increased in size.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Really the idea of Empire of Trust is interesting but I'm not sure if it's accurate or possible in most cases or any cases. Almost every empire that ever expanded, used alliances, intermarriage, or treaties as an excuse for its expansion and then it ballooned from there. Even empires that were self-admittedly expansionistic, had a "defensive" casus belli for almost every war--such as the Mongol invasion of Khwarezmian empire which was in response to the execution of a Mongol envoy by the Shah. One can look at Napoleon Bonaparte who dominated Europe and invaded many countries, but technically did so through a series of wars that were all justified defensively, whether counterattacking a direct invasion from the Coalition, supporting an allied ruler, or directly responding to a treaty violation (such as Russia's violation of the Treaty of Tilsit, making Napoleon's most egregious war, about as defensive as any Roman war). If the Roman Republic and the USA, but especially the Roman Republic, are Empires of Trust, then so is basically every state that ever increased in size.

I'd say that there are differences between openly agressive and expansive empires and powerful states that use networks of allies to get their way, and that all this exists on something of a spectrum. The Maurya Empire, for instance, just started conquering stuff left and right (and up, and down) because the opportunity was there. On the other side, we indeed have the modern (USA-led) NATO, which is in practice very much an American affair, but which treats all members as formal equals.

I maintain that no Roman-built alliance or union is going to be as equality-espousing as NATO, but the timeframe we're discussing here is actually a pretty good one for creating a Rome-led Empire of Trust. The late Empire isn't powerful enough to subdue the post-Roman kingdoms, but still has a lot to offer them in an alliance. If we can drop the whole 'equality' aspect, and try for a more typical Roman alliance structure, the limitations of the late Empire can easily entail that Roman supremacy is largely symbolic. Once the alliance gradually becomes integrated into more of a federation (as we understand that term), the inequalities could gradually be ironed out, and you'd end up with, well... with a federation.
 

Deleted member 97083

I'd say that there are differences between openly agressive and expansive empires and powerful states that use networks of allies to get their way, and that all this exists on something of a spectrum. The Maurya Empire, for instance, just started conquering stuff left and right (and up, and down) because the opportunity was there. On the other side, we indeed have the modern (USA-led) NATO, which is in practice very much an American affair, but which treats all members as formal equals.
Well I agree, of course there is a moral difference between different empires and there is a difference between different forms of influence such as annexation, domination, puppet state, alliance treaties, and investing in an ally.

But, referring to the Empire of Trust thesis, it seems strange to put the Roman Republic, with people like Julius Caesar and Scipio Aemilianus roaming about and conquering, and the US (presumably after Manifest Destiny was over and the US stopped directly annexing territory) in the same category. The rights of NATO countries are far greater than a Ptolemaic kingdom, Thracian client kingdom, so the comparison is a stretch. The only real similarity here between Rome and the US is that neither empire expanded by accident, yet the idea that they expanded by accident is apparently the unifying thesis of empire of trust.

The two concepts should be decoupled in my opinion. On one hand, a "good faith" alliance system like NATO can expand completely intentionally, while on the other hand, an empire with puppets set for inevitable annexation, such as the Roman Republic's client states, can expand "unintentionally" to the extent that that unintentional expansion can be claimed. And like you said, modern concept of equality was unimaginable then. I guess I should read Empires of Trust before commenting any further, but it seems like a fundamentally contradictory concept.
 
Well I agree, of course there is a moral difference between different empires and there is a difference between different forms of influence such as annexation, domination, puppet state, alliance treaties, and investing in an ally.

But, referring to the Empire of Trust thesis, it seems strange to put the Roman Republic, with people like Julius Caesar and Scipio Aemilianus roaming about and conquering, and the US (presumably after Manifest Destiny was over and the US stopped directly annexing territory) in the same category. The rights of NATO countries are far greater than a Ptolemaic kingdom, Thracian client kingdom, so the comparison is a stretch. The only real similarity here between Rome and the US is that neither empire expanded by accident, yet the idea that they expanded by accident is apparently the unifying thesis of empire of trust.

The two concepts should be decoupled in my opinion. On one hand, a "good faith" alliance system like NATO can expand completely intentionally, while on the other hand, an empire with puppets set for inevitable annexation, such as the Roman Republic's client states, can expand "unintentionally" to the extent that that unintentional expansion can be claimed. And like you said, modern concept of equality was unimaginable then. I guess I should read Empires of Trust before commenting any further, but it seems like a fundamentally contradictory concept.

Have you had a chance to read the work? Madden makes a pretty solid case for a large share of the expansion of the Roman Empire being done in good faith (though he glosses over the exceptions, one of the problems I have with the theory).
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The only real similarity here between Rome and the US is that neither empire expanded by accident, yet the idea that they expanded by accident is apparently the unifying thesis of empire of trust.

The two concepts should be decoupled in my opinion. On one hand, an alliance system like NATO can expand completely intentionally, while on the other hand, an empire with puppets set for inevitable annexation, such as the Roman Republic's client states, can expand "unintentionally" to the extent that that unintentional expansion can be claimed. And like you said, modern concept of equality was unimaginable then. I guess I should read Empires of Trust before commenting any further, but it seems like a fundamentally contradictory concept.

I'm not exactly sold on the thesis, either, although the book is quite a bit more nuanced than a brief summary might suggest. Essentially, it goes into the way Rome expanded gradually. Rome subdued troublesome peoples on its borders and turned them into vassals who got protection in exchange for tribute. But those vassals, over time, got more and more integrated, wanted more and more protection, and had their own troublesome peoples harassing them from across the border... so eventually the erstwhile vassals became integral parts of the Roman state (just as you described earlier), and those neighbours of theirs were vassalised... and the process repeated itself.

To be sure, Empires of Trust is an apology for the Roman Republic (and the USA, incidentally). To be fair, it does admit that military achievement was a key way of advancing in Roman leadership, and that this certainly formed an incentive for ambitious Romans (hi Caesar!) to want to militarily solve the 'border problems' even when other solutions might also be available. But on the whole, the book maintains that Rome was bound to expand because it always had borders to pacify, and because the vassals resulting from pacification wanted to become integrated. Which is true, but that doesn't mean the Romans literally did this by accident. They knew damn well what was going on. It is nice book to have read, even if it just offers one part of a larger picture. That part helps one to understand why Rome expanded the way it did, and why its methods changed when the republic ended.
 
The Roman Empire is not NATO. The modern mindset of basic equality is just that: modern. Recent. Completely anachronistic when projected onto any moment before modernity, and asroundingly out of place in the ancient world. Rome had not had equals; had not ever seen any barbarian power as an equal. To accept that such a thing could exist would be... well, let us say highly unusual.

They came close to acknowledging the Sassanid Empire as an equal; "twin lights of the world" and all that. Then again, the Sassanids were about as strong as the (Eastern) Roman Empire, and also heirs to a civilisation as ancient and sophisticated as Rome's own, neither of which could be said about the barbarian kingdoms.
 
Top