How inevitable was the rise of the city of Rome?

They didn't enter the first pubic war with the intention of conquering Sicily, they didn't enter the First Roman Syrian War with the intention of conquering Asia, and they didn't intervene in Greece initially with the intent to conquer it. There are a few instances where they did have a set goal-conquering Ciscalpine Gaul to protect from Gallic incursions, or entering into war with the Samnites to secure Campania, but this was the exception rather than the rule.

This is what their historians would have us to believe, at least. It reflects the Roman ideology of just war, but that ideology, regardless of how sincerely believed by the people involved, covered the Imperialist results very well: nobody forced the Romans to conquer the places they happened to conquer (and allegedly did not want to), except that they consistently did. One sees a pattern there. Not an Imperialist grand strategy in the sense Alexander had one, yes, but clearly a consistent inner push to expansion, which ended up to be inbuilt in the mentality and practice of the Late Republic and (to a lesser estent) Early Empire. They did not officially start expansionist wars, from their perspective, but this hardly means that their wars, which ended in conquest where truly defensive (some were, but are probably exceptional).
 
This is what their historians would have us to believe, at least. It reflects the Roman ideology of just war, but that ideology, regardless of how sincerely believed by the people involved, covered the Imperialist results very well: nobody forced the Romans to conquer the places they happened to conquer (and allegedly did not want to), except that they consistently did. One sees a pattern there. Not an Imperialist grand strategy in the sense Alexander had one, yes, but clearly a consistent inner push to expansion, which ended up to be inbuilt in the mentality and practice of the Late Republic and (to a lesser estent) Early Empire. They did not officially start expansionist wars, from their perspective, but this hardly means that their wars, which ended in conquest where truly defensive (some were, but are probably exceptional).
No doubt. Their wars were neither defensive nor part of some grand strategy of building an empire.
 
Pretty much, although the sentiment started taking shape earlier on. But still... only after Rome had already gained some serious momentum.

To be clear: Roman culture did value ambition, and they certainly were a tough bunch. Those factors did play a role in Roman success, even early on. And the later we get, the more we see the Romans themselves start to believe in their own "special destiny". But as far as abstract "greatness" is concerned, it's exactly as @SlyDessertFox wrote. The Roman policy was essentially to create client states a lot, to pacify their borders... But then these client states became Romanised, became more integrated, wanted more rights, wanted Rome's military protection from the guys across the border... and essentially became part of the Roman sphere. This was not an intentional policy of imperialism. The simple fact was that when one border area became integrated, and the "guys across the border" had been subdued... they became a new client state. And the process would repeat itself.

In that way, Roman imperialism had a sort of determinism to it... but of an unintentional sort. And this only became a thing after Rome became succesful in the first place. Early on, it was far less certain. At that point, the myth of Rome's special destiny had not yet been forged (because it would indeed be made up retrospectively!) and some early defeats could have certainly prevented Rome from rising to great prominence.

It was a fairly sized city. It was centrally located, which was a boon when it came to dominating Italy, anyway. It's people were tough. Also, they culturally valued (military) accomplishment, and succesful conquest soon became a good way to advance politically. That also helped.

But these factors do not make Rome's rise to prominence inevitable from the outset.

I wouldn't emphasise the unintentionality this much. Of course, the Republic decision-making was not necessarily led by an overarching desire to conquer everything under Heaven (it was defintely a thing in very late times, but not before, and even then, the elite was indeed quite happy with having client states - not unlike other roughly contemporary empires) but they were definitely out for loot and conquest in many campaigns.
However, the conquest ideology was clearly a consequence of success, not its premise. Rome had advantages, and used them, and then developed an ideology that supported conquest and used to even more advantage - but at the outset, indeed, there was no predetermined "Roman" character that destined them to rule the Med.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I wouldn't emphasise the unintentionality this much. Of course, the Republic decision-making was not necessarily led by an overarching desire to conquer everything under Heaven (it was defintely a thing in very late times, but not before, and even then, the elite was indeed quite happy with having client states - not unlike other roughly contemporary empires) but they were definitely out for loot and conquest in many campaigns.
However, the conquest ideology was clearly a consequence of success, not its premise. Rome had advantages, and used them, and then developed an ideology that supported conquest and used to even more advantage - but at the outset, indeed, there was no predetermined "Roman" character that destined them to rule the Med.

I agree with you, and without reservations. It is only because of the context of this thread that I stressed that one aspect the way I did.
 
Top