Which Roman wars and conquests were justified?

Which annexations by Roman Republic/Empire that could be justified?

  • Conquest of Italia (Latin War, Samnite Wars), 343-282 BC

    Votes: 69 56.1%
  • Conquest of Magna Grecia (Pyrrhic War), 280-275 BC

    Votes: 48 39.0%
  • Conquest of Sicilia, Corsica, and Sardinia (First Punic War), 264-241 BC

    Votes: 57 46.3%
  • Conquest of Illyria and Dalmatia (Illyrian Wars), 229-168 BC

    Votes: 40 32.5%
  • Conquest of Southern Hispania (Second Punic War), 218-201 BC

    Votes: 60 48.8%
  • Conquest of Macedonia (Macedonian Wars), 214-148 BC

    Votes: 41 33.3%
  • Conquest of Achaea/Greece (Aetolian War, Achaean War), 191-146 BC

    Votes: 38 30.9%
  • Conquest of Central Hispania (Lusitanian War, Numantine Wars), 181-133 BC

    Votes: 41 33.3%
  • Conquest of Africa/Carthage (Third Punic War), 149-146 BC

    Votes: 40 32.5%
  • Conquest of Numidia (Jugurthine War), 112-105 BC

    Votes: 37 30.1%
  • Conquest of Pontus (Mithridatic Wars), 90-63 BC

    Votes: 44 35.8%
  • Conquest of Syria (Pompey's invasion of Syria), 64 BC

    Votes: 33 26.8%
  • Conquest of Gaul (Caesar's Gallic Wars), 58-52 BC

    Votes: 38 30.9%
  • Conquest of Aegytus (Octavian's invasion of Egypt), 30 BC

    Votes: 45 36.6%
  • Conquest of Northern Hispania (Octavian's Cantabrian War), 29-19 BC

    Votes: 38 30.9%
  • Conquest of Pannonia and Moesia, (Tiberius' and Drusus' invasion of Lower Danube), 16 BC-6 AD

    Votes: 35 28.5%
  • Conquest of Britannia (Claudius' invasion of Britain), 43 AD

    Votes: 28 22.8%
  • Conquest of Dacia (Trajan's Dacian Wars), 105-106 AD

    Votes: 32 26.0%
  • "Inheritance/Unofficial" conquests (Arabia Petraea, Asia, Bithynia, Cyrenaica, Mauretania, Thracia)

    Votes: 42 34.1%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 43 35.0%

  • Total voters
    123

Typo

Banned
Again, it's up to -you- to prove that Egypt or Carthage or whatever is an immediate threat to Rome which could only be stopped by violence. I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand. Every single one of your post is WELL THERE'S A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IN THE FAR FUTURE WHERE THEY COULD BE A THREAT SO WE HAVE TO KILL THEM NOW. I mean you actually said in the OP that Egypt was not a justifiable Roman conquest.


Except that you're actually using modern standard...and I will say, once again, that the Romans lived in Ancient/Classical times when slavery and cruxifiction are norms.
The Romans were surrounded by enemies from all sides and they ONLY have two choices:
1. Annexing them (and acquiring more lands and wealths), like what happened to the Celts, Carthaginians, Greeks, etc.
2. Warring against them frequently (and get exhausted in the process), like what happened to the Germanic tribes and Persians.
The Romans just choose (and able to do) the first option more than the second one...it was as simply as that...
Dude, if you are gonna play the moral relativism card just do it, I mean the second part of your post is basically not true, but your general point is still moral relativism with a bit of trying to justify everything through some pseudo-realism philosophy
 
Again, it's up to -you- to prove that Egypt or Carthage or whatever is an immediate threat to Rome which could only be stopped by violence.
If not by violence, then, for God's sake, BY WHAT?

I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand.
Which concept that I'm "so hard to understand", if you don't mind...?

Every single one of your post is WELL THERE'S A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IN THE FAR FUTURE WHERE THEY COULD BE A THREAT SO WE HAVE TO KILL THEM NOW.
Given the fact that they have been frequently invaded by the enemies THAT ONCE IN THE PAST WEREN'T REALLY EXPECTED TO BE A THREAT TO THEM, e.g. Phyrrus, Hannibal, Jugurtha, Mithridates, so yeah, I have to admit that the Romans were quite paranoid. (which was good for them and bad for both their immediate and potential enemies)

I mean you actually said in the OP that Egypt was not a justifiable Roman conquest.
Yes I did, but just let's say that I have changed my mind. After thinking about it for a while, I realise that Octavian's annexation of Egypt was actually good thing for both Romans and Egyptians.

Dude, if you are gonna play the moral relativism card just do it, I mean the second part of your post is basically not true,
Please stop talking about "moral relativism blah blah blah" things and tell me which specific part of my post that "basically not true".

but your general point is still moral relativism with a bit of trying to justify everything through some pseudo-realism philosophy

I was just talking about the reality at that time: in Ancient Era, killing or get killed, sacking or get sacked, enslaving or get enslaved, annexing or get annexed. Your choice.
 

Typo

Banned
If not by violence, then, for God's sake, BY WHAT?
For example, after the Second Punic war, simply enforcing the peace treaties would have sufficed, and the Carthaginians were pretty happy to comply with them
Given the fact that they have been frequently invaded by the enemies THAT ONCE IN THE PAST WEREN'T REALLY EXPECTED TO BE A THREAT TO THEM, e.g. Phyrrus, Hannibal, Jugurtha, Mithridates, so yeah, I have to admit that the Romans were quite paranoid. (which was good for them and bad for both their immediate and potential enemies)
Well for one Jugurtha and Phyrrus never invaded Rome, and the rest were hardly unexpected threats and were the direct result of Roman expansionism. But you are basically arguing for a blanket justification to attack whoever you like on the basis that well they could be a threat at some point in time.
Which concept that I'm "so hard to understand", if you don't mind...?
The burden of proof is on you, and the concept of "immediate threat"
I was just talking about the reality at that time: in Ancient Era, killing or get killed, sacking or get sacked, enslaving or get enslaved, annexing or get annexed. Your choice.
I feel this is the crux of your second argument, which is actually pretty clearly not true unless the ancient world was a game of Risk from your POV. Like it might have being true in a minority of situations, but the vast majority weren't a case of "conquer or be conquered". The Third Punic War was hardly a case of "conquer or be conquered" for instance.
Please stop talking about "moral relativism blah blah blah" things and tell me which specific part of my post that "basically not true".
You might not realize it, but one of the two points you have (the one about standards) is a moral relativist argument, and is actually the one which isn't contradicted by facts
Yes I did, but just let's say that I have changed my mind. After thinking about it for a while, I realise that Octavian's annexation of Egypt was actually good thing for both Romans and Egyptians.
Ok, I'm gonna ask why is that, but at this point you are basically just arguing for the right of all food importers to annex their suppliers.
 
Last edited:
For example, after the Second Punic war, simply enforcing the peace treaties would have sufficed, and the Carthaginians were pretty happy to comply with them
Yes, a very spectacular idea, indeed. Then Carthage would become a happy and peaceful client state forever, ever after.
Oh, and please explain how this can really works against, let's say...Gauls?

Well for one Jugurtha and Phyrrus never invaded Rome,
No, but Jugurtha slaughtered Roman citizens in Cirta and threatened Roman territory in Africa, while Phyrrus invaded Roman homeland, Italy.

and the rest were hardly unexpected threats
How many Romans who have ever dreamed about Epirus invaded Italy, Hannibal marched through the Alps, and Pontus invaded Greece?

and were the direct result of Roman expansionism.
I'm pretty sure that the turbulent political situation in Italy before 300 BC have shaped Roman way of life into somewhat expansionism, but that doesn't make defending their own territory unjustified.

But you are basically arguing for a blanket justification to attack whoever you like on the basis that well they could be a threat at some point in time.
If you prefer to wait until they attacked you first, well...then go ahead.

I feel this is the crux of your second argument, which is actually pretty clearly not true unless the ancient world was a game of Risk from your POV.
Yes, actually it was. Have you read about some ancient histories?

Like it might have being true in a minority of situations, but the vast majority weren't a case of "conquer or be conquered". The Third Punic War was hardly a case of "conquer or be conquered" for instance.
No, but it was a case of "conquer or keep being attacked again".

Ok, I'm gonna ask why is that, but at this point you are basically just arguing for the right of all food importers to annex their suppliers.
1. Ptolemaic kingdom was already on decline, and Roman annexation prevented any dynastical civil wars which could potentially devastated the entire kingdom.
2. Roman annexation of Egypt was hardly destructive, in fact it wasn't destrustive at all and little or no casualties on Egyptian side.
3. There's no really significant changes being made by the Romans in Egypt...and I may have already said this before, the only difference was that now they get Roman tax collectors, but in fact most of Egyptians were continuing their lives as before.
4. Yes, I admit that it made Egypt become more involved in Roman civil wars between contenders to the throne, but Egypt hardly get devastated by those conflicts.
 

Typo

Banned
I really don't see why you still don't seem to understand that it's up to you to prove people X is a threat that needed to be ended and can only be done through brutal conquest and annexation. It's not up to me to disprove that. And what amounts to an appeal to ridicule doesn't count as a proof.

No, but Jugurtha slaughtered Roman citizens in Cirta and threatened Roman territory in Africa, while Phyrrus invaded Roman homeland, Italy.
Italy wasn't the Roman homeland, and Jugurtha never threatened actual real Roman territory, Rome would have being justified in protecting Cirta, but hey it's not like they did that. The whole thing was basically the product of Roman meddling in Numdia in the first place.
How many Romans who have ever dreamed about Epirus invaded Italy, Hannibal marched through the Alps, and Pontus invaded Greece?
Once you change it from specific scenarios to just "attacking Roman interests" then quite a few probably (Levy is really good at making the Romans always seem like the victim somehow, the Romans would have being seriously stupid not to see external forces fighting their expansionism). It also raises the interesting questions of what Rome was doing in Greece and Southern Italy in the first place. But this is just a red herring anyway, since your argument comes down to states having a carte blanche to attack anyone on an arbitary basis since hey they could be a threat at some point.
2. Roman annexation of Egypt was hardly destructive, in fact it wasn't destrustive at all and little or no casualties on Egyptian side.
3. There's no really significant changes being made by the Romans in Egypt...and I may have already said this before, the only difference was that now they get Roman tax collectors, but in fact most of Egyptians were continuing their lives as before.
4. Yes, I admit that it made Egypt become more involved in Roman civil wars between contenders to the throne, but Egypt hardly get devastated by those conflicts.
So what about the Egyptians who died during the Roman rule or say, the Aurelian wars? How to you make the ethical calculus in their death in regards to the benefits you alleged?
Yes, actually it was. Have you read about some ancient histories?
If you prefer to wait until they attacked you first, well...then go ahead.
No, but it was a case of "conquer or keep being attacked again".
If you actually are willing to argue for the case of equating complex political systems with Risk and failing to see anything more complicated than what amounts to video game logic, then there is no real point in having this debate at all. Your entire argument basically revolves around the assertion that states in ancient times are automatically locked in a state of more or less perpetual war with their neighbors and will always wage offensive war against each other unless one side is conquered, never mind often enough the real balance of power is enough to make that ridiculous. Your assertion is actually true in some situations, but to make a blanket assertion of it's truthfulness is pretty invalid and you basically cherry pick to support that.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
I really don't see why you still don't seem to understand that it's up to you to prove people X is a threat that needed to be ended and can only be done through brutal conquest and annexation. It's not up to me to disprove that.

some alternatives would be nice. preferably ones the Romans could have undertaken.

Italy wasn't the Roman homeland

really?

then where were those Romans from? :confused:
 
This thread really doesn't make any sense.

Were any of their wars justified? No.

But it's impossible to justify them, and it's really pointless to condemn them.

It was a time in which everyone made war on their neighbor when it suited them. The Romans were just much more successful and were able to put their conquests to much better use than their rivals.

It's still bloody wars whether everyone is willing to do it or not.
 
This thread really doesn't make any sense.

Were any of their wars justified? No.

But it's impossible to justify them, and it's really pointless to condemn them.

It was a time in which everyone made war on their neighbor when it suited them. The Romans were just much more successful and were able to put their conquests to much better use than their rivals.

It's still bloody wars whether everyone is willing to do it or not.

More or less agreed...I've been getting tired for having this useless debate.
Although I'd like to pointed out several of my disagreements to Typo's arguments, for the last time:

1. "Ancient world wasn't like a video game, and it has complex political systems"
IMHO actually Ancient world was more similar to a video game than to the Modern world, where we have multinational organizations to prevent conflicts from being erupted, and where the economies between different nations are intermingled with each other.
IIRC, Ancient world didn't have such things, nor the "complex political systems" were existed at that time. Sure, there were some "leagues" existed...but they won't last longer than "empires"...

2. "External threats were the result of Roman imperialism in the first place"
Like Tyranicus has stated, this was a time when people always made a war whenever they can...and I don't understand why the lack of "imperialism" would make Rome less attacked by outside enemies. (ask that to the Romans who lived at 390 BC)

3. "The annexation was less justified than the war"
Maybe I've said this before, but some of non-Romans actually preferring annexation to war. And again, this is Ancient world, when some (if not most) of people choose to being part of stronger political entity in order to protect themselves. This isn't Industrial or Modern world, when people would choose waging a guerilla wars rather than being annexed by foreigners. (nor did I say that there's no single Ancient people that decided to fight rather than surrender peacefully)

And please don't say that I'm strawmanning, I was just too lazy to quote the previous posts.

EDIT: And, seriously guys, this thread doesn't really deserve 10+ pages...
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
1. "Ancient world wasn't like a video game, and it has complex political systems"
IMHO actually Ancient world was more similar to a video game than to the Modern world, where we have multinational organizations to prevent conflicts from being erupted, and where the economies between different nations are intermingled with each other.
IIRC, Ancient world didn't have such things, nor the "complex political systems" were existed at that time. Sure, there were some "leagues" existed...but they won't last longer than "empires"...
Being "more similar than the modern world" still doesn't allows you to form an equation between risk and the ancient world, if you are actually convinced of this I'm not going to explain history of the ancient world at a level beyond superficial knowledge of how wars went
2. "External threats were the result of Roman imperialism in the first place"
Like Tyranicus has stated, this was a time when people always made a war whenever they can...and I don't understand why the lack of "imperialism" would make Rome less attacked by outside enemies. (ask that to the Romans who lived at 390 BC)
This is half a straw man and half a lack of logical connection between facts and what you are trying to justify, there's probably a logical fallacy in there somewhere. I could try to explain it but you have a really strong tendency to just bring up refuted arguments in circles.
And please don't say that I'm strawmanning, I was just too lazy to quote the previous posts.
3. "The annexation was less justified than the war"
Sorry, but it is still a strawman, it's annexation -and- war which is less justified
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
More or less agreed...I've been getting tired for having this useless debate.
Sorry for spoiling your view of glorious Roma Invictus dude
Although I'd like to pointed out several of my disagreements to Typo's arguments, for the last time:
Repeating your arguments doesn't make them better
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
This thread really doesn't make any sense.

Were any of their wars justified? No.

But it's impossible to justify them, and it's really pointless to condemn them.

It was a time in which everyone made war on their neighbor when it suited them. The Romans were just much more successful and were able to put their conquests to much better use than their rivals.

It's still bloody wars whether everyone is willing to do it or not.
The first part is pretty true, the second isn't taking into account being more successful at it causes more death and destruction, and half the time the only ones who wanted war were the Romans. The Romans were essentially worse than their rivals because of their success giving them much more of an actus reus. But it's irrelevant since the question of whether the Romans or their neighbors were moral isn't the point of this thread.
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
Ah, maybe you should say that to more than 60 members of this forum who didn't choose "none" option, too...
I'm not alone, dude.
You don't need to choose none to feel that the Roman Empire was quite evil at times.
Nor did yours.
To be fair, I'm not going to come up with new refutations to arguments I've already refuated
 
Top