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.
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 philosophyExcept 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...