Hi gavtmcc,
Your comment reminds me of Wittgenstein’s quip about the man who doesn’t believe what he reads in the newspaper, so he purchases a hundred more copies of the same newspaper in order to reassure himself that the story is indeed true.
Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was primarily responsible for disseminating all this praise for the “virtues” of the Roman Empire. Given that most everyone read Gibbons in high school, is it really any wonder the “elementary guides” picked up his view? However, that is not the universal view among classical scholars and historians today. Take, for example, Rome and the Enemy; Imperial Strategy in the Principate, by S. Maltern, 1999:
"…the glory of victory - is so prevalent in the literature, art, coins and epigraphy of the Principate as almost to defy coherent discussion. Over 300 triumphal arches survive or are known form coins or inscription…
…signs of weakness on Rome’s part, such as a show of deference to a foreign people, or failure to avenge a defeat in war, or to punish a revolt with sufficient ferocity, are considered invitations to disaster.
For these reasons the Romans sometimes seem to react very aggressively to apparently minor breaches of treaty, to exaggerate the threat posed by rivals…while insisting that their concerns are for their own security; they place a high value on victory, conquest and the humiliation of the enemy…although the superiority of the Romans is ultimately a superiority of military strength, the most essential element in this system is the state of mind of the enemy: Rome’s empire depends on its ability to assert and enforce an image of itself as awesome and terrifying…
…as a state, the Romans behave like Homeric heroes, Mafia gangsters, or individuals in any society based on violent competition for honor or respect." pp. 168-172
And consider this passage from Human Rights in Ancient Rome, by Richard Bauman, 1999:
"Genocide occurs in two forms on the Roman scene. The external form encompasses acts of unbridled savagery, of virtual extermination, against large groups of non-Romans. In the internal form Romans systematically annihilate each other. External genocide is stigmatized by Seneca; ‘We are a mad people, checking individual murders but doing nothing about war and the ‘glorious’ crime of slaughtering whole peoples under the authority of duly enacted laws.’ "
The Roman Empire was built and maintained not primarily by diplomacy or trade, but by the might of its legions. The “glory of Rome” was made possible by a steady stream of returning war booty and heavy tribute from those nations it had vanquished and enslaved.
And speaking of slaves, Maltern considers Pliny the Younger only moderately wealthy even though he personally possessed over 1000 slaves. Bauman tells of L. Pedanius Secundus being murdered by a domestic slave. His entire household of slaves, some 400 men, women and children were tortured and executed as a matter of policy. The torture and crucifixion of slaves was so common that:
“An inscription has the funeral director at Puteoli obliged to torture slaves on request; he had to supply the crosses, yokes and floggers, and to see to the removal of the corpses.” Bauman, ibid., p. 117
I can see their business sign in my mind’s eye: Crucifixions R Us
Yes, of course Rome spread its culture, laws and technology to other peoples. That’s a common fact of conquest. The nations that Rome conquered were very likely barbaric by your and my standards; they probably kept slaves themselves. But it’s a mistake to think that Rome brought the rule of law to the lawless. The nations that Rome conquered already had their own leaders, laws and customs. The question that is open for debate is whether their newly gained viaduct technology was worth being plundered, massacred, subjugated, enslaved and heavily taxed.
Gavtmcc wrote:
Gavtmcc, if life under Roman rule was so wonderful then riddle me this: Why were the conquered nations forever revolting against Roman rule? In nearly every instance local rebellion was answered by a massive and cruel Roman reprisal. So why did they rise up? What was it about Roman rule that men so often would revolt despite the risk of slaughter and crucifixion?
Regards,
Michael