how did roman elites justify the conquest of far-flung areas in the early stages, before there was a culture of military conquest? like in 200 BC when rome annexed iberia, how did they "sell" that to the general populous? its far away, not very rich, and the people there don't speak the same language. what was the justification? was it kind of just for the sake of it? what were they hoping to do with it when they decided to annex it?sorry if this is a stupid question
>>18440072tributes.people of rome! have this free money we get by forcing others because we have badass army!
>>18440072I don't think the general populous had much power in deciding what the ruler was doing. They were illiterate too so they only knew what they were told.
>>18440072>Friends, Countrymen, Romans; our glorious army has conquered the Fugazi tribe and brought back many slaves and riches. There will be new slaves available, exotic beauties for our brothels. A two week thanksgiving has been declared with games and food for our citizens. The general Pompey Magnus is also distributing bronze coins in the forum.What's not to like
>>18440072it was either them or carthage
>>18440072>before there was a culture of military conquest????Every ancient culture was a culture of military conquest. That's why they didn't have to sell people on it. It was a given that if you could conquer, you would. Only when they conquered so much that it became a problem did they start being more thoughtful about it.
>>18440072>Conquer neighbouring tribe close to Roman territory because fears it might invade>To secure this new land settle it with Romans and assimilate the elite>Tribe next door starts getting antsy and begins arming against the Romans>Repeat ad naseum Or something anyway, they were happy to "defend" their tributaries as well. The Romans basically always presented their wars as defensive. They never claimed to be attacking, they always claimed to be defending their land or their allies in some way.
>>18440072>before there was a culture of military conquestI'm not sure that time period existed in Roman history, I certainly don't get that sense reading Livywas expansionist from very earlyWith Iberia in particular, beating Carthage was a big motivation to get started, and afterwards it's the usual combo of generals wanting glory and prestige and political careers and soldiers wanting loot
>>18440072Extraction of economic value, the barbarians also would not get citizenship and there was no need for them apart from the odd trader or local client ruler to learn Latin. Until the Social War in the early 1st century BC, Roman citizenship pretty much meant your family came from the actual city of Rome.Constant imports of Iberian olive oil, dried fish and garum (in addition more intermittent goods like precious metals and slaves) were in so huge demand in Rome that a hill was build of discarded and broken Spanish amphorae, as cleaning them and shipping them back would've made no sense.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio
>>18440151Rome was extremely militarist in a way that stands out for the time period, even by ancient standards they had a huge % of their population under arms.And war came with costs in the time period, too, winning is nice but losing sucks, in Greek sources you see a lot of "this war was a mistake".Then again, Rome basically always won...
>>18440072It is racially law for iberosissies to be conquered by Italic BVLLS and their culture to be eradicatedEast Med admixtured ITALOBVLLS were created just for that single purpose
>>18440181>even by ancient standards they had a huge % of their population under armsThat's because they transitioned from a tribal/citizen militia where the military is every able bodied man that can afford a weapon to a state funded professional military while they were wealthy and powerful enough to try and keep the numbers high.And yes, people have always known that some wars aren't/weren't worth it. That was the "could conquer" part. They would have debates just like today over whether they could win and if fighting would open them up to being attacked by someone else. But they didn't justify the benefits of what was perceived to be an easy war. At the very least they would get treasure and slaves.
>>18440072>how did roman elites justify the conquest of far-flung areas in the early stages, before there was a culture of military conquest?Invading, conquering, enslaving and looting your neighbors is a long standing human tradition, we've been doing it since we were cavemen (and we're still doing it).
>>18440072The concept of conquest needing to be justified didn't exist for most societies and is relatively recent. YOU not being legally permitted to have command of an army, and thus not personally being able to legally conquer something was a concept they had, but the conquest of sone foreign wasn't the concern, you seizing power illegally was. Everyone fought all the time, to the point where we're pretty sure the stele of the vultures depicts bronze age farmers VOTING to go to war so they can seize better wells and farmlands from their neighbors.Human rights is a new concept relatively speaking, and most people lived hand to mouth for most of history, fucking someone else up and being less poor was something people REALLY liked.
>>18440181Not really. Greek city states fought 2 of every 3 years in average, and EVERYONE who wasn't too poor to afford a knife and a bag of rocks fought. This is so prevalent that we have records of cities refusing to fight alongside their allies because they had no adult men of military age left alive. In most societies absolutely everyone was a soldier. You sort of see an exception with Hellenic armies later on, but not really- anyone not likely to rebel on the spot would be called up, and they still threw virtually the entirety of their Greek and Macedonian populations into their wars. Rome was just better at actually taking and keeping territory- the only unique thing was that they insisted on fighting wars to the end. That, in turn, is really a function of them being much better than the hellenes at actually integrating the socii militarily, and growing much .ore organically so they weren't demographically fucked up.Hellenes weren't giving up after 1 lost battle or two because they weren't militaristic, they were doing it because they didn't hace the manpower to replace their army if it got wiped out. % wise it's the same.
>>18440072>before there was a culture of military conquest?When was this, exactly? Cause military glory was baked into the Roman Republic's government. Every civil government post was also a military post. Being elected a Consul came with explicit military mandate. The Roman economy was basically founded on slave labor, they had an absurdly high slave population even during the height of the republic, and had been waging war on their neighbors as far back as the mythical founding of the city. They don't need to "justify" war, the reasons were seen as self-evident. War brought wealth in the form of slaves, treasure, and land. Anybody who participated in a glorious conquest enriched himself by doing so. So why wouldn't they do it? In fact it was expected of an elected console to prosecute some kind of military adventure so as to glorify himself and leave a legacy.
>>18440334Roman government is far, far more militaristic than any Greek government. Greeks formed committees and created special military posts in times of war, but for Romans, their wartime leaders were the same as peacetime leaders. This meant that one could advance his civil administrator career through military service, and vice versa. It created an incentive for Roman senators to go to war for no other reason than political advancement back in Rome. You don't see this dynamic anywhere in Greece. The thing that makes Greeks similar to Romans is the citizen-soldier concept, which Greece pioneered, and Rome copied. This was a big change from how armies worked in the bronze age, in the more stratified societies where wealth was concentrated in the small ruling class that didn't have the same "citizen" concept that allowed a much large number of people to share in both the benefits and burdens of ruling, including defense. Greeks were only "warlike" in the sense that more people were required to be warriors per their style of government. This meant that if the leaders decided to go to war, they could more easily mobilize a competent fairly large fighting force. They didn't have to resort to conscription, and their warriors would be decently equipped and trained. This gave them a big advantage over everybody relying on mass conscription with a small elite warrior core holding it together (the typical army of the late bronze age, and which endured into the iron age in places like Mesopotamia).But Rome goes a step further, and actually created a government that rewarded military initiative and seeking personal glory with political advancement.
>>184400721: Rome always had a culture of conquest and military prestige. From it's earliest period. Politics and the army were intertwined.2: Iberia was conquered during the Punic wars against Carthage, a powerful enemy of Rome. Selling this invasion to the public would not be difficult at all. 3: Iberia was incredibly rich. It was full of silver, that's the reason the Carthaginians were there in the first place. 4: It's not a stupid question, you just don't know a lot about Rome, but that's fine. We all start somewhere. I'm obsessed with the bastards.
>>18440072>before there was a culture of military conquest?The culture of military conquest was always there
>>18440072>the general populousilliterate.
>>18440111I don't think being illiterate would be debilitating it's not like they had free press or public reporting, word of mouth travels freely
>>18441774>word of mouth travels freelyAnd changes slightly with every person it passes through, so that by the time whatever news makes from Rome to Narbo the news hardly even resembles the original version anymore.That's the value of writing. You write something down, and it doesn't change. It allows you to maintain accuracy of information across distance, and more importantly, across time.Rome was a literate society. Being illiterate was unacceptable for full citizens, who were the only ones who had any real say in government.
>>18440072
>>18440072The general population doesn't give a shit what's happening, so long as life is good. This is why the romans would go invade some far-off land, enslave them, and make them work the mines/till the soil/bring them back to rome to serve as house slaves, and the people enjoyed the riches.The only issue arises when you send their sons off to die and then you fucking fail and get no riches. That is the damn problem.
That's why they had those paintings in triumphs and also paraded the gold they got from conquest, triumphs were where the populace got convinced of the value of the conquests.
