Experts say the Roman empire was formed "accidentally". According to most experts, expansion of Roman territory was a consequence of Roman defensive campaigns against enemy "nations". I believe the Romans needed more money and expanded their lands to increase the total amount of taxes. After all, taxes were gained from those lands as well as the Lands Rome already had. What is your opinion on this?
fab
this is always what imperialists says, that they had no other choice for the security and protection of their interests than to exepanse temselves and dominate other territories. It is just a way of not pass for the "bad" one, while having domination politics. Almost every empires has used that technic; especially when comunication with their populations.
Porthos
I don't think any one Roman ever had any grand ambition of world conquest. For the most part, Rome's massive empire was already acquired during the time of the Republic. A few acquisitions were made in the post-Republican period as well, but all but a few colonies like Dacia, Mesopotamia, and Britain were acquired before the switch to empire. During Republican times, most Romans thought just like modern day Americans do. The American imperial machine operates in a very decieving way. Our leaders and influential businessmen engage in what are essentially wars of conquest in foreign nations like Iraq for the sake of economic resources or whatever other geo-political objective they have in mind. Most Americans however, especially prior to these wars, are told and come to believe that our troops are fighting to "spread democracy", or to "defend America", for "freedom", as if there is really a threat of invasion from these third world countries. Nearly all of Rome's wars of conquest were sold to the public and to the senate as wars necessary for the national security of the republic, for the very safety of Rome. In other words, they were seen as defensive wars, and often times, the result was pre-emptive invasions of these suppossed "threats" or "potential threats". This process occured over and over again over the course of several hundred years, until eventually, little by little, Rome had amassed a vast empire. By this point, a lot of power fell into the hands of the army and its generals, so that gradually and inexorably, the power shifted from the legistlative branch of government, to the administrative branch of government (Consuls, who were often ex-generals) and more and more power and decision making was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who more often than not, the coimmanders of the legions. The Republic underwent a militarization, because of constant warfare, until republicanism was reduced to a spectator sport. This is why men like Julius Caesar were able to exploit the system to their advantage, and rise to power.
Julius Caesar is a perfect example. During his tenure as governor of Spain and member of the Roman Senate, he persuaded the senate to allow him to advance his legions into Gaul, to "defend Roman interest and allies of Rome", against the "aggressiveness of the barbarians", so as to preserve the allied tribes in transalpine Gaul, so as to serve as a buffer state, or cushion between the invading Germanic tribes and Rome's boundaries. They used scare tactics similar to that employed by George Bush on Americans in this century, when he convinced America that Hussein had WMDs and was connected to 9-11. Caesar convinced others in the senate that the tribes invading parts of distant Gaul were a legitimate threat to the city of Rome itself, and that a pre-emptive strike against them was necessary to curb this threat. So when permission was granted for an expedition into Gaul, the justification given was that it was being done as a defensive, preventive measure.
So, as some historians have put it, the Roman Empire was acquired in a fit of abscence of mind.
Uriel
I go for the accidental theory. Most empires spread simply by virtue of the fact that a strong nation happens to be surrounded by weaker ones, and manages to extend its influence over them. And it becomes a snowball effect -- the stronger you are, the stronger you get -- until you get too big and are spread too thin, or your surrounding nations catch up to you technologically or economically. All countries exploit whatever natural advantages they can find, be it military strength, strategic position, business acumen, technological superiority, natural barriers or access ways, etc. Some get big, some stay the same, some are whittled away, some have more clout than their size would suggest, some less than their size should afford them -- these things are all multifactorial, and empire growth is as well. There is no one reason why they take the course they do.
