Conquering The World: What Was The Basis Of Roman Expansion Across The Mediterranean

In the aftermath of the second Latin War of 340 to 338 BC, the Latins, in pursuit of freedom from Rome, were subjected to quite the opposite and were made fully subordinate to Roman hegemony. The settlement that came subsequently acts as a great example demonstrating how Rome was able to conquer the Mediterranean not just by sheer force of will but through clever coercion, and it can be argued that this settlement was the most important basis for Rome’s expansion throughout the Mediterranean. However, there are other dates and events which one can claim to be the most important in this regard. Therefore, when it comes to looking at the basis of why exactly the Romans were able to expand out and achieve control over the Mediterranean, it is best to approach this by mostly looking to specific historical moments and events that shaped Roman history and, most crucially, which allowed future events to transpire resulting in Roman expansion. With this in mind, this essay will explore how and why the Roman-Latin settlement of 338 BC was the most important basis which allowed other events to ultimately lead to Roman expansion in the Mediterranean. As well as this, it will look at other dates that could stake a claim for this title and explain how said events were ultimately not as influential.

THE SETTLEMENT OF 338 BC:

The second Latin War was one where no victor was obviously predestined, as both the Romans and Latins had similarly sized armies, spoke the same language, and were accustomed to the local terrain. Therefore, once the Romans had agreed a temporary alliance with their long time enemies, The Samnites, and victory was finally won, Rome was able to shape and demonstrate its foreign policy in the event where it was deciding the fate of a conquered people for this occasion, and for similar occasions in the future. This point is why the settlement of 338 BC was so impactful, as the foundations it set can be seen echoed across most other events that are traditionally regarded to have shaped the future of Rome.

The vast majority of our understanding of the second Latin War and the settlement of 338 BC come from Livy, in Book 8 of his From the Founding of the City. Livy, was a Roman historian writing under the time of Augustus’ principate, and is our primary source for understanding Rome’s early history, which is shrouded in myth. Because of this, and the lack of contemporary evidence for many of the events he describes, he and many other sources that attempt this have to be explored tentatively, as the Romans were renowned for creating a certain veneer around their history in an attempt to make it coincide nicely with their illustrious present. However, with this in mind, Livy does have other sources to support his account of the settlement of 338 BC, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus who in his Roman Antiquities, relays a direct quote of the provisions of the treaty. Dionysius was a historian who mainly focused on recounting Roman history while giving it a hellenised context, however his writing on the settlement is telling. In Book 6 he states that Rome and the Latin peoples should remain allies for time immemorial, and that nothing should break the bond established within this treaty. Although it is not a direct copy of what Livy states, which will be discussed in detail shortly, it does however echo the same sentiments which it can be argued the Roman’s wished to radiate. These sentiments were those of a newly found synergy between the two peoples, where the Latins had now been brought into the Roman system, whether they wished to be or not.

Livy states that the first key result to come out of the settlement was that the Latin League, which had united the tribes of Latium around a common military and trading alliance, was completely abolished and replaced by, as Cornell beautifully puts it, a new ‘Roman commonwealth.’ This meant that the independent identity of the Latins, which had been fostered and grown around this league, was replaced with the centralised idea of subordination to Rome. Therefore, we can see this as a start to the romanisation tactics employed throughout Rome’s conquests, in which they pulled other states into their Empire and forced them to adopt their political systems, culture and laws. They did this it seems, in an attempt to make their dominion over these places more everlasting, as by indoctrinating the inhabitants as well as future generations into feeling an affinity for a Roman way of life, they were nurturing a positive rather than negative outlook towards themselves as new overlords.

In passage fourteen of Book 8, Livy underlines the Senate’s decision regarding each individual tribe within the Latin League, as they decide the fate of each on a case by case basis. This shows a crucial basis for expansion, as it seems the Romans were now becoming conscious of how their conduct towards defeated enemies appears to the outer world, as through applying punishments and sanctions that were tailored individually to the actions of each tribe, others could then learn of how their potential future actions would be treated. Livy writes that those states who surrendered quickly, or never joined the revolt in the first place, were given full Roman citizenship and therefore enjoyed all the benefits that came with being part of the Roman Empire. This is arguably the most impactful decision made in the settlement, and one which acted as a true basis for Roman expansion across the Mediterranean. This is because it created an agreeable incentive for other peoples to simply allow the Romans to control their holdings without even attempting to defend them. It meant that, potentially without any bloodshed, a state could not only share in the wealth of Rome, but also contribute in a meaningful way towards their own governance through the suffrage garnered through citizenship. It was undoubtedly the best outcome a small tribe or state could hope to achieve other than governing themselves freely, as if it seemed likely that they were going to be subdued by the enormous might of Rome, it made logistical sense for them to accept Rome on its own terms and achieve the best possible status within this newly imposed system.

This line of thinking is coupled with and emphasised by the next few points of the settlement that Livy states. He writes that those who partially resisted Roman subjugation were allowed to keep their marriage and trading rights with Rome, however they would lose their right to suffrage as punishment for their insubordination. As for those tribes who led the revolt and thus those who became the central enemies to Rome in the second Latin War, they were removed from their land and completely colonised by the Romans, with all their own sovereignty, culture and society being expunged. These decisions acted as examples of what befalls those who oppose Rome or attempt to defy its rule, and thus shows just how ruthless the Romans would be to those who crossed them, as their cities and way of life were completely wiped out. This fear tactic acted in perfect alignment with the benefits of siding with Rome, as not only are the benefits worth considering in their own right, but the consequences of the wrong choice were incredibly damning. All this comes together to act as the perfect basis from which the states who interacted with Rome would use when making their decisions.

A last crucial point to remember when regarding the settlement of 338 BC is that the majority of tribes which the Senate had voted upon, found themselves in the first category displayed and benefited from full citizenship while looking on at those other few states who suffered enormously . In summation, this method employed in the settlement as a whole not only allowed Rome to expand throughout the Mediterranean in the short term, but also secured the longevity of their ethnically varied Empire as the subjugated states would arguably see little reason to act begrudgingly towards Rome if they too were enjoying some of the benefits of Empire. This allowed Rome to avoid becoming an Alexandrian-style Empire of fleeting highs, and instead have sustainable success for centuries to come, which is why this settlement acted as the most important basis for Roman expansion in the Mediterranean.

THE DEPOSITION OF TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS IN 509 BC:

As for some of the other events that some may claim to be the main basis for Roman expansion throughout the Mediterranean, it is important to explore these alternative avenues to better refine our understanding of what exactly the ‘basis’ of their success means. One could point to more abstract examples of concepts, such as the Roman sense of stoic duty, as the true basis of their expansion, however it can be argued that such concepts were integral to said expansion, but it requires a grand historical moment to act as basis for which other events could not occur without. With this in mind, one of the most defining events of Roman history comes from Livy and surely is the deposition of their final king, Tarquinius Superbus, and the establishment of the republic. After the rape of Lucretia at the hands of Tarquinius’ son, the Roman’s exiled their royal family and vowed never again to accept a king again and instead employed the rather revolutionary system of the republic. There is an argument to be made that the way in which legend tells this story is overly hyperbolic, as the history of Rome’s kings was officially dated and recorded several centuries after the fact, and therefore later writings may have wished glorify Rome’s present republican system, while reinforcing their distaste for autocracy and dissuade any men of ambition who wished to claim absolute power over Rome.

Nevertheless, the republican system put in place in 509 BC surely laid the foundation for Rome’s successful expansion to come, as through their republican system which incorporated everyone and arguably made even the poorest of plebeians feel part of the process, they were able to act as an attractive proposition to foreigners seeking citizenship. This coupled with the examples given previously, of how the settlement of 338 BC made accepting Roman influence willing appear the best option for many tribes and states, some could make a relatively sound case in arguing that the deposition of Superbus was the main basis for the Roman expansion of the Mediterranean. It can be seen that without the republican system being put in place as a result of said expulsion, then all the advantages and victories Rome garnered as a result would never have come to pass.

However, this argument is flawed in many areas, as firstly although it is hard to argue against the fact that Rome’s acceptance of a republic laid the groundwork for expansion to come, that does not immediately make it the most important basis for this. Rome certainly had more work to do on the republic, which did not stagnate but morphed and changed throughout history in many ways which allowed for their successful expansion, and it did not originate in an ideal form ready to conquer the Mediterranean. At the time of 509 BC, Rome was little more than a small collection of villages living adjacent to the Tiber, and there was no divine right for Rome to garner an empire from such humble beginnings. It took many centuries for Rome to grow and expand outwards, and it took many victories with exponentially larger significance to transition from invading Italian neighbours such as the Veii, to conquering vast Empires such as Carthage.

Another reason Superbus’ deposition was the main basis for expansion is simply because its evidence is nowhere near as concrete as the settlement of 338 BC. We are reliant on later writers such as Livy in learning about Rome’s kingly, and there is healthy skepticism about how in fact seven kings were able to rule for over two-hundred years of Roman history. This seems immensely unlikely, and this discrepancy in the later writers is either solved by there having been more kings than the records show, or a shorter time frame in which they ruled. Either way, this ambiguity creates doubts in what parts we as non-contemporaries can truly believe as fact and what parts we must dismiss for being too heavily cloaked in myth. Therefore, 509’s ambiguity acts as another factor making it hard to argue that the king’s expulsion was more important than the settlement of 338 BC for Roman expansion, as the settlement poses much harder evidence which allows it to be more securely be recognised as the main basis that led Rome’s expansion throughout the Mediterranean.

HANNIBAL'S DEFEAT AT THE BATTLE OF ZAMA IN 202 BC:

Another event that some may claim to be the main basis for Roman expansion in the Mediterranean is Hannibal’s defeat at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC by the hands of the young upstart general Scippio Africanus. Polybius gives a detailed account of this battle, as well as the Second Punic War as a whole, as he was a Greek writer of the 2nd century BC, who through his extensive military knowledge, aimed to enlighten other Greeks as to how exactly the Romans were able to conquer their way to a colossal empire. He tells us that this was the decisive battle in the Second Punic War and cemented Rome’s victory over Carthage, giving them undisputed supremacy over the western Mediterranean. Rome now held dominion over all of Carthage's holdings in northern Africa as well as Iberia, and thus as a direct result of this victory, Rome had now begun to incorporate lands outside of the Italian peninsula into their empire, making this some of Rome’s first significant steps to expand across the Mediterranean.

Not only had Rome now ventured out and away from its Italian roots, but during the Second Punic war it had managed to come through some of the most aggressive adversity rivaling anything any other empire could claim to have endured. Hannibal had undoubtedly proven to be one of Rome’s greatest adversaries and had harped crushing defeat after crushing defeat upon the Romans, with the Battle of Cannae, for example, killing upwards of seventy-thousand Roman soldiers. This was more than any civilisation had suffered in one days fighting up until the first day of the Battle of the Somme in World War I. There is a strong case to say that the vast majority of empires would have been crushed to the point of no return on a day of that many losses and at least would have sought peace with their opponents. However, Rome not only managed to endure this defeat, but even managed to ultimately win the war against Carthage in 202 BC and establish themselves as the dominant force in the Mediterranean. Therefore the legacy of Scippio’s victory at Zama should undoubtedly be held in very high regard and make an enticing case for being the main basis for Rome’s expansion. As a result of this battle, not only did the Romans venture out of Italy and conquer parts of the wider Mediterranean, but it had to be able to come through some of the harshest tests a state could be plunged into and shown themselves capable of enduring them.

However, with all this in mind, the Battle of Zama was not the main basis for Rome’s expansion, because the settlement of 338 BC established Rome’s supremacy across Latium and thus paved the way for further expansion. This includes the annexation of the Carthaginian Empire, which could not have been achieved if Rome had not first undergone those humbler steps. In other words, if the settlement had not first allowed Rome to create the blueprint for its subsequent successful expansions, then Rome could not have gone from strength to strength and arrived at a point where they were seen as contenders to Carthage, and thus the results of the Battle of Zama heavily relied upon the successes of the settlement.

As well as this, the enticing nature of the citizenship offered in 338 BC discussed earlier also allowed for Rome’s sizable manpower, as by becoming a citizen of Rome you were required to enter military service. This meant that by setting the precedent of having many tribes gain citizenship so rapidly, it meant that their forces were able to grow significantly, with this tradition continuing on with exponential growth. By having such a large army to call upon, it allowed the Romans the capability to survive such crushing defeats as Cannae and still be able to amass enough men to continue the war. Consequently, it can be seen that the settlement of 338 BC provided the basis for success in future wars, such as the Second Punic War, where they were able to withstand Hannibal’s impressive victories and eventually wear the Carthaginians down.

THE SACKING OF CORINTH AND CARTHAGE IN 146 BC:

The last potential basis for Rome’s expansion into the Mediterranean that will be explored in this essay is the sacking of Corinth and Carthage in 146 BC. Diodorus, another Greek historian, tells us of how the immensely influential cities of both Corinth and Carthage were razed to the ground in the very same year by the Romans. It can be argued that the Romans conducted these incredibly harsh punishments to act as a testament to the utter dominance in the Mediterranean, as they were symbolically and physically wiping out the last of their potential rivals in quick succession. This was to act as a message to all others in the Mediterranean and to make any other aspiring conquerors unlikely because of the fear exuded from the horrific acts committed towards the Carthaginians and the Corinthians.

The reason some could argue that this was the main basis of Roman expansion in the Mediterranean was because it confirmed their dominance without a shadow of a doubt and acted as a turning point where Rome had finally achieved dominance in the Mediterranean and thus this point became the benchmark for the expansion's success. It was also a turning point because afterwards the Romans began to look in upon themselves rather than foreigners, as after this point civil wars began to arise within the Empire. This is arguably because of a lack of serious threats elsewhere and thus shows that the raising of these two once great cities acts as a basis for expansion, in that it showed that they had arrived at a level of control in the Mediterranean that the world had arguably never seen before.

However, the civil strife mentioned above that occurred after this point is arguably an example that shows how after 146 BC the republic’s handling of its empire began to wane in effectiveness. The rise of populist generals and infighting between Romans could be used to demonstrate how the sackings of Corinth and Carthage, as symbolically impactful as they may be, were not the main basis of expansion, as the benchmark they supposedly set was not lived up to or expanded upon in the following century of unrest.

Another reason it should not be argued as the main basis of success for Rome’s expansion, is because it can be more fittingly seen as the final result of the basis set by the settlement of 338 BC. The principles laid out in 338 BC can be argued to have directly caused many of the events that led to this final culmination of Rome’s superiority in the Mediterranean and the sacking of Corinth and Carthage arguably acts as the end result to the starting point that was begun. This is because these acts are in direct alignment with the precedent set down by colonising the rebellion leaders in 338 BC, where the Romans began their harsh punishments and no tolerance policy towards opposition to their rule. Therefore the settlement truly was the basis from which these sackings took inspiration from, despite them arguably being on a much grander and severe level.

CONCLUSIONS:

There are many events throughout Rome’s rich history that can claim to be the main basis for their expansion in the Mediterranean, however only one can be said to have had an almost all-encompassing influence on all other examples. This is of course, the settlement of 338 BC, which not only laid down the Romans’ sophisticated tactic of offering citizenship to its less egregious subjects, but at the same time provided an effective warning to its enemies and rivals in the form of harsh punishments. These tactics can be seen in use throughout the republican period, as the examples given in this essay demonstrate, and thus while the other examples discussed gave their own basis for why the Romans were able to successfully expand throughout the Mediterranean, the settlement of 338 BC acts as the main overarching basis for all of them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
SECONDARY SCHOLARSHIP:

Alfoldi, A., 1965. “Early Rome and the Latins,” Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1-46.

Cornell, T.J., 1995. “The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC),” London: Routledge, 293-352.

Fitton Brown, A. D., 1959. “After Cannae,” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 8, no. 3, 365–71.

Hadas, M., 1948. “Aeneas and the Tradition of the National Hero,” The American Journal of Philology 69, no. 4, 408–14.

MacKendrick, P. L., 1952. “Roman Colonization.” Phoenix 6, no. 4, 139–46.

Martin, J., 1995. “The Roman Empire: Domination and Integration,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 4, 714–724.

Morley, N., 2010. “‘Carthage Must Be Destroyed’: The Dynamics of Roman Imperialism,” In The Roman Empire: Roots of Imperialism,  Pluto Press, 14–37.

Oxford Classical Dictionary

Rutledge, S.H., 2007. “The Roman Destruction of Sacred Sites,” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 56, no. 2, 179–95.

Scopacasa, R., 2016. “Rome’s Encroachment on Italy,” in A.E. Cooley (eds), A Companion to Roman Italy, Wiley-Blackwell, 35-79.

Smith, C.J., 2014. “The Latins. Historical Perspective,” in M.C. Biella, M. Aberson,. M. Di Fazio (eds), Entre archéologie et histoire, Bern, 21-30.

Stek, T.D., 2009. “Rome and Italy: Ideas on Cultural Change,” In Cult Places and Cultural Change in Republican Italy: A Contextual Approach to Religious Aspects of Rural Society after the Roman Conquest, Amsterdam University Press, 9–16.

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Diodorus, The Library of History

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities 

Livy, From the Founding of the City

Polybius, Histories