There are two different views regard to Roman aggressiveness. William V. Harris, the author of “War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327-70 B.C.” argues Rome’s militaristic behavior was driven by need of expansion and its own benefit. Additionally, he seeks to challenge Maurice Holleaux and Theodor Mommsen. On the other hand, Arthur. M. Eckstein disagrees with Harris. Stating that neighboring states of Rome and political instability around the region (Mediterranean) caused Romans to be imperialist. Eckstein examines Rome’s behavior through Realist perspective.
The first major difference is the dates that were covered by both authors. Harris covered only the period that Rome, presumably became imperialists, which was from 327-70 BC. However, …show more content…
Harris contends the former and Eckstein defends the latter. Though both had evidence to support them, Eckstein, who published his monograph later sought to debunk Harris’s points. For example, when Harris describes aftermath of Romans’ fightings as being bloody and full of gore. However, Eckstein explains that weapon or swords that Romans used was not Roman at all. They were Gladius or Spanish swords (actually derived from Celts/Gauls) that Romans adopted and used. Whilst it is true that scene after the war would look violent even to the ancients like the Greeks (Polybius) could not be equated with innate violence that possessed as Harris …show more content…
He states that Romans aristocrats made decisions about wars and whether to annex the territories. One of the requirements to be a senator in Rome is engagement or experience in wars and that would give guideline to future senators on wars. But, it also produced the tendency to wage war. Harris explores Roman religious beliefs. In Harris’s book, he stated that Roman worshipped Victoria, a war goddess. He believes that Rome’s continuous worshipping the goddess even in the peace and combining the belief of victory in battle as highest glory or honor showcased the Romans like war. His evidence is based on Polybius (mostly for senate debate) and Livy. At times, he dismisses Polybius for not providing enough insight about Roman culture. In addition, he disagrees with Mommsen’s non-annexation is equivalence to non expansion and Holleaux’s defensive theory on Roman
The first major difference is the dates that were covered by both authors. Harris covered only the period that Rome, presumably became imperialists, which was from 327-70 BC. However, …show more content…
Harris contends the former and Eckstein defends the latter. Though both had evidence to support them, Eckstein, who published his monograph later sought to debunk Harris’s points. For example, when Harris describes aftermath of Romans’ fightings as being bloody and full of gore. However, Eckstein explains that weapon or swords that Romans used was not Roman at all. They were Gladius or Spanish swords (actually derived from Celts/Gauls) that Romans adopted and used. Whilst it is true that scene after the war would look violent even to the ancients like the Greeks (Polybius) could not be equated with innate violence that possessed as Harris …show more content…
He states that Romans aristocrats made decisions about wars and whether to annex the territories. One of the requirements to be a senator in Rome is engagement or experience in wars and that would give guideline to future senators on wars. But, it also produced the tendency to wage war. Harris explores Roman religious beliefs. In Harris’s book, he stated that Roman worshipped Victoria, a war goddess. He believes that Rome’s continuous worshipping the goddess even in the peace and combining the belief of victory in battle as highest glory or honor showcased the Romans like war. His evidence is based on Polybius (mostly for senate debate) and Livy. At times, he dismisses Polybius for not providing enough insight about Roman culture. In addition, he disagrees with Mommsen’s non-annexation is equivalence to non expansion and Holleaux’s defensive theory on Roman