TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Decision Making and War aims
- Did Roman decision making have inner logic and consistency?
- Aims change and are varied, we do not have enough information to dissect these aims correctly.
- Principate following pattern emerges – Tribe raids Roman Territory – Emperor decides to go to war, defeats Tribe, tribe incorporate into empire or not. Were there raids? Or Emperor showing off? Did he hope to expand, or just an after thought?
- Commanders just went to war – that’s why there was a law to stop unauthorised wars 0 a lex Iulia. First encounter Teutones – results from an unprovoked attack beyond Alps 0 disregard for alleged defensive value of natural frontiers.
- Emperor decides to go to war, not elected by people, he relies on standing army for support – body affected by decision. Yes frontier people may benefit from security, but no fun having army through the town. War not really helpful to capital world or civilian population.
- War beneficial to soldiers however – booty and plunder, destruction – Corbulo “exhorted his soldiers to secure both glory and spoil”
- Suppression of internal unrest profitable as well 0 plunder Alexandria 215 valorous soldier promoted.
- Great opportunity of social and material increase
- Dio shows importance of financial gain
- Standing army incentive to fight and political will to use such an expense – military glory enhances the reputation of an emperor – strengthen ties with troops
- No officer class constantly putting pressure on empire like modern military dictatorships, but army put people in, only a commander of a friend. Rank and file had very little to do with it. Emperor was dependent on the army – respected by soldier and ruling classes if an effective warrior – army always a threat to ruling class.
- Annexation profitable if achieved without war – annexation Iceni “kingdom was plundered by centurions, the royal house by slaves as if they had been captured in war”
- Roman citizens did particularly well in new annexes – law etc.
- Two groups benefit from war are military and the Romans resident among the subject population.
- No indication played any role in formulating policy – instruments of annexation and gained by it.
- No interest group suggesting war – imperial will, obviously needed soldiers enthusiasm, but Emperor made decision with helpful advice.
- Advisor anything from family and friends, senators to boorish upstarts. No lobby groups persistent – luck of the draw.
- Conflict between imperial advisers mainly on personal issues and not on policy of affairs of state.
- Must not underestimate desire for military glory: Severeus merely pretended according to Dio, conquered Mesopotamia for benefit of Syria. Real motive military glory. Only objection war from others would be waste of money – no interest groups.
Comments
