Furthermore, in consideration of the supposed natural borders of the Rhine, Danube and Euphrates it is worth noting that they are not in fact strategic frontiers. Rivers are not effective lines of defence as was proven particularly in Germania where Marcus Aurelius had to confront the Quadi and Marcommani and then more disastrously in the 3rd Century after our period; but the Roman Empire seemed very content with rivers, again not as defence but as a boundary marking. This again points to the suggestion that there in fact was no ‘grand strategy’ for the frontiers in our period, and the only real development to them during that time, apart from the expansion in Dacia and Armenia (the latter of which was quickly abandoned) was to set boundaries, much of which was probably done for trade and civil reasons. Parthia were perhaps the only real threat to Rome in this period that might have required a ‘grand strategy’ at the eastern frontier as several historians such as Anderson and Syme have argued and indeed Tacitius informs us that in AD 35 the Parthian King announced a claim to previously owned territories, but Rome seemed to muster no greater defence in the East than anywhere else. Indeed Isaac argues that Rome were responsible for initiating all conflict with Parthia and sure enough there was relative peace on the frontiers whilst Rome were not the aggressors. The Sahara is perhaps the only real natural border that does not need to be overcome but overall the rivers and even mountain ranges are not sufficient defences on their own. Overall it seems that Rome was more focused on defining their borders than applying any ‘grand strategy’ to them.
Finally, one possible reason for a lack of military expansion and thus a lack of frontier strategy in our period is that the Emperors were relatively unchallenged and thus there was no point in expanding. During the Republic’s years when Rome was an oligarchy a man’s Gloria and Dignitas determined his career whereas, although the cursus honorum still existed, for the Emperors in particular many of them were adopted in a dynastic fashion and it is was not as necessary to attain military glory. This is not to say that military might was not still a very roman ideal but just that it wasn’t as necessary and particularly during the second century following Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius all embraced more liberal and philosophic customs with Hadrian favouring Greek practises and the two Antonines practisers of Stoicism. Trajan chose to expand and it made him popular with the people but none of the three Emperors who followed saw a need for war with Hadrian even abandoning much of Trajan’s gains in the East. It seems that there was just no desire anymore for Rome to expand its boundaries, not because it couldn’t or even because Augustus had warned of over stretching the Empire, but just because there was no point in further expansion. Rome already owned the fertile and most hospitable lands within the known Ancient World so expansion beyond that point would be simply more trouble than reward. As a result Rome sat comfortably within its boundaries and seemingly thought little of its frontiers other than to mark them out clearly.
In light of the arguments expressed, it is evident that, particularly due to the lack of scholarly analysis, it is difficult to arrive at an affirmative conclusion on the nature of a ‘grand strategy’ towards Rome’s frontiers within our period of study. The building of relatively weak yet imposing fortifications at borders without natural boundaries suggests that Rome was mainly interested in marking and preserving its Empire in the First and Second Century AD rather than militarising further. They had conquered as much as could be reasonably managed with the Roman system of governance and to expand further would simply be fruitless. It is reasonable then to conclude that Rome did maintain at least some strategy towards its frontiers in our period, that being maintenance, but perhaps to use the term ‘grand strategy’ would be misleading as there does not appear to be any particularly rigid set of rules by which the various Emperors abided and as for Augustus’ precedent it is followed mostly with the exceptions of Domitian and Trajan but again there seems room for personal interpretation of any ‘strategy’ in place.
IMAGE: http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/images/A_heritage/roman/roman_frontiers/H3110909002_401.JPG
0 Comment:
Be the first one to comment on this article.