Did Rome's economy always depend on too much war?

Answer 1

First of all I would avoid saying too much war. Rome was not always at war. The Roman economy benefitted from about 400 years of territorial expansion which resulted from victorious wars against other peoples and campaigns of conquest. The benefits were from the spoils of war (which could be considerable) a large supply of slaves (who were war captives) and the integration of the economy of the conquered peoples into the economy and the trading networks of the empire. However, in the later part of territorial expansion war became more a matter of consolidating the borders of the empire or subduing peoples who attacked the empire, rather than providing an economy of plunder as with previous wars. Moreover, the empire no longer needed expansion to increase its economic output. The empire developed thriving trading networks which became the mainstay of its economy and also stopped to needing more slaves as, especially in Italy, it was flooded with slaves. Finally the empire did not expand forever. In the second century AD expansion stopped. The role of the army changed to one of defending the vast frontiers of the empire from increasing attacks from outside and which could be very difficult to cope with.