What idea did not represent how rome spread its power?

Answer 1

The Roman Empire did not grow out of a grand design of conquest and expansion. The Romans did not really need to control the Mediterranean. The empire grew out of a chain of separate events and situations: wars with neighbours (the Three Samnite Wars in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC) or with rivals (such as the Three Punic Wars in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC), being drawn into the squabbles of other peoples (three of the five wars in Greece in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC) wars waged against her (the Three Mithridatic Wars of the 1st century BC) her, and concerns about the instability of areas bordering the empire (the annexation of Syria, whose ruling dynasty was moribund, and the turning of a civil war-torn Judea into a client state) when Rome was already in control of most of the Mediterranean. Egypt was annexed in 30 BC as a result of Octavian defeating Marc Antony and his ally, Cleopatra VII of Egypt in the Final Civil War of the Roman Republic, rather than a desire for conquest.

The first case of a deliberate project of conquest was Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (58-50 BC). Under Augustus the conquest of Spain was completed after 180 years of warfare there. The Alpine region of Rhaetia was deliberately conquered. This was because Augustus wanted to secure the Alps to protect Italy from possible attacks from the north. His other conquests were responses to attacks on the empire or allies of Rome. The conquest of southern England in 43 AD was due to the Romans wanting to help allies there. The conquests of Wales (48-78 BC) and the north of England (48 AD) were deliberate. The conquest of Dacia (Romania) was a response to the Dacians attacking the empire. There were deliberate conquests of western parts of the Persian Empire. This was part of three centuries of on and off wars between the two empires in which they conquered parts of each other territories only to lose them.

The idea that the Romans conquered other peoples only to exploit them is also wrong. All for the conquered peoples, except for the Jews, benefited from being part of the Roman Empire and there were very few rebellions. The conquered peoples befitted from joining the thriving trading networks which the empire developed and from the infrastructural works undertaken by the Romans (roads, bridges, aqueducts, dams, ports, etc).

The Romans tolerated the religions and customs of the conquered peoples. They allowed them to continue to worship their religions, follow their customs and use their customary laws at the local level. They also let the local ruling classes run most of the local affairs. The role of the provincial governors of the provinces (conquered territories) was restricted to defence and maintenance of the legions stationed in the provinces, tax collection, public works and the arbitration of disputes the locals could not resolve by themselves. This policy had two advantages: it reduced the administrative load of the provincial governors and it facilitated the integration of the locals into the ideology and the economy of the empire. A less tolerant policy would have led to too many rebellions and would have threatened the stability of the empire.