Hegemonic Peace and Empire

The Pax Romana, Britannica and Americana

Ali Parchami

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781134007035
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

This book examines the language and the ideology of the Pax Romana, the Pax Britannica and the Pax Americana within the broader contexts of 'hegemony' and 'empire'. It addresses three main themes: a conceptual examination of the way in which hegemony has been justified; a linguistic study of how the notion of pax (usually translated as peace) has been used in ancient and modern times; and a study of the international orders created by Rome and Britain.

Using an historiographical approach, the book draws upon texts from Greco-Roman antiquity, and sources from the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries to show how the pax ideology has served as a justification for hegemonic foreign policy, and as an intellectual exercise in power projection. From Tacitus' condemnation of what he described as 'creating a wilderness and calling it peace', to debates about the establishment of a Pax Americana in post-Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the book shows not only how the governing elite in each of the three hegemonic orders prescribed to a loose interpretation of the pax ideology, but also how their internal disagreements and different conceptualisations of pax have affected the process of 'empire-building'.

This book will be of interest to students of international history, empire, and International Relations in general.

Part I
'Peace through victory'

1 The peace that defined empire

The language and ideology of the Roman pax

The Pax Romana is a term cited by modern historians to describe the condition of the Roman Empire in the two and half centuries that followed the fall of the Republic. The pioneers of Roman scholarship have portrayed it as a ‘golden age’, with Edward Gibbon famously remarking that ‘if a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous’, he would name the Antonine age – the era that marked the culmination of the Pax Romana.¹ According to Gibbon, only minor hostilities served to exercise the legions of the frontier, otherwise the period offered ‘the fair prospect of universal peace’, with the Roman name ‘revered among the most remote nations of the earth’.² Gibbon’s comments reflect a sentiment that has been widely accepted by posterity, with scholars frequently depicting the Pax Romana as a high point in antiquity and a significant watershed in the development of Western civilization.³

Beyond the rim of Roman scholarship, the prevalent view of the Pax Romana today is one of socio-political tranquility, economic prosperity, administrative efficiency, cultural renown, and the unification of the diverse peoples of the Mediterranean within a single dominion. Yet seldom is any effort made to delineate the Pax Romana and discuss its main characteristics, including its language and ideology: did it represent peace within the Empire or was it simply confined to Rome’s troubled frontiers? Against what type of threats was it envisaged: internal, external, or both? Was it a quantifiable period of peace or should its enunciation by the Romans be seen as self-promotion and the artful propaganda of an imperial power? Equally little attention has been given to the Roman conceptualization of peace and how pax should be understood vis-à-vis modern interpretations of that most subjective of concepts.

This chapter will address these issues by scrutinizing the language, ideology, and character of the Pax Romana. It will be shown that, from its inception, pax was a notion that was embedded in military as well as religious codes and rites and that it increasingly assumed a political dimension in the later Republic. Indeed, pax came to be closely associated, and in some instances intertwined, with such terms as ‘pacification’, ‘victory’, ‘conquest’, and ‘empire’. Far from connoting peace in the modern sense, pax had an unmistakable militaristic and hegemonic overtone. This is particularly evident in the symbolic and allegorical depictions of pax under the Empire, especially in Augustan propaganda. The claim to the restoration of peace was a central component of Augustan ideology – an ideology that gave birth to the twin notions of Pax Augusta and Pax Romana. The theoretical underpinning of pax, in relation to both concepts, was twofold: on the one hand, it signaled an end to the bloody civil wars of the late Republic, and on the other, it suggested peace throughout the provinces and security on the frontiers.

Pax was, moreover, infused with belief not only in the restoration and revitalization of the Roman state, but also in the imposition of Rome’s humanitas upon subject and non-subject peoples alike.⁴ It was both the legitimization of the new imperial system (domestically) as well as the justification for the imperium Romanum; forged as they were by military conquest and brute force.⁵ The Romans had no illusions about their peace: it was a peace that was achieved by war and conquest, maintained by Roman arms, and upheld by Rome’s so-called ‘benevolent rule’. The worldview of the Romans was shaped by a self-perception of their own superiority, Rome’s providential destiny, its civilizing mission, and belief in imperium sine fine – empire without boundaries. This ideology maintained that pax was created by, and justified, Rome’s imperium over all other nations.⁶ Therefore, in a narrow sense, the Pax Romana was an hegemonic peace that was conterminous with Rome’s imperium. However, pacification and the imposition of peace were only the first steps – and mere components – in the conceptualization of the Pax Romana. The concept should more expansively be seen as the encapsulation of the essence of everything that imperial Rome stood for: its social, political, cultural, and military ideology. The ideology of the Pax Romana defined and justified Rome’s imperial system and its empire. These facets of the Pax Romana will also be examined.

The etymology of pax

Etymologically, pax belongs to the family of words deriving from the root ‘pak–pag’, meaning ‘to determine’ and ‘to conjugate’. Originally, pax indicated a ‘condition free of conflict’, since its etymology also links up with pacisci or to conclude a pact.⁷ In its earliest incarnation, pax was an agreement: a notion that encompassed a treaty to end or prevent war. The term would have implied a condition of peace between Rome and other nations.⁸ This condition could assume the form of an alliance – as with the Latin communities of Italy – or a friendship ostensibly based upon parity, or outright subjugation by Rome.⁹ In reality, regardless of its framework, interstate relationships with Rome nearly always entailed eventual Roman hegemony. This fact is underlined by the early use of such expressions as ‘to impose’ and ‘to dictate’ when Latin writers discussed peace: ‘It was recognised, with the use of such words, that the relevant situations were due not to the convergence of free wills but to the victory of the Roman army.’¹⁰ Thus, in its international and legal usage, pax was associated with Rome’s imperium – its political and military supremacy over other nations.

Domestically, pax was identified, among other terms, with concordia – a word meaning unity, harmony, and friendship. Concordia, like pax, was imbued with different allusions. Suffice it to say that it involved civil communal relations grounded in virtue and goodwill between the citizen body and the state. Salus – or security – was another term which was closely linked with pax. It implied security for the Roman state and its people. In theory, pax provided for order, stability, and a civil society free from physical and spiritual harm. Because of its wide ideological appeal, the term became an instrument of political propaganda during the later Republic and a justification for the Pax Romana under the Empire. The dictator Sulla may have been the first to use pax as a legend on his coins (c.81–79 BC) to celebrate the end of civil war and to propagate the ideal of concordia in a state torn by division and conflict.¹¹ Some four decades later, pax reappeared on coins for similar political objectives, first at the behest of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and then at the instigation of his heir and successor Caesar Augustus.¹²

On these coins, and other motifs, pax was depicted as a personification of the goddess of peace. She was usually represented as a young woman with a cornucopia in her left hand and the olive branch in her right hand (though she was sometimes portrayed holding the caduceus – the Herald’s Staff).¹³ Although the imagery of Pax and some of its characteristics were borrowed from the Greek goddess of peace, Eirene, the Roman conceptualization of the deity was supremacist and was much more militaristic. Eirene simply represented the opposite of war – a peace treaty between parties with identical rights with a hint of justice. In contrast, the goddess Pax was the symbol of Rome’s might: on Trajanic coins she was portrayed with her right foot on the neck of a vanquished foe. The only similarity between the Roman and Greek deities was their significance in the realm of religion. In this context, pax served a very clear function: the purpose of Roman religion was to obtain the goodwill of the gods through the formation of harmonious relations between mortals and supernatural forces. Because the benevolence of the gods ensured the success and prosperity of both individuals and their community, it was expected of all citizens to maintain the pax deorum.¹⁴ Given that this relationship was mediated by the Roman state, the well-being and success of the state invariably became a focal point of Roman religion.¹⁵

Roman notions of war and peace

It has been argued that the concept of pax comprised a series of interrelated ideas that revolved around Roman military power abroad, and security and prosperity at home – all under the charge of the state and the auspices of the gods.¹⁶ Yet, it is not possible to grasp fully the meaning of pax without first understanding the terminology and symbolism that informed the Roman ideology of peace, as well as the Romans’ attitude towards warfare. A list of some of these terms – concordia, gloria, fides, imperium, laus, pietas, salus, virtus, and victoria – reveals that the dividing line between war and peace was often indiscernible. All of these words had military connotations, simply because the political, institutional, and psychological outlook of the Roman people was militaristic. In his seminal study, William Harris illustrates that warfare was a formative experience for the Roman patrician (nobleman) of the mid-Republic – the critical period during which Rome embarked upon her empire-building: ‘Success in war was by far the most glorious kind of achievement by which he could demonstrate his prowess, and there were strong imperatives that urged him to pursue this success.’¹⁷ So much so that Polybius, the second-century BC historian, observed that no one could hold political office in Rome before completing at least ten annual military campaigns.¹⁸ This was affirmed by Sallust, who expressed amazement at how rapidly the Roman state had grown in one century. The reason, he explained, was the desire for glory. So great was this desire that as soon as the young were old enough for war they would learn the business of soldiering.¹⁹

Glory, fame, honor, piety, and virtue were characteristics that were encouraged in all Romans, though the nobility²⁰ was supposed to aspire to them; and Roman sources leave no doubt that these qualities were best exemplified and achieved through military service. This desire to participate in warfare was not exclusive to the elite. The systematic ferocity of Roman methods of war, and the willingness of the average citizen to use considerable brutality against adversaries, underlines a culture of militarism that was hardly restricted to the higher echelons of Roman society.²¹ Only with rare exceptions did the plebeian masses ever declare their aversion to war and to the many social and economic opportunities that it provided. Of course, the Romans liked to believe in the righteousness of their wars. The doctrine of iusta causa (just war) which they developed was based upon the age old tradition that military campaigns had to be sanctioned by the gods in a ceremony called the fetiales. The doctrine stipulated that war had to be fought in self-defense – or in defense of allies and friends – and for a righteous cause.²² In practice, however, the protection of allies and friends meant that ‘there was no point at which such expansion could halt, so long as any independent people remained . . . the very existence of a truly independent power was viewed at Rome as a potential threat to her own security’.²³

Hence, in what little remains extant of the Latin literature of the second century BC, ‘there is scarcely a trace of that craving for peace which can be encountered . . . in the Hellenistic world’.²⁴ Nor was the culture of militarism unique to the mid-Republic. Militarism was ingrained in the very fabric of the Roman polity.²⁵ From its inception, the institutions of the Roman state ‘were military in character and functions; its religion, and its cultural and moral values, were suffused with a militaristic ethos’.²⁶ Describing the ascent of Romulus to the heavens, the first-century historian, Livy, had him declare: it is ‘the will of Heaven that my Rome shall be the capital of the world; so let them cherish the art of war, and let them know and teach their c...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I 'Peace through victory'
• Part II 'The savage wars of peace'
• Part III The peace of the 'benign imperium'
• Conclusion The paradox of hegemonic peace
• Notes
• Selected further reading
• Index