Introduction

Abstract

Abstract The traditional view of the Roman empire holds that the republic was a period of expansion, the principate one of successful defence against barbarian attack, the late empire one of less successful defence and retrenchment. Past generations could look upon the growth of the empire with admiration, free from moral qualms. European imperial ists were convinced that it was a good thing for a civilization they considered superior (their own as well as Rome) to rule barbaric natives. Both the republic and the principate were admirable, the republic as a period of dynamic expansion, the principate as one of stability and defence of what had been achieved. In our time of doubts, anguish, and egalitarianism it is no longer easy to admire an expanding empire. Self-determination is held to be a right. Infringement of that right is seen as immoral. Accordingly, views of the Roman republic are now ambiguous. That leaves us with the Roman Peace of the principate as an object of admiration. From the moment when Augustus put a stop to expansion the empire became laudable in modern eyes, for it defended civilization against the barbarians and thus laid the basis for our own achievements. In fact this is not true for Augustus. It has been shown to what extent this period, in spirit as in fact, was one of aggressive expansion. Even so, however, the old view of the principate after his time still persists. One of the achievements of the principate is held to be the development of a system of frontier defence that allowed the citizens of the empire to live in peace and quiet. Hence ‘Roman Frontier Studies’. The frontier also is considered a suitable object for comparison with the frontiers of modern states organized to keep out the armies of neighbouring states.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.