Warfare in the ancient world was a personal business. Decisions were taken by an individual or by a few people and were carried out by soldiers fighting face to face. Wars differed in type and intensity; in the early period war was virtually a private affair, fought between individuals and their retinues, and could even be resolved by single combat. Later, war was waged by the state against external enemies, or involved civil conflict or rebellion against occupying forces, and was settled by full-scale battles, guerrilla campaigns and sieges. There were also naval engagements, though Rome fought no specifically naval wars. War was sometimes used as a political tool, to confirm a ruler in power, or as social cement, to bind a whole people together for purposes other than fighting in the war itself, or to establish the dominance of one group. Some fought to seek revenge or with that pretence, others as an expression of religious belief or ritual enactment. However, state-sponsored wars were usually fought for imperial and economic aggrandizement and territorial expansion, the acquisition of booty, and the achievement of honour and glory for the leaders (though this, too, could often have political signifiicance).Wars fought against powerful neighbours to ensure survival might be described as defensive, however disingenuous that was, but wars begun ostensibly for defensive purposes might in time lead to further conquest. Of course many wars arose for complex reasons, or from accidents and misunderstandings, and indeed those instigating war may have had different, even inconsistent, motives. Therefore it is useful to start with a general definition, namely, that war occurs when ‘those who decide public and military policy believe that war is in their material self-interest, considered from the perspective of their position within social and economic organization’.1
In the Roman imperial period it is of course notoriously difficult to discover why a particular war occurred, or what the people thought about the wars fought in their name. This is because we rely mainly on literary sources that are often incomplete and ill-informed, or prejudiced by preconceptions or dislike of individual emperors. In fact historians tend to be more interested in politics, government, and even civil wars than in foreign
Conflicts.2 What we need is access to the diaries of emperors and their advisers, the records of meetings that normally took place behind closed doors, and the letters or memoirs of army commanders. In their absence it may be instructive to examine societies in other ages and common sociological features that can help explain the origin of war and illuminate the impact of warfare on society and political development. War seemingly has deep roots in human personality and the aggression of man living in society, whether that is instinctive or environmental.3 However, we must be cautious, since the application of over-schematic theoretical analysis based on inadequate knowledge of the ancient world may produce only superficial and ultimately misleading similarities.
World History
