Submitted by AutoModerator t3_115esr4 in history
Traditional_Cost5119 t1_j9e7fur wrote
Was the Pax Romana the longest period of peace in Europe during the last 2000 years?
shantipole t1_j9g9ofp wrote
"Peace" in this case was entirely relative. There were multiple civil and foreign wars as well as a couple of outright conquests during that time. For example, the Battle of the Tuetoberg Forest (3 legions more-or-less wiped out), the Great Jewish Revolt (up to 350k killed, Jerusalem sacked, the Jewish Temple destroyed, etc.) and the conquest of Britain (hundreds of thousands killed, plus conquered a lot of territory) all happened during the Pax Romana.
Compared to the period of civil wars and purges that started with Marius and Sulla and eventually ended with Octavian and Anthony, or the Crisis of the 3rd Century, the Pax Romana was pretty peaceful for the Empire as a whole, but there was not an absence of war.
en43rs t1_j9k2up8 wrote
Would stability be a better term then?
shantipole t1_j9l6q3f wrote
It's kind of the same answer. You had Caligula, Nero/the Year of Four Emperors, and Domitian (and the tail end of Augustus's reign for that matter) during the Pax Romana. You also had significant internal revolts (Boudica's revolt, Judea--3 times, etc.). Those years weren't particularly stable, though they weren't as bad as the Optimates vs. the Populares or the Crisis.
Looking at Europe as a whole and the longest period of peace, I think the correct answer is that the sad, tribal apes that make up the human race can't go 50 years without trying to kill each other. The best we can do is relative peace (the Pax) or stability in a single area (e.g. England was pretty stable and secure most of the 1153 -1455 time period).
Irichcrusader t1_j9ubpj2 wrote
Pax Romana by Adrian Goldsworthy looks at this very question. Been a long while since I read it but I think his conclusion was that the pax Romana was a relatively peaceful and stable period compared to what had come before and after. That said, this does have to be measured against what was done to achieve it. Roman conquest could be incredibly brutal and they had no compunctions about wiping out entire people groups, enslaving and/or relocating them, and colonizing their own people. The period was also marked by a number of wars and rebellions but, comparatively speaking, these were pretty minor and very localized. Within a couple generations of conquest, most people had learned to accept Roman overlordship and focused their efforts on moving up in the hierarchy.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments