Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shantipole t1_j9g9ofp wrote

Reply to comment by Traditional_Cost5119 in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

"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.

8

en43rs t1_j9k2up8 wrote

Would stability be a better term then?

1

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).

3