Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate

by Susan P. Mattern

How did the Romans build and maintain one of the most powerful and stable empires in the history of the world? This illuminating book draws on the literature, especially the historiography, composed by the members of the elite who conducted Roman foreign affairs. From this evidence, Susan P. Mattern reevaluates the roots, motivations, and goals of Roman imperial foreign policy especially as that policy related to warfare. In a major reinterpretation of the sources, Rome and the Enemy shows that concepts of national honor, fierce competition for status, and revenge drove Roman foreign policy, and though different from the highly rationalizing strategies often attributed to the Romans, dictated patterns of response that remained consistent over centuries.

Mattern reconstructs the world view of the Roman decision-makers, the emperors, and the elite from which they drew their advisers. She discusses Roman conceptions of geography, strategy, economics, and the influence of traditional Roman values on the conduct of military campaigns. She shows that these leaders were more strongly influenced by a traditional, stereotyped perception of the enemy and a drive to avenge insults to their national honor than by concepts of defensible borders. In fact, the desire to enforce an image of Roman power was a major policy goal behind many of their most brutal and aggressive campaigns.

Rome and the Enemy provides a fascinating look into the Roman mind in addition to a compelling reexamination of Roman conceptions of warfare and national honor. The resulting picture creates a new understanding of Rome's long mastery of the Mediterranean world.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Military Fiction, Academic

277 pages, Paperback

First published October 2, 1999

About the author

Susan P. Mattern is a Professor of History at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. She earned her PhD in History at Yale University, 1995.

Her most recent book is "The Prince of Medicine: Galen in the Roman Empire" (Oxford University Press 2013). It is a social-historical biography of the ancient physician Galen, a cultural icon whose works were the basis of western medicine until the Renaissance. She has also written "Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing" (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), an analysis of Galen's stories about his patients and a study of his medical practice; and "Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate" (University of California, 1999).

She has co-written a textbook, "The Ancient Mediterranean World from the Stone Age to A.D. 600" (Oxford University Press, 2004). After a year of professional development studying social and psychology and transcultural psychiatry, she has begun publishing articles on mental disorders in antiquity. She is also working on a global history of menopause. She teaches graduate and undergraduate classes in  World History and in the history of Greece, Rome, ancient Egypt, marriage, disease, medicine, women, and law at the University of Georgia. 

Reviews

[Checkman · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting thought provoking analysis of the Roman outlook and approach to politics, military affairs and economics. You might not agree with some of Dr. Mattern's conclusions, but give her credit for trying to find an origianl understanding of the Roman Way instead of just another Historiography of Roman historians. The book is at it's best when looking at the Roman's physical viewpoint of the world and the Roman system of economics and high finance. It drags when examining the Roman sense of honor since Dr. Matten becomes repetitive in her writing. However overall the book is interesting and intelligently written. It made me think which is always a good thing.

[Michael Bennett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Appropriate for those with some background in Roman history, but without too much specialized knowledge. Mattern's general thesis is that we should take the words of the Roman historians--reflective of aristocratic values--at face value, and understand Roman imperialism not as a calculated strategy, but as the manifestation of Roman honor. Focusing on the Principate, she argues against the perception of Roman frontiers as fixed and strategic, and suggests that animating principle for conquering territory was primarily saving face (decus). This is because, with the exception of Dacia, conquering new territory wasn't really all that profitable given the immense cost.

All that is persuasive. But the book is somewhat unfocused. I would have preferred a more chronological approach, or perhaps illustrative depth by focusing on one area in particular throughout the whole period.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

How did the Roman aristocrats, poets, imperial toadies and the emperor himself think about the empire and foreign policy? Do Roman Emperors have more in common with today’s poor inner city youth obsessed with expensive but rather useless status symbols in clothes or cars than today’s classics majors? Did Roman conceptions of honor and justice (i.e. their version of morality) compel genocidal acts towards their opponents? The answer to these questions is Yes according to Susan P. Mattern. Sadly I wasted a long time reading ancient strategic words (Frontinus, Polybius, and other sources). I should have just read her book. It is truly an intellectual journey into the minds and the wildly different culture and morals of the Roman elite. As an historian the most difficult task is understanding how the world looked to others long gone, and separated from us by an almost unbridgeable gap of cultural and intellectual change. Mattern, like Trajan’s bridge across the Danube, has conjoined those our two different worlds.

[Bonnie_blu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mattern does an excellent job of revealing the complex reality in which the Romans evolved. Rome was born and developed in a world in which violent conflict was the norm. However, unlike its neighbors (and the Mediterranean world in general), it did not consider surrender an option. Instead, Rome fought until it forced a surrender from (or annihilated) its enemy, no matter how many years it took or how many lives were lost. If Rome surrendered, it would suffer an unbearable blow to its pride, and a surrender would lessen the fear of Rome in those it had conquered, which would invite rebellion. Where did this attitude originate and how did it become so inextricably woven into the Roman character? Historians continue to debate, but we will probably never know since its origins are in pre-history.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very important book about the "imperial strategy" and "foreign policy" of Rome in the Principate. Mattern examines the ideas of the "ruling class" about the world in chapters on the elite, on maps & worldviews, and on values. In chapters on military strategy & finance she analyzes the plans/reasons and costs for mobilizing the legions. For great details, see the review in BMCR.

Mattern concludes that the clearest "foreign policy" of the Romans was establishing and maintaining honor at all costs, by means of terror, vengeance, and retaliation.

Her argument is very convincing.

[Colin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A relatively uninspired look at the concept of strategy as applied to the Roman Empire. The conclusion seems to be that the concept as such barely applies, but that the basic underlying idea of Roman foreign policy and military strategy was to overawe its opponents - or, in the words of the author, inflicting "terror" and extracting respect from others.