23

Was there ever a case when Rome conquered a territory solely for the purpose of gaining control of a specific resource (spice, ore, timber, etc....)?

I'm looking for something backed up by historical evidence - e.g. a document from a military/civilian leader, a public speach etc... admitting to such motivation.

Please note that I'm only including extractable natural resources here as understood today - e.g things like slaves, extra economy, markets, waterways or strategic territory are NOT in scope.

DVK
  • 17,695
  • 7
  • 77
  • 144
  • 10
    Have you been playing Sid Meier's Civilization recently? – Carmi Feb 26 '12 at 19:54
  • 4
    Colonization, to be more specific ;-) – DVK Feb 26 '12 at 20:35
  • 3
    Caesar and the whole Egypt campaign could be argued to stem for a need to assure grain exports to Rome but since it was not the stated reason, it does not really fit as an answer. Britain had a lot of tin as well so that could have been a major reason to invade. – Sardathrion - against SE abuse Feb 27 '12 at 07:24
  • 2
    @Sardathrion - I would consider an answer that conclusively proves that there were no other equally important reasons. I'm guessing that tin wasn't the main reason for Britain conquest – DVK Feb 27 '12 at 10:57
  • 2
    I cannot think of any specifics at the moment but would look at peace treaties that the Roman would have made with Carthage during the first and second punic wars. I seem to remember something about denying Carthage access to good quality timber at the end of the first punic war. – Sardathrion - against SE abuse Feb 27 '12 at 11:08
  • 2
    @Sardathrion - was that to assure Rome's access to timber, or specifically to prevent Carthage's access to limit its naval power/sea trade? May be I should make that into a separate question :) – DVK Feb 27 '12 at 11:14
  • 2
    I suspect that it was a little of both type of situation. After all, the Roman did copy the Carthaginian industrial ship building methods so if they could have access to good timber while denying it to Carthage, it would have assured a superiority on the waves in case of any new conflicts. – Sardathrion - against SE abuse Feb 27 '12 at 11:40
  • 6
    Have you considered that your viewpoint taken literally may be anachronistic? Such a sharp distinction between different resources are unlikely, on the other hand attacking another country for being rich is a pretty common. Considering ancient economy, rich practically means rich in primarily resources (agriculture: Egypt, Libya etc, mining: British Isles, Iberia). – Greg Oct 29 '14 at 01:57
  • 4
    I'm not sure you can rule out slavery as a co-dependent natural resource; as the wealthy who controlled Rome had plantations and mines that used slaves extensively. So any farmland or minerals that Rome wanted to conquer elsewhere still expected slaves; often part-and-parcel of what to do with the conquered locals. – LateralFractal Oct 29 '14 at 05:19
  • Cf When did countries begin making up a pretext before starting a war? – sds Sep 17 '19 at 20:24

5 Answers5

13

Whele senators and ordinary civilians could justify a war with such considerations, the official pretexts for the wars were always different. All wars Rome conducted were officially motivated by international law. Particular motivations being:

  • Defending the allies (first and second Punic wars, Gallic war)

  • Breach of a treaty by the other party (second Punic war)

  • Invitation by a foreign pretender to the throne to help him against his adversary (invasion of Judea)

  • Pacification of warlike tribes (Caesar's invasions of Britain and Germany)

and so on.

It should be noted that "we just will conquer you" statements are quite rare in world's history. This is because if you use such arguments, you will experience problems in the future with concluding any treaties with other peoples, thus diplomatically unwise.

The most close possibly being Islamic conquests which were based on theological arguments.

Anixx
  • 32,728
  • 13
  • 90
  • 183
  • 4
    While I agree with the premise that publicaly there is always some sort of plausible (or implausible) excuse, I mean there may be internal, private letters or speaches stating real reasons. – DVK Feb 28 '12 at 09:42
  • Even the Islamic conquest just as Crusades are based largely on imperialistic/economical motivations. We should distinguish real motifs from official recorded propaganda. – Greg Oct 29 '14 at 01:59
10

The only (to my knowledge) province that Rome brought under its control primarily based on a resource need was Egypt. Egypt, and to a lesser extent, north Africa, were the so-called "granary of Rome". Egypt was a necessary supplier of grains in a time where Rome (the city) and the standing army were growing, and an increasing number of citizens was relying on handouts by politicians or the state - the so-called "plebs frumentaria". At its apex Rome imported approximately 350000 tonnes of grains each year and 200-300 thousand citizens were living off handouts. Egypt also offered good connections to Asian trade routes. But if trade is considered a resource, then the Punic wars and the Hellenic wars might also be considered a resource driven assessment.

As user357320 already mentioned, the annexation of Dacia and Iberia also had some economic agendas, but that was not the main reason given at the time.

Also, here is a picture of where you find what resources:

Resources in the Roman Empire

Matthaeus
  • 1,377
  • 1
  • 10
  • 19
  • I know you guys are into sources and you won't probably take history class as a source, so i found two wiki articles that i can link. I know it's not much better (Wikipedia is unpopular, i get it) and i know they are not in English, but i only found them in Italian. So if you know Italian, feel free to read about roman history! http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economia_dell%27Impero_romano and http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_dell%27Egitto_greco_e_romano – Matthaeus Oct 29 '14 at 00:28
  • A bit of cart before the horse here. While Africa and Egyptian grain was a staple for the later Empire, the takeover of both was based on other, political motives entirely. – Oldcat Oct 29 '14 at 00:33
  • @Oldcat yes there was the whole Octavian vs. Mark Anthony business, and Cleopatra supporting him militarily. That was the reason why they marched, or rather, shipped troops there. However the reason for annexing it was its value. You might say they conquered it on a "well, since we're already here, so lets just conquer it"-logic, but that's not how roman conquests worked. There are plenty of punitive expeditions that didn't end in conquest but just did what they started out to do: punish some action or neutralize some threat. Conquest were motivated by strategical decisions... – Matthaeus Oct 29 '14 at 00:42
  • That value was primarily just cash, not grain. It was too rich to allow anyone to take. That's why senators were not even allowed to visit Egypt by law in the Empire without permission. Still not an economic motive until later. – Oldcat Oct 29 '14 at 00:44
  • ...be it to expand the territory to a natural border, or to obtain some advantage (tributes, access to trade routes, keeping regional powers down, access to resources, access to land for veterans). Especially during late imperial rule, they were very much aware of the difficulties to support further expansion, and weighed usefulness against costs of garrisoning and administering the territory. – Matthaeus Oct 29 '14 at 00:46
  • @Oldcat then what motive do you suggest? – Matthaeus Oct 29 '14 at 00:48
  • I think the motive for annexation of Egypt was political. Cleopatra showed that it was too good a base for a competitor. Rich, and hard to recapture. It would be a danger. Its importance as a granary for the cities grew later, especially after the founding of Constantinople where it became that city's supply. The original question is tough because Rome hardly ever acted for just one reason like the question wants it to. – Oldcat Oct 29 '14 at 06:30
  • @Oldcat Actually Egypt was the main supplier of grain for the city of Rome, shortly after it was conquered. Constantinople wasn't important until centuries and didn't surpass 500 thousand inhabitants during antiquity. Several researchers (Morris 2010 and Modelski 2003) estimate Romes population at over a million already in the first century AD, shortly after Egypt became a province. Rome needed huge amounts of grain, even before the conquest of Egypt, and nord Africa and Egypt were the main producers at the time. Before the conquest, Rome had to trade it. – Matthaeus Oct 29 '14 at 12:07
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Matthaeus Oct 29 '14 at 12:07
  • Before Egypt and Africa were Rome's granary, Sicily was, but no one would say that was the primary reason for Rome to have conquered Sicily.... – C Monsour Sep 14 '19 at 22:19
6

At one point, the Romans extended the frontier in central Germania to swallow up a modest bit of land that was rich in silver mines. IIRC this was around the time of the Emperor Domitian.

Sources: The primary source was from The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire by Edward Luttwak. It discusses the annexation and mentions the region as securing some fertile land and supporting a friendly tribe, as well as pressing on the hostile Chatti. It also provided a buffer for Maintz and the flank of the annexation of the Agri Decumantes to the south.

However I did find a supporting remark from Tacitus' Annals Book XI, 20, from the time of Claudius:

Nor was it long before the same distinction was gained by Curtius Rufus, who had opened a mine, in search of silver-lodes, in the district of Mattium. The profits were slender and short-lived, but the legions lost heavily in the work of digging out water-courses and constructing underground workings which would have been difficult enough in the open. Worn out by the strain — and also because similar hardships were being endured in a number of provinces — the men drew up a private letter in the name of the armies, begging the emperor, when he thought of entrusting an army to a general, to assign him triumphal honours in advance.

Here Curtius Rufus gets triumphal ornaments by sending his troops over the border to do some quick work Silver Mining in Germany. This is the same area that the lines would later extend out to encompass a generation or so later.

Oldcat
  • 12,028
  • 43
  • 57
5

Several Roman authors criticised Roman imperialism. Two that I am aware of include:

• Sallust, De bello Iugurthino. The book however traces Rome’s warlikeness back to inner politics, not acquisition of resources.

• Caesar, De bello Gallico, 7th book. Caesar negotiates with Vincengetorix. In the book, Caesar criticises Roman imperialism via Vincengetorix’ speech during that negotiation.

mzuba
  • 1,351
  • 1
  • 11
  • 14
3

It was always my understanding that the Roman conquests in Spain and Dacia were motivated by their respective gold and silver mines.

Karlth
  • 2,209
  • 2
  • 16
  • 29