Chapter 2 The Problem of Rome’s Politeia
In: Rome, Global Dreams, and the International Origins of an EmpireSearch for other papers by Sarah H. Davies in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Abstract
Polis and Kingship
As intellectuals and politicians entered an international, conceptual middle ground in their interactions with each other, a new problem emerged: defining the nature of the Roman polity. This section discusses contemporary Hellenistic structures of conceptualizing statehood and sovereignty, from polis to League to King—the latter standing above poleis, and yet in some instances, beholden to a “home-city,” or patris.
Rome and Romans Among Poleis and Kings
On the one hand, attempts were being made to define the uniqueness of the Roman polity in essentially pan-Hellenic terms, identifying Rome as a polis. On the other hand, Romans and their perceptions of the res publica interacted in a manner seemingly, but problematically, analogous to a Hellenistic king or kingdom. Rome and “the Romans” did not entirely fit into any existing category and ultimately represented something more, a structure that would eventually allow Rome to become patris for the world.
On a Roman One-Way Street: Third-Party Diplomacy
Another aspect of Rome’s uniqueness on the international stage was the approach taken to third-party diplomacy. This section compares Hellenistic norms in offering and accepting mediation, arbitration, and good-offices with those of Rome. While Romans did participate in some of these practices, they were not amenable to all directions and forms (in particular, receiving offers of mediation). Interactions with Rome became a one-way street, in which the legality of Roman warfare could never be called into question by other polities.