Maciej Piegdoń

In antiquity, various inscriptions were placed on the projectiles fired from the throwing weapons. These could be the names of the artisans and soldiers who made them in the camp before the battle, or those who fired them to compete with each other and who wanted to demonstrate the accuracy of their hits on the target. There were also names of units to which the soldiers belonged or where they originated from. They also included information about the deities, the names of the leaders and the references to values that guided the fighters. Attempts were also made to exert psychological effects on opponents, the aim of which was to provoke and humiliate them. A significant number of glandes plumbeae with symbols and inscriptions placed on them dating back to the decline period of the Republic (133–30 BCE) have been preserved. The glandes from Asculum are also very interesting, as they further our knowledge about the siege of this city (90–89 BCE), which was located in the area of Picenum, where the battles were fought during the bellum Marsicum (91–87 BCE). The inscriptions placed on the projectiles provide us with extremely valuable data supplementing few accounts of ancient authors.

This article is an attempt to present the role of colonisation in the Roman policy of expansion towards its Italian neighbours in the 3rd–2nd BCE and showing the effects of this phenomenon, as illustrated by settlements in the Ager Gallicus and Picenum. Information on the founded colonies in sources, appearing somewhat on the margins of accounts of military activities and diplomatic missions in Italy (foedera), but also connected with the internal policy conducted by Rome (grants of land), may indicate that colonisation complemented such activities. This complementary character of the process of colonisation in relation to other political, military, diplomatic, and internal activities seems to be an important feature of the Republic’s activities.

The success of Roman expansion in the Republican period and the durability of the empire, which survived the fall of the Republic and continued to function for the next few hundred years under the rule of emperors, drew the attention of both scholars and rulers in subsequent eras. The Imperium Romanum became a model for other states that attempted to build their own empires in later times. What captures our attention in discussions on Roman imperialism is mainly one, so far unresolved, dilemma: was Roman expansion a result of the material and psychological benefits that individual social groups enjoyed as a result of the aggressive policy, or a product of the Roman society’s atavistic tendencies for using violence? This seems to be a very difficult question to answer. If we also consider other elements that cause aggression, such as fright, fear (metus Gallicus, Punicus, Etruscus, etc.) of something or someone and a desire to win fame or glory over an enemy, then solving the problem seems impossible indeed. Finding the right answer is not made any easier by the historical sources. On the one hand, they are very biased, as they hide the actual reasons under a thick layer of propaganda and apologetic slogans; so thick, in fact, that in many cases the Romans’ true motives seem incomprehensible. The majority of available accounts present the Romans as the defenders of the weak and their allies. This is the result of a strong propaganda rhetoric used by the Romans in order to justify themselves in contemporary eyes and in posterity too.
We should also note one more element that could have had an influence on the development of an imperial mentality in Rome, i.e. the broadly defined civilisation and cultural milieu in which Rome came to be – Italy. A cursory comparison of various Roman war rites with the rituals of other inhabitants of Italy indicates that war was very much a part of the mentality of Italic communities. The presence of war rites in Italic tribes suggests that in Italy, war was an important element of existence. Rome was an integral part of this world, which meant that the presence of a strong military component and aggressiveness in the life of the Roman community was natural.
 

Umbria and Umbrians’ attitude towards the Roman expansion in 4th–2nd century BCE
This article is an attempt to present the role of the Roman Republic’s policies towards Umbrian tribes (in 4th–2nd century BCE) and show the effects of those policies. Umbria was initially an area inhabited by a mosaic of Umbrian’s tribes representing various levels of development.
The policy of first conquering and then subordinating this area, as well as the powerful influence of Roman law, ideas, and cultural models, indicates not only the great military might of republican Rome but also the attractiveness of its civilization. Rome’s effectiveness resulted mainly from the fact that its actions complemented each other. After victorious military operations, or sometimes simultaneously with those operations, came settlement campaigns (colonies: Narnia, Interamna Nahars, Spoletium etc.)
Rome was also a master of diplomacy. It mollified its recent enemies by concluding alliances (foederae with Camerinum, Ocriculum etc.) that created a system of friendly state and tribal organisms and enabled its citizens to live peaceably on the conquered territories. All these actions made it possible to subordinate the region, make the Roman presence permanent, and effectively repulse the invaders (Hannibal and his brother – Hasdrubal during the Second Punic War).
The intensified settlement policy in Umbria and the expansion of its infrastructure (roads), facilitated economic contacts between Roman settlements and the centers of the subjugated, allied native tribes.

The success of Roman expansion in the Republican period and the durability of the Empire, which survived the fall of the Republic and continued to function for the next few hundred years under the rule of emperors, drew the attention of scholars in subsequent eras. In the famous Vergil’s phrase – Imperium sine fine dedi – Jupiter bestowed a dominion without limits on the Romans as the defenders of their friends, clients, allies and generally the weak. The majority of available accounts present the Romans as protectors. This is a result of a strong rhetoric of propaganda used by the Romans in order to justify themselves in the eyes of the contemporary and posterity alike. The conception of imperialism without limits was probably born in the middle of the 2nd century or more probably in the 1st century B.C. but both earlier and later Rome outlined the borders of the expansion (e.g. lands, rivers or seas).