ABSTRACT
Until recently, the dominant view among scholars was that Roman imperialism was essentially defensive. The principal factor which led the Romans to undertake their wars was, it was held, the fear of powerful neighbours, a fear which was in some cases wellfounded, in others mistaken. Some writers also stressed the importance of accident and misunderstanding. However, it was thought that the prospect of economic gain did not play an important part in bringing about the wars, and that the Romans’ territorial expansion was largely unsought. This doctrine originated with Mommsen (1877-80), and early in this century found notable exponents in Frank (1914) and Holleaux (1921). More recent statements of the case include those of Badian (1958, 1968), Walbank (1963) and Errington (1971).
