Roman conquest of Numantia

Roman conquest of Numantia serves in the treatise as a stark example of the most destructive method of governing a newly acquired free city. Its importance lies less in a narrated campaign than in the political conclusion drawn from it: a community accustomed to its own laws and freedom retains a durable collective memory of liberty, and that memory can become the basis of renewed resistance whenever the conquering power suffers a setback.

Background: The Problem of Free Cities

The conquest appears within an analysis of newly acquired states that had previously lived under their own laws. Such territories could, in principle, be held in three ways: they could be destroyed; the conquering prince could reside there in person; or they could be left under their own laws while paying tribute and being governed by a small group of inhabitants dependent on the new ruler. The third arrangement was presented as a possible instrument of control because a government created by the conqueror would have to preserve the conqueror's protection. Yet the argument treats a free city as fundamentally different from a territory accustomed to princely rule.

The central difficulty is that freedom is not merely an administrative arrangement that can be replaced without residue. A free community possesses its own laws, political habits, and remembered identity. If it rebels, it can shield its resistance behind the names of liberty and ancient law. No period of submission and no benefits granted by the conqueror necessarily erase that inheritance. The example of Pisa rising against Florence after a century of servitude illustrates the danger: the old order can remain politically available until misfortune gives it an opening.

The Roman Method

Roman conquest of Numantia is grouped with the Roman destruction of Capua and Carthage. The Romans destroyed these cities in order to retain them and, having done so, never lost them. Numantia therefore represents the most absolute form of conquest described in the passage. The city was not preserved as a self-governing community, nor was its freedom placed under a dependent local administration. The political source from which rebellion could arise was removed altogether.

This method is contrasted with the approach attributed to the Spartans in Athens and Thebes. The Spartans attempted to hold those cities by creating oligarchies, but ultimately lost them. Rome likewise initially tried to hold Greece while allowing it to retain its freedom and its own laws, but that policy failed. The Romans had to destroy many cities in the province before they could make their possession secure. Numantia thus belongs to a recurring Roman pattern: where local freedom remained politically alive, administrative accommodation could prove less reliable than annihilation.

Consequences for Imperial Rule

The stated consequence of destroying a free city is permanence. A conqueror who preserves such a community leaves intact the institutions and memory that can organize resistance; one who destroys it removes the city as an independent political actor. The argument is deliberately severe: there is said to be no secure way of holding a city accustomed to freedom other than destroying it, going to live in it, or otherwise preventing its inhabitants from reconstituting their former order.

Numantia's significance consequently depends on the distinction between obedience and political extinction. A princely state whose ruling line has been eliminated may be easier to absorb, because subjects accustomed to obedience lack both the habit and the common political memory needed to choose a new leader. A republic or free city is more dangerous. Its inhabitants possess a stronger vitality, a fiercer hatred, and a keener desire for revenge, because recollection of former freedom continues to define what has been lost. The destruction associated with Numantia is presented as Rome's answer to that continuing danger.

Comparison with Other Conquests

The Numantine example forms part of a broader comparative method. The treatise distinguishes states joined to an existing dominion by language, customs, and laws from those acquired in a foreign country. Similar provinces can be incorporated by preserving their laws and taxes after eliminating the ancient ruling line. Dissimilar provinces demand greater fortune and skill; residence by the prince can expose disorders early, prevent officials from plundering the inhabitants, and make the ruler accessible as an object of either love or fear.

Free cities pose a different problem even when the conqueror attempts accommodation. Rome's experience with Capua, Carthage, and Numantia is set beside its failed attempt to preserve the freedom of Greece. The comparison implies that the outcome cannot be explained simply by the conqueror's merit. The character of the acquired state matters: Alexander the Great could secure Asia after defeating Darius III because the government resembled a centralized monarchy, whereas acquisitions composed of free or semi-independent political communities generated repeated risings. Roman success in such territories required the extinction of the old princely and civic memories that had sustained separate loyalties.

Significance in the Treatise

Roman conquest of Numantia is therefore not developed as an independent military narrative but as a political exemplum. It gives concrete historical weight to the claim that conquest and preservation are sometimes incompatible. The case also reveals the treatise's unsentimental account of imperial governance: laws, customs, and remembered freedom are treated as active forces, not as decorative features of a state, while destruction is evaluated by its capacity to prevent future rebellion.

The example's lasting force comes from the contrast it establishes. A dependent principality may be controlled through the elimination of its ruling family; a free city carries its former political identity in the community itself. Numantia is cited to show what Rome did when that identity could not safely be subordinated: it destroyed the city, and thereby converted conquest into permanent possession.