"People Who Fight While Saying 'Peace' — Why an Ancient Roman Aphorism Resonates in 2026: The Duality of War and Peace from Ancient Rome to Trump"

"People Who Fight While Saying 'Peace' — Why an Ancient Roman Aphorism Resonates in 2026: The Duality of War and Peace from Ancient Rome to Trump"

There is no word as pleasant to the ear and simultaneously as precarious as "peace." Stopping conflict, protecting lives, and rebuilding livelihoods—what we envision as "peace" is often a collection of such hopes. However, tracing history reveals that "peace" has frequently been "crafted" as a self-justification by those wielding force.


The article introduced here reflects this precariousness from the perspective of ancient Rome. The key lies in a scathing sentence attributed to the Roman historian Tacitus in "Agricola," spoken through the mouth of an adversary: "They make a desert and call it peace." It is no coincidence that this phrase has survived for nearly two thousand years and is often quoted when discussing imperialism and invasion. It encapsulates the structure where power, by holding the "right to define words," can even alter the axes of evaluating reality.


For Rome, "peace" was synonymous with victory.

Rome's "Pax" does not necessarily align with the "state of mutually laying down arms" we imagine. The peace Rome advocated was the tranquility resulting from the end of war—albeit the tranquility "after Rome had won."


Symbolic of this is the "Ara Pacis" (Altar of Augustan Peace) built after Augustus's victory. Though nominally a monument celebrating peace, the imagery carved into it is heavily imbued with spoils and the aura of martial prowess. In other words, peace was an "order achieved through victory," which, from the perspective of the defeated, could become a silence enforced by subjugation.


What makes Tacitus interesting is that he was not a simple anti-imperialist. Even as a Roman politician, he borrowed the perspective of the enemy to expose Rome's "rephrasing." The very structure where an external perspective pierces "deception invisible to those involved" speaks to the insidiousness of propaganda.


"Calling war peace"—the moment words overwrite reality

The article argues that this structure from ancient Rome is repeated in modern times. The point is simple. The more those in power chant "peace," the more easily we feel reassured. However, we must question whether what that peace refers to has been replaced with "a state where the opponent submits," "a state where resistance ceases," or "a state where governance is complete"—in other words, an "order convenient for the victor."


In modern politics, "peace" is sometimes used not merely as a description of a state but as a label (title). Declarations such as "I am a bearer of peace," "I have achieved peace," and "I am protecting peace" preemptively evaluate actions. This is because the presumption that "since peace is being advocated, what is being done must be for peace" comes into play.


Moreover, "peace" becomes a convenient tool to fix the opposing side as the villain. If there is a "side obstructing peace," then removing them by force becomes justified, and the use of force is packaged as a "means of peace." At this point, peace becomes not a word to stop war but a word to pass war through.


Why this rephrasing works: Three mechanisms

Based on the issues raised in the article, let's organize the mechanisms into three reasons why the "rephrasing of peace" works.


1) Hijacking the definition: Reducing "peace" to "quietness"

When peace is reduced to merely "the cessation of gunfire," the state where the victor suppresses resistance by force also becomes peace. Originally, peace should be multi-layered, encompassing safety, dignity, justice, and livelihood, but when the definition is simplified, "quiet domination" is easily justified.


2) Preempting morality: Characterizing as "a person of peace"

Politics should be evaluated based on policy, but when the label of "a person of peace" takes precedence, the scrutiny of actions dulls. Criticism is easily dismissed as "criticism obstructing peace," and as a result, discussions wither.


3) Narrativization: Recasting the story of victory as "salvation"

"Liberated," "saved," "restored order"—such narratives push the pain of war and coercion into the background. Just as Rome spoke of conquest as "civilization," when the use of force is connected to a "good story," the real damage becomes less visible.


Reactions on SNS: What are people angry about when quotes go viral?

The theme of this article has a nature that makes it particularly easy to spread on SNS. The brief quotes are powerful and easily applicable to contemporary news. Indeed, in English-speaking online spaces, the phrase "They make a desert, and call it peace" has repeatedly been brought up as a "template" for situational critique.


For example, in bulletin board communities with many engineers, entrepreneurs, and researchers, posts focusing on the deceitfulness of the Roman term "pacification" are prominent. Starting with "‘Pacified’ is a bloodless word," there are voices expressing opposition to wrapping conquest and massacre in "harmless words." In the same vein, there are also calm annotations such as "There is debate about the authenticity of the quote, but as a depiction, it strikes at historical reality," indicating an attitude of examining the "effect of words" itself rather than mere emotional arguments.


Meanwhile, in another SNS sphere, there are sensitive reactions to political motives surrounding "peace prizes" and "ceasefire deals." For instance, while holding hope for ceasefire agreements, there are posts expressing fear that "the desire for awards" or "building achievements" is prioritized, leaving the safety of those involved behind. The anger (or anxiety) here is not only about war itself but also a caution against the transformation of the noble name "peace" into a word of "transaction."


Furthermore, in the blogosphere where enthusiasts of ancient history and classics gather, this article is picked up as news and introduced from the perspective of "a passage from the classics becoming a mirror for modern politics." Despite differences in political stance, there seems to be a shared sense that classics help in discerning "the moment words overwrite reality."


Overall, what permeates the reactions on SNS is the gaze questioning "whose peace" the word "peace" refers to. What is done in the name of peace, who is silenced, and who is left behind—these questions are what bring words from two thousand years ago into today's timeline.


To prevent ancient maxims from becoming modern tools

However, caution is also necessary. Sharp quotes, while powerful in capturing situations, are easily overused like a master key. Convenient phrases risk oversimplifying complex realities. Therefore, the value of this maxim lies not in using it as a "hammer of condemnation" but as a "lens of scrutiny."


The questions for scrutiny are simple.

  • Whose peace is that "peace" for?

  • Is that "peace" consensual or enforced?

  • Is that "peace" a short-term quietness or long-term safety?

  • Does that "peace" come with an explanation of damage and responsibility?


When Rome engraved "peace" on a monument, a story of victory coexisted with it. When we hear the word "peace" today, we also need to check what reality coexists behind it.


The reason a sentence from two thousand years ago still resonates may not be because history repeats itself, but because humans are susceptible to "pleasant words." That's why it's important to take a breath before feeling good. Providing that breath may be the role of the classics.


Reference URLs

Related Articles