Was the Roman empire imperialist according to Leninist theory? If so, why?

It would depend on the era. During the republic period, the empire expanded quickly, and it did so primarily to secure a grain supply to the city of Rome. That would meet Lenin's definition, although Rome was not capitalist. Once Augustus came to power he established borders with Rome was not supposed to expand beyond. His thinking was that the empire was self-contained and thus that any further attempts to expand would result in instability. Successive emperors largely followed his plan, although certain emperors would launch expedotions of conquest just to prove their personal military prowess (Claudius in Britain, Trajan in Dacia, etc.). It was never about acquiring new slaves or resources. In that sense, the Roman Empire was not what Lenin would have termed an empire.

That's a rather romantic way to think of it. The real reason Rome expanded was that it was a state ruled by its military complex. Peasants joined the military specifically for the promise of a rise in their class obtained from the spoils of war.

"The military subjugation (directly or by proxy) of a separate nation or polity for the purposes of economic or political exploitation."

Is this a good definition of imperialism?

Kautsky's theory of Imperialism was the last stage of capitalism, where it's grows to dominate the entire world and becomes linked to certaub Imperialist states that control these territories in a autokratic manner, thus the only goal thus socialists only needed to capture said states through parliamentary elections and they'd have control over capitalism worldwide.

Lenin opposed this, and instead foresaw that said huge trading blocs would not reach some peaceful coexistence which socialists could appropriate, but that they'd instead end up fighting each other in a World War as they ran out of space. The idea was then to turn this World War into a communist revolution. Thus he also supported the idea of "national liberation", that colonies should break off from the imperialist powers.

In the end Lenin came closest to the truth, though results didn't end up as he predicted.

With the end of colonial trading blocs, and the globalization of capital, Imperialism has ended and become a obsolete theory of international relations, thus making all attempts to form a modern "anti-imperialism" misguided or laughably pathetic.

No, Rome was ruled by its landowning class. They monopolized officer jobs, at least during the republic period, but they were property owners before they were soldiers. As is often the case with agrarian societies, military service was about social status. As for the rank and file, particularly in the legions, military service was undertaken for the promise of a large payout at the end of their tours. Soldiers in the legions were expected to receive land grants as well as a lump sum of coin.

Of course, most soldiers in the early empire were auxillaries from the provinces who were given much less land and money. They were provided to the senate or the emperor by client kings and governors. You can see the seeds of feudalism there. That changed with the Antonine Constitution, which effectively made every auxiliary unit a Roman legion, which was one of the factors that contributed to the steady rise in military costs that would push the empire towards dissolusion.

so tell me then, why there are still wars?
if globalization is victorious, why there's backlash among national bourgeoisie?
why there's conflict between russia, china and us?

Hierarchy is never ok, only authority is ok.

but authority is the spookiest of spooks

You pretty much agreed with my post there. Basically, after the Marian reforms Rome was all but forced to continually expand in order to maintain its standing army.

You are talking about the Republic era before Pompey secured the grain supply for Rome. As I wrote, Roman expansion came to a halt (apart from conquests that only served to enhance the images of emperors) shortly afterward when Augustus established the principate. Rome was not a society that was built on the necessity for continual expansion like the Macedonian empire had been. It stopped at defensible geographic features (the Danube River, the Rhine river, the Sahara desert, etc.) and established a perpetual self-sustaining system around the Mediterranean. Egypt and Africa produced grain which fed the city and the legions. Other provinces supplied auxillaries, slaves, and various other resources.

I must confess my in-depth knowledge of the Rome ends shortly after Caesar seized power. Up until that point at least, it very much was caught in an unending need to expand for which the reasons were also responsible for increasing civil wars due to provincial governor disloyalty (another side effect of the Marian reforms).

Dammmm son
is the Roman EMPIRE an empire?

Nooooo the ROMAN EMPIRE was a democracy…….of course it was an empire you autistic fuck.
Fuck you all commies, you can't change the rules of the universe you dumbfucks

you're fucking retarded, that's not even what this thread is about

You missed a key phrase, faggot.

Of course, it doesn't surprise me that Holla Forumsacks are illiterate fuckwits.

IMO hierarchy is compatible with anarchism if it's voluntary and not a hierarchy of power. There is obviously hierarchy in Rojava for instance.

No that would be Communism. Authority has actually been implemented and exercised…

Anyone that loves their people is "imperialist" according to Christians and Leftists. So yes

you got the answer in your own fucking question you fucking retard.

Vercingetorix did nothing wrong (except lose)