Fencer's Weapon After Type Of Charge...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why Were The Romans Successful?
This isn't a 'do my homework' query, it's a response to Stuey suggesting the History section is bunk.
What intrigues me is that there's plenty of info about the sequence of events that led to the Romans seizing ever more territory, but not much thoughtful comment on why this happened to the Romans and not say to the Greeks or Etruscans or Phoenicians.
So without necessarily listing the sequence of events (cos anyone can find those online) how can the far from inevitable rise to power of the weedy Latins be explained?
What intrigues me is that there's plenty of info about the sequence of events that led to the Romans seizing ever more territory, but not much thoughtful comment on why this happened to the Romans and not say to the Greeks or Etruscans or Phoenicians.
So without necessarily listing the sequence of events (cos anyone can find those online) how can the far from inevitable rise to power of the weedy Latins be explained?
Answers
I wish I knew who coined the term '
13:59 Thu 25th Sep 2014
One reason that applies to the Greeks in particular is that I'm not sure they were even that interested in territorial expansion anyway. Some civilisations just aren't, content instead to stay put and prosper on a small scale. "The Greeks" is a bit misleading anyway -- really it's "The Athenians", "The Spartans", "The Corinthians", etc., fragmented into city-states linked together loosely, but ultimately being separate entities. When they came together, as in the Aegean League that fought of the advance of the Persians, the Ancient Greeks had a scarily good military strength, but it never lasted long (Peleponnesian Wars), so there was no real prospect of large-scale expansion.
On the other hand the Romans were, or at least became, hungry for more lands and territory. Perhaps partly this was by accident: in the Punic Wars against Carthage it ended up with Rome capturing most of Carthage's lands, but that advance was part of a victory march in some senses and perhaps they just forgot to stop? I'm sure it's more complicated than that.
But anyway, for some civilisations the drive is there, and for some it isn't. The results of that drive, in the case of Rome, was a well-organised and strong army that drove all before it, until geographical features ultimately got in the way, or logistics of the time prevented further expansion.
On the other hand the Romans were, or at least became, hungry for more lands and territory. Perhaps partly this was by accident: in the Punic Wars against Carthage it ended up with Rome capturing most of Carthage's lands, but that advance was part of a victory march in some senses and perhaps they just forgot to stop? I'm sure it's more complicated than that.
But anyway, for some civilisations the drive is there, and for some it isn't. The results of that drive, in the case of Rome, was a well-organised and strong army that drove all before it, until geographical features ultimately got in the way, or logistics of the time prevented further expansion.
I think the Roman philosophy was pretty straight forward - do it to them before they do it to us.
If you have got a civilised society surrounded by barbarian hoards, the message to send out is that you are absolutely not to be messed with, and the easiest way to do that is to conquor and subjugate your imediate neighbouers, and simply spread out from there.
The more territory you control, the further away yoour potential enemies become, the more land you have, the more money and resources you have - it all makes perfect sense - for those times at least.
If you have got a civilised society surrounded by barbarian hoards, the message to send out is that you are absolutely not to be messed with, and the easiest way to do that is to conquor and subjugate your imediate neighbouers, and simply spread out from there.
The more territory you control, the further away yoour potential enemies become, the more land you have, the more money and resources you have - it all makes perfect sense - for those times at least.
The notion of city-states: good point Jim. The Latins seem to have decided early on it was all one big 'Rome' and non of yer independent devolved nonsense.....certainly very different to the rest around them.
Pre-emptive attack as the best defence - could be, Andy - but I don't think we can categorise their neighbours as 'barbarians'. Unless by barbarian you mean not Roman.
But surely they would see the limits to a state based on pre-emptive attacks?
Pre-emptive attack as the best defence - could be, Andy - but I don't think we can categorise their neighbours as 'barbarians'. Unless by barbarian you mean not Roman.
But surely they would see the limits to a state based on pre-emptive attacks?
Having the most aggressive members of society gathered together and sent to a suitably remote province, to be put to some useful purpose certainly helps avoid unrest in the capital. I think most leaders are secretly timid, fond of the high life and not keen on seeing their world crumble at the hands of rebels.
If I understand correctly, the Praetorian Guard existed to protect the emperor from their own citizens, perhaps even tough enough to make the rest of the army think twice about attempting a coup. I even read something which seemed to say that the Guard had some influence over who became emperor and would despatch the awful ones when they became overbearing. (That was a Wiki article so pinch of salt with that one).
If I understand correctly, the Praetorian Guard existed to protect the emperor from their own citizens, perhaps even tough enough to make the rest of the army think twice about attempting a coup. I even read something which seemed to say that the Guard had some influence over who became emperor and would despatch the awful ones when they became overbearing. (That was a Wiki article so pinch of salt with that one).
Mosaic - " ... but I don't think we can categorise their neighbours as 'barbarians'. Unless by barbarian you mean not Roman."
My history is based on cinematic offerings like Gladiator, and from that, I deduced that the Germans next door were a pretty barbaric lot. If you include the pre-battle scene, where the leader of said Barbarians is shouting across the valley in what may be High, or Indeed Low German.
It's not necessary from the Romans to enjoy a detailed grasp of European syntax, since even without transaltion, the meaning of his sentiments is pretty clear - 'Come on if you think you're 'ard enough!' would seem to be the gist of it.
My history is based on cinematic offerings like Gladiator, and from that, I deduced that the Germans next door were a pretty barbaric lot. If you include the pre-battle scene, where the leader of said Barbarians is shouting across the valley in what may be High, or Indeed Low German.
It's not necessary from the Romans to enjoy a detailed grasp of European syntax, since even without transaltion, the meaning of his sentiments is pretty clear - 'Come on if you think you're 'ard enough!' would seem to be the gist of it.
Could Stuey have been referencing this thread, is it true he has a SOH?
http://
Oh, Gladiator (sigh) great stuff, and fairly accurate in its physical details. I loved the hairy guy bit with the messenger's head being flung n all.
Problem being, we only have written records of those sort of battle encounters from the Roman side.
And once in, the Romans made an excellent job of obliterating the cultures of those that didn't cooperate. There are just glimpses of the pre-Roman cultures left, but they don't seem to have been wild hairy brutes. In fact have a look at some nice metalwork - just the spout of a Gaulish flagon: http://
Problem being, we only have written records of those sort of battle encounters from the Roman side.
And once in, the Romans made an excellent job of obliterating the cultures of those that didn't cooperate. There are just glimpses of the pre-Roman cultures left, but they don't seem to have been wild hairy brutes. In fact have a look at some nice metalwork - just the spout of a Gaulish flagon: http://
a) the romans were ruthless, and few could stand up to their military discipline
b) they wanted more and more land, to settle veteran soldiers on. All Romans, especially the veterans, wanted land of their own - the only type of security for their families and their old age. Once the veterans were settled on newly conquered land, these became the new bulwark of the republic/empire.
c) the Romans had to suppress all competitors, real and imagined, such as the Socii, Carthaginians, barbarians, etc
d) the greek city states were surrounded by more difficult terrain than Rome. Because of hilly surroundings and uninhabitable geography, for them expansion would have meant complete subjection of nearby cities, or else distant colonisation - of say bits of Africa
e) the Phoenicians did have an empire, by the standards of those days
b) they wanted more and more land, to settle veteran soldiers on. All Romans, especially the veterans, wanted land of their own - the only type of security for their families and their old age. Once the veterans were settled on newly conquered land, these became the new bulwark of the republic/empire.
c) the Romans had to suppress all competitors, real and imagined, such as the Socii, Carthaginians, barbarians, etc
d) the greek city states were surrounded by more difficult terrain than Rome. Because of hilly surroundings and uninhabitable geography, for them expansion would have meant complete subjection of nearby cities, or else distant colonisation - of say bits of Africa
e) the Phoenicians did have an empire, by the standards of those days
I was going to say I assume they were nasty bar stewards, well disciplined and managed; but it looks like everyone else, who probably know more than I, is suggesting much the same thing. Not that other invading forces were paragons of light and kindness but I suppose some are better at it than others.
Lots to think about, but I'm still searching for the definitive.
Atalanta - The old business of giving land to loyal troops had been done for centuries by others - not unique to Rome. I'm not convinced easier terrain was a factor - the Alps aren't exactly easy. And the Phoenicians only acted in concert when trying to stave off Rome - they didn't form a cohesive empire outside of that event. But by adaopting the successes of others on such a huge scale, the Latins came to the fore.
Atalanta - The old business of giving land to loyal troops had been done for centuries by others - not unique to Rome. I'm not convinced easier terrain was a factor - the Alps aren't exactly easy. And the Phoenicians only acted in concert when trying to stave off Rome - they didn't form a cohesive empire outside of that event. But by adaopting the successes of others on such a huge scale, the Latins came to the fore.
No one has mentioned the phenomenal economic success compared to the other usual suspects
The affluence was incredible and I suppose got people supporting the status quo. Altho ? Caradonius is the first non Roman quoted in Latin - you create a desert and call it Peace. There is no doubt the standard of living was much better than the succeeding 1000 y and possibly 1500 y ( but not China )
In archeology the strata the Romans left is frequently thicker than the strata for the next 1000 y taken together. And the things they threw away .....
The affluence was incredible and I suppose got people supporting the status quo. Altho ? Caradonius is the first non Roman quoted in Latin - you create a desert and call it Peace. There is no doubt the standard of living was much better than the succeeding 1000 y and possibly 1500 y ( but not China )
In archeology the strata the Romans left is frequently thicker than the strata for the next 1000 y taken together. And the things they threw away .....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.