Carthage only had the coast in Sardinia, Rome fought hard to subdue the interior, there would be little chance of enfranchisement here while mainland areas still had not been granted it for loyal service.
HB
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Carthage only had the coast in Sardinia, Rome fought hard to subdue the interior, there would be little chance of enfranchisement here while mainland areas still had not been granted it for loyal service.
HB
Actually, by the 3rd century the Carthaginians had pushed well inland in Sardinia (e.g. the fortress settlement of Monte Sirai) - only the northeast third of the island was "free". The Sardinian resistance against the Romans during the 2nd Punic war seems to have been supported by Carthage (no surprise as the Roman take over of the island was questionable to say the least).
Leaving that aside though the fact that Rome chose to make the former Carthaginian part of Sicily a province and Syracuse a client-kingdom marks a shift in how Rome dealt with conquered territory.
The fact that Rome exacted the same tithe in "Carthaginian" part of the island as Carthage formerly did could indicate that the provincia system was influenced by the Carthaginian system of rule. Certainly the Roman and Carhaginian political systems have some similarities which might in part go back on the long history of their relations (first treaty in 509BC).
Yep, I know this has been ver mych debated in the academic field - Grand Design or Accidental Conquest.
Going by the description provided by Polybius for the epoch of the First Punic War to the end of the Third Punic War its very easy to see (IMO) that Rome was an Imperial power where their old internal patron-client system was imposed on their neighbours on a macro scale.
The earlier expansion (e.g. the Latin War, the Samnite Wars and the Pyrrhic War) seems more haphazard.
Cheers,
Vandelay
In 390 bc Rome controlled Latium
From
http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/earlyrep-index.html
-By the end of the fifth century BC Rome had in fact become all but the mistress of Latium. The Latin cities, known as the Latin League, might have still been independent, but they were increasingly subject to Roman power and influence.
A final war with Veii ended with definite conquest (396 BC) which added a great area on the west of the Tiber to Roman territory.
The decisive victory was in part due to pressure on Etruria by a new enemy, the Gauls, who by this time had completely overrun the basin of the Po and from there were crossing the Apennines into Etruria itself.
The Etruscans had also been driven out of their possessions in Campania, south-east of Latium, by the Samnites, descending from the hills. -
Let's try these explanations
a)Rome in 390 BC was too tiny to afford one heavy defeat
b)Walls of Rome weren't as good as in 2PW
If Alexander turned West Rome probably didn't have a chance.
"They had a structure of society entirely different from their competitors. They had a large base of free farmers, no real nobility and a real law."
Really interesting Mr Mullender ... Could I ask you to explain the concept more in detail?
Weren't patricians nobles?
What do you mean with real law?
Was roman society unique in the Mediterranean? What about other Italian peoples (Ex: Samnites Etruscan or Magna Grecia)
From
http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/earlyrep-index.html
-By the end of the fifth century BC Rome had in fact become all but the mistress of Latium. The Latin cities, known as the Latin League, might have still been independent, but they were increasingly subject to Roman power and influence.
A final war with Veii ended with definite conquest (396 BC) which added a great area on the west of the Tiber to Roman territory.
The decisive victory was in part due to pressure on Etruria by a new enemy, the Gauls, who by this time had completely overrun the basin of the Po and from there were crossing the Apennines into Etruria itself.
The Etruscans had also been driven out of their possessions in Campania, south-east of Latium, by the Samnites, descending from the hills. -
Let's try these explanations
a)Rome in 390 BC was too tiny to afford one heavy defeat
b)Walls of Rome weren't as good as in 2PW
If Alexander turned West Rome probably didn't have a chance.
"They had a structure of society entirely different from their competitors. They had a large base of free farmers, no real nobility and a real law."
Really interesting Mr Mullender ... Could I ask you to explain the concept more in detail?
Weren't patricians nobles?
What do you mean with real law?
Was roman society unique in the Mediterranean? What about other Italian peoples (Ex: Samnites Etruscan or Magna Grecia)
To Mr."Barca"
"I believe you have half of the question, the rest of the question is the other way around, its not just about those around Rome but about Rome and the Senates actions that fuelled its expansion"
I think it's interesting to interpret these historical events in Darwinistic terms.
You have an arena where there are many bellicose political entities. You know that neibourghs are periodically going to fight each other whatever are the causes. Often Romans casus belli were quite feeble , (ex : there weren't reasons for Caesar to invade and conquer Transalpine Gaul other than glory and booty). Rome maybe was "the fittest" among these political entities in terms of strenght and stability.
"secondly, how will you explain the level of military comitment required in terms of manpower, to achieve the defeat of those states Rome subsumed?, the Hellenistic ones taking a fraction of that needed to defeat the celts for example."
1)Luttwak said that unimaginative barbarians didn't understand very well indirect threats , it wasn't easy to intimidate them
2)Maybe they were culturally bellicose and warlike. Despite their inferior equipment and tactics they were prone to fight.
3)Maybe periodically uncivilized barbarians were forced by war or famine to migrate en masse toward better lands. In these occasions they were really dangerous.
"The differences in political structure and economy between Carthage and Rome have been exaggerated "
There are two theories:
1) Rome and Carthage were quite similar in political structure , Rome won mainly because it controlled a greater population.
2) Rome and Carthage were different in political structure, Rome won mainly because its political structure provided more manpower than Carthage.
What's your opinion about?
Why Carthage and Rome had different ways to raise armies?
"I believe you have half of the question, the rest of the question is the other way around, its not just about those around Rome but about Rome and the Senates actions that fuelled its expansion"
I think it's interesting to interpret these historical events in Darwinistic terms.
You have an arena where there are many bellicose political entities. You know that neibourghs are periodically going to fight each other whatever are the causes. Often Romans casus belli were quite feeble , (ex : there weren't reasons for Caesar to invade and conquer Transalpine Gaul other than glory and booty). Rome maybe was "the fittest" among these political entities in terms of strenght and stability.
"secondly, how will you explain the level of military comitment required in terms of manpower, to achieve the defeat of those states Rome subsumed?, the Hellenistic ones taking a fraction of that needed to defeat the celts for example."
1)Luttwak said that unimaginative barbarians didn't understand very well indirect threats , it wasn't easy to intimidate them
2)Maybe they were culturally bellicose and warlike. Despite their inferior equipment and tactics they were prone to fight.
3)Maybe periodically uncivilized barbarians were forced by war or famine to migrate en masse toward better lands. In these occasions they were really dangerous.
"The differences in political structure and economy between Carthage and Rome have been exaggerated "
There are two theories:
1) Rome and Carthage were quite similar in political structure , Rome won mainly because it controlled a greater population.
2) Rome and Carthage were different in political structure, Rome won mainly because its political structure provided more manpower than Carthage.
What's your opinion about?
Why Carthage and Rome had different ways to raise armies?
(had it not bee nfor his sense of patriotiric duty, X) would not have delivered (our country) from invasion; nor would Gaius Duilius, Aulus Atilius, and Lucius Metellus have rescued it from the Punic menace; the two Scipios would not have extinguished with their blood the spreading conflagration of the 2nd Punic war; later, when it had borken out with greater fury, Q. Fabius Maximus would not have sapped its strength; Macus Metellus would not have beaten it down; and Publius Africanus would not ahve dragged it back from the gates of this city and penned it up within the enemy's walls.
Or take Marcus Cato, an obscure man without consular ancestors, a man to whom all of us who follow the same calling look up to as a kind of model, guiding us to perservance and prob ity. He might certainly have enjoyed his retirement at Tusculum, a healthy spot within easy reach of town. But that maniac, as those fellows call him, w/o being compelled by necessity, chose to be buffeted by these storm waves right into extremem old age.
Cicero De Re Publica,
trans Niall Rudd
Or take Marcus Cato, an obscure man without consular ancestors, a man to whom all of us who follow the same calling look up to as a kind of model, guiding us to perservance and prob ity. He might certainly have enjoyed his retirement at Tusculum, a healthy spot within easy reach of town. But that maniac, as those fellows call him, w/o being compelled by necessity, chose to be buffeted by these storm waves right into extremem old age.
Cicero De Re Publica,
trans Niall Rudd
Re: To Mr."Barca"
Ceaser went into areas he had no legal authority to intervene, he did have authority to not permit helveti to enter Roman and allied terriortory to get to where they were going, so its correct to say he acted outside the law. Ceaser took what action he did because he wanted to, not because Rome wanted to, there is a difference, as some elements wanted him over, effectivly as a war criminal.
Luttwalk explanation of their level of perception of abstract military power projection is valid, but it was not common only to Germanics/slavs nor is his point entirly valid here because he is addressing a later time period, one where the Roman Imerial state used political power projection to obtain a change in state policys rather than direct mil action, in the east this worked well and in NWE it did not work because the barbarians lacked a power base that had to be defended. But the same pressures of migration existed in the early republic as in the time luttwalk is concerned with, so to return to my question, why does Rome need compartive large numbers to take out Celtics and Germanics in Caesers and earlier day, and lower numbers in Imperial times?
Why does it take Caeser X number of legions to militarily defaet gaul when a fraction is required to take down hellinsitic ones.
HB
Ceaser went into areas he had no legal authority to intervene, he did have authority to not permit helveti to enter Roman and allied terriortory to get to where they were going, so its correct to say he acted outside the law. Ceaser took what action he did because he wanted to, not because Rome wanted to, there is a difference, as some elements wanted him over, effectivly as a war criminal.
Luttwalk explanation of their level of perception of abstract military power projection is valid, but it was not common only to Germanics/slavs nor is his point entirly valid here because he is addressing a later time period, one where the Roman Imerial state used political power projection to obtain a change in state policys rather than direct mil action, in the east this worked well and in NWE it did not work because the barbarians lacked a power base that had to be defended. But the same pressures of migration existed in the early republic as in the time luttwalk is concerned with, so to return to my question, why does Rome need compartive large numbers to take out Celtics and Germanics in Caesers and earlier day, and lower numbers in Imperial times?
Why does it take Caeser X number of legions to militarily defaet gaul when a fraction is required to take down hellinsitic ones.
HB
Maybe it has to do with the size of the areas and the ways in which the campaigns were conducted. Caesar was fighting in most of modern-day France, against a largely united population, over a period of only 10 years of so. The Hellenistic campaigns were largely smaller individual wars, fought against only a portion of the nations in the area, with another portion as allies. The Romans never had to take on all of those nations at the same time, and further, those wars took place over a much longer period of time than Caesar's did.
edit: hmm, that strange. It double posted, then I hit delete on the first one. It didn't delete, so I edited the second to say "double post." Then I came back later and the first one was gone!
Luckily I could still get to the post in my history folder, but that was quite odd....
Last edited:
Well, regarding Roman republican politics, I think that Rome's institutions were well fitted to governing Italy, but poor for administering a vast empire. The late republic isn't pretty.
Massive military expansion, followed by political collapse.
Massive military expansion, followed by political collapse.
to vendelay
Sure ... Carthaginians were tough too.
Wasn't Punic empire similar to Athens empire? One large mercantile capital with a big fleet which rules and exploit often harshly many coastal cities?
Is it possible to say that Romans were more successful than Carthaginians in assimilating the conquered? Probably they won 2PW because they could rely on Central Italy allies when Carthage could really rely only in itself.
Sure ... Carthaginians were tough too.
Wasn't Punic empire similar to Athens empire? One large mercantile capital with a big fleet which rules and exploit often harshly many coastal cities?
Is it possible to say that Romans were more successful than Carthaginians in assimilating the conquered? Probably they won 2PW because they could rely on Central Italy allies when Carthage could really rely only in itself.
Somewhat similar - I´ve always found Venice to be a better comparison for Carthage. An originally mercantile Empire which gradually acquired a landed aristocracy, used her navy to secure trading rights and combined royal, aristocratic and democratic elements in her political structure.
The difference between Carthage and Athens is that many of the Punic cities were originally Carthaginian colonies rather than once independent poleis (as the "members" of Athens Delian league were) - this tied them more strongly to the metropolis.
These cities, as well as the original Phoenician colonies such as Utica and Cadiz, also seem to have had a "limited citizenship" in Carthage i.e. no right to vote, but the right of intermarriage and equal status before the law (similar to Latin rights in Rome).
The Libyans of Africa proper (what later became the Roman province of Africa) of course didn´t have any of these rights and were also taxed more heavily (they also joined the mercenary rebellion after the 1st Punic War - notably none of the Punic cities seem to have IIRC).
To put it crudely I think Carthage had a more stable political infrastructure than the short-lived Athenian Empire, but not as strong as that of Middle Republican Rome.
Probably, yes. Note though that many North Africans seem to have spoken Punic until the Arab conquest and that e.g. the Kingdom of Numidia was heavily Punicized.
Of course, both Carthage and Rome were heavily Hellenized culturally.
Cheers,
Vandelay
Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
Maybe it has to do with the size of the areas and the ways in which the campaigns were conducted. Caesar was fighting in most of modern-day France, against a largely united population, over a period of only 10 years of so. The Hellenistic campaigns were largely smaller individual wars, fought against only a portion of the nations in the area, with another portion as allies. The Romans never had to take on all of those nations at the same time, and further, those wars took place over a much longer period of time than Caesar's did.
edit: hmm, that strange. It double posted, then I hit delete on the first one. It didn't delete, so I edited the second to say "double post." Then I came back later and the first one was gone!
Well done that was where i was going, Burster farm projects use ancient crops and techno to produce crop for Uk and NWE, from this, along with population and land area arrive at a yield capable of supporting operations, this allows us to produce a model to examine how ancient armys manouvered over ground.
Secondly to that is the way hellenistics viewed warfare, to them the issue was resolved by moving into your oponents land, defeating him in a series of battles that demonstrate your superiorty, and this new balance of power results in a new treaty recognising the balance, until in the future the results go another way followed by another treaty recognisising the changed circamstance. The Celts had a method of fighting amongst themselves that was different from that which they adopted in fighting Rome and the hellinstics, so they too had a concept of what warfare puropse was, and Romes was different from both, seeking a permenent solution to a war, not a temporary lull in operations, but continued and sustained war.
HB
In particular the cult of personality, which with Romes contact with greece soon pervaded roman thought.
HB
About tribal towns
Thanks Vandelay
Anyway the theory about Rome/Carthage difference is reported in "Carnage and culture" of Victor Davis Hanson on "Cannae" chapter. It's a pleasant description of many battles and how underying cultural elements influenced them.
I advise you a really interesting historical link: http://www.historyexplained.com/index.php/ebook/main/18/event=read
Tacitus said that in Germany there weren't towns (and maybe the same with Caledonia and Hibernia). Dacia instead during Trajan's times was almost semi-civilized (there were little towns like Sarmizgetusa and Apulum and rich silver mines). There were tribal towns in Britannia (Camulodunum, Londinium, Verulanium etc ...) and in Gaul (Lutetia, Avaricum, alesia,Gergovia, Burdigala, Tolosa etc...).
It makes sense why Romans didn't subdue uncivilized barbarians (Germania, Caledonia, Hibernia, Sarmatians, Scytians etc....)
-Little loot
-little revenue
-Not so weak Warlike tribes which cannot be easily frightened and controlled because they haven't fixed goods to protect.
-To receive revenue from these lands you have to exterminate these tribes (not easy task) and colonize them intensively (and Roman empire wasn't overpopulated). Too Much expensive and not real need.
-The only serious incentive to invade these lands was to provide military security, but this
task was well attained with Rhine-Danube line limes + Adrian wall .
Evidently glory wasn't sufficient incentive for a prolonged war with some defeat, so after a failed attempt to subdue Germany (Teutoburg wald) roman emperors contented themselve with the status-quo.
Is it right?
Thanks Vandelay
Anyway the theory about Rome/Carthage difference is reported in "Carnage and culture" of Victor Davis Hanson on "Cannae" chapter. It's a pleasant description of many battles and how underying cultural elements influenced them.
I advise you a really interesting historical link: http://www.historyexplained.com/index.php/ebook/main/18/event=read
Tacitus said that in Germany there weren't towns (and maybe the same with Caledonia and Hibernia). Dacia instead during Trajan's times was almost semi-civilized (there were little towns like Sarmizgetusa and Apulum and rich silver mines). There were tribal towns in Britannia (Camulodunum, Londinium, Verulanium etc ...) and in Gaul (Lutetia, Avaricum, alesia,Gergovia, Burdigala, Tolosa etc...).
It makes sense why Romans didn't subdue uncivilized barbarians (Germania, Caledonia, Hibernia, Sarmatians, Scytians etc....)
-Little loot
-little revenue
-Not so weak Warlike tribes which cannot be easily frightened and controlled because they haven't fixed goods to protect.
-To receive revenue from these lands you have to exterminate these tribes (not easy task) and colonize them intensively (and Roman empire wasn't overpopulated). Too Much expensive and not real need.
-The only serious incentive to invade these lands was to provide military security, but this
task was well attained with Rhine-Danube line limes + Adrian wall .
Evidently glory wasn't sufficient incentive for a prolonged war with some defeat, so after a failed attempt to subdue Germany (Teutoburg wald) roman emperors contented themselve with the status-quo.
Is it right?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1568/11_33/84246687/p1/article.jhtml?term=carnage+and+culture
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1282/20_53/78692128/p1/article.jhtml?term=carnage+and+culture
Ignore most everything hanson concludes,, his conclusions are politicly motivated and determined. read his works, but Try H Scullard 2 works instead for a more balanced viewpoint.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415305047/026-5743111-1682837
HB
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1282/20_53/78692128/p1/article.jhtml?term=carnage+and+culture
Ignore most everything hanson concludes,, his conclusions are politicly motivated and determined. read his works, but Try H Scullard 2 works instead for a more balanced viewpoint.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415305047/026-5743111-1682837
HB
Don´t much like Hanson either. He´s an essentialist (just like the late Said) - don´t trust´em. Too shallow investigations of vastly different cultures in vastly different times. Sometimes also a tendency to mix current day politics with events of the past.
I prefer the French Annales school when it comes to broader historical developments over time.
I agree that the Romans were generally smart enough to not conquer areas which lacked an urban or proto-urban infrastructure. Northern Britannia, trans-Rhine Germany and, possibly, Dacia are the exceptions and they became drains on the Empire´s manpower and finances.
The chiefdom across the various limes were easier controlled through gift exchange, bribes, trade etc. within the framework of the patron-client system.
Cheers,
Vandelay
I prefer the French Annales school when it comes to broader historical developments over time.
I agree that the Romans were generally smart enough to not conquer areas which lacked an urban or proto-urban infrastructure. Northern Britannia, trans-Rhine Germany and, possibly, Dacia are the exceptions and they became drains on the Empire´s manpower and finances.
The chiefdom across the various limes were easier controlled through gift exchange, bribes, trade etc. within the framework of the patron-client system.
Cheers,
Vandelay
One only has to see what a terrible drain in manpower it was for the Romans to "pacify" the whole of Iberia. We talk about the 10 years for Caesar to clean Gaul but tend to forget the horror of the peninsular wars.
Yes, there are some other areas than the ones I mentioned that were difficult to subdue and provided little revenue - one is the Hispanic interior (would the Romans even have bothered if it weren´t for the Galician gold-mines?), Lusitania and inner areas of the Balkans.
Cheers,
Vandelay
Cheers,
Vandelay
Vandelay
Thanks for your comments over the years, I have learned a lot. You are able to discuss intelligently a wide variety of topics.
I would also include Britan in that category. The rumor was that it was rich in something, cant exactly remember. It cost the romans more blood and money than they ever received back.
The interminable peninsula wars were one reason for the Gracchi. The wars had effectively ended the supply of propery qualified man power. In the East the Romans breezed to victory,
ie Pynda, Cynocephelae and others, but Iberia cost a lot of men.
Thanks for your comments over the years, I have learned a lot. You are able to discuss intelligently a wide variety of topics.
I would also include Britan in that category. The rumor was that it was rich in something, cant exactly remember. It cost the romans more blood and money than they ever received back.
The interminable peninsula wars were one reason for the Gracchi. The wars had effectively ended the supply of propery qualified man power. In the East the Romans breezed to victory,
ie Pynda, Cynocephelae and others, but Iberia cost a lot of men.
Thanks!!!
The History forums might be more placid than OT, but it´s usually a more civil and reasonable tone.
When it comes to Britain I´m sometimes inclined to agree with Robert Graves who wrote "I, Claudius" - perhaps Claudius invaded to show he was man enough to do it...
Sothern Britain was fairly developed (prot-urbanized, partially monteraized etc.) and not a bad prize but it was probably impossible to hold just the south - it would be too weak a position. As a consequence Britain became a drain on the coffers and on the manpower of Rome.
Cheers,
Vandelay
hellenistic kingdoms
Thanks HB
Penultimate question to close the post
Why Hellenistic kingdoms didn't fight Rome as Carthage did?
a-Many clients were annexed without a fight (like Pergamum, Bithynia and Cyrene)
b-Macedonia and Egypt fell after one defeat (Pydna and Actium)
c-The only exception is Pontus under Mithridates the great (three wars) but his armies weren't a match for the Romans.
Thanks HB
Penultimate question to close the post
Why Hellenistic kingdoms didn't fight Rome as Carthage did?
a-Many clients were annexed without a fight (like Pergamum, Bithynia and Cyrene)
b-Macedonia and Egypt fell after one defeat (Pydna and Actium)
c-The only exception is Pontus under Mithridates the great (three wars) but his armies weren't a match for the Romans.