why Roman republic was so successful

[unmerged(8913)]

Re: hellenistic kingdoms

Originally posted by panderson
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.

Well, the easy answer is that when Rome fought Carthage, the two nations were somewhat comperable in size and power (at least in the first two wars). When Rome fought the Greeks, she was much, much larger and more powerful than any of the individual Greek kingdoms she fought. The only exception to this was of course the war against Epirus before the First Punic War, and this was a much, much closer match for the Romans than later Greek wars. I think the disparity in "power" is one of the deciding factors in the later Greek wars.

 

[Yakman]

Well, the easy answer is that when Rome fought Carthage, the two nations were somewhat comperable in size and power (at least in the first two wars). When Rome fought the Greeks, she was much, much larger and more powerful than any of the individual Greek kingdoms she fought. The only exception to this was of course the war against Epirus before the First Punic War, and this was a much, much closer match for the Romans than later Greek wars. I think the disparity in "power" is one of the deciding factors in the later Greek wars.

More important than that was the problem of leadership in Greece. Had the Greeks united or had better leaders, the Romans would have had a lot of problems. But the Roman system was so good and the Greek system so far gone that the really was no contest.

 

[Gordy]

There have been a couple of history documentaries on UK TV recently on the subject of Carthage.

Their main conclusions are that while Romans were very good at making people feel Roman with lots of public places like bath houses Carthagians weren't so good at this and had few such public places or monuments.

Carthage couldn't rely on its allies even the Phoenicians who were a closely related people betrayed them. Hannibal wasn't supported by Carthage very well because after years in Iberia he was considered a foreigner.

Hannibal didn't march on Rome because his men weren't very good at seiges his victories had come from clever ambushes. He was waiting on Carthagian reinforcements that never came.

Rome got a lot of technology from Carthage such as the previously mentioned boats, horticulture and concrete that can set in the sea.

 

[Yakman]

Rome had a better system of governance as well. It was truly a "Republic" with all members of the body politic [except the truly impoverished] participating in elections and even the lowest having some say in the Plebian Assembly.

Carthage was more reliant on the rule of one man, Hannibal Barca and then Hannibal.

 

[Aetius]

The rumor was that it was rich in something, cant exactly remember.

It was tin

 

[OLDTIMER]

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.

Hi boys,

you miss the only valid explanation to the Roman conquest of Greece and helllenistic states:

- ROMANS HAD GREEK ALLIES TO DO THE JOB FOR THEM!

Aitolians against Macedon, Pergamon at Magnesia were the decisive factors netting a Roman victory. So it`s more a success of Roman diplomacy exploiting internecine greek conflicts than anything else.

Rgds, Oldtimer(inveterate Hellenophile)

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Hi boys,

you miss the only valid explanation to the Roman conquest of Greece and helllenistic states:

- ROMANS HAD GREEK ALLIES TO DO THE JOB FOR THEM!

Aitolians against Macedon, Pergamon at Magnesia were the decisive factors netting a Roman victory. So it`s more a success of Roman diplomacy exploiting internecine greek conflicts than anything else.

Rgds, Oldtimer(inveterate Hellenophile)

Hmmm, yes... and of course the Roman Legions had nothing to do with those victories whatsoever...

Right. :wacko:

 

[Avernite]

Well, I rather intensively studied the Roman conquest of Macedon, and it comes down to a few points:

-Macedon didn't pummel Rome while it was weak (2PW) but instead fought half-heartedly, getting only minor Roman concessions while earning great hatred in Rome.
Together with Carthage they could've possibly beaten Rome and then possibly established supremacy over Greece, thus gaining a somewhat equal power to Carthage, and possibly staying around as a great power.

-Macedon, after getting great Roman emnity in the 2PW, continued to attempt to gain power in Greece. The cities didn't like that, and thus turned to Rome for aid. Here, divide et impera proved decisive. The Romans could easily attack the Macedonian heartland, and thus could easily beat them totally, through the aid of their allies.

-Perseus, the last Macedonian king, didn't like Romans, it appears. However, when he came to power, Rome was the strongest force in the vicinity, only Persia or Egypt might have had a chance against them.
However, Perseus acted as if Greece was still the pinnacle of civilization, and thus if he held half of Greece or at least had over half of Greek combatants on his side, he could win even with Roman interference. Maybe he didn't think of it that way, but he acted like it. As such, he was aiming for a confrontation that could've established his dominance over Greece, had Rome not existed. with Rome, it was suicide.

At least, that's what I think.

So, the allies were good for them, but I think the idea of total war and undying emnity proved fatal for Greece. Rome fought enemies who had pummeled her only slightly while she was down to the death, while in Greece alliances shifted far more often and the Macedonians could have been worse off had they beaten up Rome while she could. Fr Macedon, Rome was a potential ally, even after the 2PW, but for Rome this was impossible.

But offcourse, this may sound as nonsense t you

 

[unmerged(2868)]

Rome's Drang nach Osten was motivated by a search for loot. I think Macedon should have never given Rome a reason to intervene in Hellenistic kingdom's affairs.

 

[Yakman]

Rome's Drang nach Osten was motivated by a search for loot. I think Macedon should have never given Rome a reason to intervene in Hellenistic kingdom's affairs.

Hindsight is 20/20

 

[unmerged(18564)]

last question:

Happy this old thread is still alive!

Last question:

PARTHIANS and SASSANIDS were the only civilized people which could withstand the Romans and mantain their indipendence. How they accomplished this amazing feat unlike Persians against Alexander?

Were they just too far away from roman logistic bases?

.

 

[Yakman]

Happy this old thread is still alive!
PARTHIANS and SASSANIDS were the only civilized people which could withstand the Romans and mantain their indipendence. How they accomplished this amazing feat unlike Persians against Alexander?

Were they just too far away from roman logistic bases?

That's part of it. Another part was the defeat they meted out to Krassus. It scared the Romans out of making another serious attempt.

Moreover, the Sassanids were smarter and stronger than the Archaemonids. They were ruled by a Hellenized class that was managing the empire better than Darius [who it must be remember, was a pretender, and did not have 100% loyalty from his subjects].

Also, there was no Roman Alexander. Alexander as a historical figure has few companions, and those have names like Napoleon and Hannibal. Perhaps if Julius Kaesar had decided to attack Parthia, then the story would be different, but he decided to go to Rome and get himself stabbed.

 

[unmerged(18564)]

Mmm...

I suppose Romans weren't scared at all by Carrhae.
Look at these sites:

http://www.livius.org/pan-paz/parthia/parthia01.html
http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sassanids/sassanids.htm

There were dozens of wars between Rome and Persia.
If Persians managed to resist for 400 years to the romans, decisive strategic factors should be involved.
A similar situation can be founded in wars between Ottoman Turks and Safavid Persians.

.

 

[Jove]

Trajan did take out the heartland (mesopotamia) of the Persian Empire, but there really was no good way to keep control. Roman Imperias were having a hell of a time controlling what they had as it was. To intrust a general with men to hold the area so far from Rome, I think, would have led to yet another break away Empire (like the Gaulic or that held by Zeno). Anyway, I don't think Rome had the desire to take more land and Trajan was the last ruler that I see with a desire to conquoer.

 

[Yakman]

Trajan did take out the heartland (mesopotamia) of the Persian Empire, but there really was no good way to keep control. Roman Imperias were having a hell of a time controlling what they had as it was. To intrust a general with men to hold the area so far from Rome, I think, would have led to yet another break away Empire (like the Gaulic or that held by Zeno). Anyway, I don't think Rome had the desire to take more land and Trajan was the last ruler that I see with a desire to conquoer.

The Romans Emperors were more concerned with maintaining the frontier. Only three major conquests occurred under the Emperors: Britain, Dacia, Mesopotamia.

It was the greedy, land grabbing Republic that was expanding at a furious pace.

 

[unmerged(20902)]

Yakman, i fear you are wrong. there was another conquest of the romans which failed.

Have you forgotten Germany?? Arminius and the battle of saltus teutoburgiensis? The romans lost three legions in Germany. not to shabby, or?

Greetings Spielhase

 

[Jove]

There was also an attemp to conquer Scottland that Agricola was recalled from his position for being too successful.

 

[unmerged(18564)]

Pardon:

http://www.livius.org/pan-paz/parthia/parthia02.html

 

[unmerged(10416)]

Yakman, i fear you are wrong. there was another conquest of the romans which failed.

Have you forgotten Germany?? Arminius and the battle of saltus teutoburgiensis? The romans lost three legions in Germany. not to shabby, or?

Greetings Spielhase

Recent research seems to indicate that this wasn't the only Roman attempt to push the frontiers east. I read an article in the Spiegel magazine a while ago where some archeologist argued that the Romans waged not just a few battles but a long, bloody war against the free Germanic tribes. The Saltus Teutoburgiensis was only one of the climaxes of that offensive, and not even the last one. The whole thing was stopped when it became to costly, around 15AD - apparently there is archeological evidence that the Romans kept marching large armies through Germania libera even after the Varus battle. (The article mentioned stuff like huge supply depots, military roads, facilities for soldiers on leave behind the front line and the naval port at the Rhine estuary.)

 

[Yakman]

Yakman, i fear you are wrong. there was another conquest of the romans which failed.

Have you forgotten Germany?? Arminius and the battle of saltus teutoburgiensis? The romans lost three legions in Germany. not to shabby, or?

Greetings Spielhase

Most of that territory was acquired under the Republic if I am not mistaken. Little new territory was formally under Roman rule. Correct me if I'm wrong though.