Times of war tend to bring out both the strengths and weaknesses of a society. This is particularly true of Republican Rome. Please read through one or two of the selections linked below. Pick out an incident/passage that shows either the surprising nature of Roman success or one of the characteristics of Republican Rome that makes that success not so surprising.Selections you should find interesting include: Livy's description of the Roman method of declaring war, Livy's account of the war with and eventual destruction of Veii (Book V, sections 1-23), Livy's account of the Sack of Rome by the Gauls and Camillus' rescue of Rome (Book V, sections 33-55), Polybius' description of The Battle of Cannae, Polybius' comparison of the Roman maniple to the Macedonian phalanx, and Polybius' description of Roman government.
Thus, while each of these separate parts is enabled either to assist or obstruct the rest, the government, by the apt contexture of them all in the general frame, is so well secured against every accident, that it seems scarcely possible to invent a more perfect system. For when the dread of any common danger, that threatens from abroad, constrains all the orders of the state to unite together, and co-operate with joint assistance; such is the strength of the republic........I find this selection to be one of the characteristics of Republican Rome that make success not so suprising. They put together a good system that worked for a long period of time.
ReplyDeleteI find that the battlefield strategy described in Polybius' "comparison of the Roman maniple to the Macedonian phalanx" is a good example of why Roman success, at least militarily, is not surprising. The relative flexability afforded by the Roman fighting technique was important, especially considering that the Roman army in the early Republic was made up mostly of citizen soldiers, rather than a standing army of professional troops. The ability to divide forces into ever smaller units and move them around to more advantageous positions, rather than relying on perfect battlefield conditions, was beneficial for them when they faced the Macedonians. It is a strategy that is still employed by the modern U.S. forces with great success.
ReplyDelete109. "But now the conditions were quite different. For in the first place both Consuls were with the army: and were not only prepared to share the danger themselves, but had also induced the Consuls of the previous year to remain and take part in the struggle."
ReplyDelete..."In spite of all, however, the Senate left no means untried to save the State. It exhorted the people to fresh exertions, strengthened the city with guards, and deliberated on the crisis in a brave and manly spirit. And subsequent events made this manifest. For though the Romans were on that occasion indisputably beaten in the field, and had lost their reputation for military prowess; by the peculiar excellence of their political constitution, and the prudence of their counsels, they not only recovered their supremacy over Italy, by eventually conquering the Carthaginians, but before very long became masters of the whole world."
These passages show the Roman's attitudes and policies towards battle and war. They defended their country with all their might and strength, which shows their dedication and values. Engaging in skirmishes with the enemy for 2 continual years and involving current and past consuls shows the level of this dedication. They obviously didn't lose the battle because of lack of commitment or verve, so I find these attitudes to be a strength of the Romans.
As discussed in class, Romans lost battles, not wars. The second paragraph that especially impressed me was one that described Rome's later reacquisition of the Italian coast, the land that they had lost to the Carthaginians in the Battle of Cannae. The Romans did this by good political and civil practices- other strengths of Roman society.
Because of these strengths, I am not surprised that Rome did so well.
One reason I think that the Republic was successful was that it was held together not only by strong men, but by a religious background that all of the people could get behind. The decision to go to war was not in the hands of a few men, but by the gods themselves. This could definitely unite a people behind the purpose of going to war, even if they don't agree with it.
ReplyDelete"Hear, O Jupiter, and hear ye lands _____ [i.e., of such and such a nation], let Justice hear! I am a public messenger of the Roman people. Justly and religiously I come, and let my words bear credit! Then he makes his demands, and follows with a solemn appeal to Jupiter. If I demand unjustly and impiously that these men and goods [in question] be given to me, the herald of the Roman people, then suffer me never to enjoy again my native country! "
"Wherefore, men of the army," he continued, "seeing that we have every advantage on our side for securing a victory, there is only one thing necessary---your determination, your zeal! And I do not think I need say more to you on that point. To men serving others for pay, or to those who fight as allies on behalf of others, who have no greater danger to expect than meets them on the field, and for whom the issues at stake are of little importance---such men may need words of exhortation. But men who, like you, are fighting not for others, but themselves---for country, wives, and children; and for whom the issue is of far more momentous consequence than the mere danger of the hour, need only to be reminded: require no exhortation. For who is there among you who would not wish if possible to be victorious; and next, if that may not be, to die with arms in his hands, rather than to live and see the outrage and death of those dear objects which I have named?
ReplyDelete"Wherefore, men of the army, apart from any words of mine, place before your eyes the momentous difference to you between victory and defeat, and all their consequences. Enter upon this battle with the full conviction, that in it your country is not risking a certain number of legions, but her bare existence. For she has nothing to add to such an army as this, to give her victory, if the day now goes against us. All she has of confidence and strength rests on you; all her hopes of safety are in your hands. Do not frustrate those hopes: but pay back to your country the gratitude you owe her; and make it clear to all the world that the former reverses occurred, not because the Romans are worse men than the Carthaginians, but from the lack of experience on the part of those who were then fighting, and through a combination of adverse circumstances." With such words Aemilius dismissed the troops.
I found this little speech that Aemilius gave to his troops summed up all of what we had been going over in class about what Romans found important. Although the Romans were not successful in every single battle they still fought hard, and were constantly reminded about why and who they were fighting for. Yes the other citizens, and their family members were important, but Rome itself was an important idea to fight for. Their whole idea about the importance of virtus I think is shown in Aemilius' speech to this men. Not only what he says, but I believe that the men who fought were in great agreeance with what he is saying to them which makes this that much more compelling. It is one thing to have great words spoken, but it's another for your men to agree on exactlty what you are saying as well.
The success of Rome is evident when you look at the laws and processes of government. When a country is growing, especially at a faster rate, it is easy for that country to become power hungry. As this greed grows they may begin to attack outside their capability and lose territory. The Romans, however, had a very new solution to this problem.
ReplyDeleteBy using so many steps to declare war, the Romans were able to control their growing nation. The original confrontation stated at the beginning allowed the enemy to be examined and allowed for an alternative. By using the council to declare war it made it much harder for the greed of one man to destroy Rome. All of these things used in one package may have made it less surprising that Rome was so successful.
Battle of Cannae
ReplyDeleteUnity of Command – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort.
“Up to that time both Consuls had never been engaged together…”
“On the second day they arrived within sight of them, and pitched their camp at about fifty stadia distance. But when Aemilius observed that the ground was flat and bare for some distance round, he said that they must not engage there with an enemy superior to them in cavalry; but that they must rather try to draw him off, and lead him to ground on which the battle would be more in the hands of the infantry. But Caius Terentius being, from inexperience, of a contrary opinion, there was a dispute and misunderstanding between the two leaders, which of all things is the most dangerous. It is the custom, when the two Consuls are present, that they should take the chief command on alternate days; and the next day happening to be the turn of Terentius, he ordered an advance with a view of approaching the enemy, in spite of the protests and active opposition of his colleague.”
That is why unity of command is probably the most important principle of war - an army needs to focus on one plan of attack…too many cooks in the kitchen is never a good thing. Although, it could be argued that if Terentius had been in sole command disaster would have still occurred since he had a faulty plan - playing into the strengths of Hannibal. As it was, there is little doubt that the Roman soldiers knew of this disagreement due to the “protests and active opposition of his colleague.” Doubt is the last thing that needs to be on the minds of soldiers on the eve of battle.
“But next day Aemilius, not thinking it right to engage, and yet being unable any longer to lead off his army, encamped with two-thirds of it on the banks of the Apennines---that chain of mountains which forms the watershed of all Italian rivers…”
The whole changing of command on a daily basis is also fraught with danger - especially when the two generals have such completely differing opinions on how to run the campaign. Aemilius was totally against Terentius’ plan of attack, but after the first day the Roman forces were deployed to such a degree that he really didn’t have the option of falling back and going with his plan - he was stuck. Another good rule - never defend with a river at your back…you need the ability to have a tactical withdrawal to re-group and counterattack.
“The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily closing in towards the center and the part of the enemy which was giving ground, advanced so far that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on either wing got on their flanks. … Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans…”
Not protecting one’s flanks…another formula for disaster.
From “The Roman Maniple vs. The Macedonian Phalanx”:
“First, by the conclusion of the war: for as soon as the Romans got a general of ability comparable with that of Hannibal, victory was not long in following their banners.”
Hannibal’s ability cannot be disputed, nor can the ability of the ability of the Roman general being mentioned here (thinking it’s probably Scipio). However, the fact that the Roman general in question was in sole control (as far as I can tell) had a lot to do with their newfound successes. But, in the end the Romans hunkered down and lived up to the idea that they might lose battles, but never wars.
What shows a surprising nature of Roman success to me is how the Romans went into people villages and basically ask to take over them. The Romans just did not attack people for no reason instead they gave watch an gave the villages 30 days to give in or war will come to them. This help the Romans as time went and the countries around them respected them for this even though war always came about.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman method for declaring war is interesting. I like that they believe if their demands were unjust that they wouldn't be coming home. That would make me think twice about why I was going into a differnt country to make war. It kind of ties into that Roman honor, which I think makes it less surprising that Rome was successful.
ReplyDeleteThe sack of Rome by the Gauls was definatly a shot to Rome's mystic and makes a very strong case that it is a period of weakness in their history but it did give them one thing that they applied to everything they did for the forseeable future... motivation.
ReplyDeleteAfter Camillus came to the rescue and defeated the Gauls, Rome was motivated by the fact that their beloved city had fallen. They took it as an insult and thus the city of Rome itself would not be attacked for another 700 years. Just think, the United States has exsisted for around 230 years and how many times have we been attacked? Between DC getting burned in the war of 1812, Pearl Habor, and 9/11; it's been more than a few.
This has to be a strength because it showed the pride the Romans had for their homeland and that they were willing to defend it at all costs. And THAT is why their sucess is not surprising to me anyway.
Hear, O Jupiter, and hear ye lands _____ [i.e., of such and such a nation], let Justice hear! I am a public messenger of the Roman people. Justly and religiously I come, and let my words bear credit! Then he makes his demands, and follows with a solemn appeal to Jupiter. If I demand unjustly and impiously that these men and goods [in question] be given to me, the herald of the Roman people, then suffer me never to enjoy again my native country!
ReplyDeleteI think passage makes Rome's success not surprising. Romans had faith in their gods that they were behind them. However,its surprising to me that Rome gave out such a warning because it took away the element of surprise. But I think the reward of feeling that the gods are on your side is more of an advantage than letting the enemies no your coming is a disadvantage. Also the warning could put fear into the people of the opposing country and make the opposing government give in.
Ruth Wilson
ReplyDeleteThe flexability of the Roman army was key. I'm not just talking about the difference between the phalanx and the monopole, but the way they shifted around generals, too. When one guy wasn't having success, they switched him for another. When faced with a river or fortifications, the Macidonians were forced to break up their phalanx to move around the obstical, thus giving up what made it awsome: it's protective shell. The manopole, on the other hand, didn't really have a firm foundation to be in. Sure, they had rank and file stuff, but it was secondary to their great flexability. Not supprising that the Romans could catch the Macedonians with their pant down, so to speak.