Romans

[VELISARIOS]

Because I have seen some interest about the Roman empire (from other post) lets discuss this.
What is your opinion about Roman empire?
What make Romans to conquer all known world? And how their heirs Byzantines (Greeks) keep for above 1000 years the empire alive?It was the superior war tactics? Better war equipment? Political and diplomatic power? or all of them?
What are your opinions and your sourses about this?

[rcmatthews]

All of the above. Of course, I am partial to the Romans since I am a classics major with an emphasis in Latin. Really though, most of the Roman "empire" was established during the Roman republic, with Caesar pretty much conquering France in about 10 years.

Roman battle tactics were quite effective when fighting hordes of unorganized barbarians*, but not when fighting other well disciplined units, such as other Romans. It was sort of like a line of musketmen firing volleys at each other until one side gave up.

I believe the most important reason the Romans were able to sustain their empire for so long was their willingness to assimilate other cultures, rather than trying to convert them into Romans. This was due partially to the polytheistic religion. It was not a problem for the Romans to quickly adopt an interesting cult from one of the far reaches of the empire, such as Mithras or Cybele. As long as the inhabitants were willing to respect the Roman state gods with sacrifices, there was not a problem. This avoidance of conversion allowed for relatively peaceful takeovers once the Romans had defeated an enemy in battle.

An interesting anecdote, barbarian is a a greek term basically refering to anyone who did not speak Greek. Supposedly this was because to the Greeks, non-Greek speaker sounded like "bar-bar bar-bar-bar"
More later, it is late and I am tired

[Schiavona]

When I was studying history, I was very drawn to the Romans. They were (overall) a very practical people. A very "engineering" culture. Their armies were made up of soldiers, in a very modern sense, not warriors.

I often felt that it was the Punic Wars that led Rome to keep expanding and having client kingdoms on their borders as buffer states, just as the USSR did.

[Moses]

I appreciate the medieval concept of the Roman Empire as representative of a long-gone golden age to which every European municipality aspired. So much of European and Russian culture up to and including the Enlightenment drew inspiration or supposed lineage from Rome (Moscow was the Third Rome, the visual metaphors developed in revolutionary France between it and Republican Rome, etc.). I find that intriguing.

However, I view many of their achievements as a product of supreme organization and assimilation of other ideas and technologies, which is so much less romantic than the Eurocentric vision of the Romans as an inspired people. Viewed this way they are no more interesting than their counterparts in other parts of the world or history.

I find the conquered personalities so much more interesting: Hannibal Barca and the whole Barca clan, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Spartacus, etc. That is not to say that Rome itself has not created interesting people: Scipio Africanus Major is one of my 'heroes'.

Their engineering is absolutely stunning (which is largely a product of bureaucratic processes) when placed in the context of the times.

-Da Mose

[KD5MDK]

I would say the Romans were the triumph of organization over chaos. A rather rare thing, one finds.

It was sort of like a line of musketmen firing volleys at each other until one side gave up.

The problem is, it really must be recognized that there were no superior alternatives, just like in World War I it took years of experimentation before anything resembling effective tactics were devised, and even then it wasn't much better than it had been before. The myth of the clever Americans beating the dumb British really has tarnished the military history of the 18th century.

[PalmFrond]

To be honest, I'm very wary of these 'historical metanarrative' types of question. Too easy to overdetermine things and you risk lapsing into essentialism. Initially expansion was aided by good political organisation - it didn't matter too much if their war leaders (consuls) fell in battle because armies were not held together by the prestige or magnetism of any one individual, so generals could always be chosen again without necessarily losing combat effectiveness. For the rest of it...well, ancient historians explained it by referring to chance, manifest destiny,defensive imperialism, land hunger/desire for gain, the unquenchable spirit of the Roman people etc. Take your pick, and throw in a few modern preconceptions for good measure!

BTW, Roman organisation was remarkably effective given its small scale - at the height of the bureaucracy of the Late Empire, 30,000 civil servants governed (it is estimated) 50-60 million people. That's about one-twenty-fifth the size per head of population of the Chinese imperial bureaucracy.

Roman battle tactics were quite effective when fighting hordes of unorganized barbarians*, but not when fighting other well disciplined units, such as other Romans. It was sort of like a line of musketmen firing volleys at each other until one side gave up.

Not quite. Roman troops excelled at fighting pitched battles against any foe. They weren't quite so good at irregular warfare (see the Tacfarinas episode for a good example) and hence employed auxiliaries and numeri to do most of the really dirty work, rather than the legionaries. Naturally, it's usually easier to defeat untrained irregulars in a straight fight than well-disciplined regulars although the irregulars tend to be harder to thoroughly defeat, even in a pitched battle.

Just to finish: would anyone care to define what exactly 'Roman' means? (In my post, I used it in the sense of an imperial administration which until the Late Empire was based in the city of Rome).

[Aqua_volans]

i always love to think what would happen if we stuck alexander the great and julius caesar on opposite sides of a battlefield.

[Aqua_volans]

_ | _ | _ |_ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _| _
= _ _ _ _ _ phalanx_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = =
////// _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = \\\\\\\\\\\
/companions = = companions\
=

this should be what caesar sees, anybody care to fill in the other side? (of course there are more phalanxes and companion cavalry units. but for simplicities sake i'm not gonna add them in) the =s represent peltasts. usually scattered here and there. as the name suggests, they pelt enemies with watever they had. its not showing but the phalanx is in the middle and the companion cavalry is at the sides. starting slightly behind the phalanx

[Gav]

I don't understand the question.

What is my opinion of which aspect? Are we talking about the republic or the Empire? Are we talking about pre or post Marius? Are we discussing tactics, campaigns, politics or what?

There's a reason why a lot of the books about the Romans are so huge.

[Aqua_volans]

erm. i'm talking military tactics. PalmFrond talks military AND government.

its a very general topic. so i think anything roman is not Off Topic (i think)

[Gav]

erm. i'm talking military tactics. PalmFrond talks military AND government.

its a very general topic. so i think anything roman is not Off Topic (i think)

Sorry AV: wasn't replying to you - but to the thread in general.

[KD5MDK]

Roman troops excelled at fighting pitched battles against any foe.

Except the Parthians.

Also, distinguishing between what was "Roman" and what was "Byzantine" is a tricky issue, and I have to say I found some of the later developments there particularly interesting (such as the cataphract and galleys with greek fire).

[gtmac]

Except the Parthians.

Yeah, they didn't do so well against the Picts either.

[Morion]

I was always fond of Vercingetorix (sp?). He very nearly defeated the Romans by avoiding direct conflict. If only he hadn't decided to defend that one city that refused to evacuate he might have stopped them.

Note: It's been a long time since I read that book so I hope I got the facts right.

[RoninX]

Except the Parthians.

Also, distinguishing between what was "Roman" and what was "Byzantine" is a tricky issue, and I have to say I found some of the later developments there particularly interesting (such as the cataphract and galleys with greek fire).

Well, as to the partians the whole problem was that they rarely fought pitched battles against them romans.

In regards to Byzantium - it is a very interesting subject to study. And the break with the west certainly isn't clean. I would be interested in hearing people opinions on the date they consider the "start of the byzantine empire".

[PalmFrond]

Except the Parthians.

They didn't have a bad record against the Parthians and Sassanians - barring a few embarrassing defeats! To wit, the (temporarily) successful campaigns or annexations of Mesopotamia by Trajan, Severus and Julian among others. Mostly Roman setbacks in the East were due to unfavourable campaigning conditions - disease, lack of food (partly due to the strict anti-collaboration policies of the Sassanian administration) and overstretched lines of supply - rather than defeat in battle. Of course, as I observed, the more disciplined the enemy one faces, the more one's chances of success decrease in a pitched battle.

[PalmFrond]

Yeah, they didn't do so well against the Picts either.

Care to cite specific instances? Barring 367 of course, after which they still managed to reassert imperial control of the province. They only withdrew from Britain about 30 or 40 years later.

[Mr Epee]

I always thought I had a pretty good handle on Roman Empire stuff... and then I spent some time in Rome.

That place will blow your mind.

Truely

[Elendae]

An interesting anecdote, barbarian is a a greek term basically refering to anyone who did not speak Greek. Supposedly this was because to the Greeks, non-Greek speaker sounded like "bar-bar bar-bar-bar"
More later, it is late and I am tired

Really? I always thought it was derived from <i>barba</i>- beard- referring to the fact that they didn't shave... Maybe they stole the word from the Greeks.

[Feltan]

... Supposedly this was because to the Greeks, non-Greek speaker sounded like "bar-bar bar-bar-bar"

I almost broke out singing a Beach Boys song while reading that.

Regards,
Feltan