Selections on Roman Warfare
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.
posted by Ancient Art at 9:10 AM
14 Comments:
I read the Roman way of declaring war. This is rather kind of odd; if the peaple speant so much time preparing and praying for a better outcome,they could have made peace instead. There were a lot of idle threats but the peaple had to wait for a message from the gods first. I did like the tale of the javlin being thrown and the people adopting that as a spear-----(maybe that was another tale??).
I read the comparison of the Roman's and the Macedonian's way of warfare. From this passage, I did not find it surprising that Rome was successful in war. The following passage attests to the way in which Rome enabled itself to be the victor. "The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others." Thus, the key to Roman success was their ability to adjust and be flexible in the art of war.
Originally, I felt that the Roman Empire's sucess was very suprising. However, after reading the article about Roman government, I was quick to change my mind. Given the structure of the government, there is no question in my mind why Rome was so successful. The Roman gov. consisted of the Senate, which was in control of the public treasury, the consuls, which prepared for war,and the people, who dispensed rewards and punishments. The people could also reject laws, reject peace or war, annul/ratify treaties, or sentence people to death. The structure of the government is very complex and was a combination of a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Rome also had a checks and balancing system between the senate, consuls, and the people. If the Empire was threatened all three branches would unite together. Morever, every citizen before the age of 44 had to serve either 10 in the calvary or 16 years in the infantry. They were ranked and divided according to height, age, skill, etc. They wore amor and used spears made with iron, which were more sophisticated than other surrounding countries. Needless to say, I was impressed with their complex gov. and military for their time. It is not suprising that their empire grew so quickly.
The Roman way of declaring war can be a way to success and a setback. They used a long process of declaring war and by doing so, the Romans could be sure that their war was just becasue if it wasn't, the gods would have sent them a sign, and had a long time to do so. If people think that their fight is the will of the gods, imagine how much more determined they will be to win. And this is probably why the Romans were able to establish their empire, becasue they were convined the gods were on their side, their wars were just, and therefore they deserved victory.
This method of declaring war can be a setback, however, because it does take such a long time to decide if the Romans should declare war or not. In all this time they could have made peace, like Todd says, or their enemy could kill them before they ever receive that sign from the gods telling them that war is the only way.
After reading through Book 5: The Veii and the Destruction of Rome by the Gauls, I noted that the success (or in this case, downfall) of Rome is reflected in the actions of some pretty important people.
5.2 Talks about the plebian soliders (free citizens) fighting throughout winter. It was not by choice, but because of the tribunes' cruelty, those men froze under skin tents and suffered through the winter. It became so that the Senate and the tribunes were almost always bickering with the other (5.3).
The original reason for tribunes were to keep the best interest of the plebians in mind, but lust for power and greed corrupted the system. It may have been men who lost to the Gauls, but it was the loss of morals which were the greatest defeat of the Romans in this section.
-amber eich
The Battle of Cannae showed some weaknesses that had arisen within the Roman army. The Romans had joined eight legions together forming a large army of 90,000 men. Two consuls, Aemilius and Terentius, were put in charge to lead this army against Hannibal at Cannae. Both consuls had different stategies. Aemilius wanted to be patient and find a suitable battle ground while Terentius was anxious for battle. The two consuls took turns commanding the army. This is not the proper way to run the army of all things. The two consuls should have discussed between each other and come up with the best overall battle plan. Instead, they went by whoever was in charge that day. This was one large weakness that resulted in the Romans losing the Battle of Cannae.
One strength that was shown came after the battle. The Senate and State did not show any signs of weakening. They did lose a battle but they did not lose their spirit and determination to remain the strongest country in the world. That is a great strength that Rome had and it is because of that spirit that I am not surprised Rome lasted as long as it did.
The passage about the declaration of war in Rome is an attempt to make sure that the war is examined, justified, and confirmed through signs from the gods and consultation with those in charge and the people. Once the Roman people and their gods went to war, they would go all-out and win the war and not second-guess their decision.
In Polybius's description of the Roman government, he was inpressed by how the Romans believe in their gods and how they are reverent to what outsiders would see as superstition. The only way that the Romans were loyal to the state was through obedience and unity toward worshipping their gods.
Rome's devotion to their gods made it no surprise that they were able to unite their people and become the most successful civilization of their time.
I found that the Roman success is not as suprising as it may seem. I read The Battle of Cannae by Plybius and though the Romans had fallen, they did not dwell on defeat. They saw a threat still lurking and prepared for it. This ability to bounce back from a defeat that would seem to be an end to a great army and people is why they became the Empire they did. I agree with Plybius as he summarizes the events by saying though they lost, they still used military, government, and prudence in their counsels to overcome and become the conquerors of the world.
The practice of allowing both consuls shared leadership of the army is both a strength and a weakness. As a strength, it allows another general to bring his ideas to the table, possibly breaking a stalemate. On the other hand, as shown in the battle of Cannae, it can be an incredible weakness. The veteran Aemelius, had years of military experience behind him; the other consul, Caius Terentius, had little...if any. Instead of heeding the advice of Aemelius, Caius decided to bring his troops in a headlong attack. Had he not done this, who knows what Aemelius could have done the next day, when he would have supreme control of the army. Despite his faults, Caius shared the dogged determination to win with so many other Roman generals in its illustrious history.
"In conflict, straightforward actions generally lead to engagement, surprising actions generally lead to victory." -- --Sun Tzu
I also read the Roman Way of Declaring War. I thought that it showed many strengths in the way that they prepared. First off, I liked the way that they first asked Jupiter that they fight a noble war, going so far as to say; "If I demand unjustly and impiously that these men and goods be given to me, the herald of the Roman people, then suffer me never enjoy again my native country." TO me this shows that the Romans want to fight a noble war, else they should meet the consequences. I also thought that turning to their gods for assist in battle was not that uncommon, and while not in the same way, don't we often ask God to be with our soldiers overseas?
I thought the next paragraph showed strength too. I like that they said that they would "consult thereon with our elders in our homeland" about the war. I believe that learning from your elders is very important. They often can give insight with things that they have learned in similar situations.
Finally, I felt that it was good that the King would go to the Senate and there would be a vote about the war in which a majority agreement would decide whether to pursue war or not. I like it because it is not just one person making the decision for the whole of the country. We use a similar process today when Congress, not the President, declares war.
Overall, I thought that this reading showed the strengths of the Romans, and find it not surprising that they were able to become a great empire.
i read the Sack of Rome by the Gauls and Camillus' rescue of Rome.
The thing that i found interesting is that the plebian farmers had to go to war, while there feilds were ruined by not being carred for. When they returened they would have to pay taxes for there land that produced nothing, to pay for the war that they faught. All the while the tributes try to shorten the war, so the plebian can come back. They are even threatened for speeking up even though they are soposed to be immune to that kind of thing. With all this in mind it is very surprising that rome was successful considering these side effect of waging war.
The process of declaring war is yet another example of why the Romans were so successful. When a conflict arose the Romans would go to great lengths not to rush into war. First, an envoy would ride through the lands of the offending nation, shouting their demands. They would then give that nation 30 days to surrender and if they did not, the envoy returned to Rome to go before the Senate to request a declaration of war. The lengthy process used by the Romans probably prevented many wars. By allowing the offending nation a fair amount of time to surrender and by going to the Senate for approval, no Roman war was entered into hastily or unjustly. I believe that the Romans understood how devastating war could be and therefore tried to avoid it if possible. Furthermore, this gave the Romans the ability to choose their battles carefully and allowed them to become a very powerful nation.
Livy’s History of Rome Book V
The Veii and the Destruction of Rome by the Gauls.
The book starts out slow and it seems that there is much conflict for the Romans.
They are forced to siege the Veii over the cold winter, which was unheard of. Next the Veii retaliate and burn the Romans siege works after which their infantry attack the Roman camp. General Sergius, the general in charge of that camp is too proud to ask for aid from another general in the area, General Verginius, whom Sergius didn’t get along with. Also, Verginius will not help him, unless Sergius begs him to. To make matters worse, two other city state’s decide to attack the Roman camp from the other end. Some of the text is dry, but the main points are describing what a hard time the Romans are having.
It took a while in the reading to find an instance of surprising Roman success, but then I noticed it. The idea of how the Romans, after all of this hardship and conflict, seemed to be even more involved in the War.
“A number of men who, though assessed as knights, had not been provided with horses, after concerting a common plan of action, went to the Senate-house, and on permission being given to address the senate, they engaged to serve as cavalry on their own horses…When the news of this incident had circulated through the Forum and the City, the plebeians hastily assembled at the Senate-house and declared that they were now part of the infantry force, and though it was not their turn to serve, they promised to give their services to the republic to march to Veii or wherever else they were led”.
This idea, perhaps patriotism, can be seen in our world today. After the 9-11 attacks, there were many Americans banding together against our enemies. It may seem surprising that the Romans didn’t give up after all they went through; But I feel that they held their City State at a higher regard and were willing to “go down with the ship” if need be.
-Nate Mills
I read the part on how the Romans would declare war. The directness of the declaration is one that would leave no doubt about whom was declaring war upon another nation. The appeal to the gods that the envoy would make also shows the Romans respect for their gods. I believe that it would also be a manner or attempt to scare one's enemies into believing that the Romans were invoking a higher power onto their side.
Also the finality of flinging the blood tipped spear into the enemy encampment is also a signal of finality, in effect a point of no return.
Post a Comment
<< Home