How unique was Rome?

I think Rome’s success abroad Italy had more to do with the actual army model rather than lack of motivation by her enemies. Of course, the huge numbers at Rome’s disposal, and her military ethos, tremendously helped, but if subsequent wars were as brief as they were, I’d say that owes a lot both to the inefficiency of the phalanx against the Roman army and the huge amount of mercenaries employed by Hellenistic armies. Antiochus III was certainly determined to establish a foothold in Europe, and had the resources to do so, but his attempts were met right away with defeat, and other defeats soon followed. No wonder he lost all motivation after that.

Hmmm... Antiochus was determined, but he was not prepared to lose his kingdom. The Romans were prepared to throw army after army at him until he accepted their conditions. He probably knew that (as Hannibal had just gone through exactly that), and while his realm was equal if not superior to the Republic in overall wealth and population, he could not even remotely match the Romans in military numbers. As soon as the field engagements went the way of the Romans, he knew that throwing the sponge was in his best interest. That's what I mean for "not determined".
It is possible for the phalanx to defeat a legion (Pyrrhus did that after all). But in the end, a lost battle would have been almost irrelevant to the Romans. They'd send other legions, and the overall superiority of their military would have told through sheer obstinacy and numbers if nothing else. Antiochus could not afford to lose armies at anywhere near the same rate. Rome would have a breaking point somewhere too (and they were arguably fairly close to it after Cannae) but just look at the grievous losses they kept taking in Spain in the second century for, what, three generations? Now, well, those were determined foes. They defeated legions repeatedly with forces far less structured than a phalanx. They still lost, badly. And the Roman vengeance on the Arevaci and the Lusitanians was terrible.
 
I think there's also something to be said for the fact that civic engagement was considered a major virtue in Rome. Self-sacrifice for the State was a great way to rise politically in Rome. And not just militarily, for example running a a public office efficiently seems to have been a real point of pride and social standing in Rome in a way that doesn't necessarily seem to appear in say, Greek sources.
 
Hmmm... Antiochus was determined, but he was not prepared to lose his kingdom. The Romans were prepared to throw army after army at him until he accepted their conditions. He probably knew that (as Hannibal had just gone through exactly that), and while his realm was equal if not superior to the Republic in overall wealth and population, he could not even remotely match the Romans in military numbers. As soon as the field engagements went the way of the Romans, he knew that throwing the sponge was in his best interest. That's what I mean for "not determined".
It is possible for the phalanx to defeat a legion (Pyrrhus did that after all). But in the end, a lost battle would have been almost irrelevant to the Romans. They'd send other legions, and the overall superiority of their military would have told through sheer obstinacy and numbers if nothing else. Antiochus could not afford to lose armies at anywhere near the same rate. Rome would have a breaking point somewhere too (and they were arguably fairly close to it after Cannae) but just look at the grievous losses they kept taking in Spain in the second century for, what, three generations? Now, well, those were determined foes. They defeated legions repeatedly with forces far less structured than a phalanx. They still lost, badly. And the Roman vengeance on the Arevaci and the Lusitanians was terrible.

Spaniards beat the Romans in the middle of the second century because the latter were led by terrible generals and their soldiers were horribly trained. Once a decent general, Scipio Aemilianus, came in on the scene, Spanish resistance was done for.

Pyrrhus didn’t beat the Romans because of the phalanx, he beat them because of the elephants. Had there not been elephants at Heraclea, Levinus’ flanking maneuver would have worked and Pyrrhus would have been done for.

I agree with you on Antiochus, but had he at least won at the beginning, he would have put more of a fight. I’m not saying he was as motivated as the Romans, but he was an ambitious Hellenistic king, he was certainly motivated to conquer further lands for his realm.
 
Also, just noticed the comment on the Tarquinii. They weren’t Roman citizens, they were aristocrats probably hailing from one of Etruria’s cities who decided to make their fortune in Latium. No proper Roman citizen of the republic ever led an army of foreigners against Rome.
Except Labienus, as you stated above.
Of course they weren't citizens, I am not even sure sure that "citizen" is a meaningful concept this early; by the time they attacked Rome with Clausine troops, however, it can be said fairly that they were, in a sense, "Romans" (and subsequent Roman historiography regards them as such). My point, again, was that Roman patriotism was something that consolidated over time.
Intense patriotism was very common in Mediterranean city-states overall, however (or at least, it was among the people who wrote down the historiography we have, but epigraphy also seems to confirm the impression across the board). Still, the point you raise is correct. In the Hellenic context, raising foreign armies against your polis sounds... disturbingly common, and we can surmise it was a possibile occurence in Etruria as well.
Carthage seems closer to Rome in this regard.
It is striking how Hellenic poleis, with their rigid myths of autochthony and blood-restricted citizenship, did not elicit such an ironclad loyalty as Rome and Carthage (both somewhat more open in this respect, Rome much more so). Maybe the ancient political writers had a point about the "mixed" constitutions?
 
I think there's also something to be said for the fact that civic engagement was considered a major virtue in Rome. Self-sacrifice for the State was a great way to rise politically in Rome. And not just militarily, for example running a a public office efficiently seems to have been a real point of pride and social standing in Rome in a way that doesn't necessarily seem to appear in say, Greek sources.
This has parallels in other Antique city states however, Hellenic, Italic and Punic alike. (With the caveat that we know a great deal less about Italic and Punic worlds, and even about many Hellenic poleis outside Sparta, Athens and few others). It is, again, true that Rome shows this more intensely and consistently (and, again, Carthage is among the closest comparisons AFAIK).
 
I agree with you on Antiochus, but had he at least won at the beginning, he would have put more of a fight. I’m not saying he was as motivated as the Romans, but he was an ambitious Hellenistic king, he was certainly motivated to conquer further lands for his realm.
Agreed. Exactly my point.
 
Spaniards beat the Romans in the middle of the second century because the latter were led by terrible generals and their soldiers were horribly trained. Once a decent general, Scipio Aemilianus, came in on the scene, Spanish resistance was done for.

Sure. The point is, the Romans kept fighting, and for a while, even kept sending terrible generals. But the Spanish were certainly determined. Did not get them any good.

Pyrrhus didn’t beat the Romans because of the phalanx, he beat them because of the elephants. Had there not been elephants at Heraclea, Levinus’ flanking maneuver would have worked and Pyrrhus would have been done for.

Fair enough.
 
Except Labienus, as you stated above.
Of course they weren't citizens, I am not even sure sure that "citizen" is a meaningful concept this early; by the time they attacked Rome with Clausine troops, however, it can be said fairly that they were, in a sense, "Romans" (and subsequent Roman historiography regards them as such). My point, again, was that Roman patriotism was something that consolidated over time.
Intense patriotism was very common in Mediterranean city-states overall, however (or at least, it was among the people who wrote down the historiography we have, but epigraphy also seems to confirm the impression across the board). Still, the point you raise is correct. In the Hellenic context, raising foreign armies against your polis sounds... disturbingly common, and we can surmise it was a possibile occurence in Etruria as well.
Carthage seems closer to Rome in this regard.
It is striking how Hellenic poleis, with their rigid myths of autochthony and blood-restricted citizenship, did not elicit such an ironclad loyalty as Rome and Carthage (both somewhat more open in this respect, Rome much more so). Maybe the ancient political writers had a point about the "mixed" constitutions?

Or maybe western civilizations weren’t used to relying on hegemonic powers for their internal conflicts as Eastern civilizations were. Really don’t know.
 
Or maybe western civilizations weren’t used to relying on hegemonic powers for their internal conflicts as Eastern civilizations were. Really don’t know.
Neither do I, but Etruscans and other Italics are not on (scanty) record as rigidly patriotic as Republican Romans turn out to be. Which may correlate with a prevalence of purely aristocratic republics (as opposed to the "mixed" Roman and Carthaginian ones). Or may be a historiographical construct; there may have been more than one Coriolanus in the early Republic and we simply do not know.
Then again, Rome before the Leges Liciniae Sextiae was, in many respects, an aristocratic republic, or very close to it.
 
Neither do I, but Etruscans and other Italics are not on (scanty) record as rigidly patriotic as Republican Romans turn out to be. Which may correlate with a prevalence of purely aristocratic republics (as opposed to the "mixed" Roman and Carthaginian ones). Or may be a historiographical construct; there may have been more than one Coriolanus in the early Republic and we simply do not know.
Then again, Rome before the Leges Liciniae Sextiae was, in many respects, an aristocratic republic, or very close to it.

Actually, it became even more aristocratic after the leges. All plebeians admitted to the consulship were all rich plebeians, thus aristocracy. The leges’ most vicious opponents were poor plebeians, because they knew that after those were ratified, their aristocratic champions would join the establishment and abandon them to their devices. Perhaps Rome and Carthage were simply used from the first time of their evolution to be the top dog in their region of influence and never felt like relying on others.

We know so little of Rome in the fifth century that really anything might be possible, yet I think there was no Coriolanus at all. Reports probably were that Romans had lost against the Volscians, the invention of Coriolanus was meant to sugarcoat the whole thing by claiming that it was only by Roman prowess that the Volscians had managed such a feat.
 
We don’t really know if he existed in the first place. He might have been just a convenient way for annalists to say “Sure, the Volscians were beating us, but hey, they were led by a Roman, we’re still number one”.

There's no evidence that he didn't exist, and Roman historians were quite happy (or, at least, grudgingly willing) to report other Roman defeats without inventing fictitious Roman commanders for the opposing side.

Also, just noticed the comment on the Tarquinii. They weren’t Roman citizens, they were aristocrats probably hailing from one of Etruria’s cities who decided to make their fortune in Latium. No proper Roman citizen of the republic ever led an army of foreigners against Rome.

Tarquin II was born in Rome, IIRC; it was his father who came in from Etruria, at least according to the traditional accounts.
 
There's no evidence that he didn't exist, and Roman historians were quite happy (or, at least, grudgingly willing) to report other Roman defeats without inventing fictitious Roman commanders for the opposing side.

As far as I know, the only other significant loss they report before the battle of Allia is the one concerning the Fabian clan. In all other cases, Romans apparently smashed army after army, to the point that even Livy began wondering if Rome’s enemies sprouted from the ground since Rome was forced to exterminate their armies every year. Whenever the annalists reported a defeat, there was usually a dictator saving the day within the year, so they don’t really count as losses, at least by the annalists’ point of view. Nonetheless, Coriolanus might have existed. Personally, I believe not, since I don’t feel like there’s any solid evidence pointing to his existence, but neither there is any real evidence pointing to the contrary.



Tarquin II was born in Rome, IIRC; it was his father who came in from Etruria, at least according to the traditional accounts.

Yeah, I was talking about the family in general. It was one of many aristocratic families wondering around with their retinue seeking warfare and fortune.
 
Top