|
Hey Grand Fromage, can you tell me about the Roman campaign against ancient Greece? Specifically how they brought Epirus to tow and what kinds of military tactics they used to seize all the city states. How did they manage to pull it off when Greece had already demonstrated they could hold back the Persians? Were the Romans so much stronger than the Persians or was Greece just in a state of disarray? tl;dr How did Rome manage to conquer Greece when the Greeks managed to repel the Persians?
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Girafro posted:Hey Grand Fromage, can you tell me about the Roman campaign against ancient Greece? Specifically how they brought Epirus to tow and what kinds of military tactics they used to seize all the city states. How did they manage to pull it off when Greece had already demonstrated they could hold back the Persians? Were the Romans so much stronger than the Persians or was Greece just in a state of disarray? Greece vs. Persia: Phalanx vs. Mob Rome vs. Greece: Legions vs. Phalanx I guess this had something to do with it? Fromage could you comment on this as well, if there's a different answer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Greece vs. Persia: Phalanx vs. Mob The Peloponnesian War and Alexander the Great come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Well, first is that the war against Persia is when Greece's power is rising. The Roman conquest is centuries later, after Greece has collapsed as a major power. The Greeks became powerful, then spent a lot of time beating the poo poo out of each other, weakening themselves sufficiently that the Macedonians took over. That was how the Romans found Greece, a collection of exhausted city states divided into leagues and the Macedonian kings that sort of ruled them and sort of didn't. That plus the superiority of the legion to the phalanx made the conquest fairly simple. Phalanxes were a very inflexible way to fight and their time had passed. The concept remained effective in some circumstances, specifically fighting cavalry, but they weren't much use against legions. Rome didn't even really have to fight the Greeks much, once they beat the Macedonians they declared Greece "free". By free they meant clients of Rome. The Achaean League made the rather ill-advised decision to declare war on Rome and the Romans crushed them instantly, razed Corinth and made Greece part of the empire. Epirus specifically fell in the Third Macedonian War, when they split into pro-Roman and pro-Macedonian factions. Macedon lost and all of Epirus went with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
Technically the Greeks of Greece are mostly Macedonian subjects at this point. So it was Macedon and Seleucia that the Romans fought for the area. And yeah it was mostly just the superior manueverability and close-in fighting ability of the legions vs. the outdated phalanx. The phalanx was great until flanked and then it was just a bunch of dudes pointed the wrong the way. Edit: fun fact to make my post useful, Carthage and Corinth were both annihilated in the same year. I guess domination is more impressive if you can do it double-fisted. physeter fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Macedon chose the wrong side in the Punic Wars.   The Greeks just weren't in any position to resist. They were full of themselves and so convinced of their own superiority that they never even saw it coming when these western barbarians obliterated them. It wasn't even a challenge, Greece's glory days were over well before the Romans showed up. Worked out fine for Greece though, their culture thrived and the Greek provinces were peaceful and rich. Incidentally this is the last time Greece will be a free state until 1830. Alexander's conquest really, so Greece spends 2100 years as subjects of one foreign power or another. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Well, first is that the war against Persia is when Greece's power is rising. The Roman conquest is centuries later, after Greece has collapsed as a major power. So Greece at the time was mostly ruled by Macedonia and they were the only real competition for the Romans. Alright, that makes a lot more sense. In my head all I could think about were the numbers and I was certain all the fighting between city states and whatnot played a role but I wasn't quite sure to what extent. So the Romans originated from Roma in Italy, correct? What was going on in Italy before/during the foundation of the empire? As in which king/emperor is credited with the foundation of the empire and how did he manage to subdue enough opponents to effectively create the most powerful empire the classical world would ever see?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
The Macedonians weren't competition for the Romans, by then their glory days had also passed and Macedon was a minor power. They were just belligerent as hell and got their teeth kicked in for it. The foundation of Rome is steeped in legend and myth, we don't know many real facts about it. According to the legend it's founded by Romulus and Remus on April 21st, 753 BCE. Archaeology dates the original settlement of Rome to the mid 8th century BCE so we typically just use the legendary 753 date. It's in the ballpark so why not? Early Rome was inhabited by the Latins, whose origins as a people are unclear. The Romans themselves believed they immigrated there from somewhere else--in legend they are the descendents of the Trojans, but in any case they don't believe they are native to Rome. I've seen some speculation that the tribe originates somewhere up on the Danube but we don't really know. The dominant power in the region are the Etruscans. Rome's initial period are the seven kings, which are all likely legendary figures but represent a period of rule by the Etruscans. The Romans eventually throw out the kings, sack the nearby Etruscan city of Veii and gradually bring the Etruscans under their rule. They beat up on everyone around them and always seemed to come out victorious in the end, the area of Roman control gradually expands. They keep picking fights with their neighbors (or the neighbors are picking them with the Romans--that's how the Romans would explain it and sometimes it's true) and keep winning them, ending up with more and more territory. Unfortunately the records of Rome from 753 to ~400 BCE are gone, so we don't know about that period in detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
^^ We typed these at the same time and they almost perfectly work chronologically haha.Girafro posted:So the Romans originated from Roma in Italy, correct? What was going on in Italy before/during the foundation of the empire? As in which king/emperor is credited with the foundation of the empire and how did he manage to subdue enough opponents to effectively create the most powerful empire the classical world would ever see? Historians would call the After the end first Punic war against Carthage in 241BC, Rome now owned Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily except the city of Syracuse. The war with Hannibal in the 220s-210s BC netted Rome about half of Spain. Immediately after that in 200BC the Romans fought the Macedonians and broke Greek power. Rome controlled Greece in everything but name until 146BC when they officially annexed it, but for all intents and purposes Greece was Roman in 196BC. That's about when you could start calling it the Roman Empire, as they were blatantly expansionist and intent on gaining more land for Rome. The story of how Augustus and his adoptive father Caesar before him came to shatter the Republic and replace with the Imperium is a much, much longer and more complicated story. We can get into it though! WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
We also don't use the empire/republic division anymore. Rome had an empire while it was still a republic. The terminology preferred now is republic/principate, since it's referring to the form of government. The empire exists independent of the government ruling it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The story of how Augustus and his adoptive father Caesar before him came to shatter the Republic and replace with the Imperium is a much, much longer and more complicated story. We can get into it though! Okay so before Caesar Rome was, for all intents and purposes, just expanding then? So is the difference between Rome as an Italian kingdom and Rome as an empire just the treatment of conquered nations? I don't see how Rome wouldn't be considered and empire just because it was explicitly stated in their name? I guess I'm asking how should I think of Rome pre-empire? In my head an expansionist kingdom and an Empire sound about the same but I'm willing to hear otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Usually we start calling it an empire when it acquires territory outside of Italy during the Punic Wars. During the kingdom era they didn't expand much at all, the real conquests begin during the republic, well after the kings are gone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Okay, that makes sense. So how exactly did Rome move from becoming a kingdom to becoming a republic? Were the Romans autonomous and they got rid of their own kings or was this shift simultaneous with their conquering of the Etruscans? And how long did it remain a republic before Caesar came along and shook things up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
Girafro posted:Okay, that makes sense. So how exactly did Rome move from becoming a kingdom to becoming a republic? Were the Romans autonomous and they got rid of their own kings or was this shift simultaneous with their conquering of the Etruscans? And how long did it remain a republic before Caesar came along and shook things up? According to legend, the last king was overthrown in a coup by a group of noblemen, led by Lucius Junius Brutus (note the name and its connection republican ideals), after the king's son raped a noblewoman called Lucretia. They drove the king into exile in 509 BC and instituted a republic. How much of the story is fact and how much legend is debatable, but what seems certain is that around that time the Roman nobility got fed up with their kings and got rid of monarchy altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
The Romans were under Etruscan influence a while after the republic was founded, too. The sacking of Veii is in 396 BCE, and that's generally considered the point where the tables begin to turn. The Etruscans still exist for a long time as one of the Italian allies, but by the time of Caesar their culture is almost gone. The emperor Claudius is the last known person to speak the language. Sadly, his history of Etruria does not survive--it'd be an invaluable book to have. Roman culture is heavily influenced by the Etruscans, but there is riotous debate whether the Romans themselves should be considered an Etruscan offshoot or a separate thing. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Recent Podcast on the Etruscans http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0151q7j Apparently there were still Etruscan noble families around 1 AD. Claudius married one I think, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
Okay so after the Etruscans and the founding of the empire Caesar begins his career as some sort of war lord, doesn't he? How does he become the emperor? I imagine he was high born and I'd wager his conquest in Gaul plays a part but I don't see how he could become the ruler of Rome. And when Caesar is on the scene Greece has already been conquered, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
Girafro posted:Okay so after the Etruscans and the founding of the empire Caesar begins his career as some sort of war lord, doesn't he? How does he become the emperor? I imagine he was high born and I'd wager his conquest in Gaul plays a part but I don't see how he could become the ruler of Rome. And when Caesar is on the scene Greece has already been conquered, correct? You got it a bit wrong. It goes kingdom - gently caress the Etruscans - Roman Republic with an overseas empire - principate (what we know as the Roman Empire). Caesar is still fully in the Republic era. Julius Caesar began his career like every other Roman nobleman, gaining more powerful positions through military and political maneuvering, finally culminating into becoming the governor of three different provinces, giving him control over four Roman legions. He uses these legions (and others he raises) to launch his conquest of Gaul which is a massive success, earning him uncontested wealth, power and popularity on top of a loyal veteran army that by probably any measurement is the best in the world. And yes, Greece was already conquered alongside with a buttload of other stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanRepublic40BC.jpg Understandably his political opponents (Primarily Cato, Cicero and Pompey Magnus) become worried and order him to disband his army and return in Rome - legally they can do this but obviously Julius sees what they are planning - so they can prosecute him on some trumped up charges. So he says "gently caress that" and crosses the Rubicon with a single legion (THIRTEEN!) which is so much better then anything his opponents can raise, that even though Pompey outnumbers Caesar like three to one he doesn't think his chances are very good and flees Rome to East where he has clients and friends to raise an army for him. Meanwhile Caesar goes to Spain and subjugates it in less then a month. He goes to Greece where Pompey is waiting with slightly bigger army, loving crushes him in the battle of Pharsalus, Pompey's cause is pretty much dead except for Cato who remains stubborn as always and goes to Africa, while Pompey flees to Egypt. In Egypt the Egyptians take one look at who is doing better and murder Pompey as a favor to Caesar (who doesn't take it as one when he arrives to Egypt himself). Caesar is declared Dictator in Rome because there is nobody to resist him (Cato eventually dies in Africa and was already a joke), gets tangled up in an Egyptian civil war between Cleopatra and her brother, wins it, has a kid with Cleopatra and goes back to Rome where he is appointed dictator for life one month before his assassination. At some point he picks up as his heir his grand-nephew Gaius Octavian who is only 16 but already so loving awesome that Caesar knows what his choice is. Then he gets stabbed. You see, Caesar was never an Emperor. He was a Roman dictator like several people before him and he didn't change the Republic. That would be left to his heir Octavian (now known as Caesar himself) who was so loving awesome that he leaves Julius in the dust when it comes to anything but military exploits. And for that stuff he had Agrippa. And Caesar Octavian becomes the first emperor of Rome, more popularly known as Augusts, but that's a story as long as this one. Longer, actually. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
I think it was Grand Fromage who made the joke earlier on how many political problems the Republic especially in its later parts could in part be summed up in The Senate who cried Tyrant. Caesar's assassination can be another example. A lot of senators thought the move would be welcomed by the people, as getting rid of a man who appeared to want to become a new king of Rome. Boy howdy did they misread that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
So it was Caesar's heir Octavian who changed the republic, how exactly did he do this? Was it just the armies he inherited from Caesar that allowed him to maintain his status or was he just as clever as his predecessor when it came to maneuvering his position? DarkCrawler seems to believe that Octavian was a bigger bad rear end than Caesar but honestly I barely know anything about him other than he inherited Caesar's throne. Also how would Brutus have taken to that? He was a good buddy of Caesar when he betrayed him so how would he feel to watch Octavian just be better/worse for Rome than Caesar? I mean he had about the same approach to things as Caesar but from what DC says it seems like he was even more effective and that the Romans who murdered Caesar only replaced a "tyrant" with a more effective tyrant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Augustus Caesar successfully fought for an received most of Caesar's wealth. He demanded and convinced everyone to call him Julius Caesar, Son of a God. He then successfully won the loyalty of Caesar's soldiers. He then formed a partnership with Marcus Antonius and another guy who is not important. He then murdered huge chunks of the senatorial class and confiscated their land. He then destroyed Brutus and Cassius. He then turned on Antonius and won a civil war against him (and Cleopatra) and no one was left to oppose him. He then stacked the senate with his friends. Then he was emperor. But even then, Augustus Caesar kept up the facade of a republic. He was as big of a bad rear end as Julius Caesar, but in different ways. euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:another guy who is not important Poor Lepidus. He really was the Andrew Ridgeley of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
The "legal" way Caesar Agustus became emperor is that the Senate gave him the authority of a bunch of offices that used to be separate. (He took some himself too with out waiting for the Senate.) An American example would be if Congress made Obama president, Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and Chief Justice (and also say Governor of California, New York and Florida) and kept renewing his term of office while also having the entire US military swear oaths of personal allegiance to Obama. euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Okay so, new line of questions, haha. Sorry, my appetite for ancient history is on the rise lately, I've been reading about the Greeks and now because of this thread the Romans too. Anyways, how did the Byzantine empire come to be? What differentiates it from the Roman Empire? It seems like the Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman empire but it manages to continue existing after the fall of Rome? Is that just because the Eastern block of the empire was in better shape than the European half? What forces were at play to make the Byzantines the successor to the Romans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Is there any corporate institution other than the Papacy and patriarchies that has survived from ~150A.D.?
Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
The tribunical power alone was pretty important. Plebeian Tribunes could be quite powerful(but most were from pretty powerful plebeian families and were quite cozy with the Senate, as there was a good chance they'd be in it one day among other offices) and had the the power to convene the Senate and veto any law passed by another assembly or magistrate, including the Senate. Then tack on more powers like those of the office of Censor, Pontifex Maxiumum, the Consuls, tack on a wide scope of authority to make decisions in the various spheres of influence with each title with imperium maius, and boom, you get the principate, a man with almost total power who outranks everyone no matter where he is. Don't worry though guys, we're still totally a republic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
The move from Republic to Principate can sometimes be best described as the over-introduction of an executive branch of government. The Republican Romans didn't have a chief executive per se, limited authority was vested in a pair of consuls who held office for only one year. In times of emergency there was the temporary office of Dictator, who was appointed by the Senate and given absolute power. This was not a great way to govern an empire that stretched from modern day Portugal to outer Syria. The Civil War period could be characterized to some degree by saying it was just a succession of guys forcing the Senate to make them Dictator, and then using that power to crush the opposition. The Emperor accomplished the same thing as Dictator, and along with the imperial bureacracy, essentially constituted an effective executive branch for managing such a huge empire. Unfortunately the effect was to overwhelm the legislative function as well. I think there's a good argument that Augustus went much further down that road than Julius Caesar ever intended, but it seems to have worked out ok.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Girafro posted:So it was Caesar's heir Octavian who changed the republic, how exactly did he do this? Was it just the armies he inherited from Caesar that allowed him to maintain his status or was he just as clever as his predecessor when it came to maneuvering his position? DarkCrawler seems to believe that Octavian was a bigger bad rear end than Caesar but honestly I barely know anything about him other than he inherited Caesar's throne. (Long-rear end post coming up. Augustus is by far my favorite historical figure, bar none, and it is his period in Rome that I know the most about.) There was no throne to inherit. Octavian inherited Caesar's wealth, name, and clientele but he didn't inherit the position of the dictator-for-life, it wasn't hereditary. Most people thought that Mark Antony, Caesar's right hand man and an accomplished soldier on his own would gain the position because while Caesar's will gave Octavian all the wealth, Antony was in control. All of Octavian's friends told him to just be happy with what Antony will let him keep and not try to reach for anything. Octavian response was equivalent to "gently caress that poo poo". He was nineteen years old at the time. He had no political experience, no powerful friends and no money. He had himself and Agrippa, his best buddy. So Octavian took the next boat to Brundisium. Why Brundisium? Because before he had died, Julius had planned to invade Parthia to avenge his friend Crassus and take back the Eagles that had been captured in the Battle of Carrhae. The funds reserved for this campaign were stored in Brundisium alongside with some of Caesar's veterans. Well, Octavian was hell of a speaker, was a handsome fucker who looked really close to Caesar and once he realized the effect this had on people he made an intentional effort to act and look like him from speaking style to height, meaning that he installed lifts on his shoes. He not only got the loyalty of the troops guarding the money but the money itself. Caesar's veterans loving LOVED Caesar and Octavian was the next best thing, especially when he constantly played lip service to what an awesome guy Caesar was, and as he started his march towards Rome more and more of Caesar's veterans flocked to him, and he now had the money to pay for them, further ensuring that they would follow him. In three months a 19 year old kid who had started up without any great wealth or resources had ended up with a veteran Legion and was one of the wealthiest people in Rome. He had no military experience but that didn't matter because Agrippa was a military prodigy. Meanwhile in Rome Antony had an uneasy truce with the guys who had killed Caesar, but had managed to drive most of them away from Rome because the people hated them. Octavian came to the scene and got rid of whoever was remaining. Brutus and Cassius, main conspirators, fled into East and started gathering an army of their own. Octavian managed to get into control of the pro-Caesarian faction because Antony wasn't liked as much as feared, and the other people hoped to be able to manipulate the young and likable teenager and saw him as a better option. Because Antony was a loving rear end in a top hat. Octavian was okay in letting people believe that he was a pawn and started working behind the scenes, gathering a large private army, even winning two of Antony's legions at his side with money and his personal charisma (those guys were veterans of Gaul too). Antony saw which way the wind was blowing and fled Rome. Senate hoped to get rid of him for good by making him the governor of Cisalpine Gaul. Not likely, he besieged the previous governor who refused to give his position (and was also one of the guys who had killed Caesar) in Mutina and generally started raising hell, because like said, he was an rear end in a top hat. Senate wanted peace in the province but had no army to force anything on Antony. Guess who did have an army? So the two consuls of Rome and Agrippa lead Octavian's army in victory over Antony in two battles, forcing him to retreat. Through bad luck or Octavian's machinations both of the consuls die, making him the only victor (Agrippa never ever tried to get any recognition for himself and was utterly loyal to Octavian in way that Antony never was to Caesar). Well, the Senate isn't entirely dumb and now they realize that Octavian is the only guy with an Army in the field. They try to give the command to Decimus Brutus, the governor Octavian just saved. Octavian and his troops pretty much laugh themselves silly and tell them to gently caress off. Octavian sends some of his centurions to Rome to demand a consulship for him. Note that he's not actually anywhere close to legally eligible to it. Senate says no. Octavian marches on Rome with eight legions and asks the same thing. Senate says yes and some nobody is made co-consul with Octavian who now pretty much rules Italy. Antony gathers an army on his own from Caesarian veterans who haven't met Octavian yet and some new troops, allying himself with a guy named Lepidus who has some wealth and power. They get into a position of equal power with Octavian and it seems that another huge battle seems to brew up. Octavian changes his tactics. He meets up with Antony and Lepidus near Bologna, runs circles around them in a negotiations, convinces them that their true enemies are Brutus and Cassius in east and forms the Second Triumvirate. The three guys decide to take war to Brutus and Cassius who have raised a HUGE army in Eastern provinces, but they need some money for that campaign. So they borrow a page from Sulla's book and proscribe around 300 Senators and 2000 other noblemen, brand them as outlaws and put a price on all of their head. Being that they have the only army in the West, who's going to say anything? Anyone - anyone with the slightest political clout or power is killed, as well as anyone who has ever pissed off Antony or Lepidus in the past (Octavian is too young to have any enemies). So they take the money of the dead and head off against Brutus and Cassius. They meet them in Battle of Philippi - Greece again - where Mark Antony and to a lesser degree Agrippa beat the "Liberatores", Brutus and Cassius commit suicide. At some point Octavian gets Senate to recognize Julius Caesar as divine, meaning that on top of everything else he's the son of a god too. The Triumvirate divide Rome to areas of respective influence to avoid another civil war now that there is nobody else to oppose. Antony is at the height of his power and popularity having won the battle of Philippi, so he gets the hideously rich East and all it's resources. Octavian gets the West with all it's problems - recently conquered Gaul, irate politicians, restless soldiers. Lepidus gets Africa because nobody gives a poo poo about him. But everyone knows that the situation can't last forever. There are attempts to preserve peace (etc. Octavian married his sister to Antony) but both Antony and Octavian are just too loving hungry to be equals. The first crack appears when Sextus Pompey, the remaining son of Pompey Magnus, who has gathered a massive fleet, conquers Sicily and cuts off Rome's grain access. Antony refuses to help Octavian who is now left with starvation as well. Agrippa clears him out of this problem - it is impossible to build ships in Rome's Mediterranean ports, so Agrippa builds a massive fleet of his own in a lake and cuts a channel to the sea. Because he's a badass admiral as well he kick's Pompey's rear end in Battle of Naulochus, losing 3 ships to Pompey's 30. Lepidus tries to claim Sicily to himself, but his troops rally to Agrippa and Octavian and he's left with nothing but a priestly position and a retirement. Octavian gets Africa, and gets the senate to declare an political and religious immunity to himself. Antony decides to do what Caesar didn't manage to do - go into a campaign against Parthia. He fares slightly better then Crassus which means that he only loses around a third of his troops and is driven out of Parthia in ignominious defeat. Pissed at Octavian because he refuses to send him more legionnaires, he sends Octavia to Rome and hitches off with Cleopatra. Octavian spreads propaganda about Antony being bewitched by an Eastern witch and becoming less then a Roman. Slowly public opinion turns towards Antony, exploding when Octavian gains his will through less-then-respectable means and it's about as anti-Rome as it can be - he gives Roman provinces for his half-Egyptian sons to rule as kings, plans to be buried in Alexandra, makes Cleopatra his Queen, etc. Octavian has the public support to go to war against Antony. Agrippa manages to corner him in Actium - Greece again- and decisively beats his and Cleopatra's navy when they attempt to break out. Antony's army joins with Octavian, partly because it's clear that Antony is lost, partly because they loving hate Cleopatra who was kind of a bitch and gave orders to the soldiers as if she was their commander. Octavian pursues them, defeats them in Alexandria, where both Antony and Cleopatra commit suicide. Since "two Caesars is one too many", Octavian murders Caesar's son by Cleopatra so nobody can challenge his position as Caesar's heir. He annexes Egypt to Rome, becoming it's Pharaoh in name. Since nobody has power to resist him he gets further public points by pardoning many of those who were at Antony's side. Review the situation: Octavian is now 32. In thirteen years he has gathered the the following things: ALL of the Legions. ALL of the Navies. Egypt (his personal property and rich as gently caress). Half-divine status because Julius is god now. Superb general who is 100% loyal to him. Public admiration of the populace. loving ridiculous amounts of money, even without Egypt. Crapload of clients. His resources and the number of people that are loyal to him is so massive that he is able to legally transfer control of provinces and the military to the Senate because the power he has over things is so massive that he doesn't need laws to support them. He establishes the Principate - the Senate has all the OFFICIAL powers, but Octavian's UNOFFICIAL power and authority is so massive that all the Senate does in it's time is to beg him to take those official powers too, shower a shitload a titles and honors on him - literally every title and honor that exists in Rome and when they ran out they started inventing new ones. They cede to him Hispania, Gaul, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus on top of Egypt and elect him as consul a lot of times. He barely has to ask for any of it by this point. The Public doesn't even need to be threatened by any sort of force, they love him because he does stuff like pay for construction out of his own pockets if the Senate can't gather the funds. If the public treasury gets empty he tops it up. People understand that all that is good for them comes from Octavian. In 27 BC Senate gives him a snazzy new name, Augustus which means "the magnificent" or "illustrious". And among the titles they bestow on him are such ones like "Princeps" and "Imperator"... DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
If you had to boil down the reasons for Rome's amazing success as an empire/military power to a couple of bullet points, what would they be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Girafro posted:Okay so, new line of questions, haha. Sorry, my appetite for ancient history is on the rise lately, I've been reading about the Greeks and now because of this thread the Romans too. I'm not nearly as well versed on this as others are, but I think it's no longer popular to differentiate 'Byzantines' from the rest of the Romans, aside from the fact that the Western half dissolved and they didn't. In fact, the name Byzantine didn't even come until much later by historians afaik. Question about Caesar: I've read a lot about him bringing a legion across the Rubicon and how this seemed significant. I read somewhere that at the time, you weren't allowed to bring a standing army into Italy? Is that where we get the 'die is cast' and references to him crossing the Rubicon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Caesar only had proconsular authority at that time in Gaul. He had not authority to lead a legion in Italy (since he was not a consul). It would be kind of like in the first Gulf War, Schwarzkopf loading up the army and landing on the lower Potomac with a grudge. euphronius fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Logiwonk posted:If you had to boil down the reasons for Rome's amazing success as an empire/military power to a couple of bullet points, what would they be? -optimal location. Basically the center of the European world at the time. Plenty of room to expand in any direction -natural resources. Lots of bronze, copper, lumber and iron. What they lacked, they probably had a province that could supply it. -For the most part fractured opposition (except for the Carthaginians) -Excellent military leadership. Armies were led by those who knew what the gently caress they were doing and those who didn't (early Republic consuls, Crassus at Carrhae) got their rear end kicked. -superior tactics. Marius made the army much more flexible and capable in a time where most of the opponents they were fighting were still using the phalanx or no real formation at all Hell, I have a question to contribute: When Hannibal was stomping everybody's poo poo in Italy why didn't he march on Rome? There wasn't really a force available at the time to contend with him. HOTLANTA MAN fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
Also with JC crossing the Rubicon, there was no army between him and Roma and everyone knew it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Why is Marcus Antonius' name changed to Mark Antony in English texts? I can't immediately think of that happening to any other names. Is it Shakespeare's fault?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
So how did Octavian ever reward Agrippa?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:So how did Octavian ever reward Agrippa? Well, he gave him bunch of important positions in imperial administration (Head of defense, construction efforts, public welfare, etc). He made him a consul of Rome a bunch of times. He gave him several governorships. Married his sexy-rear end daughter to him. He dedicated his autobiography to Agrippa. When he was sick he handed his signet ring, the symbol of his power, to Agrippa, basically naming him as his heir. He granted him the right to intervene in anywhere in Empire as he chose, only second to Augustus. Agrippa was the second most powerful and wealthy man in the Empire and Augustus never tried to limit his power and influence or suspected him of anything. It's hard to find a similar historical example. Every single time Augustus needed something important achieved he gave it to Agrippa. They had a break-up of sorts when Livia and Marcellus feared that he had too much power over Augustus (as if Agrippa would ever try to manipulate him) and to avoid trouble Augustus sent him away to govern a far-off province. But some historians see this as simply agreed upon together strategy to placate Marcellus and Augustus's wife and as soon as Marcellus died Agrippa was recalled to Rome. Besides they spent a lot of time apart because there were so many assignments all over the empire that Augustus trusted nobody but Agrippa with. When Agrippa died Augustus spent a month doing nothing but mourning him, and had a gigantic funeral for the guy. Agrippa had built a tomb for himself but Augustus insisted that his remains be placed in Augustus's own mausoleum, next to him. Agrippa built some of the most known things about Rome, including the Pantheon, by the way. And founded what would become Cologne. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Per posted:Why is Marcus Antonius' name changed to Mark Antony in English texts? I can't immediately think of that happening to any other names. Is it Shakespeare's fault? Hadrian(us), Trajan's (Traianus) and Vespasian(us)' names have clipped endings too. Probably just a case of some famous names with awkward pronunciations acquiring simpler English forms. Ras Het fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Well, he gave him bunch of important positions in imperial administration (Head of defense, construction efforts, public welfare, etc). He made him a consul of Rome a bunch of times. He gave him several governorships. Married his sexy-rear end daughter to him. He dedicated his autobiography to Agrippa. When he was sick he handed his signet ring, the symbol of his power, to Agrippa, basically naming him as his heir. He granted him the right to intervene in anywhere in Empire as he chose, only second to Augustus. Also Augustus won points with the masses of Rome for being best buds with a low pedigree person like Agrippa who came from a recent plebian family. Oh yeah, the Julian-Claudian dynasty? Most are descended from Agrippa too. Its a good Cinderella story. EDIT: The falling out between the two mentioned here? A lot of historians not only agree with the thing mentioned above about sending him to placate the court, but also to put him with a large body of veteran legions during a crisis involving Italian legions and land reform. Agrippa was an ace in the hole as well. Augustus was definitely a crafty politician. Mister Gopher fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
TEBOW 3 16 posted:Hell, I have a question to contribute: When Hannibal was stomping everybody's poo poo in Italy why didn't he march on Rome? There wasn't really a force available at the time to contend with him. As I understand it, while Hannibal's army was strong enough to confidently face off with the Romans on a battlefield, it was never quite strong or large enough to to succesfully siege Rome, especially what with the Carthaginian senate being pretty stingy with sending reinforcements and supplies. So Hannibal had to stay on the move. When Hannibal crossed the Alps his primary goal most likely wasn't to eventually sack Rome, though he probably would have tried it if he had a good reason to believe he could do it (seeing as how much he reportedly hated the Romans). The main objective of the campaign was to humble Rome on the battlefield, show that they couldn't stop a foreign army from running around the Italian peninsula, and that way convince their allies and clients to abandon them. Once these goals were reached, Rome (being a civilized state ruled by reasonable men) would certainly sue for peace and accept almost any terms the Carthaginians would present to them. The "kicking Roman rear end"-part of the plan succeeded admirably, but the rest didn't. Most of Rome's allies and clients stayed loyal to them (Capua IIRC being the biggest exception, and even they severed ties with Rome only after Cannae), and Romans showed just how stubborn they could be by not suing for peace even after getting the poo poo kicked out of them. They toughed it out, and eventually Hannibal had to leave Italy with nothing to show for his efforts except a bunch of thoroughly traumatized Romans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
And a lot of Roman corpses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 22:15
|
|