Difficulty in forming the Empire

[Guaporense]

Second to an essay in this book:

 

Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires (Oxford Studies in Early Empires)

 

The Romans had a relatively easy process of conquering their enemies, compared to Qin, with faced enemies with more or less equal capabilities. Second to the essay, from the 3th century BCE onwards the only real enemy that Rome faced was Hannibal. After the second Punic war, the Romans pretty much had only time between them and the conquest of the mediterranean, their enemies were only weak barbarians and the decadent Hellenistic kingdoms with depended on mercenaries.

 

While Qin had to gradually build up and develop military mobilization techniques to be able to muster the militaries capable of defeating their enemies, whose armies consisted of citizens, like the Romans. They had to fight on much ever terms against enemies of comparable size and power.

 

Do you guys think that this was (remotely) true? I don't.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Guaporense

[Romanus]

In a way it was. What the Qin faced were healthy and organized nation states. While the Romans outside of Carthage (not just Hannibal) faced Iberian and Celtic tribes who were not united in standing against Rome and The Hellenistic states which were 1) in decline or 2) divided between Rome and other Hellenistic nations or 3) decedent. The Seleucid Empire was in decline and nearly gone by the time of the Roman arrival as two prolonged periods of civil wars doomed the empire. The Kingdom of Macedon was hated by most of the Greek city states who stood by or even aided Rome against Philip V While Ptolemaic Egypt was the decedent kingdom who relied on mercenaries to do it's fighting. The Gauls were a Very major threat perhaps even a greater threat than Carthage was but the tribal nature prevented them from putting a united front against Caesar when Rome was finally able to go on the offensive. The same can be said about the Iberians and Hellenistic city states who couldn't united against the Romans.

[barca]

Second to an essay in this book:

 

their enemies were only weak barbarians and the decadent Hellenistic kingdoms with depended on mercenaries.

 

 

Were they really decadent? The Hellenistic world was probably the most advanced civilzation of the time.

 

As for the ease at which they were beaten militarily by the Romans, there was something about the Macedonian system that made it exquisitely vulnerable to the Roman legions. Many of the late Hellenistic kingdoms still had great success against numerous opponents, but they fell apart against the Romans and were subject to wholesale slaughter.

[Guaporense]

Second to an essay in this book:

 

their enemies were only weak barbarians and the decadent Hellenistic kingdoms with depended on mercenaries.

 

 

Were they really decadent? The Hellenistic world was probably the most advanced civilzation of the time.

 

As for the ease at which they were beaten militarily by the Romans, there was something about the Macedonian system that made it exquisitely vulnerable to the Roman legions. Many of the late Hellenistic kingdoms still had great success against numerous opponents, but they fell apart against the Romans and were subject to wholesale slaughter.

 

True, they were advanced but "weak". And while the hellenistic world was advanced, their military wasn't very good. At least compared to Rome and Carthage.

 

I think that one important factor was the fact that the Romans mobilized a very large proportion of their population to the military, about 10-15% of the adult male population of Italy was in the military during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

 

I have read that all of the warring states in China mobilized their populations to the same extend as Rome. Maybe the other mediterranean powers didn't mobilize their populations to the military like Rome and the warring states.

[Romanus]

Second to an essay in this book:

 

their enemies were only weak barbarians and the decadent Hellenistic kingdoms with depended on mercenaries.

 

 

Were they really decadent? The Hellenistic world was probably the most advanced civilzation of the time.

 

As for the ease at which they were beaten militarily by the Romans, there was something about the Macedonian system that made it exquisitely vulnerable to the Roman legions. Many of the late Hellenistic kingdoms still had great success against numerous opponents, but they fell apart against the Romans and were subject to wholesale slaughter.

 

True, they were advanced but "weak". And while the hellenistic world was advanced, their military wasn't very good. At least compared to Rome and Carthage.

 

I think that one important factor was the fact that the Romans mobilized a very large proportion of their population to the military, about 10-15% of the adult male population of Italy was in the military during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

 

I have read that all of the warring states in China mobilized their populations to the same extend as Rome. Maybe the other mediterranean powers didn't mobilize their populations to the military like Rome and the warring states.

That may not be true as Sparta was a traditional ally of Rome and enemy of Macedon and the Spartan militia phalanx lasted well into late antiquity. Spartan forces Supposedly defeated the Visigoths in battle after the disaster of Adrianople. As Rome and Sparta (who retained it's independence until just before the roman conquest of Greece) never met in open battle you can't say the Hellenistic military wasn't very good. Greece was never united against the Roman while the Seleucid empire was fighting a loosing battle to the east against Parthia and was internally torn apart by civil wars which left it powerless against rome.

 

For China Qin wasn't the start of the Chinese nation as China had broken up into waring states before Qin came to power. The Qin was just the start of the Imperial period of Chinese history with 2 known and one possibly mythical dynasty existing before The Qin. So in China you had a Kingdom which had existed for centuries fall apart into waring factions

[marcus silanus]

Second to an essay in this book:

 

their enemies were only weak barbarians and the decadent Hellenistic kingdoms with depended on mercenaries.

 

 

Were they really decadent? The Hellenistic world was probably the most advanced civilzation of the time.

 

As for the ease at which they were beaten militarily by the Romans, there was something about the Macedonian system that made it exquisitely vulnerable to the Roman legions. Many of the late Hellenistic kingdoms still had great success against numerous opponents, but they fell apart against the Romans and were subject to wholesale slaughter.

 

True, they were advanced but "weak". And while the hellenistic world was advanced, their military wasn't very good. At least compared to Rome and Carthage.

 

I think that one important factor was the fact that the Romans mobilized a very large proportion of their population to the military, about 10-15% of the adult male population of Italy was in the military during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

 

I have read that all of the warring states in China mobilized their populations to the same extend as Rome. Maybe the other mediterranean powers didn't mobilize their populations to the military like Rome and the warring states.

The Hellenistic Kingdoms that arose after the death of Alexander were weak by comparison. The huge resources of Alexander were now split between three conflicting factions who in turn were subject to internal treachery, instability and a dependence on the support of neighbouring powers. That was the state of affairs in the late 4th century and early 3rd century BCE.

 

In contrast, towards the end of the 4th century BCE, Rome had adopted and developed a manipular form of warfare that was tested significantly in the war with Pyrrhus, who was probably the last of the great Hellenic generals to properly employ the Phalanx based army. Rome emerged victorious, with ironic assistance from Carthage, and during the next century or so, engaged in repeated conflict with the Gauls and, of course, Carthage herself.

 

Rome's success against the Gauls was hard won and bloody, but eventually organisation, manpower and some degree of luck saw off the main threat at Telamon; although further difficulties arose during the Second Punic War. It was during this war that the Romans engaged first with Philip of Macedonia and it is well worth highlighting the contrast between the Hellenic world and that of Rome.

 

The Greeks had never been a nation state. Whilst they shared cultural values and language - to an extent - the lack of a state left each part of that world isolated and vulnerable. Rome's citizen legions were made up of individuals all of whom had a common interest and something to defend. They were therefore motivated by patriotism, although the promise of booty was always a major consideration. Also, Rome had a unique way of embracing conquered people into the Roman state who would accept an obligation to provide troops for her wars. This meant, for example, that at the most testing time for Rome during the Second Punic War, following the most catastrophic defeats, the Roman state had a citizen and allied body of around 700,000 to call upon. This huge resource, combined with a flexible and effective manipular system and some very able commanders meant that the defeat of deteriorating and poorly motivated Macedonian armies was all but inevitable.

[Guaporense]

The Greeks had never been a nation state. Whilst they shared cultural values and language - to an extent - the lack of a state left each part of that world isolated and vulnerable. Rome's citizen legions were made up of individuals all of whom had a common interest and something to defend. They were therefore motivated by patriotism, although the promise of booty was always a major consideration. Also, Rome had a unique way of embracing conquered people into the Roman state who would accept an obligation to provide troops for her wars. This meant, for example, that at the most testing time for Rome during the Second Punic War, following the most catastrophic defeats, the Roman state had a citizen and allied body of around 700,000 to call upon. This huge resource, combined with a flexible and effective manipular system and some very able commanders meant that the defeat of deteriorating and poorly motivated Macedonian armies was all but inevitable.

 

Well, during the Persian wars the Greek cities were able to defeat the Persians. Their political fragmentation didn't prevent their union against a common external threat.

 

Versus Rome I think that if all Hellenistic kingdoms united they would probably defeat them. Considering that Rome in the 3rd and 2sc centuries BCE was much smaller than the combined set of the Greek kingdoms. I think that they didn't fight Rome with much "will", or gave everything they got. Maybe because Roman rule wasn't that bad.

 

Anyway, there are many similarities between the process of political centralization for the Romans and for China, both involved the political unification of a civilization. For the case of Rome, it involved the unification of the mediterranean/classical civilization while the Qin unified all Chinese kingdoms. However, the Roman process was more complex, because it involved unifying lands that had more physical barriers of isolation, like oceans and mountains over a larger area, while China was a very compact and each kingdom was compressed into one another. However, this created a very competitive environment, were every kingdom fought for survival.

 

Also, the Roman Empire was quite more significant historically, because in the case of China, the political unification was quite a matter of time: Since their civilization was spread by only 1-1,5 thousand kilometers, it was easier to conquer the place.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Guaporense

[barca]

That may not be true as Sparta was a traditional ally of Rome and enemy of Macedon and the Spartan militia phalanx lasted well into late antiquity. Spartan forces Supposedly defeated the Visigoths in battle after the disaster of Adrianople. As Rome and Sparta (who retained it's independence until just before the roman conquest of Greece) never met in open battle you can't say the Hellenistic military wasn't very good. Greece was never united against the Roman while the Seleucid empire was fighting a loosing battle to the east against Parthia and was internally torn apart by civil wars which left it powerless against rome.

 

 

Can you give me a source fro the Spartans vs Visigoths?

 

It is a widely held assumption that the Hellenistic military system deteriorated after Alexander and Pyrrhus, but how much clear evidence is there of this. The Hellenistic kingdoms fought against each other, so they had to constantly be on edge, and work on strategies to constantly improve their systems.

 

Pyrrhus was able to defeat the Roman Legions in 2 out of 3 battles, but I somehow doubt that these legions were anywhere near as advanced as those of Scipio, Flaminius, or Paulus.

 

In the Punic War I, the Carthaginians used Hellenistic style warfare to defeat Roman Armies at leat once.

 

It was not until Punic War II that the Roman and Carthaginian forces developed the advanced systems that empahsized mobility along with the deadly effects of the Gladius at close quarters. I suspect that they developed these systems from their experiences in Spain.

 

Despite their rivalry amongst themselves, the Hellenistic Kingdoms were still able to mobilize large armies to confront the Romans (Cynocphelae, Pydna, Magnesia) and the Romans defeated them handily every time. THere was always an excuse. At Cynocephalae, Philips army wasn't fully lines up, at Pydna there wasn't enough cavalry and the phalanx advanced too far into rough terrain, At Magnesia the land was flat and there was more than adequate cavalry as well as light troops, but they weren't able to put it together despite the presence of Hanibal as an advisor. Much later Mithradates seemed to have the same problem in his wars with the Romans.

 

Pyrrhus never had to face these more advanced legions, and he probably would not have been able to win a single battle against the likes of Paulus or Sulla.

 

My point is that I don't think that their system really declined, but the Roman system evolved to surpass the Hellenistic system.

 

Do we know of any post Punic War II battles where a Hellenistic army defeated a Roman legion?

Edited February 6, 2010 by barca

[Romanus]

That may not be true as Sparta was a traditional ally of Rome and enemy of Macedon and the Spartan militia phalanx lasted well into late antiquity. Spartan forces Supposedly defeated the Visigoths in battle after the disaster of Adrianople. As Rome and Sparta (who retained it's independence until just before the roman conquest of Greece) never met in open battle you can't say the Hellenistic military wasn't very good. Greece was never united against the Roman while the Seleucid empire was fighting a loosing battle to the east against Parthia and was internally torn apart by civil wars which left it powerless against rome.

 

 

Can you give me a source fro the Spartans vs Visigoths?

 

It is a widely held assumption that the Hellenistic military system deteriorated after Alexander and Pyrrhus, but how much clear evidence is there of this. The Hellenistic kingdoms fought against each other, so they had to constantly be on edge, and work on strategies to constantly improve their systems.

 

Pyrrhus was able to defeat the Roman Legions in 2 out of 3 battles, but I somehow doubt that these legions were anywhere near as advanced as those of Scipio, Flaminius, or Paulus.

 

In the Punic War I, the Carthaginians used Hellenistic style warfare to defeat Roman Armies at leat once.

 

It was not until Punic War II that the Roman and Carthaginian forces developed the advanced systems that empahsized mobility along with the deadly effects of the Gladius at close quarters. I suspect that they developed these systems from their experiences in Spain.

 

Despite their rivalry amongst themselves, the Hellenistic Kingdoms were still able to mobilize large armies to confront the Romans (Cynocphelae, Pydna, Magnesia) and the Romans defeated them handily every time. THere was always an excuse. At Cynocephalae, Philips army wasn't fully lines up, at Pydna there wasn't enough cavalry and the phalanx advanced too far into rough terrain, At Magnesia the land was flat and there was more than adequate cavalry as well as light troops, but they weren't able to put it together despite the presence of Hanibal as an advisor. Much later Mithradates seemed to have the same problem in his wars with the Romans.

 

Pyrrhus never had to face these more advanced legions, and he probably would not have been able to win a single battle against the likes of Paulus or Sulla.

 

My point is that I don't think that their system really declined, but the Roman system evolved to surpass the Hellenistic system.

 

Do we know of any post Punic War II battles where a Hellenistic army defeated a Roman legion?

 

If I did not add the Supposedly disclaimer to the statement let me apologize for that. The main source is The Military Engineer By Society of American Military Engineers. The decline of Sparta wasn't due to the quality of it's Phalanx deteriorating it was because Laconia became depopulated and Sparta lost to many men at The Battle of Leuctra and other battles.

 

Back to China a short list of the pre Qin dynasties. The two mythical ones are the 3 Sovereigns and 5 Emperors period and the Xia then you have the two historic dynasties of the Shang or Yin Dynasty and the Zhou Dynasty. The Zhou was the longest lasting Dynasty in Chinese history and it broken into the Western Zhou, Eastern Zhou, Spring and Autumn period and the warring states period. As a coherant nation state only the western Zhou would count which lasted from 1045 BCE to 722 BCE. From that point the power of the Zhou Emperor declined till he became nothing more than a figurehead and the various nobles held all the real power.