What Made Rome?

[skel]

what part, event, person place or thing, or manyo f the latter...made rome a super power? what was it in history that turned rome from just a city that was founded to one of the greatest empires in history?

 

 

 

 

edit:: as read what i just asked i dont think i made my question clear. what...um.. single major event ( or a few) defined rome as a super power and set it on its monster like course through history?

 

yes i think that explains it better...

[Primus Pilus]

The victories over Carthage in the Second Punic War (the additions of Hispania, Africa, Numidia as a client, including the re-affirmation additions of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Cisalpine Gaul, and Narbonensis) along with the follow-up wars and conquests with Macedonia and Achaea made Rome into an actual empire with multiple foreign provinces to administer.

[skel]

so one could say that, with out the punic wars... rome may never have made it?

[Zeke]

Well yes with the defeat of its only serious rival Carthage, Rome gained control of the bread basket in Africa and all of the Carthgian holdings of Spain.

 

The Punic Wars was such a cololasol event of the time that even today were talk about it as the turning point of Roman History!

 

Zeke

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, the Punic Wars defined Rome as an empire, without them, or if they had lost, the history of western civilization may be completely altered.

[Sebastianus]

I agree that the Punic Wars and the defeat of Carthage was the final step to superpower status for Rome.

 

But wasn't the initiator of the real expansion (far outside the immediate territory of Latium) the thirst for security that the Gallic sack of Rome in 390 BC caused? From what I remember, that was a real trauma for the Romans.

[Primus Pilus]

Absolutely, the Gallic threat was a persistent reality straight through to the time of Caesar. The sacking of Rome gave Romans a different resolve/motivation than they had maintained before. However, while the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul occured even before the first Punic War, by the Second Punic War, Hannibal roused the Celts into action again. There's no question that the Celtic 'rivalry' is a key part of the cultural make-up of early Rome, but without the Punic Wars Rome may never expand beyond the Italian part of Gaul (completely subjective of course and arguments can be made for any side).

[Ursus]

In addition to what the others said, keep in mind the central reason for military conquests other than security was honor and glory for the general. To promote themselves above their peers, ambitious politicos needed social capital, and in Roman society that meant serving the state through military victories. Foreign policy and domestic policy were always entwined from that standpoint.

 

The very logic of Roman cultural values suggested expansion and conquest, in other words. And I would agree this reached a climax in the Punic Wars over ultimate control of the Mediterranean.

[Sebastianus]

But Ursus was this social structure (dignitas through military conquest) unique to Roman society at the time? Didn't any of Rome's neighbours in Latium or for that matter any other states around the mediterranean at that time posses a similar societal make-up?

[Lacertus]

First of that the Romans were learned how to defend from outside enemy. Second they were intracting their enemy as allies in their fight with other enemy. So flexible policy were the basis of Roman's growth through of conquested territories. This strategy was leading to greatest wins (Carthage, etc) and Rome had achived the status of the superpower state.

[Ursus]

But Ursus was this social structure (dignitas through military conquest) unique to Roman society at the time? Didn't any of Rome's neighbours in Latium or for that matter any other states around the mediterranean at that time posses a similar societal make-up?

Hmm.

 

Well, from what I know of the Celts and the Germans, combat was more along the lines of tribal honor rather than duty to the state or social advancement. For instance, the Celts sacked Rome because Roman ambassadors had violated international law in dealing with Celtic expansion into the Etruscan Po valley. Once the Celts had extracted a hefty sum from the Romans in retribution for insulting their honor, they left without further thought of conquest or martial glory. Celtic and German values were more along the lines of defending your honor and serving your tribal chieftain than abstract notions of duty to the state or building empire.

 

The Egyptians were never a very war like race. Under the New Kingdom they did have a small empire, but martial glory was never the chief value of Egyptian culture. Peace and stability were.

 

To the Greeks arete, or excellence, was a central value. Warrior arete did count for much in all Greek city-states. But unlike Rome, Greek culture allowed men more avenues for honor and advancement. A man could gain honor by winning an athletic competition, or writing the best play. I

[Augur]

Nicely posted Ursus, particularly the latter remarks contrasting the

[Zeke]

I think I would have been Celt back in the day, just because I am fiercly loyal to my family name. I believe that the Romans were so miltiristic because they were called on by the state, it was basically a draft and people went along with it because you got paid. The Romans were like anyone in America today, greedy for money so they will do anything for money.

I think Roman motivation to go to war was because they HAD to and they wanted the MONEY.

 

Zeke

[Zeke]

To add.... the Military was a good way to move up in the political ranks to get more wealth and power. There that word again "Wealth" Roman society must have been hevily influenced by money.

 

Zeke

[Augur]

The Romans were like anyone in America today, greedy for money so they will do anything for money.

 

Hmm. Rather a nasty view of the driving motivations of both ancient Rome and comtemporary USA. The position America occupies in this old world must really be giving you an ulcer. Do you hold the same negative views about Rome during the period of its rise and predominance? If so, that is sad. Rome, particularly the 500 years of the Republic, deserves better than that. My suggestion: Drink some milk (for the ulcer) and keep reading, there is obviously much more about Rome -- and the US -- waiting to be discovered.