Carthage: Romes Greatest Enemy?

[Corburlo]

Hey there guys, i am doing a dissertation style qualification, roughly 8,000 words and i would like to see if you could help me with 2 problems i am currently facing.

 

 

1. Is this topic a little too broad, i intend on focusing on Carthage and the incurring barabrian tribes such as the Germans and later such tribes from the steppe as well as parthia a section of Attila and other imporant invaders of the late roman  and the Ottoman and Sassanian empires. The essay is supposed to be understandable for those with little prior knowledge. I feel it may be, if there are any suggestions for a more refined title i am open to suggestions.

 

2. I need some good people to help me stay on track who know there way around the period/s and will likely help me. 

 

FYI supervisors are not required to work late nights or even more than an hour, it is purely up to them when they help. They are under no obligations and have no need to sign anything. I am based in the UK but international contacts are absolutely fine.

 

Thanks  

[caldrail]

The Romans clearly thought of Carthage as their greatest enemy. Florus refers to Cannae as Rome's "fourth and almost fatal wound". However, Carthage was an enemy they defeated, and there wasn't another directly competing with Rome for the same territory.  The later barbarians, even when the cooperated in late empire, were not out to destroy Rome. They wanted to grab some of its lands or more usually, its wealth. The war with Goths for instance wasn't even about that - in the first instance it was a result of migratory pressure from the Huns, and in the second, a revolt against the extremely poor treatment meted out to Gothic immigrants by the Romans themselves.

 

Clearly then you need to consider context. It isn't just about who's army was biggest or the number of wars fought - it was also about the causes, motives, and objectives of those hostilities.

[Corburlo]

OK, so how about this as a rough start. How close Rome came to defeat in the 1st and 2nd punic wars. meaning losing the first and second punic war.

[caldrail]

The more you become familiar with the history of those conflicts, the easier this task will be. Certainly you need to mention Rome's reverse engineered navy, it's adaption of tactics for marine battles, Hannibals strategies and successes in battles, the muddled strategy, poor battle results, and inherent organisation problems of the Roman forces weighed against their ensuing Fabian strategy and available manpower. People in Rome thought that after Cannae all was lost. They panicked, convinced that Hannibal was within a few days march of ssacking Rome. Why didn't he? Why did he fail to land a final blow in his Italian campign? Elephants, however dramatic, were insiginficant in the long term as only a few made it across the Alps and disappear in the record shortly after. Consider the theatres of war - Spain, Africa, Italy, and elsewhere.

[Corburlo]

do you know of anybody who could help me out with the punic wars? As in someone i could email or contact in anyway as i mentioned in my post?

[Viggen]

...here an interesting research paper from a military tactical point of view

 

Comparing Strategies of the 2d Punic War: Rome’s Strategic Victory Over the Tact ical/Operational Genius, Hannibal Barca

http://www.iwar.org.uk/military/resources/hannibal/Parker_J_P_01.pdf

[Axel Wers]

I think it's not possible consider what enemy was the most dangerous for Roman for easy reason: history of Roman Empire (including kingdom and republic) is very long with different historical outcomes.

1. Roman Kingdom: Early Rome controlled part of Apennine peninsula and Romans had to fight with some other inhabitants like Umbrians, Etruscans etc. Rome was "only" common city state like other cities in neighbourhoods.

2. Roman Republic: Gauls looted Rome in 390 BC. and Rome was almost defeated. Romans fought for last buildings and fortunately they won. Yes Carthaginians were very dangerous. After Battle of Canae Hannibal could led war against Rome city directly, but he stopped his campaign and Romans could repair their defence.

3. Roman Empire: Wars with germanic tribes were infinite. Empire was exhausted after few centuries. We cannot forget the Persian empire, permanent enemy on eastern boundaries for 4 centuries. And finally Arabs and Turks who took vast territories and empire lost important areas (like Egypt, and later Anatolia).

 

These points are reasons why Roman Empire was one of few greatest empires in Earth history. Romans fought on several fronts with various enemies with different weaponry and been able to maintain their empire for two millennia.

[Corburlo]

ok so as i have said i have specified my search and question 

[Onasander]

As you appear to be a student, I won't tell you the underlining facts, but will explain to you in detail what you presented so you can think and present better.... this is 90% of the struggle.

 

It's very clear to me you have a wide range of subjects your interested in, but they are also a mess in your mind, because your not quite certain how they relate, but know they do.

 

 

In terms of "Theory of Mind", in how I presume how you think from within my own mind, you seem to be sticking on a dichotomy known in western military studies known as "Interior and Exterior Lines". Its a term that looks at warfare fought within your territory, or the enemies. Studies several factors such as economic repercussions, morale, logistics, ability to community and exploit local knowledge, civilian loyalty and hinderance, etc. Each of these are new categories. Each one can be structured into a polarity against a counterpart, or left alone.

 

You structure these ideas via root logic. Root logic is very simple, it's like the branches of a tree. Your original category (you seem to favor Romans fighting on interior lines) is the top. From it, lines branch off, and new ideas pop up, and are examined in condition to the top, down...... some ideas merge, some stay separate.

 

It's a easy way to sort your facts, and see how balanced your ideas are.

 

Your task from here is to use theory of mind of your audience... your teacher, and writes about this root system in a way he can easily grasp.

 

It's important to note the Romans, and their enemies, were a very long lived, fluid civilization that changed alot. For example, technically the islamic caliphates was Romes greatest enemy, followed up by the Gauls.... they threatened their existence much longer, and were much better placed to topple them than Carthage or the Huns, who fought Rome for much shorter periods of time and never managed to override Romes Capitals like the others managed.

 

If you need more categories, especially ones structured on dichotomies, the historians bible is Ralph Sawyers translation of "One Hundred Unorthodox Strategies", download the preview on kindle fir free, each category is listed in the table of contents. Or, read books from authors like Jomini, Sun Tzu, and Clausewitz.

 

Or you can take a more mathematical approach to your logical bearings. You can (I dislike it, pet peeve, but people do it so often anyway) accept a aspect of rome as a Evolutionary Stable Strategy (making it essentially Rome for you, static through the ages) and explore the axiomatic structure and implications.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy

 

That link gets you started.

 

8000 words is easy. Easier if you tackle this categorically, and work your ideas out in advance, it becomes a web of mutually reinforcing paragraphs that trigger alot of lights in your teachers head.

 

But as your a student, I expect you to do the actual studying yourself. Feel free to post or pm your results for clarification or detection of weaknesses, but the point of this exercise is to see if you can do the research initially yourself.