Rise Of Rome

[M. Porcius Cato]

That's rather fuzzy logic there. For a start, it assumes a "Fanaticism vacuum", where the only influence on cultural expansion is fanatacism.

 

No, it simply assumes that no other factors are correlated with fanaticism that are also related to rising, which is an assumption that the opposite claimant would need to make as well.

[tflex]

Let me make this simple. If the property of fanaticism causes rising, and the Romans, Celts and Germans were equally fanatical (as you claimed), then the fanaticism of Romans, Celts and Germans would have led to equal levels of rising. If science, technology, and politics causes rising, and in these the Romans were superior, then Romans would have risen above Celts and Germans. Romans did rise above Celts and Germans; therefore, fanaticism does not cause rising, rather science, technology, and politics does. QED.

 

Here's what I'm trying to say Cato. Fantacism is one of the factors that helped Rome rise into an empire. You compared the Romans to the Celts and Germans, now compare them to the Athenians. The Athenians were scientifically, technologically and politically advanced but they lacked fanaticism unlike the Romans. If you add fanaticism to the equation then the Athenians would have been ruthless enough to build an empire like the Romans did. They simply lacked the drive to conquer and rule. The Romans had everything the Athenians had, but fanticism seperated them and thats what gave them the iron will and drive to build and rule a vast empire.

Edited February 21, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

You compared the Romans to the Celts and Germans, now compare them to the Athenians. The Athenians were scientifically, technologically and politically advanced but they lacked fanaticism unlike the Romans. If you add fanaticism to the equation then the Athenians would have been ruthless enough to build an empire like the Romans did. They simply lacked the drive to conquer and rule. The Romans had everything the Athenians had, but fanticism seperated them and thats what gave them the iron will and drive to build and rule a vast empire.

 

Here your logic holds up fine, but your facts don't. The Athenians DID try to build an empire. What do you think they were doing in Melos? Or in Syracusa? Or in Asia Minor? The problem they had wasn't that they lacked ambition to rule--their problem was political. Since they were a direct democracy, the mob had the power to have generals and admirals executed when the latter didn't satisfy the mob. Consequently, the Athenians were continually attempting to expand their power, but without the benefit of able generals and admirals their 'fanaticism' was insufficient. So, again, the factor that explains the rise of Rome compared to Athens is not an issue of ambition, but one of government.

 

BTW, this whole topic is treated by Polybius, a Greek whose histories were devoted entirely to the matter of how Rome could have risen so quickly to rule the world. Not mentioning his explanation--which is largely that Roman religion and government accounted for the rise of Rome--strikes me as odd.

[tflex]

I will check Polybius's work but again the problem was ambition and motivation. The Romans changed their system several times to accomodate their changing policies. I'm not saying the Athenians weren't interested in building an empire but they couldn't do it because they lacked the drive to change their system to accomodate expansion. The Romans turned on their own capital and forced change, thats called fanaticism. The Romans had an unshakable will, if they couldn't bring about change through legal and peaceful means, then they had no problem changing it by force. The Athenians always fell short because they didn't have that edge.

Edited February 21, 2006 by tflex

[sullafelix]

I think one of the main factors in the growth of the empire was that it was an exponential process. It had a lot to do with their military prowess which was impressive and after the Latin wars they had subjugated their immediate area and surrounding tribes.

 

However, when Rome subjugated an area she did two things that were extremely important in the growth of her territory not just physically but also in terms of influence:

 

Firstly she would confiscate some territory and turn into ager romanus, then she would sign a treaty which would normally impose a great deal of Roman influence sometimes she would impose Roman law (I'll come back to this) and sometimes it would just be trade and marriage regulations (commercium and conubium) and an undertaking to provide a levy of troops to serve with the army. Her treaties were not all the same and worked pretty much on a Greek polis like structure, this meant that different statuses were conferred on different peoples and towns. Thus the highest statuses became aspirational goals for towns in her area of influence.

 

Next she would often establish colonies on some of the confiscated territory, this helped with the maintenance of order (they were military in purpose) and also promoted the process of Romanisation in the area.

 

Thirdly she would build roads and other infrastructure which vastly improved the lives of those they affacted as well as making the ovement of troops more possible.

 

She also had a policy of supporting the local elites in her conquered territory so that she could get tax from them with the least difficulty. This meant that effectively Rome became the arbitrator of local disputes (which is definitely what happened with the Greeks). It also of course helped to shatter the traditional social structure. When someone sorts out all your squabbles for you you become unable to do it for yourselves (try Plinys letters on this one, its a bit later but it shows you what had happened to the Greek east by the Fisrt Century AD)

 

Finally because the Roman mind is a legal one they often provided frameworks for trade and law etc that were far in advance of anything their peoples could produce and therefore they adopted Roman law which further aided the process of Romanisation.

 

You can see all these processes at work in Rome's unification of Italy first off (Read Livy especially the books about the Hannibalic War) and then later on they used the same processes to conquer the rest of the world. That isn't all there is to it of course but it is the nuts and bolts of how they first found the process. The most interesting thing is the fact that military occupation is the one thing that is completely absent as a long term method of maintaining control. basically they almost stumbled upon a very efficient method of maintaining control. In the Greek East for instance all the different statuses of the towns and cities caused them to squablle with each jealously rather than with Rome who they went to sort out the squabbles ...masterly!

 

Does that seem reasonable guys>

Edited February 26, 2006 by sullafelix

[caldrail]

Exponential? I wouldn't describe it as such. For any conquest state there is a surge in expansion until it becomes difficult to control the area conquered, at which point conquest states turn into defensive states that either find themselves conquered or dissipated. It happened to Rome, its happened to a lot of other nations - France, Germany, Great Britain etc.

[sullafelix]

Exponential? I wouldn't describe it as such. For any conquest state there is a surge in expansion until it becomes difficult to control the area conquered, at which point conquest states turn into defensive states that either find themselves conquered or dissipated. It happened to Rome, its happened to a lot of other nations - France, Germany, Great Britain etc.

 

 

It wasn't the size of the empire that caused it to fall apart. Are you comparing the later empires to the Roman one, because if so it carries some serious problems. The British empire, for example, attempted to keep control by military occupation the Roman empire did not work like that.

 

The Roman empire was very definitely an exponential process, it ended up in control of Greece because it felt it had little alternative, as it grew later it certainly became much more of a controlled and intentional process but the beginning was not like that and it was the start that formed the shape of the rest of the empire.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Roman empire was very definitely an exponential process

Given that the empire grew much more quickly in the early years than the later ones, the growth was not exponential--it was more logarithmic than exponential.

[Furius Venator]

The Romans use dtroops to garrison their empire to just as great an extent as the British and they were consideranly harsher at dealing with revolts. The British Empire collapsed because we were unable to persuade the educated Indian class that they were better under the empire than independent. Africa was simply abandoned. The Romans had different internal problems and could not cope with the external pressures created by the 'barbarian' states.

 

As regards fanaticism, the Gallic, German, whatever tribes weren't fanatical at all. Their 'heroic' style of warfare might have fanatical elements but to describe these societies (or Rome) as fanatical is silly. Cato has it right I think, Rome was simply better organised (a secondary factor is her refusal to admit defeat, even when crushed in battle, probably unique in western history)

[sullafelix]

The Romans use dtroops to garrison their empire to just as great an extent as the British and they were consideranly harsher at dealing with revolts. The British Empire collapsed because we were unable to persuade the educated Indian class that they were better under the empire than independent. Africa was simply abandoned. The Romans had different internal problems and could not cope with the external pressures created by the 'barbarian' states.

 

As regards fanaticism, the Gallic, German, whatever tribes weren't fanatical at all. Their 'heroic' style of warfare might have fanatical elements but to describe these societies (or Rome) as fanatical is silly. Cato has it right I think, Rome was simply better organised (a secondary factor is her refusal to admit defeat, even when crushed in battle, probably unique in western history)

 

I take your point about india. However, remember India wanted out. Right up until the end of the empire the barbarians generally wanted in.

 

In terms of using troops these were only ever strategically placed to maintain order against threats from without, not for the threat of force from within. When Rome orgiginally declared the freedom of the Greeks she had to garrison some towns against the continuing threat of Philip V. Greece is a very interesting issue in fact, Greece came to Rome for advice and for her to arbitrate in internal struggles as well as for defence against Macedon. Rome's conquest of Greece demonstrates her conquest by hegemony style that is actually more more like the current US hegemony than the Britsh empire. Later on under Lucullus the empire was expanded becase people wanted to join. This was always more the case in the more sophisticated eastern end of the mediterranean. Rather like the American Dream the pax Romana was an aspirational destination that came as a two edged sword.

 

Internally if a town was naughty and rebelled they were generally sold into slavery and the town recolonised like Capua after Hannibal.

[caldrail]

When I compared Rome and more recent european nations I wasn't suggesting that circumstances were identical. I merely meant that conquest states expand like a balloon that doesn't necessarily burst, but definitely gets harder to inflate.

[Moonlapse]

I consider their rise to be a result of mainly two things. The first being their political and administrative methods, which were very accomodating to the locality and provided incentive to cooperate. In return, they were able to levy considerable armies which brings me to the second point. If the Romans were not so incredibly persistent and unwilling to forfeit in their early military campaigns and did not have support from their confederacy and thus the ability to levy new armies and build new fleets even after crushing defeats, they would have surely lost the Punic Wars - and their first major expansion outside of Italia.

 

Of course, its much more complex than that, but thats my best summary.

[Aphrodite]

There was a point when it looked like Rome would not survive though, as they had no women!

 

But they overcame that by nicking a few from neighboring towns

[Neos Dionysos]

There was a point when it looked like Rome would not survive though, as they had no women!

 

But they overcame that by nicking a few from neighboring towns

 

That's perhaps the most nicely put way I have yet seen for the Romans actions to the Sabine women...

 

Still I consider that more of a story of myth than anything else....

[Aphrodite]

Well the ancient sources say that many of the stolen women ended up marrying in love to the romans, i like a good romance!