First Roman Greek Engagement?

[longshotgene]

Does anyone know when the first alleged Greek and Roman battle took place? I thought it might have been the battle of Pydna, but was unsure. Also, when did the Greeks finally submit to the Romans?

[Primus Pilus]

Does anyone know when the first alleged Greek and Roman battle took place? I thought it might have been the battle of Pydna, but was unsure. Also, when did the Greeks finally submit to the Romans?

 

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum), but these were hardly the epic sort of engagements that we would consider defining moments. The first major encounters between what we might consider a classic Greek\Hellenistic state and the Romans was during the invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus (c. 280 - 275 BC).

 

Pyrrhus is famous for having won just about every battle, but losing so many men in the process that he couldn't win the war... a Pyrrhic Victory.

 

[edit] Sorry, I failed to answer the entire question. The first major battle was Heraclea in 280, followed by Apulia in 279. The traditional territory of Macedonia and eventually Greece did not completely submit to Roman authority until after 4 "Macedonian Wars" (215 to 205, 200 to 196, 172 to 168 & 150 to 148) and the revolt of the Achaean League in 146 BC, resulting in the razing of Corinth to the ground.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Does anyone know when the first alleged Greek and Roman battle took place? I thought it might have been the battle of Pydna, but was unsure. Also, when did the Greeks finally submit to the Romans?

 

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum),

Salve, Amici.

The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV):

 

"Both consuls sent word to the senate that there were very slender hopes of the Samnites remaining at peace. Publilius informed them that 2000 troops from Nola and 4000 Samnites had been admitted into Palaeopolis, more under pressure from Nola than from any great desire for their presence on the part of the Greeks; Cornelius sent the additional information that orders for a general levy had been issued throughout Samnium, and attempts were being openly made to induce the neighbouring communities of Privernum, Fundi, and Formiae to rise. ... Publilius meantime had taken up a suitable position between Palaeopolis and Neapolis in order to prevent them from rendering each other the mutual assistance they had hitherto given. The time for the elections was close at hand, and it would have been most inexpedient for the public interest to recall Publilius, as he was ready to attack the place and in daily expectation of effecting its capture. An arrangement was accordingly made with the tribunes of the plebs to propose to the people that at the expiration of his term of office Publilius should continue to act as proconsul till the war with the Greeks was brought to a close. The same step was taken with regard to Cornelius, who had already entered Samnium, and written instructions were sent to him to nominate a Dictator to hold the elections. He nominated M. Claudius Marcellus, and Sp. Postumius was named by him Master of the Horse. ... At last L. Aemilius, the fourteenth interrex, declared C. Poetilius and L. Papirius Mugilanus duly elected. In other lists I find Cursor...The foundation of Alexandria in Egypt is stated to have taken place this year, ... The new consuls, acting on the orders of the people, sent heralds to deliver a formal declaration of war to the Samnites, and made all their preparations on a much greater scale for this war than for the one against the Greeks... the other war against the Greeks was approaching its close. Not only were the two towns Palaeopolis and Neapolis cut off from all communication with each other by the enemy's lines, but the townsfolk within the walls were practically prisoners to their own defenders, and were suffering more from them than from anything which the outside enemy could do; their wives and children were exposed to such extreme indignities as are only inflicted when cities are stormed and sacked. A report reached them that succours were coming from Tarentum and from the Samnites. They considered that they had more Samnites than they wanted already within their walls, but the force from Tarentum composed of Greeks, they were prepared to welcome, being Greeks themselves, and through their means they hoped to resist the Samnites and the Nolans no less than the Romans. At last, surrender to the Romans seemed the less of the two evils. Charilaus and Nymphius, the leading men in the city, arranged with one another the respective parts they were to play... The Roman commander gave his approval to the proposed scheme and furnished him with 3000 men to seize that part of the city which was in the occupation of the Samnites. L. Quinctius, a military tribune, was in command of this force."

[Primus Pilus]

Does anyone know when the first alleged Greek and Roman battle took place? I thought it might have been the battle of Pydna, but was unsure. Also, when did the Greeks finally submit to the Romans?

 

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum),

Salve, Amici.

The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV):

 

Was there not an earlier encounter with Capua... hmm, this may have been later than I recall?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Does anyone know when the first alleged Greek and Roman battle took place? I thought it might have been the battle of Pydna, but was unsure. Also, when did the Greeks finally submit to the Romans?

 

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum),

Salve, Amici.

The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV):

 

Was there not an earlier encounter with Capua... hmm, this may have been later than I recall?

Anyway, Capua was not Greek.

[julieboy]

How much did the Romans and the Samnites assimilate with the Greeks ? Was there more Greek/Roman assimilaton and intermarriage,or more Samnite/Greek assimilation and intermarriage ?

[ASCLEPIADES]

How much did the Romans and the Samnites assimilate with the Greeks ? Was there more Greek/Roman assimilaton and intermarriage,or more Samnite/Greek assimilation and intermarriage ?

Salve, JB.

 

I would think that is almost impossible to determine based on available sources.

 

Anyway, judging by the Roman attitude toward conubium, I think intermarriage was not so common.

[julieboy]

If intermarriage was not common,what happened to the Samnites and these Greeks? Who are they today?

[Primus Pilus]

Does anyone know when the first alleged Greek and Roman battle took place? I thought it might have been the battle of Pydna, but was unsure. Also, when did the Greeks finally submit to the Romans?

 

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum),

Salve, Amici.

The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV):

 

Was there not an earlier encounter with Capua... hmm, this may have been later than I recall?

Anyway, Capua was not Greek.

 

My bad, I confused Cumae and Capua... also in Campania. Regardless, the Samnite Wars and later battles between Rome and Magna Graecia are not quite representative of the classic idea of Greece vs. Rome, but I suppose that depends on what the original poster was getting at.

[M. Porcius Cato]

what happened to the Samnites and these Greeks? Who are they today?

 

Sulla was said to have reduced Samnite cities into mere villages, so they were certainly reduced as a potential influence as well as a potential threat. For modern place names reflecting Samnite influences, see HERE.

[longshotgene]

So what would have been the first major battle the Greeks lost to the Romans? I am starting my paper, and have been searching for this battle, but cannot find it. I know there was one major battle that showed the end of Greek supremacy.

[Primus Pilus]

So what would have been the first major battle the Greeks lost to the Romans? I am starting my paper, and have been searching for this battle, but cannot find it. I know there was one major battle that showed the end of Greek supremacy.

 

As you can see we've presented several possibilities, depending on what you mean by Greek. Do you feel that the Roman wars with Magna Graecia are the beginning? If so see Asclepiades post #3 above. Livy does not really a provide a description of a specific battle, but you can see the beginning of the Roman conflict with the Greek colonies of southern Italy.

 

For a battle with a truly Greek or Hellenistic Phalanx army, see my post #2 above for the war with Pyrrhus. The first major battle was Heraclea in 280 BC (an Epirote victory). Pyrrhus was not really defeated until Beneventum in 275.

 

If you believe the starting point is after the unification of Italy and the Roman conflicts with Macedonia, then you have to begin considerably later. While Rome may have been technically at war with Philip perhaps as early as 215 BC, there were no definitive recorded battles between the 2 nations until considerably later. (Rome was too pre-occupied with Hannibal in Italy to focus on Macedonian aggression against Roman interests across the Adriatic.) Though there were likely many skirmishes, the first battle of note was at Aous in 198 BC.

 

One more if.... If you are focusing on war between the Romans and actual Greeks (rather than Macedonians or Epirotes) then you must start much later. The Greek cities were largely under the influence of Macedonia prior to the Roman wars, so there was little military interaction directly between the two. In fact the Achaeans were allies of the Romans (see the battle of Gythium) until they felt that the Roman influence had become a yolk that was too heavy to bear. Metellus Macedonicus defeated the Achaeans at Scarpheia in 147 BC and Cheronea in 146. These battles were followed up by the destruction of Corinth by Lucius Mummius. That effectively ended any resistance in the region to Roman authority. (However, the invasion of Mithridates in the mid 80's BC did inspire thoughts of independence, but it was rather short lived.)

 

Forgive my rambling... but as for the actual question: Yes Pydna (the first one in 168 BC) would definately represent the decline of Macedonian influence and the rise of Roman supremacy. Second Pydna 20 years later was really the proverbial nail in the coffin.

[ASCLEPIADES]

So what would have been the first major battle the Greeks lost to the Romans? I am starting my paper, and have been searching for this battle, but cannot find it. I know there was one major battle that showed the end of Greek supremacy.

As PP explained you, that depends in what you define as Greek.

 

The supremacy ended by Rome at Greece was Macedonian, not strictly "Greek" (ie, Hellenic); this distinction is cardinal..

 

Presumably the end of Macedonian supremacy was determined by the defeat of the King Philip V by Titus Quinctius Flamininus in DLVII AUC / 197 BC at Cynoscephalae ("Dog's heads"); from then on, Macedonia was mostly a Roman satellite until it became a province at DCVIII AUC / 146 BC.

[Primus Pilus]

So what would have been the first major battle the Greeks lost to the Romans? I am starting my paper, and have been searching for this battle, but cannot find it. I know there was one major battle that showed the end of Greek supremacy.

As PP explained you, that depends in what you define as Greek.

 

The supremacy ended by Rome at Greece was Macedonian, not strictly "Greek" (ie, Hellenic); this distinction is cardinal..

 

Presumably the end of Macedonian supremacy was determined by the defeat of the King Philip V by Titus Quinctius Flamininus in DLVII AUC / 197 BC at Cynoscephalae ("Dog's heads"); from then on, Macedonia was mostly a Roman satellite until it became a province at DCVIII AUC / 146 BC.

 

I agree completely that Cynoscephalae was a resounding victory for the legion over the phalanx, and was the first step in the defeat of Macedonia. Clearly Macedonia was forced to give up it's influence over the Peloponnese and was made a tributary to Rome. However, the difficulty here is that Philip was left as an independent buffer with Asia minor and Seleucia, while his own kingdom was still quite intact.

 

It wasn't long after that Philip's son Perseus began to challenge Roman authority in the surrounding region. Engaging the Macedonians was initially resisted by the Romans, but they were eventually forced to act when the allied state of Pergamum was placed in direct danger. (Provided of course that we trust the reported Roman method of supposedly maintaining a non aggressive stance until an ally called for help... a recurring event throughout Roman history). Ultimately, I feel that it's the victory at Pydna that left Macedonia as a virtual colony, forced the break up of the Illyrian kingdom under Genthius, decimated Epirus, left Achaea under the absolute hegemony of Rome, and opened the door to the east.

 

Of course, once again, any of this is a matter of relative perspective and I suppose it's up to longshotgene to decide what criteria he uses in his paper. In any case, I hope the banter he provides a solid starting point.

[longshotgene]

Thanks guys for the info. The premis of my paper is the history of the Ancient Greek war machine, and how one of the reasons the Greek states fell was due to stagnancy in the military. The phalanx was an outdated formation. The Greeks insisted on using. The Macedonians insisted on using it. They continued making the same spear bigger and longer. It kind of reminds me of the German Me-109 during World War II. For its time during the Spanish Civil War and the Battle of Britain, it was a fine machine. But the Germans wouldn't let the design die. They kept modifying it, which eventually led to more deaths. Back to the original point, I want to show that this lack of change amongst other things led to the eventual outflanking and defeat manuever by the Romans. I think I can prove all of this, but I need to get the details. That is why I thought I would ask the pros. Thank you for the help by the way.