First Roman Greek Engagement?

[Primus Pilus]

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 The phalanx was an outdated formation.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.

 

I do hope you let us read you paper when you finish. I would certainly be interested.

[Divi Filius]

You could also bring up the argument that Romans most probably faced Greek troops, or heavily Greek influenced troops, as far back as the mythical era. The Etruscans had large contact with Greeks and it also became a place of exile for some of them. Its very likely that the Etruscan Kings had Greek troops in their army, especially since mercenarism among high among Greeks of the 7-5th centuy BC.

[Antiochus III]

Primus Pilus certainly answered that. However, what do you define as a Greek army? Pyrrhus was an Epirote, and the Macedonians weren't really Greek. Just because an army used a phalanx or were led by a man of Greek descent doesn't mean they were Greek. Also, Primus Pilus failed to mention the important battle of Asculum. Pyrrhus also fought against true Greeks, so one might not consider him to be one. In fact, he was killed by a soldier of Argos after many years of unsuccessful campaigning in many places.

It is also important to note the waning of Greek power since the defeat of the Athenian Empire in the 5th century B.C. Of the four Macedonian wars, the first was somewhat non-decisive, and the second really was the end of the glory of the Macedonians. It included the battle of Cynoscephalae in 197, in which Titus Flaminius dealt Philip V a major defeat. THe third war eliminated the Macedonians as threat, and the fourth war was kind of a small uprising. By this I mean it wasn't too costly to put down.

I would agree that the destruction of Corinth in 146 put an end to the Greeks once and for all. 146 was a particularly brutal year for Rome's enemies, and is seen as a turning point, seeing as the last major Mediterranean threats were put down, and Rome used its power to begin world conquest.

 

Antiochus III

[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):

That was in Latin sources; now I found some earlier evidence in a Greek source.

Here comes Mestrius Olutarchus, De Mulierum Virtutibus, cp. XXI:

 

"Aristodemus the despot (of Cumae)... advanced to the highest offices, being admired by his fellow-citizens, and he was sent to bring aid to the Romans fwhen they were besieged by the Etruscans who would restore Tarquinius Superbus to his kingdom. In this campaign, which lasted a long time..."

[Northern Neil]

...and the Macedonians weren't really Greek.

 

This remains a matter of debate. The Athenians asserted this in classical times, more from a snobbish perspective I feel, and eighteenth century scholars continued this view, probably for similar reasons and motivated by a desire to 'agree' with the cultured Athenians. But as they were Indo Europeans who spoke and wrote Greek, worshipped Greek gods and built in classical style, what else could they have been?

Edited July 18, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Northern Neil]

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

I would say that they are today's Calabrians, Campanians and Sicilians. As late as the 6th century Naples welcomed and aided Justinian's reconquest, relieved to receive succour from the largely greek - speaking Romaioi. Italy south of Naples hasa strange peculiarity noted by the zoologist Desmond Morris:

 

Sometimes it is possible to relate the geography of modern Regional Signals to past historical events. The Chin Flick gesture, in which the backs of the fingers are swept upwards and forwards against the underside of the chin, is an insulting action in both France and northern Italy. There it means 'Get lost-you are annoying me.' In southern Italy it also has a negative meaning, but the message it carries is no longer insulting. It now says simply 'There is nothing' or 'No' or 'I cannot' or 'I don't want any'. This switch takes place between Rome and Naples and gives rise to the intriguing possibility that the difference is due to a surviving influence of ancient Greece. The Greeks colonized southern Italy, but stopped their northern movement between Rome and Naples. Greeks today use the Chin Flick in the same way as the southern Italians. In fact, the distribution of this, and certain other gestures, follows remarkably accurately the range of the Greek civilization at its zenith. Our words and our buildings still display the mark of early Greek influence, so it should not be too surprising if ancient Greek gestures are equally tenacious.

 

This is an extract from his chapter on Regional Signals, in his book Manwatching..

[ASCLEPIADES]

...and the Macedonians weren't really Greek.

 

This remains a matter of debate. The Athenians asserted this in classical times, more from a snobbish perspective I feel, and eighteenth century scholars continued this view, probably for similar reasons and motivated by a desire to 'agree' with the cultured Athenians. But as they were Indo Europeans who spoke and wrote Greek, worshipped Greek gods and built in classical style, what else could they have been?

Salve, NN. As you said, it's a matter of debate.

 

Greek and Macedonian were not the same lenguage; they were related, but it's difficult to say how closely.

The ethnic and cultural situation was probably analogous.

 

A good example of all this was the king Alexander I (he died c. 454 BC). He called himself himself Philhellenos ("friend of the Greeks"). That epithet itself implied he was not considered a Greek, even less his countrymen.

[Northern Neil]

Greek and Macedonian were not the same lenguage; they were related, but it's difficult to say how closely.

The ethnic and cultural situation was probably analogous.

 

A good example of all this was the king Alexander I (he died c. 454 BC). He called himself himself Philhellenos ("friend of the Greeks"). That epithet itself implied he was not considered a Greek, even less his countrymen.

In the 4th/5th centuries BC the dominant linguistic grouping immediately North of Greece was the 'Thraco-phrygian' group, which is on the same branch of Indo-European as Greek, and from which Greek probably evolved. Members of the Thraco-Phrygian group include Dacians, Thracians, Phrygians and Armenians. Today Armenian is regarded as being distantly related to Greek. As is often the case with related languages, maybe the interface between Thraco-Phrygian and Greek was indistinct, and there were a lot of hybrid dialects between the two language groups, including elements and heavy borrowing from each. It is likely that Macedonian fits into this category, and it might have sounded to 'True' Greeks like a bastardised and gutteral version of their language. Maybe they were a thracian tribe with Greek links and pretensions? Given that Greek is a linguistic and not a racial term, the adoption of Greek proper immediately prior to the Hellenistic period in any case makes them Greek from the fourth Century BC onwards.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Northern Neil

[ASCLEPIADES]

In the 4th/5th centuries BC the dominant linguistic grouping immediately North of Greece was the 'Thraco-phrygian' group, which is on the same branch of Indo-European as Greek, and from which Greek probably evolved. Members of the Thraco-Phrygian group include Dacians, Thracians, Phrygians and Armenians. Today Armenian is regarded as being distantly related to Greek. As is often the case with related languages, maybe the interface between Thraco-Phrygian and Greek was indistinct, and there were a lot of hybrid dialects between the two language groups, including elements and heavy borrowing from each. It is likely that Macedonian fits into this category, and it might have sounded to 'True' Greeks like a bastardised and gutteral version of their language. Maybe they were a thracian tribe with Greek links and pretensions? Given that Greek is a linguistic and not a racial term, the adoption of Greek proper immediately prior to the Hellenistic period in any case makes them Greek from the fourth Century BC onwards.

Current knowledge on the language(s)/dialect(s) spoken in classical Macedonia is extremely poor, partially because the country was subjected to a certain degree of Hellenization by the ruling Heraclid dynasty as early as the V century BC.

 

Even so, Alexander III (the Great) was not understood by his Greek soldiers when he shouted an order in his native tongue.

 

And his Greek commander Eumenes of Cardia needed a translator to address the soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx.