Cannae and the Roman Republic

[sylla]

Polybius has no supremacist agenda.

Supremacism is "the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not". It is therefore an objective definition that leaves little place to subjectivity.

 

If you have any doubt on Polybius' supremacism, it means you have not even read his Book 6. The point here is not if he was right or wrong; the point is that it is wholly a justification on why the Romans should rule the world. BTW, that also explains why you haven't been able to find the evidence that Carthage uses citizens to man their oars yet.

 

I have already written some of its supremacist statements in post # 25 from this same thread. I can of course post some more, but frankly, it would be better if you check them for yourself from the primary source.

 

Naturally, the Roman supremacism was hardly original; as for ancient cultures goes, it was most likely the rule than the exception.

 

On the "Punic "mercenaries" issue... let's call them "auxiliaries" to avoid any additional unrequired stress, ok? I think no additional explanation for this action would be necessary by now.

 

BTW, Polybius referred at least one definitive bona fide Punic mercenary unit from Punic War II that was eventually hired by both sides, a fact that confused the Romans and provoked an unexpected reaction; with a little patience, you may spot the passage within his Histories . A hint; they were neither Gaulish nor African.

Edited June 23, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

On a minor point :

 

... It's worth noting that a Roman citizen forced to obey another man was considered as if enslaved, even if not actually constrained by status for real. Young men in love were 'emotional slaves' of their intended partner. It's an important concept.

If being forced to obey another man was considered enslavement, then pretty much everybody was a slave. In the first place the legionaries who were expected to follow orders blindly.

Objectively speaking we might even say they were indeed pretty much like slaves

[caldrail]

Supremacism is "the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not". It is therefore an objective definition that leaves little place to subjectivity.

To be honest, Scylla, you don't come across as very objective. Trying to find a neat definition of supremacism isn't really going to work, it isn't a black or white issue (pun intended). What we should be concerned about is the extremity of the views expressed. Most people think they're better drivers for instance, even after they bump into something. Our social instinctt is a positive thing but it does have a nasty underside. The two go together in any society.

 

Polybius expresses no more than you'd expect from a Roman who was proud of his nation, no worse than a modern person describing his patriotic pride. Supremacist? No. Not even close. Go and read Meine Kampf and discover what a supremacist actually is.

 

Slave to love ? That is just a figure of speech.

Yes. It is. But to the Romans, it was also a consideration of someone elses emotional state. Romans didn't pair offf for love as a rule. It was either gratification or cultural tradition. For a young Roman male, to see one of his buddies hopelessly in the grip of romantic attachment would have been something laughable. There is after all a very macho, thuggish side to Roman male behaviour, evident even in their well of offspring.

[sylla]

And on a related not-so-minor frequently overlooked point; the ignored auxiliary Roman navy that consistently bested not only the Punic citizen navy but also those from Macedonia and their Greek and Illyrian allies, unquestionably ruling over all the Mare Nostrum from the Pillars of Hercules to the Nile Delta across all those years of Punic War II. After all, the deadly toll of the Alpine crossings (by Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Mago) was required to avoid the sea route.

 

There's certain analogy to the US in WWII here; a new power simultaneously fighting two almost unrelated but powerful enemies based fundamentally on its naval supremacy. In Punic War II, this fact meant that Carthage and Macedonia were almost entirely prevented from helping each other and from attempting any concerted action. In fact, almost all the responsibility for the Eastern front (aka "First Macedonian War") rested on the navy shoulders. At the same time, the vital supply from Sicily and Egypt was guaranteed.

 

The Roman navy bested their enemies from the very first moment, beginning with the victory at Lilybaeum under Sempronius' command, (yes, the same one defeated at Trebbia) with a little help from his friends, as the song goes (Livy 21, 49-50):

 

"... military and naval actions were taking place around Sicily and the islands fringing Italy, both under the conduct of Sempronius and also before his arrival. Twenty quinqueremes with a thousand soldiers on board had been despatched by the Carthaginians to Italy, nine of them to Liparae, eight to the island of Vulcanus, and three had been carried by the currents into the Straits of Messana. These were sighted from Messana, and Hiero, the King of Syracuse, who happened to be there at the time waiting for the consul, despatched twelve ships against them, and they were taken without any opposition and brought into the harbour of Messana. It was ascertained from the prisoners, that besides the fleet of twenty ships to which they belonged which had sailed for Italy thirty-five quinqueremes were also on the way to Sicily with the object of stirring up the old allies of Carthage. Their main anxiety was to secure Lilybaeum, and the prisoners were of opinion that the storm which had separated them from the rest had also driven that fleet up to the Aegates. The king communicated this information just as he had received it to M. Aemilius, the praetor, whose province Sicily was, and advised him to throw a strong garrison into Lilybaeum... So it came to pass that although the Carthaginians had purposely lessened the speed of their vessels, so that they might approach Lilybaeum before daylight, they were descried in the offing owing to there being a moon all night, and also because they were coming with their sails set... As the Carthaginians saw that they would have to deal with people who were anything but unprepared, they stood out from the harbour till daylight, and spent the time in lowering their masts and preparing for action. When it grew light they put out to sea that they might have sufficient room for fighting, and that the enemy's ships might be free to issue from the harbour. The Romans did not decline battle, encouraged as they were by the recollection of their former conflicts in this very place, and full of confidence in the numbers and courage of their men.

 

When they had sailed out to sea the Romans were eager to come to close quarters and make a hand-to-hand fight of it; the Carthaginians, on the other hand, sought to avoid this and to succeed by maneuvering and not by direct attack; they preferred to make it a battle of ships rather than of soldiers. For their fleet was amply provided with seamen, but only scantily manned by soldiers, and whenever a ship was laid alongside one of the enemy's they were very unequally matched in fighting men. When this became generally known, the spirits of the Romans rose as they realised how many of their military were on board, whilst the Carthaginians lost heart when they remembered how few they had. Seven of their ships were captured in a very short time, the rest took to flight. In the seven ships there were 1700 soldiers and sailors, amongst them three members of the Carthaginian nobility. The Roman fleet returned undamaged into port, with the exception of one which had been rammed, but even that was brought in. Immediately after this battle Tiberius Sempronius, the consul, arrived at Messana before those in the town had heard of it. King Hiero went to meet him at the entrance of the Straits with his fleet fully equipped and manned, and went on board the consul's vessel to congratulate him on having safely arrived with his fleet and his army, and to wish him a prosperous and successful passage to Sicily."

Edited June 23, 2009 by sylla

[sylla]

Supremacism is "the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not". It is therefore an objective definition that leaves little place to subjectivity.

To be honest, Scylla, you don't come across as very objective. Trying to find a neat definition of supremacism isn't really going to work, it isn't a black or white issue (pun intended). What we should be concerned about is the extremity of the views expressed. Most people think they're better drivers for instance, even after they bump into something. Our social instinctt is a positive thing but it does have a nasty underside. The two go together in any society.

Polybius expresses no more than you'd expect from a Roman who was proud of his nation, no worse than a modern person describing his patriotic pride. Supremacist? No. Not even close. Go and read Meine Kampf and discover what a supremacist actually is.

To be honest, I seriously doubt you can quote "Meine Kampf" any better than Polybius the "Roman".

Edited June 23, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

Slave to love ? That is just a figure of speech.

Yes. It is. But to the Romans, it was also a consideration of someone elses emotional state. Romans didn't pair offf for love as a rule. It was either gratification or cultural tradition. For a young Roman male, to see one of his buddies hopelessly in the grip of romantic attachment would have been something laughable. There is after all a very macho, thuggish side to Roman male behaviour, evident even in their well of offspring.

 

And it isn't today ? Why do we use it then ? Are you arguing that a figure of speech is something else from what it was 2000 years ago ?

 

And a young dude who is completely smitten by some chick, he's not the laughing stock of his mates then ?

But of course that didn't happen in Rome.

 

Formosus

[sylla]

Talking on both Cannae and naval warfare, we shouldn

[caldrail]

To be honest, I seriously doubt you can quote "Meine Kampf" any better than Polybius the "Roman".

 

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

 

Course I can't quote Mein Kampf. I wouldn't waste my time with that kind of diatribe at all, but then I already know what a supremacist is. To be honest though, my capabilities have nothing to do with yours, and catty comments won't make your point valid. You still haven't provided a cogent arguement to support your contention and I'm certainly not wasting my time trawling through a document trying to prove you right, and for that matter, clicking your fingers at people doesn't make you a better historian. That's the problem with history Scylla. If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to prove your case, not your audience.

Edited June 24, 2009 by caldrail

[Nephele]

and catty comments won't make your point valid.

 

There have been catty comments observed coming from BOTH sides of this debate. Mods have been watching this topic, but pretty much letting you both sort things out between yourselves. Try to keep it civil, both of you, or this topic will be shut down. Nobody gives a crap who the self-perceived "winner" of the debate might be.

 

-- Nephele

[sylla]

... the ignored auxiliary Roman navy that consistently bested not only the Punic citizen navy ...

It seems a bigger picture is being drawn by now.

 

No hate is greater than that from former lovers; Carthage and Rome had a centuries-long history of seemingly cordial cooperation in common affairs.

Their VI century treaty may be mythical, as any other issue from so remote Roman narrative; but the reported treaties from the IV and III centuries BC had probably more substance behind them.

And there's no doubt that a close Roman-Punic alliance against the Hellenic-Epirote forces of Pyrrhus was fully operative for many years, scarcely a decade before the opening of the Punic Wars.

 

Even if the many differences between the huge Semitic trade port and the large Latin agricultural community were evident, their close social and political parallels were paramount; our limited sources talked about Punic vote, senate, magistrates and even dictators.

It's hard to determine how much of this parallel stuff was for real or was instead due to the cultural bias from our sources (ie, the Punic culture as seen through and depicted by Roman eyes); however, it's quite unlikely it can be wholly attributable just to the later mechanism.

Then, it would suggest a quite close mutual influence far beyond the mere military association.

In fact, it seems both societies were in the process of Hellenic acculturation by the time they clashed against each other.

 

A great deal of what was stated by the currently lost original pro-Punic sources like Philinus, Silenos and others (always in Greek) can be reasonably inferred from the eloquent Polybian response written against them;

- They were presumably at least as supremacist on their own side as Polybius and the Roman Annalists.

- They probably concluded the Carthaginian constitution was the best one ever.

- They undoubtedly presented the Punic army as courageous soldiers under able commanders that were routed by the Romans solely for:

-- Their vast numerical superiority.

-- The treason and/or cowardice of the Numidians, Iberians and other former allies.

-- Sheer bad luck.

-- And maybe even some Roman cheating.

 

Across history and with the development of specialized military units, specific weapons have been idealized by societies and rulers of different nations, like the heavy cavalry by the Persians or the aviators in WWI.

 

When comparing what we know about both the contemporary Punic and Roman armies and societies, the little differences became more significant;

- The Carthaginian thalassocracy favored the naval service for their citizen elite.

- The Roman landowners favored the heavy infantry service for their own.

Conversely, both the Punic heavy infantry and the Roman navy were mostly auxiliary units, as most other weapons in both armies.

Hence, to some extent both armies seem to have been a little distorted mirror image one of the other.

Interestingly, we can easily find analogous selections for the heavy infantry and/or the navy among the Hellenic poleis; Athens itself selected both options.

 

Any additional sourced evidence from any other UNRV member for or against this model would be highly appreciated; needless to say, unsourced statements are not essential.

Edited June 24, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

The whole discussion seems to have split up into several threads now, but since it started here :

 

I am very uncomfortable with the frequent use of terms such as 'fascism', 'supremacism', 'genocide' and other related ones in the context of ancient history. They are all 20

[sylla]

The whole discussion seems to have split up into several threads now, but since it started here :

I'm actually more interested in the analysis of the conspicuous but frequently overlooked naval warfare of Punic War II; however, I may be the only one.

 

I am very uncomfortable with the frequent use of terms such as 'fascism', 'supremacism', 'genocide' and other related ones in the context of ancient history. They are all 20

Edited June 26, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

I am very uncomfortable with the frequent use of terms such as 'fascism', 'supremacism', 'genocide' and other related ones in the context of ancient history. They are all 20

[sylla]

That the word 'genocide' is frequently used in present day historical discussions is exactly the problem : that word was specifically made up to describe one event in 20

Edited June 26, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

Webster's Seventh New College Dictionary defines genocide as :