4 ms·

I don't know that much about the Roman Republic and Empire, but I think your commentary misses a few facts: The Roman Republic, as a political entity, was able

I don't know that much about the Roman Republic and Empire, but I think your commentary misses a few facts: The Roman Republic, as a political entity, was able to muster enormous resources relative to its size, and in the midst of calamitious circumstances too. The best example is the Republic raising legion after legion with which to challenge Carthage, and maintaining the loyalty of all of the cities allied to it, after Hannibal's army had defeated it in a string of battles, and finally, killed a significant fraction of its male population at the battle of Cannae. I assume it was the construction of the Roman government, with its elected leaders, and the political culture of the Roman polity, that viewed the people as the source of all power (as exemplified by SPQR), that inspired this cohesion and loyalty, and it was these qualities that were the primary and ultimate source of its power. Roman generals in later centuries frequently seized power to become emperors, and this in turn undermined the basis of Roman power, which was a large subsection of the population and fraction of power centers being integrated into the political establishment through elected positions, and consequently having a stake in the success of the state. So the suspicion the elected leaders had towards generals may have been well-founded, and been the reason the elected government maintained power for as long as it did.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
I don’t think Rome had a significant resource advantage over its enemies during the second Punic war. Carthage was very wealthy at that stage, benefitting massively from their conquest in Iberia. It’s also a mistake to say that Rome inspired significant cohesion and loyalty. The only groups that remained loyal to Rome during the second Punic war were the northern Latin cities. Many cities in the south defected to Hannibal, a lot of the Gallic tribes that had peaceful arrangements with Rome took the opportunity to restart aggressions, Macedonia and many Greek states also took the opportunity to start various conflicts with Rome. The characteristic of the senate that you could credit to some extent was that they would simply never surrender. That seems to be a very strong Roman cultural value during that period. Rome lost every battle it fought in Italy during the second war. After Cannae they had almost no army, and Hannibal took his army to Rome, and Rome refused to surrender, and Hannibal… left. Because he didn’t have the resources to besiege Rome, and Carthage hadn’t managed (and never did manage) to reinforce him. So he spent a around a decade in control of large areas in southern Italy, unable to fully defeat Rome, and Rome unable to evict him from the peninsula, and with no realistic prospect of ever being able to. And they never did. Scipio Africanus removed Hannibal from Italy by first conquering Carthaginian Iberia, and then launching a campaign in Africa. This caused Carthage to recall Hannibal home, where he was subsequently defeated by Scipio, ending the war. It’s also worth noting that Scipio’s campaign in Africa was not properly funded by Rome. His army had a large contingent of volunteers, and the campaign was mostly funded by his private supporters.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Had a 5th century Roman emperor refused to surrender, after suffering the losses the Roman Republic did in the Second Punic war, his generals and governors would have defected and seceded, respectively. Especially once that emperor tried to press more men into service after over 100,000 had already been killed by an invading force. The Senate was able to remain in power because of a cohesion that didn't appear to be present in rival states or the Late Roman Empire. The fractious nature of Senate politics was a consequence of a culture and set of institutions that encouraged and allowed domestic conflicts to be settled within the confines of established political processes, so that the Senate as an institution, while often beset by bitter internal political strife, did not face challenges from external centers of power within Roman society. The power and resiliency that this gave the Senate allowed it to maintain control even when Rome was under extreme stress, like it was in its depopulated state during the Second Punic War when it managed to raise two dozen legions. >>The only groups that remained loyal to Rome during the second Punic war were the northern Latin cities. You're correct that there was a lot of defection, but most cities in the Italian peninsula remained loyal to Rome.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    Your idea of a cohesive and loyal republic here seems to hinge entirely on the fact that the senate never surrendered, which isn’t nearly as remarkable as you’re making it out to be. Carthage didn’t surrender in the 3rd war either, but they were certainly not a highly cohesive entity at that stage. During the second Punic war nearly half of the republic defected, and almost all Roman allies turned on them. Including a pro-Carthaginian uprising in Sardinia, and and outright defection of Syracuse to Carthage. I guess you’re free to interpret things however you want, but “cohesive and loyal” is such an incredibly creative interpretation of the Roman republic during Hannibal’s invasion.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      The Senate didn't surrender, and still maintained the loyalty of the wider governing apparatus that collected resources for its campaigns. To be able to raise two dozen legions after the losses suffered in the first three years of the Second Punic War, suggests to me an extraordinary level of social cohesion and stability of government rule. I believe you are incorrect about the defections as well. One source supporting this notion is Adrian Goldsworthy's "The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC", which, by way of Wikipedia, claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War#Hannibal_crosses_the_Alps,_218_BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War#Hannibal_cros... However, the majority of Rome's allies remained loyal, including many in southern Italy.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

I don’t think Rome had a significant resource advantage over its enemies during the second Punic war. Carthage was very wealthy at that stage, benefitting massively from their conquest in Iberia. It’s also a mistake to say that Rome inspired significant cohesion and loyalty. The only groups that remained loyal to Rome during the second Punic war were the northern Latin cities. Many cities in the south defected to Hannibal, a lot of the Gallic tribes that had peaceful arrangements with Rome took the opportunity to restart aggressions, Macedonia and many Greek states also took the opportunity to start various conflicts with Rome. The characteristic of the senate that you could credit to some extent was that they would simply never surrender. That seems to be a very strong Roman cultural value during that period. Rome lost every battle it fought in Italy during the second war. After Cannae they had almost no army, and Hannibal took his army to Rome, and Rome refused to surrender, and Hannibal… left. Because he didn’t have the resources to besiege Rome, and Carthage hadn’t managed (and never did manage) to reinforce him. So he spent a around a decade in control of large areas in southern Italy, unable to fully defeat Rome, and Rome unable to evict him from the peninsula, and with no realistic prospect of ever being able to. And they never did. Scipio Africanus removed Hannibal from Italy by first conquering Carthaginian Iberia, and then launching a campaign in Africa. This caused Carthage to recall Hannibal home, where he was subsequently defeated by Scipio, ending the war. It’s also worth noting that Scipio’s campaign in Africa was not properly funded by Rome. His army had a large contingent of volunteers, and the campaign was mostly funded by his private supporters.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Had a 5th century Roman emperor refused to surrender, after suffering the losses the Roman Republic did in the Second Punic war, his generals and governors would have defected and seceded, respectively. Especially once that emperor tried to press more men into service after over 100,000 had already been killed by an invading force. The Senate was able to remain in power because of a cohesion that didn't appear to be present in rival states or the Late Roman Empire. The fractious nature of Senate politics was a consequence of a culture and set of institutions that encouraged and allowed domestic conflicts to be settled within the confines of established political processes, so that the Senate as an institution, while often beset by bitter internal political strife, did not face challenges from external centers of power within Roman society. The power and resiliency that this gave the Senate allowed it to maintain control even when Rome was under extreme stress, like it was in its depopulated state during the Second Punic War when it managed to raise two dozen legions. >>The only groups that remained loyal to Rome during the second Punic war were the northern Latin cities. You're correct that there was a lot of defection, but most cities in the Italian peninsula remained loyal to Rome.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  Your idea of a cohesive and loyal republic here seems to hinge entirely on the fact that the senate never surrendered, which isn’t nearly as remarkable as you’re making it out to be. Carthage didn’t surrender in the 3rd war either, but they were certainly not a highly cohesive entity at that stage. During the second Punic war nearly half of the republic defected, and almost all Roman allies turned on them. Including a pro-Carthaginian uprising in Sardinia, and and outright defection of Syracuse to Carthage. I guess you’re free to interpret things however you want, but “cohesive and loyal” is such an incredibly creative interpretation of the Roman republic during Hannibal’s invasion.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    The Senate didn't surrender, and still maintained the loyalty of the wider governing apparatus that collected resources for its campaigns. To be able to raise two dozen legions after the losses suffered in the first three years of the Second Punic War, suggests to me an extraordinary level of social cohesion and stability of government rule. I believe you are incorrect about the defections as well. One source supporting this notion is Adrian Goldsworthy's "The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC", which, by way of Wikipedia, claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War#Hannibal_crosses_the_Alps,_218_BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War#Hannibal_cros... However, the majority of Rome's allies remained loyal, including many in southern Italy.