3 ms·

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 woul

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
    Immediately preceding the excerpt you chose to copy: > Several of the city states in southern Italy allied themselves with Hannibal, or were captured when pro-Carthaginian factions betrayed their defences. These included the large city of Capua and the major port city of Tarentum (modern Taranto). Two of the major Samnite tribes also joined the Carthaginian cause. By 214 BC the bulk of southern Italy had turned against 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
  Immediately preceding the excerpt you chose to copy: > Several of the city states in southern Italy allied themselves with Hannibal, or were captured when pro-Carthaginian factions betrayed their defences. These included the large city of Capua and the major port city of Tarentum (modern Taranto). Two of the major Samnite tribes also joined the Carthaginian cause. By 214 BC the bulk of southern Italy had turned against Rome.