Times of war tend to bring out both the strengths and weaknesses of a society. This is particularly true of Republican Rome. Please read through one or two of the selections linked below. Pick out an incident/passage that shows either the surprising nature of Roman success or one of the characteristics of Republican Rome that makes that success not so surprising.Selections you should find interesting include: Livy's description of the Roman method of declaring war, Livy's account of the war with and eventual destruction of Veii (Book V, sections 1-23), Livy's account of the Sack of Rome by the Gauls and Camillus' rescue of Rome (Book V, sections 33-55), Polybius' description of The Battle of Cannae, Polybius' comparison of the Roman maniple to the Macedonian phalanx, and Polybius' description of Roman government.
An incident I found to be successful in Republican Rome in Livy's account of the war with Veii was the scene of Appius Claudius' speech in the Roman Senate. The war with Veii had come to somewhat of a standstill once the Romans attacked the city of Veii once. Many of the forts and siege weapons were still in place yet the Romans were reluctant to advance on the city again. Back in Rome plebeian tribunes were influencing the Senate to avoid war and save the lives of the plebeian soldiers. Enter Appius Claudius. He takes the stage at the Senate floor and begins discussing Roman military and its future legacy if they were to continue this war in a appeasement way. This wonderful speech is full of underlying Roman military themes, such as absolute conquest, strategic and smart troop movement, and adds to idea of the Roman people being destined for more greatness then the neighboring cultures. I got goosebumps from reading the scene after the speech where plebeian and patrician alike weep for joy as the rallying speech of Appius Claudius causes a multitude of Roman citizens to take up arms for the "dream of Rome". This came as a surprise to me because of the unification of the Roman people once they all saw a conflict the same way.
ReplyDelete-Jackson Pasco
The Roman method of declaring war seems very in line with its republican type of government. It combines the impressive forcefulness of their religion and the efficiency of bureaucracy. Giving the opposing nation 30 days to respond shows a certain amount of respect and so its not so surprising that many of these nations joined the empire willingly. when war was declared, the messenger threw a blood tipped spear at the enemy as a declaration. this type of threat to me seems both brutal and elegant and would do a good job of initiating fear.
ReplyDeleteI read the passage that compared the Roman maniple to the phalanx. This article displayed Roman success by showing how Rome's military organization had evolved from previous ways of warfare. One such was was that the Roman maniple was flexible and able to be effective in any terrain, where as the phalanx was only capable of flat terrain and was not a well rounded formation. The author also argues that each Roman can work as an individual or in a smaller detachment, something that would break the phalanx effectiveness altogether. He does, however, make the argument that when the phalanx is deployed in the right circumstance, it is near impossible to break.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the author gives the sense that the Roman maniple is the superior form of mobilization because of its flexibility and reliability on the individual soldier rather then a strong wall of man power.
-Zack Krage
I like the Roman way of declaring war. That if you didn't give them what they want or surrender to them the Roman said it was in-just and declared war. Saying that they are right to have their rights. They declared war and then fling a spare at you and then the matter was resolved.
ReplyDeleteChristina Grimme
I read the Roman way of declaring war. I thought this was interesting because they say you must have a just reason to go to war and you can't just attack a nation for no legitimate reason. I also liked how the Romans gave stipulations, if you don't give us wart we want in 30 days we will take it from you. The Roman way of war seems just after reading this article
ReplyDeleteI also read the piece on declaring war. I found it very interesting that with how strong the Roman army was they needed a reason to attack a land rather than just show up and take over. The 30 days to surrender i thought was interesting because it shows a kind of soft side of the Romans, even though they were probably turned into slaves after they surrendered.
ReplyDelete