Don't Fuck With The Romans
The enigma that is ancient Rome. How Rome became a vast empire, at its height, controlling 5,000,000 square kilometres, is a fascinating story indeed. In 550 BC, Rome was no more than a collection of mud huts spread over seven hills overlooking the river Tiber, no different from many other small communities spread across the Italian peninsula. In fact, the dominant people of the region were the Etruscans. The Etruscans were a mysterious people who formed a loose confederation of cities controlling most of central and north Italy. It is likely that Rome of c550 BC was ruled by Etruscan kings. According to legend, the last king, Tarquinus Superbus, was expelled in 509 BC, and Rome became free of foreign rule. We now enter a period that becomes Roman history proper, free from legend and myth, at least for the most part. Thus, we are on a sure footing (with minor miss steps) when we state that by 509 BC, Rome was ruled by two elected consuls. This political system proved remarkably robust/stable and lasted until the usurpation of power by the first Emporer, Octavian, in 27 BC.
The young republic faced many problems and soon fell into conflict with its neighbours. War was effectively continuous, nay endemic. Each year an army was raised and sent out on campaign during the summer months to cause mayhem. Rome's early army was a militia composed of land-owning citizens. It was essentially a middle-class fighting force composed of men who could afford the expense of purchasing their own military equipment. Roman armies of the period were far from the typical portrayal of the highly trained and disciplined Roman legions. By c341 BC, Rome dominated the surrounding Latin cities and had forged alliances of varying merit. This was essential as the young republic had many enemies. At this period, they were mainly at loggerheads with the Etruscans, but they also had enemies to the southeast (Samnites) and to the south (Volsci).
The above preamble still does not address the reasons why Rome proved different from its neighbours. However, by 509 BC, the seeds of their future success had been planted. Each of these elements is now considered.
Acceptance
Rome was not exclusive. After conquering their Latin neighbours, they were willing to incorporate them in partnership, offering full citizenship in some circumstances and advantageous military alliances to others. This benevolent incorporation was not something that was widespread in the ancient world, particularly in Mediterranean societies in general. Certainly, the Greeks were vehemently exclusive to their ultimate detriment and that was the dominant view amongst most ancient peoples. Usually, conquered cities were looted and destroyed, and the population enslaved. Roman domination of Latium was relatively benign for ancient times, and usually, all they asked of the conquered Latin state was military assistance. Thus, Rome had access to large numbers of troops, many of which were not Roman. This conferred on the nascent state a degree of military resilience not given to near-sighted, parsimonious others. It meant that a single defeat in battle or a series of defeats was not necessarily disastrous. Roman armies had a hydra-like quality of regeneration, and as long as they won the last battle of the war, previous defeats were not catastrophic calamities. For instance, during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), the Romans lost 250,000 men in battle but raised 750,000 men during this time and ultimately won the war.
This acceptance of 'others' was nothing new to the Romans. The legends and myths of earlier times emphasised the concept of foreign incorporation. And if there is any kernel of truth in these stories, early Rome was a haven for runaways, criminals and assorted vagabonds. 'The Famous Rape of the Sabines' ended well with the amalgam of Romans and Sabines- what an uplifting story!
Roman Character
The Romans had an idea of the perfect Roman Citizen. Now, this concept is one only reserved for the rich patricians, and undoubtedly, the plebians were too busy pushing the plough to have such high-minded principles. Whilst researching this very question I found a list of 15 qualities expected of the noble Roman. I'll not bore you with a full exposition here. In essence: resilience, respectability, dignity, piety and devolution to family and ancestors. Undoubtedly, the recipient of such qualities may have represented the symbol of the perfect Roman patrician, although, in reality, such individuals would be as rare as rocking horse droppings. Perhaps Cinncinatus and Cato the Elder are about as close as we can get. Anyone close to this ideal, although 'perfect', would have proved particularly boring dinner guests. No one wants to continually hear "Carthago Delenda Est" after every course.
No doubt the Romans had a practical, no-nonsense hardness about them as you would expect from a rude bucolic folk. And yet we see this strange, oddly sitting dichotomy of character. In combination with flint hard, pragmatic rationalism and dogged resilience, we encounter a devotion to irrational rites and superstition. Not quite to the level of Eastern despotic reveries, but strange bedfellows indeed. Luckily for the Romans, their steadfast resilience would prove transcendent as they would have to draw on these indefatigable reserves in the centuries to come. The Samnite wars, Latin rebellions, Pyrrhic and especially the second Punic war would quaff deep into their resilience to the very dregs. And it was this ability to rebound and continue that would truly define the 'Roman Character' and would prove an important element in their overall success. This neatly brings me to their mode of government.
Government
I've previously written a post concerning the Roman Republican system. It might be a good idea to read this post first, as I don't have the space here to devote more than a cursory glance at its contrived strengths and weaknesses. Read here.
After the Romans threw off the shackles of kingship, they developed a flexible and adaptable system of government. It would evolve and change over time to overcome and acknowledge new political realities. The Republic of Rome lasted for 500 years and the latter 275 years, in my opinion, represents Rome's 'Golden Age'. The Republican system combined the necessary checks and balances essential for political stability and for the prevention of usurpation of power. It ultimately failed for complex reasons. Even before the frank seizure of power under the Empire, the cracks were starting to show. Toward the end, the Roman Senate and people were increasingly at the mercy of successful generals controlling large bodies of troops. In simple terms, the Republican system failed due to the practicalities involved in controlling a large empire. The system had produced large professional armies which owed their allegiance to their Imperator and to gelt. No longer was the army imbued with the spirit of upholding the sanctity of SPQR. Rome entered into one-man rule. Initially, those men were successful generals, but once established, the hereditary principle took hold, as it always does. Rome reverted back to kings, although the Romans despised the name 'Rex'. The Emperor was King in all but name.
In simple terms: Rome's rugged, adaptable, solid and flexible political system greatly influenced their early successes.
Roman Arms
As said, the Roman army of the early Republic operated as a middle-class militia. Evidence suggests that this army borrowed much from its northern neighbours, the Etruscans. The Etruscans adapted and adopted their arms from the Greeks, and as such, their armies copied hoplite warfare. Thus, early Roman warfare was conducted as a phalanx but with a significant number of interspersed light troops derived from the young, less well-off citizens. From who and when the Romans adopted the classical rectangular scutum is debatable. The scutum was used by Rome's mortal enemies, the Samnites, but it could have been adopted earlier than the Samnite wars (343-290 BC) as it was a common type of shield in the Latium of the 4th century BC. The Samnites, for the most part, occupied the central hill country of Italy, and a rigid hoplite system would not suit this terrain. It is thought that the Romans changed from the inflexible phalanx to an open manipular system that best suited fighting in Samnite lands. This new form of warfare instilled a high degree of tactical elasticity not given to closed phalanx fighting.
During and following the Hanniballic War (218-201 BC), Rome inevitably developed from a militia to a standing professional army. Training became increasingly rigorous and efficient. The combination of arms and armour, and especially the use of scutum, pila and gladius, were devasting in the hands of well-trained troops. The development of tactical flexibility and flair had its part to play. No longer were the men bunched up into a tight formation. Men were free to exercise their arms to devastating effect. Under skilled and gifted commanders, the Roman Army became an irresistible force forever on the lookout for war, looting and territorial expansion. Few could resist and stand fast against Roman power.
Conclusion
This will have to do as this post is drifting into the dreaded 'TOO LONG TO READ' territory. I'm sure there are other factors involved- I'd be grateful for any readership enlightenment. In conclusion, a complex mix of forces and factors would coalesce in the Roman psyche. A combination of political cohesion, the national character of perseverance and fortitude, and the ability to raise large numbers of highly-trained well equipped, professional soldiers were no doubt crucial to Roman success. And let us not forget the sound military efficiency of the Roman military system as a whole, including efficient logistics. I hope my steadfast readers managed to last 'till the end. As always, comments are very welcome.
