Rise Of Rome

[tflex]

I don't know if this topic has been discussed before but I'de like to know what where the conditions that led for Rome to rise out of the seven hills into such a unique and successful civilization.

 

Was the landscape more fertile than other places in the West or maybe the climate was ideal?

 

Was it mass migration of different tribes?

 

Where the Romans just more superior than their neighbours mentally or physically?

 

Was it Greek influence and what seperates them from the Greeks?

 

Where did the organization and technology come from in terms of construction, politics and the army?

 

Why where they able to overpass their neighbours the Greeks & Carthage to the south and Gaul & Germania to the north.

 

What circumstances allowed Rome to rise from a small village to the most advanced city and turned into the greatest empire ever known.

Edited February 18, 2006 by tflex

[Ursus]

I can't answer all your questions, but I'd say there are several broad things Rome had that worked to its advantage.

 

First was simple geography. Rome was on the main trading route between the Greek south and Etruscan north of Italy, with access to the Tiber river. It was bound to profit from this and the interaction between those two great civilizations. It was also situated nicely near the middle of the commercial and cultural melting pot of the Mediterranean in general.

 

Second was dogged determination of Romans to always recover from defeat. It's not that the Romans were invincible. They suffered more humiliating defeats in battle than many people want to admit. But after every defeat they picked themselves up and came back stronger than ever. With that attitude, how could they lose in the long run?

 

Third was the ability of Rome to incorporate other peoples and their skills into an imperial network. The military alliances with subject peoples meant Rome had a nearly unlimited amount of manpower from which to draw. They could suffer all those defeats and still have enough troops left over to do the job. They could also incorporate the best methods of their enemies - such as the Spanish short sword or Celtic armor - into their own ranks and use them more effectively than their enemies.

 

Fourth was the strategy of "divide and conquer" which Rome applied successfully to its enemies, especially the Celts.

 

The Romans themselves also believed their greatness was destiny, the result of their intense religious devotions and the divine favor it supposedly brought. This of course is purely subjective -- but it's what they believed and what they acted upon, and people who feel that divinity is on their side can often accomplish great things out of pure fanaticism.

[caldrail]

1 - Was the landscape more fertile than other places in the West or maybe the climate was ideal?

 

The climate might have been a little damper than today, but I doubt that was significant. Given the local geography, the area wasn't any more fertile than any other river valley.

 

2 - Was it mass migration of different tribes?

 

I don't recall any such migration, as the surrounding areas already had established cultures - Etruscan, Sabine etc. They were competitors however.

 

3 - Where the Romans just more superior than their neighbours mentally or physically?

 

I wouldn't haver thought so. However, they were clearly learning from cultures around them, Estruscans in particular. Right from the start, the latins absorbed cultural ideas they liked and made them their own.

 

4 - Was it Greek influence and what seperates them from the Greeks?

 

Greek influence emerges later mostly in art and literature. It is interesting that the Byzantines were greek rather than latin so the greek influence was very important and more so as time went on.

 

5 - Where did the organization and technology come from in terms of construction, politics and the army?

 

Innovation and hard learned experience. One thing the romans really did excel at was adopting ideas that worked. More importantly, their system of patronage allowed them to develop organisational skills based on personal initiative, responsibility, and reward.

 

6 - Why where they able to overpass their neighbours the Greeks & Carthage to the south and Gaul & Germania to the north.

 

They nearly didn't more than once. To some extent the increasing size of roman territory allowed them leeway for early mistakes because their recruitment pool was getting larger. In the early days roman commanders stood to gain mightily from conquest. There was a attitude that 'offense is the best defense'. Now exactly how paranoid Rome was against its neighbours is debatable, but they certainly learned to enjoy conquest.

 

7 - What circumstances allowed Rome to rise from a small village to the most advanced city and turned into the greatest empire ever known.

 

It was well placed. Location, location, location. In the beginning, a strong sense of community and mutual interest. Having fended off their competitors they grew confident in themselves, yet at the same time they felt threatened by cultures such as Carthage. It was only when Rome became defensive rather than a conquest state that the rot really sets in. In its younger days it was a dynamic civilisation that rewarded risk-takers.

[M. Porcius Cato]

people who feel that divinity is on their side can often accomplish great things out of pure fanaticism.

 

I can't think of a single example of pure fanaticism accomplishing anything great (unless you include "great destruction", "great famine", "great depression" etc).

[Primus Pilus]

people who feel that divinity is on their side can often accomplish great things out of pure fanaticism.

 

I can't think of a single example of pure fanaticism accomplishing anything great (unless you include "great destruction", "great famine", "great depression" etc).

 

Yes, I suppose that would depend on the very specific definition of fanaticism. As one example Rome's final conquest of Carthage might be considered a form of fanaticism, but I do tend to agree that this may be be better defined as deliberate resolve rather than fanaticism. I can see the argument from either side though.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Contrast the years of the rise of Rome to the years of its fall, and one of the most striking differences you'll observe is the investment private citizens are willing to make in the state. Whether building theatres or serving in the military, Romans made Rome great because they thought the system benefitted them and their families much more than the alternatives--in terms of potential for advancement, for wealth, for honor, etc. When all of the best opportunities were monopolized by one family of dynasts, the whole system of rewards was undercut, and civic participation was threatened accordingly.

[Kosmo]

The greatest advantage was the republican sistem that gave unprecedented stability to the city. Nobody was very important. A consul was killed or incompetent? Elect a new one. No kings favorits as generals. Everyone had to work his way up and the law was applied to everybody. Compare this with the comotions of Athens, Macedon and Syracusa or with the passivity and gelosy of Carthage.

When the republican sistem died the end of the game was near despite the monumental look of Imperial Rome. This and no good opposition to steal ideas from led to stagnation and decline. The Golden Peace of pax romana was an evolutionary dead end.

[tflex]

Nice post Caldrail, it's very informative.

 

I can't think of a single example of pure fanaticism accomplishing anything great (unless you include "great destruction", "great famine", "great depression" etc).

 

How come you can't think of any examples, histroy is filled with fanatics that accomplished great things and the Roman empire is a good example.

 

To build an empire you have to be a fanatic, you can't build empires through moderation and fairness they just don't go hand in hand. Rome invaded foriegn lands, forced the inhabitants to obey them through oppression, fear and violence and enslaved millions of innocent people because they were considered inferior to Romans. If thats not success through pure fanaticism, then I don't know what is.

 

Furthermore, the republic system was also a fanatical system driven by the idea of Roman superiority and its expansion. Just because it wasn't run by one family doesn't mean it wasn't fanatical, the only difference is the republic was run by several fanatics rather than just one.

 

I think pure fanaticism is a prerequisite for empire building.

Edited February 20, 2006 by tflex

[Virgil61]

Contrast the years of the rise of Rome to the years of its fall, and one of the most striking differences you'll observe is the investment private citizens are willing to make in the state. Whether building theatres or serving in the military, Romans made Rome great because they thought the system benefitted them and their families much more than the alternatives--in terms of potential for advancement, for wealth, for honor, etc. When all of the best opportunities were monopolized by one family of dynasts, the whole system of rewards was undercut, and civic participation was threatened accordingly.

 

This is similar to one of Peter Heather's observations of what occurred in Late Antiquity when the Dominate began to centralize control at the local level and how it effected cities. No incentives were left for elites to contribute to local civic life as they opted instead for positions in the Emperor's beauracracy and dramatically different demands on their efforts.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I can't think of a single example of pure fanaticism accomplishing anything great (unless you include "great destruction", "great famine", "great depression" etc).

I think pure fanaticism is a prerequisite for empire building.

 

Fanatacism doesn't build roads: rational engineers do. Fanaticism doesn't train troops: disciplined centurions do. Fanaticism doesn't build infrastructure, feed armies, plan for the future, develop contingency plans, or do anything that is necessary to build a nation-state. Only consistent rationality does. The Celts, Picts, Germans, and Huns had plenty of fanatics--they were great at destroying what the Romans left outside the walls, but they were lousy at building anything--including an empire.

 

The Romans didn't build an empire by being more fanatical then their neighbors, but by being more adaptive and more rational.

 

This is similar to one of Peter Heather's observations of what occurred in Late Antiquity when the Dominate began to centralize control at the local level and how it effected cities. No incentives were left for elites to contribute to local civic life as they opted instead for positions in the Emperor's beauracracy and dramatically different demands on their efforts.

 

Very interesting. BTW, good book review--I look forward to reading Heather's book.

[tflex]

Fanatacism doesn't build roads: rational engineers do. Fanaticism doesn't train troops: disciplined centurions do. Fanaticism doesn't build infrastructure, feed armies, plan for the future, develop contingency plans, or do anything that is necessary to build a nation-state. Only consistent rationality does.

 

That statement couldn't be further than the truth. You can be an engineer, a scientist, or whatever and still be fanatical. Some modern examples are Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Nobody can argue that the Nazis weren't fanatics and nobody can argue that the Nazis weren't great at building infrastructure, organizing armies, discovering and developing new technologies. They were fanatical yet they were more advanced than any other civilization at the time. Stalin turned Russia from an agricultural economy into a massive industrial superpower through pure fanaticism.

 

The Romans were fanatical but advanced. The Germans and Huns were fanatical but primitive. The same way you can have a thriving democracy and a failing one. Ofcourse, there are other factors that determine the success of a civilization but in the case of the Romans fanatcism was one of the factors that helped.

 

Pure fanaticism gives you motivation and an unwavering drive to enforce what you believe in and thats were moderation fails. The Romans used that fanaticism they had and channeled it into the right direction to build a great empire out of a small village.

Edited February 20, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Romans were fanatical but advanced. The Germans and Huns were fanatical but primitive.

 

Therefore, the factor that allowed the Romans to excel over the Germans and Huns was not fanaticism but their advanced science, technology, and political system. Do tell me you are able to grasp this.

[tflex]

The Romans were fanatical but advanced. The Germans and Huns were fanatical but primitive.

 

Therefore, the factor that allowed the Romans to excel over the Germans and Huns was not fanaticism but their advanced science, technology, and political system. Do tell me you are able to grasp this.

 

No, I don't grasp it. Yes, their advanced science, technology, and political system seperated them from their neighbours, but that doesn't mean that they are not fanatical. I explained in my previous post.

[M. Porcius Cato]

No, I don't grasp it. Yes, their advanced science, technology, and political system seperated them from their neighbours, but that doesn't mean that they are not fanatical.

 

Let me make this simple. If the property of fanaticism causes rising, and the Romans, Celts and Germans were equally fanatical (as you claimed), then the fanaticism of Romans, Celts and Germans would have led to equal levels of rising. If science, technology, and politics causes rising, and in these the Romans were superior, then Romans would have risen above Celts and Germans. Romans did rise above Celts and Germans; therefore, fanaticism does not cause rising, rather science, technology, and politics does. QED.

[Princeps]

No, I don't grasp it. Yes, their advanced science, technology, and political system seperated them from their neighbours, but that doesn't mean that they are not fanatical.

 

Let me make this simple. If the property of fanaticism causes rising, and the Romans, Celts and Germans were equally fanatical (as you claimed), then the fanaticism of Romans, Celts and Germans would have led to equal levels of rising. If science, technology, and politics causes rising, and in these the Romans were superior, then Romans would have risen above Celts and Germans. Romans did rise above Celts and Germans; therefore, fanaticism does not cause rising, rather science, technology, and politics does. QED.

 

OT

 

That's rather fuzzy logic there. For a start, it assumes a "Fanaticism vacuum", where the only influence on cultural expansion is fanatacism.

 

However, if fanatacism is described as-

 

excessive intolerance of opposing views (a rather simple definition, but fairly accurate imo), then fanatacism doesn't build Empires.