J - 7 : Why Rome?

Ara Pacis Augustae - Alter of the Peace of Augustus to Honor the Return of Augustus from Campaigning in Spain in 9 BC

Preparing for this year's sailing from Malta to Pozzuoli made me cover many ancient cultures and empires. Articles on Etruscans followed pieces about Carthage. Notes on the Greek by stories on the Phoenicians. Reviewing my blogs I noticed that I barely talked about Rome. And when I did, mostly about its Imperial Time. Made me wonder why I did so until I realized that Rome was a geopolitical nobody until the Punic Wars. It burst violently on the scene in the 3rd century BC. Two hundred years later, Rome dominated the Mediterranean. How was such a feat possible?

In 500 BC, the Mediterranean was ruled by Persians to the East, Carthage to the West, Greek and Etruscans in the Middle. Rome had Etruscan Kings. If anybody had asked, who is going to dominate the Mediterranean in 500 years' time, nobody would have picked Rome.

By 50 BC the Roman Republic dominated the Mediterranean. It controlled the Silver Mines in Spain & the Gold from Nubia, the Med's bread baskets (energy) in Sicily, Africa & Egypt, the Slaves trade from Africa and the Steppes and the lucrative Trade with India and China.

How could a little town with no wealth, no resources, small scale farming, no large slave population and almost nothing to trade, become the dominant Mediterranean power? As counterintuitive as it sounds, exactly for this reason. Rome and the other Latin people around it (Sabines) were ruled for centuries by the more powerful Etruscan neighbours. The Etruscans were a coalition. Their push to dominate southern Italy petered out in 474 BC at the Battle of Cumae - just north of the Gulf of Naples. The combined navies of Cumae and Syracuse defeated an Etruscan Fleet and put an end to their southwards expansion. At the same time, the Etruscan coalition was challenged from the North. Small celtic raiding parties invaded the Po Valley. By 400 BC, northern Italy (Savoy, Lombardia and Veneto) was under Celtic control. They did not stop there. By 386 BC they occupied Rome except the Capitol (you must have heard the story of the Geese who alerted the Romans of the attackers).

The Celtic Migration into Northern Italy, the Balkans and Anatolia between 500 and 250 BC

The loosely organised Etruscans were not able to protect Italy against these invaders. Now everybody had to fight for its own. In this, Rome excelled. Its small army of 10'000 soldiers (the two consuls commanded each a Legion) was a modular force made up from maniples of 120 local soldiers. For efficiency, they followed the same training, applied the same tactics, their equipment was standardised and interchangable. The modular maniples could fight as a small force or as a legion. At a time of big but cumbersome armies or large, not well organised hordes, this was unique. Also, the Roman soldiers were free farmers and owners of their own plot. Poor people were not allowed to serve. The "Small Local Farmers" army was versatile - it could build forts and bridges, dig canals and ports, drain swamps, grow its own food and fight where needed. It was a compact force the world had not seen before. Since soldiers bought their own equipment they treated it with utmost care.

Rome's Military Prowess lead to many Defensive Alliances. It

was the Base for Rome's later Domination of Italy

Rome's military organisation had another jocker up its sleeve. The nobles fought with the army. There was no political career without having served in a leadership position in a Legion. Romans were fighting for a common goal - for their turf. In times of crisis or after a battle defeat, Rome could thus draw on a large pool of military trained men who had all served in several campaigns and were willing to defend their territory against all odds.

Despite 2 major battlefield victories (Lake Trasimene 217, Cannae 216 BC) Hannibal was unable to break Rome's Military Machine. Rome dipped into its deep Pool of fighting Men and continued the War until Hannibal was exhausted. Rome's Alliances did not break either.

Rome, the underdog, was hungry and capable to fight with very limited means. Its supreme organisation impressed its neighbours who thought it was beneficial to align with this rising power. Its leadership structure also made it innovative. Competing generals wanted to prove their mettle and came up with innovative new catapults and siege engines. These innovations were quickly adopted by other legions (there were about 50 under Augustus) and triggered the next wave of innovation. Roman military leaders were obsessed with reducing an opponent's strength at a distance before soldiers clashed in hand to hand combat. The opening scene of "Gladiator", whilst not fully accurate, gives you a good idea how this fighting gave Roman Legionnaires the edge on the battlefield.

Opening Scene in "Gladiator" when the Legions advance under the Cover of Catapults, Fire Bombs and Fire Arrows - the Movie relates to Rome's Campaign in Dacia (Romania)

Rome was not able to preserve its edge on the battlefield. Once dominant, it became complacent. One comparison tells it all. Under Augustus, the Roman Army had 200'000 soldiers and 100'000 people in administration - army logistics. At the end of the Empire, the total number had increased from 300'000 to 500'000 men with 100'000 soldiers and 400'000 admin staff. There is not more to say. The army kept its fighting prowess with major campaigns in Dacia and Mesopotamia under Emperor Trajan (117 AD). But his Empire was unable to hang on to it and convert the conquered territory to Roman provinces. Nor did it have enough troops to permanently occupy these places. Under Hadrian, these territories were given up. Rome was not the efficient and hungry underdog anymore. Others, like the Parthians (Persians), German or Arab tribes were more hungry for power.

The Roman Empire at the Death of Emperor Trajan

The Roman Empire did not collapse instantly. It took 300 years to wither away. But under the unified command of an Emperor the army lost its competitive and ruthless edge. Internal politics became more important - specifically to flatter the Emperor until it was time to assassinate him and put another puppet on the throne. The number of battle field defeats after 117 AD did not increase significantly. But Rome's resilience was gone. The army did not innovate anymore. It adopted innovations made by its opponents. An infantry army morphed into a cavalry force. Also, after catastrophic defeats like Adrianople in 378 AD or Yarmouk in 636 AD, there was no reserve pool of capable fighters anymore.The Empire's gates were wide open. Its territories were captured by its enemies.

Europe in 800 AD. Franks and Arabs, both former Roman mercenaries, now ruled. Parts of Rome survived as Byzantium on Anatolia, Greece, Sicily and Sardina - the rest: gone

When Apostle Paul travelled to Rome for his trial by Emperor Nero, the world he knew was Roman. There was no other power than Rome. It was probably inconceivable to him that this would ever change. Whilst his words of compassion and love survived, the Empire did not. It did not stay focussed on its mission. Sounds familiar? England comes easily to my mind. Nobody believed in the 15th century, that this tiny island would ever rule the world. In the 19th century, it did. In the 21st century, it was over. I could add General Electric or IBM. The pattern is well described in Paul Kennedy's book "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers". The book was published in 1987 - still worth reading!

Will embark with these thoughts in a week's time on "My Lotty" in Birgu, Malta's Sailboat Harbour. Power and wealth are never permanent. You have to work for it every single day.