The Trinovantes’ earliest interaction with Rome occurs during Julius Caesar’s British campaign in 55 B.C. During his campaign, Caesar’s protection is requested by Mandubracius, the young son of the deceased Trinovantian king, Imanuentius. In his account, Caesar brings the Trinovantes under his protection—only after they agree to his terms—and describes the tribe as “almost the most powerful state of those parts” (Caesar 5.20, De Bello Gallico). It can be inferred from this passage that the Trinovantes were in a less than ideal political situation at the time of their first interaction with Rome. This is presumably because they were without a king and were not the most powerful state in the region.
A tribe known as the Catuvellauni, based out of Hertfordshire, appears to be the most powerful state in the southeastern Britain at the time of Caesar’s conquest. This is likely because their king Cassivellaunus killed the Trinovantian king, Imanuentius, in battle. If the Trinovantes were a strong power in southeastern Britain, as described by Caesar, it would likely take an even more powerful state to defeat them in battle. Additionally, the Catuvellauni were known to be the neighbors and “traditional enemies” of the Trinovantes (Dunnett 8, The Trinovantes). Again, if the Trinovantes were almost the most powerful tribe in southeastern Britain, it is unlikely that the Catuvellauni were not the most powerful state, since they had defeated the Trinovantes in battle. Lastly, Caesar describes the Catuvellauni as his “principal opponent” (Caesar 5.20). This description is important because during Roman conquest, Rome often sought to first eliminate the most powerful tribe in a region, regardless of whether this was through brute force or di...
... middle of paper ...
...at oppidum at Camulodunum [flourished]” (Dunnett 30). One key reason for Cunobelin’s success that is seldom discussed was his ability to merge the Trinovantes and their long-time enemies, the Catuvellauni, under a single banner. There was probably an adjustment period of a few years, at least, and surely at least a few scrums. However, there is nothing in the historical record that suggests that Cunobelin was unsuccessful in bringing these two, most powerful tribes together under his kingdom. Cunobelin, unlike his predecessors, realized that in order to have stability in southeastern Britain the two tribes could not co-exist as separate entities. Thus by uniting the tribes, strengthening Camulodunum, and conquering other territories such as Kent, Cunobelin was able to create an expansive and powerful kingdom that was unrivaled by those whom had come before him.
From 112 – 106 BC, a Numidian king called Jurgurtha was engaged in a war with Rome due to an attempt to seize power from his half-brother, Adherbal. The Romans arrived due to the request of Adherbal, and the potential of profit, a claim pressed by the equites, with the aim of dividing the country between the brothers, and Marius found himself under the command of Quintus Caecilius Metellus, who he was under patronage of. When Mettelus scornfully refused Marius’ request to return to be allowed to return to Rome in an attempt of gaining Consulship in 108, Marius intrigued to get the African command transferred upon himself by stating that “Mettelus was prolonging the war on purpose” (William G. Sinnigen, p. 131), after which Mettelus allowed him to return to Rome to gain the Consulship in 107.
In his account of the Punic Wars, Polybius declares “it is my contention that by far the most important part of historical writing lies in the consideration of the consequences of events, their accompanying circumstances, and above all their causes.” Polybius recognized the intricate relationship between circumstances, causes, and their consequences, and in his account of the Punic Wars he seeks to explain the reasons for Rome’s victory over Carthage. For centuries, Rome and Carthage lived at peace with one another, their spheres of influence separate enough to avoid conflict. Rome’s wealth and interests lay in farming and acquiring more land throughout Italy, while Carthage’s economy was naval based, and so keeping trade routes open in the western Mediterranean was most important to them. As late as 279 B.C., Rome and Carthage were allied against Pyrrhus of Epirus, and had signed two other treaties in earlier years. However, as the two powers increased in power and controlled progressively larger geographies, their interests were bound to conflict at some point, and that conflict came in the contest for control of Sicily. The result was a twenty-three year war, the beginning of a series of wars which would last over a century. The end of the first war, and the actions of Rome towards Carthage in the latter’s defeat, laid the foundation for the second war, and it was only after the third and final Punic War that Rome, after coming close to defeat in the second, annihilated Carthage and burned it to the ground, effectively ending the age of Carthaginian power. However, the question must be asked, what were the causes of these wars, and more specifically, which power was more responsible for the conflict? No Punic accounts exist...
Julius Caesar, The Gallic War, trans. Carolyn Hammond (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 181, 183-4, 188-89, 191-94, 241-42.
Dionysius I of Syracuse garnered a reputation as a warmongering tyrant who harmed his people with his oppressive regime. However many surviving sources that explore his rule were written by people who were ideologically opposed to perceived tyrants. It is therefore quite possible that aspects of Dionysius rule where left out or exaggerated to suit the author`s anti-tyrannical agenda. It is the intention of this paper to argue that Dionysius rule did in fact benefit Syracuse more than he harmed it during his lifetime. His domestic and foreign affairs will be explored in order to show how he in fact benefitted the Syracusan state as well as the majority of its people. It will however also be argued that his legacy did harm the Syracusan state but that overall Dionysius rule was beneficial in his lifetime.
Sallust was an obscure historical writer from the first century BCE. In The War With Catiline, he tells of the conspiracy of Catiline and his plan to bring about civil war in Rome and over power the Senate. Sallust depicts this historical event very fairly and with a seemingly unbiased attitude, although he was not involved in any way with or against the conspirators. It was said that in this period of time things had been going very well, “…Our country had grown great through toil and the practice of justice, when great kings had been vanquished in war, savage tribes and mighty peoples subdued by force of arms, when Carthage, the rival of Rome’s sway, had perished root and branch, and all seas and lands were open…” This time of absolute supremacy gave way to a generation of Romans who were greedy and power hungry. Sallust viewed this...
Having served in U.S. Army thirty years ago, from a military point of view, I see a strategic spread of fully incorporated cities (friendlies marked in green), colonies with hostiles (marked in red), and on the coast in Antium, a colony with citizens enjoying Latin Rights. It looks deliberate to me that next to hostil Praeneste and Velitrae are cities with fully incorporated Roman citizens. Because Tibur is on a river (pun intended), having complete control makes because of commerce and strategic value. With Antium, being far from Rome would have been easier to manage with a placated
Upon evaluating each empire, there are likings between both the Carolingian Empire and the Roman Empire, along with their leaders, Charlemagne and Augustus. Both leaders in their own veneration were experienced military men with dexterity in engaging in war to expand their sway and authority. Each had attained an abundance of land at the beginning of their sovereignty, and during their walk of life had exponentially accumulated an extensive empire. The crucial variance that permitted the Roman Empire to continue to withstand itself was the supervision of the
It has been debated by varying scholars as to whether Caesar Augustus’ foreign policy to expand Rome’s empire had more to do with defensive imperialism as a response to encroaching threats, or rather, an aggressively, unprovoked move to claim hegemony over the known world. However, I would like to postulate in support of the former theory that in an attempt to restore and ensure long-lasting security to their empire, Augustus was forced to take proactive measures in order to preserve it. With territorial boundaries normally running along the rivers so as to provide a better defensive posture, he felt it necessary to expand the northern border to the river so as to secure their autonomy and position. Perhaps if he could establish a wide buffer
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
In this essay I will argue that the ultimate failure of Pompey in his struggle with Julius Caesar was due to Pompey’s lack of risk-taking and his inability to predict Caesar’s strategies. I will then contrast this to Caesar’s riskier strategies which would eventually lead to his triumph over Pompey. I shall cover the major battles, Ilerda, Dyrrhacchium and Pharsalus in order to assess how and why Pompey eventually lost against Caesar.
The first of many problems was the collapse of the Triumvirate. The Triumvirate was one of the main parts of the government of Rome, with which there were three leaders, which at the time were Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. This was never truly working all that great, but held itself together by the marriage of Caesar's daughter Julia, to Pompey, and the friendship Caesar and Crassus shared. But, all this came to an end when Crassus was killed in a battle against a Parthian army. Then, not too long afterwards, Julia was murdered by someone who had broken into her home. This, destroyed the bond between Caesar and Pompey, and made them drift apart. Caesar seeing all this taking place, attempted to restore the bond by proposing to Pompey's only daughter, but was not allowed to by Pompey.
The main drive of such expansion was not so moral or cultural, as “the approach of the Roman government was essentially pragmatic…The frontier peoples were to be tamed, neutralized, and exploited. The exposure of conquered barbarians to a superior way of life was part of this policy…not an end in itself.” In other words, holding land and exploitation were the priorities of Roman government in pure “parasitic” and imperialistic fashion.
The Roman Republic was founded in 509 BC after the ruling Tarquins abused their extensive power as monarchs and were overthrown. The goal of the Roman Republic was to have a strong government, governed equally by the patricians and the plebians, and to avoid another Roman Monarchy. For years Rome was guided by great men, such as Cincinnatus and Scipio Africanus, who led the Republic through hard times, conquering such enemies as the Etruscans and the Carthaginians. Large-scale war united Roman society in its common goals. However, after Scipio’s victory at Zama in 202 BC, a new Roman world began to take shape. Roman soldiers returned home from their victory to find that they could not pay for their farms, becoming “squatters” on their own lands after having to sell them to richer men. The Senate became corrupted, and despite the Gracchi brothers’ best efforts, the rich patricians soon monopolized nearly all aspects of the Republic, from trading and “farming” to governing the people. After marching on Rome, Sulla became dictator in 82 BC. After Sulla, the First Triumvirate: Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar, owned virtually all power in Rome, yet each had his own desire to defeat the other two and become Emperor. When Crassus died in battle, Caesar had his chance. He defeated Pompey and marched on Rome, victorious. After declaring himself Dictator for Life, Caesar was assassinated, and another Civ...
Julius Caesar was a strong leader of the Romans who changed the course of the history for the Roman world decisively and irreversibly. With his courage and strength, he created a strong empire and guided the empire for almost 20 years. His life was short, but had many adventures. I will tell of some of this man’s remarkable life. He did many things, therefore, I will only discuss a few. His name, part of his reign, one of his greatest battles, and his death will be told.
The initial population of Rome consisted of immigrants, refugees and fugitives from neighboring lands. Romulus took in these societal rejects and offered them a new starts; despite settling in the foreign land of a new city, these people accepted Romulus and the laws he laid out for them. These people were “the first step to [Rome’s] future greatness”(pg. 40). Along with laws, Romulus formed a means of governing the population through the one hundred-member senate based on patre status. Early attempts at alliances did not pan out, but after Rome’s victory over Veii, a truce was formed. Feasibly, Romulus’ most notable acts as the leader of Rome revolved around his military command. The victory over Caenina marked Rome’s first of many; Rome managed to defeat well-established cities like Antemnae, Sabine, and Fidenae, despite only being in its early stages. Under Romulus, the Roman army fought on, even though retreat proved to be the better option at times. The drive and strength of such a young force sealed the dominance of Rome for years to