Discuss the Roman Punic Wars, in terms of their circumstances and overall effect on Rome’s economic and social development Also discuss the ensuing “Gracchan turbulence” from the same perspective.
The circumstance for the Roman Punic Wars towards Rome was a simple human
reaction. If an outsider such as Italy, Carthage, or Greece make threats towards Rome,
Rome will simply fight. The Punic Wars lasted in 3 stages, all resulting to the obsessive
pride and higher standings of Rome. Rome’s initial desire of expansion was only for
farming land. Romans believed like anyone else that victory brought them honor as well
as a strong, political career. Rome strongly had their victory of Italy due to their military
discipline. Cowards were not welcome in the Roman Army. If a Roman fled from his
standings, or left his comrades to die, they would receive severe punishment from the
generals worse than the enemy could give them. The confidence of Roman soldiers grew
because they knew their comrades would assure their well being if anything is to happen.
The opponents were usually barbaric and disorganized. Most often, the opponents would
flee leaving their comrades to die. The discipline of the Roman army was formed
throughout the Punic wars. Poet Virgil Maxim best referred Romans by the quote “Yield
you not to ill fortune, but go against it with more daring.” Rome’s Military form helped
their enemies become allies and eventually citizens dedicated to Rome. The ...
“This account I have given the reader, not so much with the intention of commending the Romans, as of comforting those that have been conquered by them, and for the deterring others from attempting innovations under their government. This discourse of the Roman military conduct may also perhaps be of use to such of the curious as are ignorant of it, and yet have a mind to know it.” –excerpt from “Description of the Roman Army,” by Josephus
The reforms instituted by Marius were designed as a way to strengthen the Republic by professionalizing the Roman military, but instead resulted in long term political consequences that contributed to the decline of the Republic and the creation of the Empire. In this report, the decline of the republic specifically refers to the loss of the Senate’s authority over Rome’s generals.
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...
the idea that they were loyal to Rome and not to him. To show the
The upper echelons belonged to the aristocracy whose positions were granted them by birth and within this group there was a hierarchical system. The king was at the top of the hierarchy and the gentry at the bottom. Wood describes the gentlemen of the gentry as a help to the commoners. These men lent money to those of lower social standing and also purchased goods from them as well as acted as their representatives to the higher social structures. In turn the commoners paid allegiance to the gentlemen through conscription and political support.
... just material wealth; it gave Rome a status of a dominating figure. It also instilled fear in neighbouring Empires, forcing them to strongly consider an alliance with Rome. Their success was greatly due to the fact that they never underestimated the strength of the enemy, and this helped them gain the land they fought for. All of the conquered land not only served its purpose for the citizens but also was seen as a war trophy for Rome. These are just some of the very many assumptions of why Rome grew and spread so quickly but no matter the nation, location or empire the necessity of having authority over others remains the reason for all expansion.
Marius made a major step in pushing the Republic towards constitutional upheaval when, in 107 B.C., he abolished the property requirements for military service (Meier, 29). Not only did these impoverished soldiers depend on their commander rather than the State for their fiscal support, but they were also promised land in newly conquered provinces upon the completion of the service. While enlarging the pool from which the Roman Army drew its volunteer soldiers, this change in policy brought about a dangerous shift in political power. It was for this reason that the Senate opposed nearly every land law placed before it. If a gifted commander was able to enrich his soldiers through plunder, and give them land to settle after the campaign, “the soldiers might feel a greater obligation to their commander than to the Senate (Meier, 29).” This circumstance is an essential ingredient for civil war, more so, possible, than any other.
Rome, even at its beginnings, proved to be a force to be reckoned with. It’s rapid growth and accumulation of power and repeated victories over powerful neighbors set Rome in a position of great authority and influence. As the leader of early Rome, Romulus’ effective command of his men and governance of his people provided the foundation for the building of a great city. Livy emphasizes Romulus’ possible divine origins and strong ties to deities as a validation and reinforcement of his ability to rule. A nation’s sole defense cannot be just bricks and mortar, it requires an army and a will and Romulus was able to successfully take action against the aggressors when action was needed.
Boatwright, Mary T., Daniel J. Gargola, and Richard J. A. Talbert. "Septimius Severus." The Romans: from village to empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 425-430. Print.
There are many political, economic, sociological causes to the growth and expansion of the Roman republic and later the Roman Empire, but one major factor of expansion that the Romans are most famous for is there Army. There Army was famous for their harsh discipline amongst their own ranks and there mercifulness brutality amongst their enemies. According to our text Roman warfare was characterized by great ferocity and the Roman pursuit of victory was relentless. The Romans had a pragmatic view towards atrocity and massacre that viewed almost any act as justifiable if it eased the path of victory (Goldsworthy 2000) p. 24. The hoplite phalanx which originated by the Greeks and later adopted by the Roman army, demanded great discipline and adherence to orders in order for this group of soldiers...
Recruits were taught to march and performed parade drill twice a day. They were taught how to build a camp, swim and ride. A Roman was half a soldier from the start, and he could endure discipline which soon produced the other half (Adcock 5).
Over time, ever-increasing taxation placed a massive burden on the Roman people with the majority of these taxes falling on the poorest members of society. The plight of the masses slowly ate away at the foundation of the Roman economy, especially following the final division of the empire in 395. The Roman economy in the West simply lost the ability to function in the face of overwhelming exterior and interior pressures”. This shows that to the author of this article, the economy played one of the bigger roles in the collapse of the Roman Empire. It also shows that the failing of the military, and the economic downfall were linked, the military gradually declined, and thus so did the economy of
Rome could not have succeeded without the personal freedom and individuality granted to its citizens. This nurtured a creative and inventive mind, which would not be hindered by the limitations of oppressive monarchies. People lived for their own greater good more than the government, as in America. America and Rome both produced technologies that made their economies dominate over their neighbors, appreciating the value of their currencies. A strong sense of peace and order helped each country thrive, as the fear of trading and making money dissipated. The Roman military was the most advanced of its day. Soldiers were more equipped and armed than any other army, and the best methods of siege craft were employed in battle. The American military shares the sam...
Ultimately, the Roman Republic’s downfall lay in its lack of major wars or other crises, which led to a void of honor and leadership. War united all of Rome’s people, and provided the challenge to its leaders to develop honor and leadership by their causes and actions. The lack of war allowed the Roman Republic to stagnate and become self-indulgent. By the end of the Punic Wars, which combined these elements, Rome was sure to fail. Without a common thread uniting its society, the Roman Republic unraveled because it had nothing left holding it together.
After the conclusion of the Gauls sacking Rome, Rome became obsessed with the security of their empire and acutely aware of any and all potential threats. “Following the sack by the Gauls, the Romans were frightened by strong neighbors and sometimes made preemptive strikes against peoples they believed were becoming too powerful” (Kidner, 129). Rome became a walled city that would not let any foreign soldiers through its gates from the conclusion of the sacking in 390 B.C. until 410 A.D., earning it the nickname of the Eternal City. The Roman mantra of Lex Fetiale, which prohibited Rome from going to war unless under siege or asked for assistance, was suddenly much easier to justify than before.