Why Rome?

[Martim Silva]

Italy did have a higher population than many areas, largely because of the higher social organization (read "cities"), relative lack of plagues, and immigration due to economic opportunity.  It was probably matched by that of pre-conquest Egypt or the contemporary Seleucid Empire, though, so that cannot be the only reason.    The better reason seems to be that Rome was able to harness more of its manpower into the military, because it had an inclusive citizenship that gave its soldiers something to fight for beyond the inspiration of their own commanders and comrades.

Let us put this into perspective: the favourite census for Historians, is that of Augustus of 28 BC for the Italy south of the Po (doesn't count Gallia Cisalpina). It notes that there were 4,036,000 people (and standard Roman practice means this just meant citizen adult males). This would point to a (Roman) population of about 10 million people, even though the most modern research points to 14 million or more - with slaves, this number rises to 16-17.5 million.

http://books.google.pt/books?id=G7_CqrKYjnMC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=lo+cascio+italy+14+million+inhabitants&source=bl&ots=Bl6ccxjNKe&sig=8DmvGzJEfjGAMVzYKF3YKmpools&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4NU6VN3-DsPZatnQgdgO&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lo%20cascio%20italy%2014%20million%20inhabitants&f=false

Pliny the Elder notes 400 cities (though he counts as urban areas some locations we would not think of as cities today, with less than 10,000 people) in Italy.

In comparison, the best numbers for Gaul and Egypt (the - by far - most populous areas of the time) are 3-5 million for the former and about 6-7 million for the latter.

Basically, Italy had almost as many people as the entire Mediterranean region.

This power can  best be seen during the 2nd Carthaginian War: massive defeats like Cannae (where between 50,000-80,000 Roman legionnaires got killed in a single day, a kind of loss unheard of until WWI) would have brought ANY power of its time to the peace table almost immediately. Yet they didn't made Rome even flinch; it just kept raising more armies.

The real question then, is really how Rome dominated the peninsula that would, undoubtly, end up dominating the Mediterranean.

And for that, we need to look at the social aspects of Rome (of which there are many to point out), but above all the fact that they developed a military thinking based on an emphasis on soldier discipline and planning that the others did not (a common say in Rome was 'better lose but having planned the combat, than to have a lucky win'). This very much ensured Roman dominance over the other Italian cities/tribes.

Of course, there are many other reasons that I don't have time to mention (like Rome's astute diplomacy: it all its History, note that Rome never betrayed and ALWAYS honoured its alliances), but once it mastered Italy, its Empire was very much inevitable.

[Josquius]

The Mediterranean coast of France had the disadvantage of being right next to the rest of Gaul however. Much harder for them to really expand much beyond their city walls due to the tribes to the north.

Damn it Tyr, weren't you just arguing that Rome had the advantage of being near uncivilized areas such as in France where they could dominate the countryside? Now you are saying being next to uncivilized Gaul is a disadvantage? 

No.
I was speaking about Italy itself. Not so full of established cities as Greece but not so full of tribesman filled wilderness/small villages as Gaul. It was sort of a in between place, which meant it got the best of both worlds.  They could harness the advantages of both an urban city-state and the countryside.
Rome had plentiful countryside to expand into whilst any expansion for the Greeks would have to be at the expense of neighbouring cities, which was a far more difficult, inefficient, and liable to lead to a coalition against you, process.
The ethnic diversity in Italy likely helped a lot too. The Celts had a nasty habit of forming coalitions and smashing up cities. The mishmash of tribes and cities in Italy didn't make that so likely or so threatening.

[grumbler]

The roads go without saying.

Okay, so, besides draining swamps, bringing peace, and the roads, what good have the Romans ever done for us?

[Admiral Yi]

Raz: In the early days of the Republic anyone who showed up in Rome was granted citizenship.  The children of freedmen were granted citizenship.  Auxiliaries were granted citizenship after their term of service.  In the Greek city states the only path to citizenship was by blood.  In Athens both parents had to be Athenian citizens.

[grumbler]

Let us put this into perspective: the favourite census for Historians, is that of Augustus of 28 BC for the Italy south of the Po (doesn't count Gallia Cisalpina). It notes that there were 4,036,000 people (and standard Roman practice means this just meant citizen adult males). This would point to a (Roman) population of about 10 million people, even though the most modern research points to 14 million or more - with slaves, this number rises to 16-17.5 million.

http://books.google.pt/books?id=G7_CqrKYjnMC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=lo+cascio+italy+14+million+inhabitants&source=bl&ots=Bl6ccxjNKe&sig=8DmvGzJEfjGAMVzYKF3YKmpools&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4NU6VN3-DsPZatnQgdgO&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lo%20cascio%20italy%2014%20million%20inhabitants&f=false

Pliny the Elder notes 400 cities (though he counts as urban areas some locations we would not think of as cities today, with less than 10,000 people) in Italy.

In comparison, the best numbers for Gaul and Egypt (the - by far - most populous areas of the time) are 3-5 million for the former and about 6-7 million for the latter.

Basically, Italy had almost as many people as the entire Mediterranean region.

This power can  best be seen during the 2nd Carthaginian War: massive defeats like Cannae (where between 50,000-80,000 Roman legionnaires got killed in a single day, a kind of loss unheard of until WWI) would have brought ANY power of its time to the peace table almost immediately. Yet they didn't made Rome even flinch; it just kept raising more armies.

The real question then, is really how Rome dominated the peninsula that would, undoubtly, end up dominating the Mediterranean.

And for that, we need to look at the social aspects of Rome (of which there are many to point out), but above all the fact that they developed a military thinking based on an emphasis on soldier discipline and planning that the others did not (a common say in Rome was 'better lose but having planned the combat, than to have a lucky win'). This very much ensured Roman dominance over the other Italian cities/tribes.

Of course, there are many other reasons that I don't have time to mention (like Rome's astute diplomacy: it all its History, note that Rome never betrayed and ALWAYS honoured its alliances), but once it mastered Italy, its Empire was very much inevitable.

These population numbers have all been hashed over time and again.  14 million people simply isn't a realistic number of people in the Italian peninsula after the series of wars they had just fought.  Most historians accept that the 4 million number was the number of citizens (the census didn't count non-citizens) and the total for the peninsula (slaves included) closer to 9 or 10 million than 14 or 16 million.  Are there people arguing for the bigger number?  Sure.  But their reasoning is less persuasive that those arguing for the smaller number, I think. 

The Romans didn't need a population in the tens of millions to replace the losses at Cannae, because they could tap the existing manpower more deeply than other states could.  It is of note that the armies raised after Cannae included men too young to serve before that time, and men previously considered too poor.

And the Romans conquered Egypt without even breaking a sweat.  The Egyptians couldn't tap their millions of men (even accepting a fairly low number of 7 million for the total population) because the average Egyptian saw no reason to fight for an elite that ignored it except at tax-time.  Again, the Roman inclusiveness helps them mobilize much larger armies as a percentage of population than other states.  Their own lower classes (even ex-slaves) were citizens, which certainly wasn't the case in Egypt or Gaul or Syria.

[Razgovory]

Raz: In the early days of the Republic anyone who showed up in Rome was granted citizenship.  The children of freedmen were granted citizenship.  Auxiliaries were granted citizenship after their term of service.  In the Greek city states the only path to citizenship was by blood.  In Athens both parents had to be Athenian citizens.

How early are we talking about?  When did were the children of Freedmen granted citizenship.  When were auxiliaries granted citizenship?  What year were these enacted.  My understanding is that he extension of Latin rights occurred after Rome became dominate.

I wonder, what percent of the population of the empire do you think held Roman citizenship in the 1st century AD?

[Admiral Yi]

My source did not were specific about dates.

[Razgovory]

Well that would be relevant in deciding if inclusive citizenship was the major factor for turning into an empire.  I found an estimate that around 10% of the population had citizenship by the time of the early Empire.  Not exactly the most inclusive country in the world.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Well that would be relevant in deciding if inclusive citizenship was the major factor for turning into an empire.  I found an estimate that around 10% of the population had citizenship by the time of the early Empire.  Not exactly the most inclusive country in the world.

It was at the time; the comparison is with Athens or Sparta, or oriental despotisms, not with a modern democracy.

[Admiral Yi]

I would also imagine that the early Empire would be a low point for citizenship.  Huge new subject populations were acquired.

My source ("The Classical World") does mention a large-scale block grant of citizenship to residents in the Spanish provinces by one of the early emperors.

I also think citizen inclusiveness was more relevant during Republican times, when Rome was fighting near-equals, such as the examples Tricky mentioned.

[Agelastus]

Well that would be relevant in deciding if inclusive citizenship was the major factor for turning into an empire.  I found an estimate that around 10% of the population had citizenship by the time of the early Empire.  Not exactly the most inclusive country in the world.

I assume by early Empire that you meant the first Century of the Principate here?

Anyway, if that's the case that 10% includes the whole of Italy and a higher proportion of citizens in the west than the east. And it was expanding.

The children of freedmen citizens were citizens.

Auxiliaries earned citizenship at the end of their service.

Roman Legionaries were supposed to be citizens when they joined - this was fine in the west even with the decline of Italy as a manpower source because of the large number of settler colonies and the expansion of the citizenship as local magistrates (and their families) earned citizenship. In the east there's good evidence that due to the lesser spread of citizenship non-citizens were recruited straight into the Legions, becoming Roman citizens that way. And no-one looked askance at them at all.

10% for the First Century AD sounds bad until you realise just how recently so many parts of the Empire at that time had been acquired - the older portions of the Empire (Italy most obviously, but also Roman Africa and southern Spain) had a much higher proportion of citizens. Picking the first century AD as a point at which to criticise the ancient world's only notable tradition of inclusive and expansionary citizenship is a little unfair.

Have you looked at the estimates for the percentage of the Empire that became citizens when Caracalla made his proclamation? The percentage is surprisingly low.

------------------

As well as the issue of the citizenship and manpower advantages I'd argue that the Romans were better at acculturation than their neighbours (of which citizenship is only a part.) At the time of the Social War Italy (south of the Po) had three degrees of citizenship. Roman law communities, Latin Rights Communities and Allies. Yet the Latin Rights Communities and the Allies were not looking to regain their independence, but rather to gain legal equality whether as a part of Rome or as part of a replacement "Italica". That's a fundamental difference in attitude for those areas compared to only a 150 years previously when many of them had declared for Hannibal.

Etruria barely revolted and what little unrest there was there died completely as soon as the citizenship was legislated for those cities and tribes south of the Po who were not in open revolt. The heart went out of the revolt when this was legislated for communities and tribes laying down their arms. This is a striking difference in behaviour compared to the revolts against hegemonic cities and states in Greece or elsewhere

They may have had three different levels of rights, but by the first century BC at the absolute latest Italy was more a proto-nation rather than a classic Imperial hegemonic state such as the Greek Empires. And that's pretty unique in the Ancient World. The only comparable example of a proto-nation is probably Egypt, and that state never had the political systems, government mechanisms, or concepts of inclusive citizenship that could let it expand in the same way that Rome did.

[Martim Silva]

These population numbers have all been hashed over time and again.  14 million people simply isn't a realistic number of people in the Italian peninsula after the series of wars they had just fought.  Most historians accept that the 4 million number was the number of citizens (the census didn't count non-citizens) and the total for the peninsula (slaves included) closer to 9 or 10 million than 14 or 16 million.  Are there people arguing for the bigger number?  Sure.  But their reasoning is less persuasive that those arguing for the smaller number, I think. 

Not sure you read what you wrote.

Yes, like you say, 4 million is the number of citizens (like the census before and those after it). Which means, free adult males with citizenship.

If you take into account that women make over 50% of a population and that the number of children under 15 (the age of majority in Rome) make for 50% of the total of a pre-contemporaneous society, you get to a more accurate number of 'Romans'. Add to that slaves [who did not fight, but do make labour that enables the waging of war] and the non-citizens, and you understand why 10 million was the number advanced by historians in 2007, and why 14-17 million is now the number calculated by modern academia. (and this doesn't even include the non-Italian provinces, where more manpower was avaliable). In fact, 10 million Romans by 28 BC is probably low and would mean Romans had abnormally low birthrates, an idea that does not stand when we see the census of 14 AD (4.9 million citizens).

In the other direction, the 3-5 million for Gaul and 6-7 million for Egypt are assumptions of the TOTAL population - including men, women and children.

Then you may get the real disparity in differences between Rome and its neighbours. It's like the ACW: in case of war, the difference of resources means that there can be only one outcome. It was already amazing for Chartage to last as long as it did. There was really no comparison between the strength of both powers.

(at the 1st Punic War, Rome just shoved fleets and armies against the Chartaginians, and replaced them as soon as it lost them; Chartage had nothing that could compare to this)

They may have had three different levels of rights, but by the first century BC at the absolute latest Italy was more a proto-nation rather than a classic Imperial hegemonic state such as the Greek Empires. And that's pretty unique in the Ancient World. The only comparable example of a proto-nation is probably Egypt, and that state never had the political systems, government mechanisms, or concepts of inclusive citizenship that could let it expand in the same way that Rome did.

Correct. Italy was, by this time, basically a nation in of itself. Maybe proto-nation is even an underestimation. And by far the most powerful one in the region. There was really no possible competition, the only question was WHO could harness that potential.

Eventually, Rome showed it was the one that could do it.

That said, I'll add to your post that the Roman example did echo among the other states. Besides the eventual example of Egypt (which is not directly comparable, but by old institutions and history did saw itself as a nation), we can look at Gaul, where the last uprising agains Caesar was done not out of self-interest of some tribes, but by a decision by ALL tribes to gather together to, quoting Casesar "Fight for Gaul" regardless of their personal interests. This annoyed Caesar to no end, as he had made his best to divide the tribes, and that one of the most powerful (the Aedui) which he had respected, benefitted and filled with riches, also chose to join the rebellion, even though it was against its own tribal interest, just for the sake of Gaul.

If this is not a nationalistic sentiment, then I don't know what is.

And the examples of Italy, Gaul and, in a lesser scale, Egypt [and Han China in the Far East, too], we can see that nationalism was evident in the 1st century BC. The idea that nationalism only came to being in the 19th century is simply not accurate.

[Razgovory]

I would also imagine that the early Empire would be a low point for citizenship.  Huge new subject populations were acquired.

My source ("The Classical World") does mention a large-scale block grant of citizenship to residents in the Spanish provinces by one of the early emperors.

I also think citizen inclusiveness was more relevant during Republican times, when Rome was fighting near-equals, such as the examples Tricky mentioned.

The question is was Roman citizenship widespread and inclusive when Rome was fighting near equals?  I don't see any reason to think so.  Citizenship was not the tool of conquest but the tool of maintaining power.  The Latin rights were granted to the Italians in the late Republic after they revolted as a way to appease them.  It was long after Macedonia and Carthage had been brought down.

I would say that Rome prosper for two main reasons.  One was superior organization both civil and military.  Victory does not come to those who simply have more resources but to those who can focus them for a purpose.  The second is geography.  Italy is in the middle of the Mediterranean and can reap the benefits from trade in both the East and West.

I think there are a lot of myths about Rome that were created by historians of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries who were projecting qualities back on Rome to justify their own nations empire building.  The inclusiveness of Rome, the tolerance of Rome (almost to the point of proto-secularism), all those great roads and aquatics built for the natives, the civilizing laws etc.

[jimmy olsen]

Technically, a remnant of more primordial era. And we know about women's (lack of) rights in say Athens.

Oh look, Vinraith's back. And naked. 

What?

[Eddie Teach]

The avatar.