Why, in your view, did Rome rise to become the preeminent state in the Mediterranean?
The gods favored them.
Mussolini knew the reason.
All roads led to Rome. So it was a rather obvious location for centralized rule.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 11, 2014, 08:08:08 PM
All roads led to Rome.
But were the roads there before Rome? And don't lie, or I'll know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2014, 08:09:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 11, 2014, 08:08:08 PM
All roads led to Rome.
But were the roads there before Rome? And don't lie, or I'll know.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
These are mysteries that will never be solved.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2014, 08:09:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 11, 2014, 08:08:08 PM
All roads led to Rome.
But were the roads there before Rome? And don't lie, or I'll know.
Many amphibians have the answer buried in their DNA.
Well the Romans would have said it was their "Virtus".
I tend to agree with them. The nature of the med and the economics of the sea trade in the region meant that somebody was going to come out of on top. The attitude the romans had towards the other and the attitude the romans had towards the state and kingship meant that they not only could cope with ambitious men like Hannibal or Alcibiades better than others (a roman Alcibiades would have sacked Syracuse, not defected to the Spartans, then bribed his way out of prosecution, a Roman Hannibal would have gotten re-enforcements to finish the campaign and gotten a tribute and been first citizen for life). It falls apart with Caesar, but by then It all belonged to Rome.
Inclusive citizenship and resulting manpower advantage.
Black Swan.
Probably because they moved around a lot.
The weather's nice there.
Quote from: Josephus on October 11, 2014, 09:23:54 PM
The weather's nice there.
Not really. It was a malarial swamp back then.
That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2014, 08:22:01 PM
Inclusive citizenship and resulting manpower advantage.
I agree, this was the largest factor.
A culture of ambition and insatiable hunger for glory.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2014, 08:22:01 PM
Inclusive citizenship and resulting manpower advantage.
I agree strongly with this view.
The Romans had plenty of other plus points of course, but so did their competitors, the inclusive and rapidly expanding citizen base gave them a huge advantage. So the 2nd Punic war was a country vs a rich city and its mercenaries, Philip V of Macedon's manpower pool was about 1/14 of the Roman pool etc etc
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2014, 10:35:43 PM
That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.
The reason why Hungary never became a superpower. :yes:
Yeah, unlike many other ancient cultures (including the Greeks), Romans practiced what we today call diversity. Even their women had more rights than women in other cultures of the era.
Uh weren't the Romans total homophobes and prudes?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2014, 03:28:26 AM
Uh weren't the Romans total homophobes and prudes?
I meant diversity in the ethnic, religious, cultural (and to a much smaller degree, gender) sense. I think even in modern language diversity took to include inclusiveness of other sexual orientations very late - it used to be used mainly to denote ethnic, cultural and racial diversity.
And to be clear (because this is Languish so anything will always be interpreted by someone in the way most adverse to intended meaning), I am not saying that Romans were practising diversity by modern standards - but by the average standard of the era.
I think the development of their worldview matches quite closely that of the US, to be honest. I would say the French are more like Greeks.
I'm not sure how inclusive Rome was as it rose up. When Hannibal invaded Italy he took advantage of the resentment that the other Italians had of Rome. It should be also noted that Roman citizenship was graduated. Some citizens were more equal then others. Particularly those living in the city of Rome rather then in the country side. Roman citizenship expanded after domination, not before. Citizenship was given to Italians only after they rose up in rebellion. Outside of Italy it took much longer.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 03:26:41 AM
Yeah, unlike many other ancient cultures (including the Greeks), Romans practiced what we today call diversity. Even their women had more rights than women in other cultures of the era.
The head of Roman family could kill his wife and sell his daughters into slavery. That's not exactly strong women's rights. The rights of women in surrounding cultures is extremely unclear since not a lot of records are left from German tribes or the city of Carthage.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2014, 08:09:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 11, 2014, 08:08:08 PM
All roads led to Rome.
But were the roads there before Rome? And don't lie, or I'll know.
Yes. It's a last place where the river is fordable, there would have been roads/tracks there first most likely.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 11, 2014, 08:08:08 PM
All roads led to Rome. So it was a rather obvious location for centralized rule.
All roads led from Rome, as well.
I think that you guys have identified the key: inclusive citizenship, which created a much larger pool of people willing to fight for the state. Even pre-Marian-reform, the property requirements for serving as a soldier were lower than that of, say, Athens or Syracuse. And I don't know of a contemporary society where former slaves could become full citizens.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2014, 03:28:26 AM
Uh weren't the Romans total homophobes and prudes?
Roman society had many contradictory things true at the same time :P
The Roman Republic, especially before Sulla, did not have an inclusive citizenship at all. And citizenship was only given to non-Italians in 212 AD. Pre-Marian Republican Legions actually meant a 'Roman' legion and a similar legion of other Italians (who did not enjoy the same rights).
(Many posters here seem to be trying desperately to see the triumph of modern values in an ancient state).
For a more detalied of the actual why of the fact that Rome won, check the population density of the Italian peninsula vs. everywhere else in from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD. Also see the development of military discipline and doctrines.
Also check recruitment rosters: by mid 1st century BC, Rome had at its disposal more adult males of military age than the whole population of Gaul.
And these are raw numbers, not inclusive stuff - for that matter, many of the nations that Rome fought would accept solderis from wherever they might come, since their own populations simply were not large enough to face the Romans, irrespective of the level of 'inclusion' (the Romans fought literally every single tribe in Gaul at the same time - the battle at Alesia was the biggest one Europe would see in terms of sheer number of participants until WWI).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan
Uh weren't the Romans total homophobes and prudes?
What? No.
What there was is a different set of morals (Roman women were to cover their breasts at all times, and it was seen as immature for men to be attracted to those, as they were 'to feed babies'), but the comparison cannot be done.
And Homosexuality in those days cannot be compared to the modern idea of the term.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 03:51:18 AM
The head of Roman family could kill his wife and sell his daughters into slavery. That's not exactly strong women's rights. The rights of women in surrounding cultures is extremely unclear since not a lot of records are left from German tribes or the city of Carthage.
Technically, a remnant of more primordial era. And we know about women's (lack of) rights in say Athens.
I'd suspect it is probably something to do with population numbers rather than rights or anything like that.
Italy was a bit of a halfway area between the overly 'civilized', and full of cities, Greece and the 'uncivilized' areas with little beyond town level such as France et al. It meant those cities that there were in Italy were able to dominate far bigger areas of countryside and small towns than the Greeks were.
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2014, 12:22:15 PM
I'd suspect it is probably something to do with population numbers rather than rights or anything like that.
Italy was a bit of a halfway area between the overly 'civilized', and full of cities, Greece and the 'uncivilized' areas with little beyond town level such as France et al. It meant those cities that there were in Italy were able to dominate far bigger areas of countryside and small towns than the Greeks were.
Significant portions of modern France that were controlled by Rome before the conquest of Gaul were partially hellenized before the Romans.
Also, the Greeks had some rather extensive empires, to an extent before Alexander but certainly afterwards. These empires included "civilized" areas.
Quote from: Sahib on October 12, 2014, 12:05:31 PM
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. :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: Sahib on October 12, 2014, 12:05:31 PM
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. :huh:
:D
Quote from: Sahib on October 12, 2014, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 03:51:18 AM
The head of Roman family could kill his wife and sell his daughters into slavery. That's not exactly strong women's rights. The rights of women in surrounding cultures is extremely unclear since not a lot of records are left from German tribes or the city of Carthage.
Technically, a remnant of more primordial era. And we know about women's (lack of) rights in say Athens.
Well, Augustus passed some rather regressive laws as well.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2014, 10:35:43 PM
That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.
And they brought peace.
Quote from: Josephus on October 12, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2014, 10:35:43 PM
That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.
And they brought peace.
They make a desert and call it peace.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 12, 2014, 12:29:36 PM
Significant portions of modern France that were controlled by Rome before the conquest of Gaul were partially hellenized before the Romans.
Also, the Greeks had some rather extensive empires, to an extent before Alexander but certainly afterwards. These empires included "civilized" areas.
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.
Greek empires... They had other priorities. Tended to be not particularly Mediterranean focussed. Though why Egypt never in its history got too far beyond Egypt is something I've always wondered about.
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
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? :P
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 12, 2014, 11:20:27 AM
The Roman Republic, especially before Sulla, did not have an inclusive citizenship at all. And citizenship was only given to non-Italians in 212 AD. Pre-Marian Republican Legions actually meant a 'Roman' legion and a similar legion of other Italians (who did not enjoy the same rights).
(Many posters here seem to be trying desperately to see the triumph of modern values in an ancient state).
You seem to be trying desperately to compare Rome to modern states when talking about the inclusiveness of citizenship. Such comparisons generate heat, but no light.
Many non-Italians became citizens before 212 CE; by the time citizenship was being expanded i the Third Century CE, it had became rather meaningless, and the expansion did little to engender strength in the Roman Empire. Roman Allies were not citizens; they had The Latin Rights, generally, which gave them powers of local rule and the right to enter into contracts with Romans, but the disadvantages of the Latin Rights, and the fact that Rome had stopped expanding those rights, was a cause of the Social Wars. After those wars, Roman citizenship was extended to most of Italy. Even under the Latin Rights, however, those elected to magistracies in their cities received full Roman citizenship. No contemporary society had such a provision, as far as I know.
QuoteFor a more detalied of the actual why of the fact that Rome won, check the population density of the Italian peninsula vs. everywhere else in from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD. Also see the development of military discipline and doctrines.
Also check recruitment rosters: by mid 1st century BC, Rome had at its disposal more adult males of military age than the whole population of Gaul.
And these are raw numbers, not inclusive stuff - for that matter, many of the nations that Rome fought would accept solderis from wherever they might come, since their own populations simply were not large enough to face the Romans, irrespective of the level of 'inclusion' (the Romans fought literally every single tribe in Gaul at the same time - the battle at Alesia was the biggest one Europe would see in terms of sheer number of participants until WWI).
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.
Quote from: Josephus on October 12, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2014, 10:35:43 PM
That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.
And they brought peace.
Besides draining swamps and bringing peace, what good have the Romans ever done for us?
Quote from: grumbler on October 12, 2014, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 12, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2014, 10:35:43 PM
That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.
And they brought peace.
Besides draining swamps and bringing peace, what good have the Romans ever done for us?
They built roads (though the roads may have been here before the Romans, we will never know for sure).
The roads go without saying.
Quote from: PRC on October 12, 2014, 01:16:04 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 12, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2014, 10:35:43 PM
That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.
And they brought peace.
They make a desert and call it peace.
combine a swamp and a desert and you get good quality agricultural land, the kind you need to feed a big army.
Quote from: grumbler on October 12, 2014, 01:49:27 PM
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 (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.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 12, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
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? :P
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 02:01:32 PM
The roads go without saying.
Okay, so, besides draining swamps, bringing peace, and the roads, what good have the Romans ever done for
us?
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.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 12, 2014, 02:53:11 PM
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 (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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2014, 03:35:34 PM
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?
My source did not were specific about dates.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 05:09:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 05:09:00 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 12, 2014, 03:40:02 PM
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)
Quote from: Agelastus
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2014, 05:23:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: Sahib on October 12, 2014, 12:05:31 PM
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. :huh:
What? :unsure:
The avatar.
Ah, I haven't had avatars turned on in like five years.
Oh. Then let me describe mine to you. It's a promotional photo of Conrad Veidt from the movie "The Man who Laughs".
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 10:53:03 PM
The question is was Roman citizenship widespread and inclusive when Rome was fighting near equals?
I would say the proper question is was Roman citizenship widespread and inclusive enough to generate a large manpower advantage over its adversaries. And I think the answer is yes. Roman citizenship was required for acceptance into the legions. Hannibal beat the living shit out of Rome, but they always managed to form new legions. Granted, half of the legions were allied legions of non Roman Italy, but that still leaves half of the enormous forces raised during the 2nd Punic as Roman citizens. Then of course after the Social Wars all those Italian allies gained citizenship, as you mentioned.
You are trying to raise controversy over how kind and nice the Romans were; that's not the point we have been addressing, which is the source of Rome's advantage over its rivals. It's irrelevant for that discussion whether the allies were granted citizenship under duress or not.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 10:53:03 PMThe 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.
Latin Rights go back to the early Republic (as does simple Allied status), originating in the aftermath of Rome's ascension to a hegemonic position over the Latins in the period 338-335 from their earlier status as a simple, albeit increasingly dominant, League member. Don't confuse them with full Roman citizenship.
As for how widespread it was? I think that that's slightly the wrong question; it would be better to ask how widespread the "hope" of it was. It was the gradual closing off of paths to the citizenship, of the hope of citizenship (with the reduction of communal grants, general tightening up of the rules regarding which Latin and Allied magistracies conferred full citizenship and active campaigns by censors and the Senate to find and prosecute people falsely claiming the citizenship even if said original false claim had been made generations ago and accepted since) that actually pushed Italy into the Social War. In the decades immediately preceding the Social War Rome had been moving towards a more exclusive citizenship, echoing the mistake the Athenians made when they tightened their own citizenship laws up under Pericles (who under the revised rules would not have been able to claim citizenship of Athens had he not already been one!) The Social War shocked Rome's elite out of this mindset and it was a mistake they never made again.
As for widespread citizenship at the time of the wars against Macedon, Carthage and the Seleucids? The map on Wikipedia is from 100BC but the major differences to the situation in, say, 250BC would be in the valley of the Po and Campania (IIRC that they planted Roman colonies in Campania where none had been before due to the defections to Hannibal.) Oh, and Tarentum as well, also due to the defection to Hannibal.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/The_Growth_of_Roman_Power_in_Italy.jpg
Not forgetting of course that there would have been a percentage of full citizens even in the territories under the Latin Right or with Allied status.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2014, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 10:53:03 PMThe 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.
Latin Rights go back to the early Republic (as does simple Allied status), originating in the aftermath of Rome's ascension to a hegemonic position over the Latins in the period 338-335 from their earlier status as a simple, albeit increasingly dominant, League member. Don't confuse them with full Roman citizenship.
As for how widespread it was? I think that that's slightly the wrong question; it would be better to ask how widespread the "hope" of it was. It was the gradual closing off of paths to the citizenship, of the hope of citizenship (with the reduction of communal grants, general tightening up of the rules regarding which Latin and Allied magistracies conferred full citizenship and active campaigns by censors and the Senate to find and prosecute people falsely claiming the citizenship even if said original false claim had been made generations ago and accepted since) that actually pushed Italy into the Social War. In the decades immediately preceding the Social War Rome had been moving towards a more exclusive citizenship, echoing the mistake the Athenians made when they tightened their own citizenship laws up under Pericles (who under the revised rules would not have been able to claim citizenship of Athens had he not already been one!) The Social War shocked Rome's elite out of this mindset and it was a mistake they never made again.
As for widespread citizenship at the time of the wars against Macedon, Carthage and the Seleucids? The map on Wikipedia is from 100BC but the major differences to the situation in, say, 250BC would be in the valley of the Po and Campania (IIRC that they planted Roman colonies in Campania where none had been before due to the defections to Hannibal.) Oh, and Tarentum as well, also due to the defection to Hannibal.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/The_Growth_of_Roman_Power_in_Italy.jpg
Not forgetting of course that there would have been a percentage of full citizens even in the territories under the Latin Right or with Allied status.
Yeah, I think that Raz is missing the point - the Romans granted a higher percentage of citizenship
to their own people than other contemporary states did. It wasn't a tool of conquest, but a tool of mobilization. Roman soldiers were fighting for their own interests to a far higher degree than the soldiers of most other states, and the higher levels of citizenship allowed them to mobilize a far higher percentage of their citizenry without creating an apathetic mob of troops.
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
QuoteThe gods favored them.
:contract:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
War dogs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 13, 2014, 06:58:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
QuoteThe gods favored them.
:contract:
I knew I was missing something.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
Stubborness.
"We have food for 10 years; we laugh at your pathetic siege."
"Then I will take you in the eleventh year."
"We surrender..."
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2014, 06:59:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
War dogs.
Flaming Pigs :contract:
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2014, 05:46:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2014, 06:59:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
War dogs.
Flaming Pigs :contract:
Well, anything's better than anti-elephant Ox-carts...
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2014, 05:46:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2014, 06:59:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
War dogs.
Flaming Pigs :contract:
One of those ideas that sounds good until you think about it for a second.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2014, 07:45:36 PM
Why, in your view, did Rome rise to become the preeminent state in the Mediterranean?
The same reason China has risen to world domination.
Instead of having a one man dictatorship, like every kingdom and empire before Rome, they had a one party rule and enforceable rules of succession.
The roman senatorial families shared power just like the factions in the Chinese central committee.
There was a career path, and limited time as consul, and more importantly, as provincial pro-consul, which is how they made their campaign money back.
When the senatorial balance of power got out of whack, the whole republic suffered.
Hopefully at some point China will get a one man dictatorship and become like the Soviet Union and lose to next Cold War.
Rome lasted as an empire with one man rule because at the beginning of the imperial phase it did not have any serious opposition.
In other words, one-man rule always loses against the shared power of a ruling elite.
I don't mean it loses just as direct confrontation, but rather as a performance comparison.
The roman republic, had it corrected its intrinsic weaknesses and maintained its core republican values, it would have far outlasted the roman empire.
Sorry for the grammatical mistakes.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 03:51:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2014, 03:26:41 AM
Yeah, unlike many other ancient cultures (including the Greeks), Romans practiced what we today call diversity. Even their women had more rights than women in other cultures of the era.
The head of Roman family could kill his wife and sell his daughters into slavery. That's not exactly strong women's rights. The rights of women in surrounding cultures is extremely unclear since not a lot of records are left from German tribes or the city of Carthage.
He could also do the same to his sons though, even ones who were grown men. At least there was equality.
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2014, 06:26:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2014, 05:46:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2014, 06:59:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?
War dogs.
Flaming Pigs :contract:
One of those ideas that sounds good until you think about it for a second.
Certainly not the one that has the end result of bacon. :licklips:
An unusually lucid post by Siege.
Quote from: Siege on October 14, 2014, 09:43:37 PM
In other words, one-man rule always loses against the shared power of a ruling elite.
I don't mean it loses just as direct confrontation, but rather as a performance comparison.
The roman republic, had it corrected its intrinsic weaknesses and maintained its core republican values, it would have far outlasted the roman empire.
History argues that you are wrong. The Roman Empire lasted until 1453. I don't think it is plausible to project the Roman Republic lasting that long. The Republic of Venice was the longest-lasting oligarchy that springs to mind, and it lasted almost a thousand years, but it was an oligarchy of a single city, and so not much of a real comparison.
I would agree with you that the republican form of government served Rome the city better than did the imperial form, but I don't think the system translated well to an empire, because the benefits for each governor to loot his own province was too great, and that would have led to endless rebellions and independence movements. Republican Rome couldn't have maintained the armies necessary for the quelling of these constant rebellions, because the republic was based on much more limited military service per man and more men serving their time. The logistics of the period just didn't support the constant shuffling of new legions to replace disbanding ones after each campaign season, when the scope of the movement was the empire and not Italy.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2014, 06:43:32 AM
Quote from: Siege on October 14, 2014, 09:43:37 PM
In other words, one-man rule always loses against the shared power of a ruling elite.
I don't mean it loses just as direct confrontation, but rather as a performance comparison.
The roman republic, had it corrected its intrinsic weaknesses and maintained its core republican values, it would have far outlasted the roman empire.
History argues that you are wrong. The Roman Empire lasted until 1453. I don't think it is plausible to project the Roman Republic lasting that long. The Republic of Venice was the longest-lasting oligarchy that springs to mind, and it lasted almost a thousand years, but it was an oligarchy of a single city, and so not much of a real comparison.
I would agree with you that the republican form of government served Rome the city better than did the imperial form, but I don't think the system translated well to an empire, because the benefits for each governor to loot his own province was too great, and that would have led to endless rebellions and independence movements. Republican Rome couldn't have maintained the armies necessary for the quelling of these constant rebellions, because the republic was based on much more limited military service per man and more men serving their time. The logistics of the period just didn't support the constant shuffling of new legions to replace disbanding ones after each campaign season, when the scope of the movement was the empire and not Italy.
The marian reforms where well within the republican period.
It is the republic who expanded into the most powerful state in the med, and it was the republic who created the provincial system.
Yes, the government of the provinces was initially just a reward to successful senatorial service, but this could have been fixed as the needs of the republic changed from expansion to consolidation.
The republican system created a wider base from which to draw talented people for govenrmtne and military leadership.
No imperial system back then had such a large pool of intellectual power.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2014, 03:28:26 AM
Uh weren't the Romans total homophobes and prudes?
Malthus talked about it a lot, and it seems, from what we know, that a noble man fucking a younger boy was ok, but the opposite was degrading. Fucking slaves was ok, but fucking a free young roman was inapropriate to say the least.
As for women's right, I don't think roman women had more rights than other women in the area. There were worst places, but there were probably better places too. I think Celtic women generally enjoyed more freedom than Roman women, and you could see woman warriors in barbarian tribes, something impossible in roman society.
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 09:05:26 AM
I think Celtic women generally enjoyed more freedom than Roman women, and you could see woman warriors in barbarian tribes, something impossible in roman society.
I find it hard to count the freedom to die in battle as a sign of freedom. Sort of like how I wasn't bother so much by don't ask, don't tell while gay sex/marriage/adoption was illegal. You don't want to give me all my rights, then don't expect me to want to die for yours.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 09:10:11 AM
I find it hard to count the freedom to die in battle as a sign of freedom. Sort of like how I wasn't bother so much by don't ask, don't tell while gay sex/marriage/adoption was illegal. You don't want to give me all my rights, then don't expect me to want to die for yours.
Given that a soldier brought his own equipment to the field, if a woman was a soldier, it most likely meant that she had a nobility title in her tribe and/or some accumulated wealth. Gaulic tribes did not have professional armies, afaik.
Voting rights would be mostly irrelevant, I don't think they had any kind of democracy like Rome or the Greek cities. Maybe they elected their tribe's leader, not really sure, but I don't think they voted each laws®ulations.
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 09:24:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 09:10:11 AM
I find it hard to count the freedom to die in battle as a sign of freedom. Sort of like how I wasn't bother so much by don't ask, don't tell while gay sex/marriage/adoption was illegal. You don't want to give me all my rights, then don't expect me to want to die for yours.
Given that a soldier brought his own equipment to the field, if a woman was a soldier, it most likely meant that she had a nobility title in her tribe and/or some accumulated wealth. Gaulic tribes did not have professional armies, afaik.
Voting rights would be mostly irrelevant, I don't think they had any kind of democracy like Rome or the Greek cities. Maybe they elected their tribe's leader, not really sure, but I don't think they voted each laws®ulations.
I was just being a jerk. -_-