How Did The Romans Defeat The Greeks?

[Siblesz]

Interesting video on the subject, by Metatron:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hrOmaqA4UU

[alhoon]

With OP units and better provinces - despite a worse starting position, obviously. Haven't you played R2TW? (Joking)
I watched part of the video and I agree more or less. Better weapons, better tactics. We were also fighting each other while Rome was (at times when it was conquering parts of us) more unified.

[Siblesz]

With OP units and better provinces - despite a worse starting position, obviously. Haven't you played R2TW? (Joking)
I watched part of the video and I agree more or less. Better weapons, better tactics. We were also fighting each other while Rome was (at times when it was conquering parts of us) more unified.

Also the Gallic invasions of Greece played a big part in it, as well as the Pyrrhic Wars... all of these helped to weaken Greece. I think they would have been on a much more equal par if they were fighting the Greeks of 400 B.C.

[Laser101]

Also the Gallic invasions of Greece played a big part in it, as well as the Pyrrhic Wars... all of these helped to weaken Greece. I think they would have been on a much more equal par if they were fighting the Greeks of 400 B.C.

Unlikely; Classical Greek armies were significantly less well-organized than Hellenistic ones (let alone the Romans).

[conon394]

Unlikely; Classical Greek armies were significantly less well-organized than Hellenistic ones (let alone the Romans).

Rome of 400 BC was however not the powerhouse it was later.

[Cyclops]

Plenty of threads on this.

Short answer is Roma was a Hellenised poleis with a Hellenised polis military structure (it went through similar evolution to the rest of the Med Basin with a move to heavier armed sword/spear/javelin inf from a more classic phalanx) that both prized and envied Hellenic culture. If this sounds like Makedonia, Carthage or Armenia then you see where I am going.

Roma formed a durable and inclusive model of rule to absorb many Hellenic and Hellenistic poleis (as well as some tribal societies albeit less comfortably-these usually revolted a few times after conquest) to become an inclusive republican empire with a large manpower pool and internal structures that incentivised a series of low grade foreign wars. They rarely bit off more than they could chew and when they did they grew more teeth.

They didn't "defeat the Greeks" they never fought "the Greeks" as a group. They were "the Greeks" in some senses, they had "Greek" allies (as socii and/or formal distinct allies) in pretty much every war up until well after the monarchy was founded. The polity that gave them the biggest fright was another Hellenised poleis with a (somewhat looser) federal structure and a decent manpower pool (not as great), who lost because they were less inclusive and didn't attract as staunch loyalty.

[Siblesz]

Plenty of threads on this.

Short answer is Roma was a Hellenised poleis with a Hellenised polis military structure (it went through similar evolution to the rest of the Med Basin with a move to heavier armed sword/spear/javelin inf from a more classic phalanx) that both prized and envied Hellenic culture. If this sounds like Makedonia, Carthage or Armenia then you see where I am going.

Roma formed a durable and inclusive model of rule to absorb many Hellenic and Hellenistic poleis (as well as some tribal societies albeit less comfortably-these usually revolted a few times after conquest) to become an inclusive republican empire with a large manpower pool and internal structures that incentivised a series of low grade foreign wars. They rarely bit off more than they could chew and when they did they grew more teeth.

They didn't "defeat the Greeks" they never fought "the Greeks" as a group. They were "the Greeks" in some senses, they had "Greek" allies (as socii and/or formal distinct allies) in pretty much every war up until well after the monarchy was founded. The polity that gave them the biggest fright was another Hellenised poleis with a (somewhat looser) federal structure and a decent manpower pool (not as great), who lost because they were less inclusive and didn't attract as staunch loyalty.

Hmmm... i don't think that is such an accurate picture. There was strong resistance and a strong Greek nationalist identity, at least in the Peloponnesian Peninsula. The Greeks of the Peloponnesian Peninsula were fighting for decades against the Macedonians (with Roman help). And they succeeded in liberating themselves from Macedonian hegemony. The Achaean League was later betrayed by the Romans though, but by then decades of civil war, plus the Gallic invasions all meant that the polis in Greece were left severely weakened and vulnerable. So even though there was a strong sense of Greek national identity tied to the different polis in the area, there was definitely war fatigue and lack of manpower/resources.

Although it is also true that the Romans were already used to dealing with different Greek city states in the Italian peninsula, the Greeks of the Italian peninsula and of Sicily were not so tied to the Greeks of the Greek heartland. There was some sort of kinship, but these city states were separated by distances big enough that the kinship didn't extend beyond that into some kind of patriotism, so the city states in the Italian peninsula and Sicily didn't feel such strong sense of loyalty for their homeland and had their own sense of identity going. In the Pelopponesian peninsula however, after centuries of infighting and the Macedonian conquest, a sense of intra-polis Greek national identity did develop through their mutual hatred of Macedonian rule before it was crushed by the Roman conquest.

[Cyclops]

Hmmm... i don't think that is such an accurate picture. There was strong resistance and a strong Greek nationalist identity, at least in the Peloponnesian Peninsula. The Greeks of the Peloponnesian Peninsula were fighting for decades against the Macedonians (with Roman help). And they succeeded in liberating themselves from Macedonian hegemony. The Achaean League was later betrayed by the Romans though, but by then decades of civil war, plus the Gallic invasions all meant that the polis in Greece were left severely weakened and vulnerable. So even though there was a strong sense of Greek national identity tied to the different polis in the area, there was definitely war fatigue and lack of manpower/resources.

There was a much debated sense of Hellenic identity going back to the Persian wars (which featured Hellenes on both sides as well as many remaining nuetral) : Isocrates pleaded for a common fatherland but the reality was Roma fought in Hellas with a local ally against a local foe in every war there.

Although it is also true that the Romans were already used to dealing with different Greek city states in the Italian peninsula, the Greeks of the Italian peninsula and of Sicily were not so tied to the Greeks of the Greek heartland. There was some sort of kinship, but these city states were separated by distances big enough that the kinship didn't extend beyond that into some kind of patriotism, so the city states in the Italian peninsula and Sicily didn't feel such strong sense of loyalty for their homeland and had their own sense of identity going. In the Pelopponesian peninsula however, after centuries of infighting and the Macedonian conquest, a sense of intra-polis Greek national identity did develop through their mutual hatred of Macedonian rule before it was crushed by the Roman conquest.

The Romans were invited to interfere in what is now the Hellenic Republic by various Hellenistic Kings, Poleis and leagues, they did not invade alone unaided or without cause.

The "who is a Hellene" debate did not come to a conclusive answer as to whether the Makedonians were or were not Hellenes. AFAIK only opponents directly fighting Makedon claimed they were not Hellenes so it was probably trolling.

Hellenic identity in what the Romans called Magna Graecia was strong enough for them to fight among themselves often on tribal lines (Doric vs Ionian etc), and to take part in the Peloponnesian wars; they may even have been involved in the war vs Xerxes. This indicates a tribal sense of identity and this appears stronger than any broader "Hellenic" national identity.

Roma's second phase of involvement in the Hellenic world (after absorbing Hellenic and Hellenised poleis in Camapnia and Etruria) was to oppose a Hellenistic monarch called in by Tarentum. Roman was in (possibly passive) alliance with the partly Hellenised Carthaginians and Sicilian poleis in opposing Pyrrhus' frankly opportunistic intervention which aimed at extending his monarchy, not "freeing the Greeks".

At each step Roman involvement in the Hellenic and Hellenistic world deepened the cultural exchange. Some crybaby blowhards like Cato the Censor made a cult of rustic parochialism but most of the Roman elite lapped up Hellenistic culture.

Roma is an example of a Hellenised poleis.

[Abdülmecid I]

I am not convinced by the argument of Peloponnesian unity either. The peninsula was always divided with numerous city-states and confederations fighting against each other and often inviting outside powers to help them. Macedon was actually more of an ally than an adversary of the Achaean League and together they fended off the Spartans and the Aetolians. That has been the case until the early reign of Philip V, but the same diplomatic tactics continued under Roman hegemony. The Senate casually intervened in the conflict between Sparta and the Achaean League and it was one of these disputes that served as a pretext for the invasion of 146 BC and the subsequent dissolution of the league. Such opportunistic alliances were also a regular occurrence in the dealings of the Roman Senate with the Hellenistic monarchies of the East and these divisions surely facilitated Roman expansion. Not that we should blame the elites of these states for their lack of hindsight and of national solidarity, as this is a purely anachronistic concept. For Attalus I, Eumenes II or Ptolemy VI, Seleucid encroachment was a much more immediate and serious threat than the intrigues of the distant Roman senators and consuls.

[conon394]

As aside the Hoplite war casualty numbers are a rificulioulsy selective pick of a tiny sample of described battles I believe the Athenians would beg to differ on the their casualties from Syracuse as being not penalizing. Also last the Inputs often prioritize nominal good data from Thucydides who is often describing raids were the Attacker is in way looking for a real fight.

[Cyclops]

...Not that we should blame the elites of these states for their lack of hindsight and of national solidarity, as this is a purely anachronistic concept...

Yes this is the point I am trying to get to in my woolly way.

Herodotus is aware of an Hellenic identity, as are later authors. Maybe it folds out of Homer's Achaeans vs Trojans? A simplistic binary, with an identity coalescing around one pole.

The positive elements of Hellenic identity were shared culture, festivals, cults etc, which crossed "national" borders easily. Hellenes consulted Egyptian oracles, Romans and Lydians consulted the Sibyll and the Pythoness, there's Olympian gods worshipped a long way from Thessaly.

[mishkin]

something worth reading on TWC in the year 2023, wtf guys? (thanks)

[NorthernXY]

Plenty of threads on this.

Short answer is Roma was a Hellenised poleis with a Hellenised polis military structure (it went through similar evolution to the rest of the Med Basin with a move to heavier armed sword/spear/javelin inf from a more classic phalanx) that both prized and envied Hellenic culture. If this sounds like Makedonia, Carthage or Armenia then you see where I am going.

Roma formed a durable and inclusive model of rule to absorb many Hellenic and Hellenistic poleis (as well as some tribal societies albeit less comfortably-these usually revolted a few times after conquest) to become an inclusive republican empire with a large manpower pool and internal structures that incentivised a series of low grade foreign wars. They rarely bit off more than they could chew and when they did they grew more teeth.

They didn't "defeat the Greeks" they never fought "the Greeks" as a group. They were "the Greeks" in some senses, they had "Greek" allies (as socii and/or formal distinct allies) in pretty much every war up until well after the monarchy was founded. The polity that gave them the biggest fright was another Hellenised poleis with a (somewhat looser) federal structure and a decent manpower pool (not as great), who lost because they were less inclusive and didn't attract as staunch loyalty.

You reminded me of a quote, "The Romans were soldiers and engineers, never philosophers like the Greeks."

There are many reasons the Romans conquered the Greeks, hard to point to one.

[Cyclops]

You reminded me of a quote, "The Romans were soldiers and engineers, never philosophers like the Greeks."

There are many reasons the Romans conquered the Greeks, hard to point to one.

Well the Romani were more than a bit Hellenised, and usually fought with Hellenes on their side.

When "Greeks" lost to anyone there was usually another "Greek" on the other side. Typical Hellenes.

[PanDemon]

There was never a Rome vs Greece struggle; rather was a constant state unrest in greek mainland that Rome was able to exploit and take the strong Greek states one by one by the help of another Greek states.
The Greeks never united as they did in the case of Persian and Gallic invasions.
Not surprisingly some of the defeats of the "Greek"side of the battle happened due to the presence of Greek contingents en masse to the ranks of Rome armies.
The Aitolian and the Pergamenese cavalry played a key role in some roman victories.
While true this had happened also in the Roman Gallic wars it was never in that scale.
Rome in its was against the Greek states had massive assistance of structured Greek states with armies ,logistics and specialists.
Of course history is not written with ifs .In the end Rome prevailed.

But no such thing as technological or martial supremacy.
In which point did Rome had tech advantage against the Seleucids really?
Greek states in general had the better cavalry ,better siege engines,better fleets, and more diverse troop types.

In essence it was the Greeks that defeated the Greeks with the never ending feuds and wars.

Still...I cant help but think how lucky Rome was. Battle of Thermopylae ,battle of Pydna. If we were living in a simulation and the events would roll 100 times I think we live now in a minority outcome;
Greek states had all the cards yet spectacularly they wasted them away.

[AqD]

With OP units and better provinces - despite a worse starting position, obviously. Haven't you played R2TW? (Joking)
I watched part of the video and I agree more or less. Better weapons, better tactics. We were also fighting each other while Rome was (at times when it was conquering parts of us) more unified.

They weren't OP units. Legionaries had to fight in relatively loose formation, in hand-to-hand combat against enemies. The combat itself is not asymmetric like hoplite warfare and thus not guaranteed any success frontally. Their failures in Spain showed such weakness.

They didn't need any tactical advantage against Hellenistic empires because the latter were very short on military manpower. Seleucid had a pool like 200 thousands, and Ptolemy was running full mercenaries after their last war against the former.

And Hellenistic political structure was unreliable. The king(s) had to lead most of time. Giving command to another risks rebellion or losing their head.



The Romans were Uruks until people stopped seeing military as a sacred second job for every men. Then it died.

[Laser101]

They weren't OP units. Legionaries had to fight in relatively loose formation, in hand-to-hand combat against enemies. The combat itself is not asymmetric like hoplite warfare and thus not guaranteed any success frontally. Their failures in Spain showed such weakness.

They didn't need any tactical advantage against Hellenistic empires because the latter were very short on military manpower. Seleucid had a pool like 200 thousands, and Ptolemy was running full mercenaries after their last war against the former.

And Hellenistic political structure was unreliable. The king(s) had to lead most of time. Giving command to another risks rebellion or losing their head.

It's more that Rome was better able to utilize manpower. The Seleucids and Ptolemies both controlled massive populations; the problem was that they were foreign ruling dynasties that didn't trust the native population and so relied heavily on a small pool of Greek colonists.

The Romans were Uruks until people stopped seeing military as a sacred second job for every men. Then it died.

That doesn't really hold up; the Roman empire persisted for four centuries after Augustus replaced the old citizen draft with a professional force. They did have problems with recruitment later on though, but that was more because financial issues made paying the army difficult.