What made Rome powerful?

[theDaedricPrince]

Just a little question for the historians here. What made Rome the most powerful empire? How is it different from other nations at the time? What were the advantages Rome had, that made it so strong against others?

[Evalation]

Im no expert.. but id say its military and the ability to adapt and adopt to new ideas is what made them so unique and the dominate ancient power.

For what made them so strong agianst the other kingdoms/empire during their time, I would have to revisit the previous sentence, but their idea of a legion styled army was revolutionary during the time where the greek phalanx was still considered the best form of warfare, the Romans demolished that way of thinking very fast.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Carthage did, once that went there were no powerful states in the entire Western Mediterranean that could oppose them. All of the other states like Macedon, Seleucids and Ptolemies did not prove themselves a direct threat to Rome. So by the time of Julius Caesar there were basically no real threats to the Romans except Romans themselves.

[Roma_Victrix]

Well, how do you think the Romans were able to raise army after army to fight back the Carthaginians in the first two Punic Wars? Even after generals like Hannibal killed off tens of thousands of Roman citizen soldiers? For Rome the conquered peninsula of Italy was a gigantic manpower reserve. The genius behind Rome's early rise was its system of alliances with various participating cities and small states. Although the loyalty of these allies was greatly tested when Hannibal came around (Capua's defection being a grave example), they supplied Rome with an almost limitless amount of troops. How? Because Rome didn't tax them to the hilt like Hellenistic powers further east did with their subjects. Of their allies Rome only demanded men to fight when they needed it. Simply brilliant. Unlike Carthage and all the Hellenistic powers of the Mediterranean, Rome didn't care much for using majority mercenary-based armies. For example, when Rome inflicted a defeat on the Seleucids at Magnesia in 190 BC, the latter power was nearly crippled with such a loss of highly-paid professional soldiers. On the other hand, Rome could muster twenty different armies in the amount of time it took the Seleucids to utter the phrase "holy , we're totally ed!"

[visser300]

The simple answer: mobilize system & mass production system. Those two systems were not reinvented until renaissance era. To simplify things for you: Roman was just like Soviet Union in WW2

[Shigawire]

Two people already nailed the question in this thread.
1)Evalation's general point about Roman ability to adapt quickly and efficiently to situations, and to adopt new tech.
2)Roma_Victrix more elaborated points about the manpower pool of the Roman republic, tax policy and diplomatic agreements with allies.
Both are imo the reasons for Roman ascendancy. I think the question in the thread has been answered.

So what can I do to make this thread more interesting... well, I will tell you what Rome did not excel at. And if you haven't read much about it, it may surprise you:
Efficient supply trains and the corollary, Siege Warfare, Artillery. Rome lagged behind the Greeks and Carthaginians in what you may consider "basic siege warfare."
While the Greeks and Carthaginians had been using both rolling siege towers and artillery since ca 399 BCE, the Romans did not get exposed to either of these two technologies until well into the 200s BCE. So in many ways they were 150 years behind in this field. Primarily because they didn't need to, and secondarily because their interactions were very regional. They didn't need them because the regional settlements the Romans besieged had walls that were low enough for ladders, earthwork and tunneling to work well enough. Most of the early Roman sieges were disastrous. But Rome learned to become the master of the "escalade" (ladders) very quickly. What made the Romans get fully engaged & interested in the "Greek siege method", was the experience they got trying to relieve Echinus which was besieged by Philip of Macedon. P. Sulpicius Galba was trying to relieve Echinus, but it was all in vain. Galba was left dumbstruck by the Macedonian siege/supply train (the whole operation, and all that they built). This was approx 210 BCE. 20 years later, the Romans emulated precisely these mechanics, and the first Roman use of siege towers was documented (190 BCE),when M. Acilius Glabrio was besieging Heraclea. For 24 days, they attempted to take the city with siege equipment of all kinds: battering rams, siege towers, and all the other equipment required. After failing that for 24 days, they did a full-on escalade with ladders. They hadn't gotten their tactical synergy to click properly with the new tech, so they went back to the true and tested method which they did very well.

[Anjou]

I think their biggest strength was martial discipline. In battle they would stay in formation and fight tirelessly until they wore out their enemy. If they suffered a loss, they would just pull together more legions and march them back into battle. What they did not excel at? Their political system. It's a major weakness when complete power can be put in the hands of a teenage boy or when a struggle for succession requires a large portion of your armies to march on Rome and engage in bloody civil war instead of fighting enemies. Along with this is the fact that at some point the Praetorians and the army figured out that they held all the cards to ruling things.

[Shigawire]

Anjou, yes good point. Add that as #3 - discipline and a very effective "reserve/reinforcement" system.

[xjlxking]

1-One of the most important characteristics of the early Roman state is their ability to NEVER give up. Their discipline, mobilization, or even military was not what it was at the beginning, they were your average if not below average military. If you look at history, there aren't too many empire/kingdoms who can take such big loses like Rome with devastating defeats and continue fighting. I can't think of any other empire/state that would have continued if it had a cannae of there own in their of loses and defeat.

2-They were great diplomats. Seriously, look at what the hell they did through just diplomacy. They were able to turn Greece onto itself; change Gauls to fight Gauls; Germanic tribes vs other Germanic tribes; turned the Spanish tribes against Carthage; Numadia against Carthage. Egypt against itself;.... SOO MUCH more. It's not just this, but they were able to start good alliance in an attempt to weaken their allies. For example, they helped the Greek Coalition fight off Macedonia, only to turn against them later since the Greeks obviously lost troops battling Macedonia. Now, it might seem like a back stab, but at the time, Rome was playing the parent card; they acted as saviors and that's what people saw them as.

3-Adaptation is another great thing Rome had. They had an astonishing ability to change tactics, equipment, and strategies relatively quickly. They also were able to in cooperate other things into their military; The legions system was actually first used in Spain. The Gladius/Sword also used in Spain. They Scutum, they adopted and improved. This doesn't just go as far as military but the system itself; the arch wasn't their invention, but they definitely took it and improved it.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

As allready said. Italy and its manpool (largest population in the mediterranean area, which allowed to lost 10 times more often than carthage), the advanced ability to supply their man and a conscriptionsystem/militarized society which allowed to use their manpower. Offcourse adapting the tactics and techniques from other cultures is also important, but we see in case of the Seleucids that this allone is not enough. Specially until the late Republic, Romes main advantage are the giant manpower reserves and the capability to use them in a centralized way, while their enemy often were decentralized and with a limited manpool, like the splitted iberian, gaulish or germanic tribes or the Carthaginian which much less manpower. One reason why Caesar won in Gaul, was because he had several legions which fought the Gauls tribe after tribe. If they would been united in the beginning, even tactics wouldn't have brought Caesar a victory.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

I'd said their discipline. The amount of times I've read how Successor armies rout the moment the enemy touches their baggage or camp.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I'd said their discipline. The amount of times I've read how Successor armies rout the moment the enemy touches their baggage or camp.

Happend the same for the Romans. They were also able to run like rabbids until the late republic. Thant at least veteran legions had iron discipline, but many legions also lacked that disciplin. Ask Octavians 7 Legions which were scared by Antonius 2 Veteran legions in the Mutinesian Campaign

[xjlxking]

Or the various Roman legions who ran from Ceasars veteran Legion

[Smiling Hetairoi]

There's a difference between being scared of veteran opponents and running from the battlefield because the enemy is manhandling your stuff.

[tungri_centurio]

in a short answer
in military view there training and harch camplife
in normal city life the abilety to let other religions in, jews can still worship moses,gauls can worship their own gods,iberians theirs...
and their citys and building just awed other people

[Slydessertfox]

You forget that the soldiers' entire lives was in their "baggage" train. Their families (sometimes), their money, their possessions, etc. That's why the baggage train was so important.


Anyway, since what made Rome powerful was covered thoroughly already, I am going to point out another one of their weaknesses:

Theodore Dodge made a good point when he said that Hannibal taught the Romans strategy to to be careful. The Romans had always excelled at tactics, but their strategy was shaky at best until Hannibal came around. Prior to Hannibal they were also careless on marching and scouting out ahead of them, and Hannibal gave them a couple painful lessons on that (Trasimene being the most prominent example).

Also, we can not underestimate the blunders the Roman's opponents made that played a huge part in their rise to power, specifically in the east. As one example (but there are a few more), Antiochos IV literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at Magnesia. It was one of those battles where the Romans didn't win it as much as Antiochos somehow managed to find a way to lose it.

A few mistakes by Mithradates come to mind as well as the embarrassment that was Tigranocerta, among others.

[tungri_centurio]

they carved out their empire by good fortune and superior tactics, but what made the empire so good that it lasted over 500 years starting from 2 pinic war? alexanders empire was larger but fell apart when he died.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

You forget that the soldiers' entire lives was in their "baggage" train. Their families (sometimes), their money, their possessions, etc. That's why the baggage train was so important.


Anyway, since what made Rome powerful was covered thoroughly already, I am going to point out another one of their weaknesses:

Theodore Dodge made a good point when he said that Hannibal taught the Romans strategy to to be careful. The Romans had always excelled at tactics, but their strategy was shaky at best until Hannibal came around. Prior to Hannibal they were also careless on marching and scouting out ahead of them, and Hannibal gave them a couple painful lessons on that (Trasimene being the most prominent example).

Also, we can not underestimate the blunders the Roman's opponents made that played a huge part in their rise to power, specifically in the east. As one example (but there are a few more), Antiochos IV literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at Magnesia. It was one of those battles where the Romans didn't win it as much as Antiochos somehow managed to find a way to lose it.

A few mistakes by Mithradates come to mind as well as the embarrassment that was Tigranocerta, among others.

"Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" Have some rep.

[Roma_Victrix]

Two people already nailed the question in this thread.
1)Evalation's general point about Roman ability to adapt quickly and efficiently to situations, and to adopt new tech.
2)Roma_Victrix more elaborated points about the manpower pool of the Roman republic, tax policy and diplomatic agreements with allies.
Both are imo the reasons for Roman ascendancy. I think the question in the thread has been answered.

So what can I do to make this thread more interesting... well, I will tell you what Rome did not excel at. And if you haven't read much about it, it may surprise you:
Efficient supply trains and the corollary, Siege Warfare, Artillery. Rome lagged behind the Greeks and Carthaginians in what you may consider "basic siege warfare."
While the Greeks and Carthaginians had been using both rolling siege towers and artillery since ca 399 BCE, the Romans did not get exposed to either of these two technologies until well into the 200s BCE. So in many ways they were 150 years behind in this field. Primarily because they didn't need to, and secondarily because their interactions were very regional. They didn't need them because the regional settlements the Romans besieged had walls that were low enough for ladders, earthwork and tunneling to work well enough. Most of the early Roman sieges were disastrous. But Rome learned to become the master of the "escalade" (ladders) very quickly. What made the Romans get fully engaged & interested in the "Greek siege method", was the experience they got trying to relieve Echinus which was besieged by Philip of Macedon. P. Sulpicius Galba was trying to relieve Echinus, but it was all in vain. Galba was left dumbstruck by the Macedonian siege/supply train (the whole operation, and all that they built). This was approx 210 BCE. 20 years later, the Romans emulated precisely these mechanics, and the first Roman use of siege towers was documented (190 BCE),when M. Acilius Glabrio was besieging Heraclea. For 24 days, they attempted to take the city with siege equipment of all kinds: battering rams, siege towers, and all the other equipment required. After failing that for 24 days, they did a full-on escalade with ladders. They hadn't gotten their tactical synergy to click properly with the new tech, so they went back to the true and tested method which they did very well.

A magnificent rundown of Rome's early observation and adoption of Greek siege methods. When you fast forward two centuries from the point you were discussing, though, it is quite clear that use of siege towers and artillery were mastered by the Romans. The Greeks taught them well.