Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Greek military hero do you admire most?
#31
So where were the Spartans during the Roman era?
Reply
#32
I actually think that the Macedonians never really developed a sense of unity different to that developed in other Greek broader states (Thessalians, Boeotians etc). Their individual cities and tribes as well as other peoples politically counting among them kept craving for independence from Argead rule until the very end. Their strength and economic power as a kingdom was what drew the Romans to make so many wars against them and their importance as a bulwark against barbarian invasions was what kept the Romans from outright abolishing their monarchy thus making them potential adversaries again and again. Once the Romans really took over, the Macedonians became as submissive as every other Greek state.

By the way, another Leonidas-like story was that of Archidamus the Lacedaemonian who charged and routed the army of Epameinondas with a mere 100 Spartans when the latter attacked Sparta herself! A great sight it would have been...
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#33
Quote:
M. Caecilius post=300000 Wrote:Other than those, Cleopatra and Mithridates, it seems the Greeks were rather tame ...

I think no individual country put up more resistance than the Macedonians: Three wars against Rome and one final revolt.

Rome had some major trouble with the Samnites, too. Again, three wars, plus Samnite involvement in the Second Punic and the Social War, and all spanning a far longer time than Rome's involvement in Macedon (ca. 340-88 B.C.). Rome suffered some of her most humiliating reverses (the Caudine Forks) against the Samnites, who even challenged her when Rome was virtually the hyperpower of the Mediterranean. The Social War could have been disastrous.

Judaea was another trouble spot, too. Two major revolts and sustained, ongoing opposition throughout, at least until Hadrian began the diaspora.

Individual Gallic tribes kept uprising until the Batavian revolt, where the Lingones and the Treveri participated. The latter had tried already under Caesar (Indutiomarus), possibly during the early reign of Augustus (Titelberg garrison?), under Tiberius (Florus) and then, ultimately, during the Batavian rebellion (Classicus and Tutor). The revolt of Florus was rather anticlimactic, but the sentiment was there; Classicus may have started out fearing for his future because the Treveri had supported Vitellius, but soon the druids and Gallic sentiment got involved. The Treveran propensity and talent for fighting is made clear in Caesar and Tacitus, who recalls they claim Germanic descent, even if they never stood a chance once Rome could actually concentrate her forces (Indutiomarus attacked Labienus in his winter quarters, Florus' revolt never got really started, and Classicus took the opportunity of the Civil Wars and the fire of the capitol).

And let's not forget the Parthians: their opposition was good enough to avoid being conquered. Crassus and Antony were only the beginning of the hardest lesson for Rome: Don't attack Parthia. Even Trajan's successes were short-lived. And their successors were even more of a problem for Rome, as they took the offensive.
M. Caecilius M.f. Maxentius - Max C.

Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493

Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)
Reply
#34
Quote:And let's not forget the Parthians: their opposition was good enough to avoid being conquered.

This was as much down to geopolitical circumstances: the periphery of an an empire is always the hardest to conquer. This is a fundamental 'raumproblem' all pre-industrial empiress faced and the Parthians were located at the very periphery of the Imperium.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Reply
#35
Quote:So where were the Spartans during the Roman era?

Generally tucked up safe and sound at home ...

except for a brief period under the scoundrel Nabis (Sparta's last hurrah) ... and there was one Roman emperor (can't remember who - somebody fill in this for me please) who had both a Makedonian and Spartan unit in his Roman army - pretty much because he fancied it, and was something of an indulgent collector/fantasist.

The Spartans provided units at both the battles of Philippi and Pharsalos (on the winning side I think)...

Of course by this stage, all the various Greek city states, regions and kingdoms - throughout the greater Greek world - were pretty much worn out by their endless bickering and internecine strife. In some ways that is why the Romans had it so easy. They only had Carthage to deal with. Had Makedon remained strong and produced another Phillip II or Alexander III - then it might not have been so easy...
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#36
Ah yeah, the reenactors of Alexander Severus. :razz:
Reply
#37
Quote:So where were the Spartans during the Roman era?

Weren't they pretty much eliminated from the list of influential powers by Antigonus Doson before the Romans ever got the chance?

Quote:Had Makedon remained strong and produced another Phillip II or Alexander III - then it might not have been so easy...

How easy was it for Rome, though? The major battles, Cynoscephalae and Pydna, seem to have been near-disasters for the Romans, with the phalanx pushing them back. Aemilius Paullus seems to have suffered from some nightmares in later life, thinking back to Cynoscephalae, if I recall correctly. Of course, once the army was eliminated, the population seems to have settled down rather nicely and accepted Rome's hegemony (and then outright rule).

Quote:This was as much down to geopolitical circumstances: the periphery of an an empire is always the hardest to conquer. This is a fundamental 'raumproblem' all pre-industrial empiress faced and the Parthians were located at the very periphery of the Imperium.

I agree, but wasn't Macedon on the periphery either, during the first Macedonian Wars? Then Gaul, Britain, Dacia, Pontus, etc. Of course, the vast distances and the terrain of Parthia made logistics a nightmare and was ideally suited to the Parthian tactics.
M. Caecilius M.f. Maxentius - Max C.

Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493

Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)
Reply
#38
The only time the Greeks posed an existential threat to Rome was during the Pyrrhic War and during the Hannibalic War when Philip V of Macedonia could have made a difference as Max already stated.

This looks like a good book on the subject: Roman Conquests: Macedonia and Greece

I have the book from this series on the conquest of Italy.

Quote:Of course by this stage, all the various Greek city states, regions and kingdoms - throughout the greater Greek world - were pretty much worn out by their endless bickering and internecine strife. In some ways that is why the Romans had it so easy. They only had Carthage to deal with. Had Makedon remained strong and produced another Phillip II or Alexander III - then it might not have been so easy...

Also by this stage the Hellenistic armies were sorely lacking in decent cavalry. This is largely why the manipular legion was superior to the phalanx as it was formed during this period. Even if Macedonia produced another Philip II or Alexander III they would not have had access to the same resources. So, I doubt the Romans would've had much more trouble had this came about.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#39
I should add that despite Sparta's declining fortunes in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC; and her doomed attempts at revivalism (Agis III / Areos I / Agis IV & Kleomenes III / Makhanidas & Nabis); she didn't fare too badly under Roman rule. OK, Athens remained a cultural centre - but look at poor Korinth; Thebes; diminished Makedon etc. Sparta was allowed a fair degree of autonomy and actually a free city within the empire.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#40
Quote:I should add that despite Sparta's declining fortunes in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC; and her doomed attempts at revivalism (Agis III / Areos I / Agis IV & Kleomenes III / Makhanidas & Nabis); she didn't fare too badly under Roman rule. OK, Athens remained a cultural centre - but look at poor Korinth; Thebes; diminished Makedon etc. Sparta was allowed a fair degree of autonomy and actually a free city within the empire.

Did they still have the lifestyle that Lykugas created or were they more Athenian by then?
Reply
#41
Quote:Did they still have the lifestyle that Lykugas created or were they more Athenian by then?

There's some indications in Pausanias.

The Lacedaemonians who live in Sparta have a market-place worth seeing; the council-chamber of the senate, and the offices of the ephors, of the guardians of the laws, and of those called the Bidiaeans, are all in the market-place. The senate is the council which has the supreme control of the Lacedaemonian constitution, the other officials form the executive. (...) while the ephors transact the most serious business, one of them giving his name to the year (...) The most striking feature in the marketplace is the portico which they call Persian because it was made from spoils taken in the Persian wars. In course of time they have altered it until it is as large and as splendid as it is now. (...) On the market-place are temples; there is one of Caesar, the first Roman to covet monarchy and the first emperor under the present constitution, and also one to his son Augustus, who put the empire on a firmer footing, and became a more famous and a more powerful man than his father. (...)

Several things may be learned from this. The Spartans seem to have kept parts of the constitution - the ephors and the gerousia, if that is what this translation means by Senate.

On the other hand, the splendidly adorned market-place and great temples speak quite against the Lycurgan rules of rejecting coinage and finery and would have the poor man revolve in his urn.

I believe these "low standards" were already blamed on Lysander during that man's own lifetime, so nothing new there with Roman rule.

Sparta adopted, or was made to adopt the Roman imperial cult; there is no mention of kings in Pausanias, except where he speaks about ancient history and tombs to be visited.

Whether the Spartans still lived in their communal messes eating their horrid black broth and sent their boys out to fend for themselves, I cannot say. I doubt it from Pausanias' description. But the ritual of flogging boys seems to have been a popular tourist attraction in Pausanias' time (2nd century AD).

"Whereat an oracle was delivered to them, that they should stain the altar with human blood. He used to be sacrificed upon whomsoever the lot fell, but Lycurgus changed the custom to a scourging of the lads, and so in this way the altar is stained with human blood. By them stands the priestess, holding the wooden image. Now it is small and light, but (...) the image ever since the sacrifices in the Tauric land keeps its fondness for human blood."
M. Caecilius M.f. Maxentius - Max C.

Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493

Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)
Reply
#42
Do you think they still maintained their militaristic view of life?
Reply
#43
Quote:Do you think they still maintained their militaristic view of life?

I don't have any sources at hand to prove it, but I don't think so. The main reason Sparta ever became so militaristic was to keep their Helot serfs (if I may use that term) quiet; they lost most of them after the campaigns of Epaminondas when Messene was liberated. After that, tradition and ambition may have kept the Spartans going, but I cannot see Rome tolerating a militaristic, pseudo-autonomous city-state in their midst.

Compare the letter where Pliny asks for a fire brigade for Nicomedia and is told by Trajan not to organise one, since "the Greeks are likely to turn it into a political club". The Romans did have trouble with cities occasionally attacking one another (Lyon and Vienne in 69, Oxyrhynchus and Kynopolis for religious reasons sometime in the 1st century, Pompeii and Nuceria rather famously at a gladiatorial games), but they were put down in most cases. I doubt the Spartans would have gotten away with much more than some ritual traditions to keep them happy and remind them of their past whilst not being able to present a real threat. If they had such a splendid agora as Pausanias describes, then the influx of luxuries will have undermined real spartan ideals anyway.

Naturally, this is mere hypothesis.
M. Caecilius M.f. Maxentius - Max C.

Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493

Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)
Reply
#44
Quote:
Ghostmojo post=300182 Wrote:I should add that despite Sparta's declining fortunes in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC; and her doomed attempts at revivalism (Agis III / Areos I / Agis IV & Kleomenes III / Makhanidas & Nabis); she didn't fare too badly under Roman rule. OK, Athens remained a cultural centre - but look at poor Korinth; Thebes; diminished Makedon etc. Sparta was allowed a fair degree of autonomy and actually a free city within the empire.

Did they still have the lifestyle that Lykugas created or were they more Athenian by then?

They never became Athenian as such. They were of course Dorians and not Ionians. The lifestyle that Lykourgos was reputed to have created (but probably didn't - if indeed he existed) was always something of a mirage anyway. This Spartan 'mirage' is a subject in itself and I won't expand on it here too greatly other than to say - the Spartans liked others to believe certain things of them. It suited their purposes to construct this mirage around them. Not everything that forms part of the common conception about Sparta is necessarily as cut and dried as first appears.

Sparta existed partly as a regional town in the Roman mediterranean with no great claims to fame other than her past; and partly as a living museum (also relating to her past) where various rituals where enacted for the delight of visiting tourists - the floggings at Artemis-Orthia being a notable surviving practice. However, the scourging of the epheboi at Sparta (in any period) is a very complicated and problematic subject.

It is also something of a myth that the Spartans didn't have decent temples. OK, they never had anything to rival the Periklean Acropolis - but few Greek cities did (before the growth of well-financed megalopolii throughout the former Alexandrian empire). The Spartans did not (after a certain period) indulge in artisan work themselves, but they did allow others to do so (the perioikoi amongst others). They had temples on their own acropolis (also dedicated to Athena), including the notable Brazen House; and a theatre there; and various other religious sites dotted about Lakedaimon related to specific cults (e.g. Amyklai and the Menelaion). After the Persian Wars various commemorative structures were set up and they also paid for offerings at Delphi (Apollo being a very important god at Sparta).
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Greek Military Cuisine Ramesses II 2 1,071 03-29-2007, 06:22 AM
Last Post: hoplite14gr
  Greek military pictures Carlton Bach 29 5,968 04-06-2006, 08:09 AM
Last Post: Arthes
  What Interests You About the Greek Military? JRSCline 16 5,059 03-29-2005, 12:40 AM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: