Introduction to Greek and Roman HistoryWeek 4: Imperialism and the conquest of the MediterraneanDr Gareth Sears

The Elite – motivating factors Competition Political power Military prowess Clientship Fear of Tyranny Consultative principal

The sources Livy Dionysus of Halicarnassus Polybius

Theories of Roman Expansion Defensive Imperialism – Badian, E. (1968) Roman

Imperialism in the Late Republic, Oxford.

1. Wealth attracts enemies 2. Alliance structure3. Religion and the just war (ius

fetiale)

Theories of Roman Expansion Militaristic Society – Harris, W.V. (1979)

War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, Oxford. For an adjusted version see North, J.A. (1981) ‘The Development of Roman Imperialism’, JRS 71: 1-9.

1. Competitive ethos2. Financial benefits3. Political structure4. Tribute system

Plautus, Epidicus, 158-60 …. for I shall now summon a meeting of the senate in my

mind, to deliberate on matters of finance, against whom war may best declared, so that I can get some money thence.

Rome’s conquest of Italy

Le Glay, Voisin and Le Bohec – Fig. 3.1

Carthage

Phoenicia (‘Punic’)Utica and Gades12th C BC?Carthage 9th C BC?

Carthaginian Empire?

1st Punic War 264-241• Mamertines at Messenia• Syracuse asking for help• Polybius, I, 10, 1 - I, 11, 2 In spite of protracted deliberations, the conflict of

motives proved too strong, after all, to allow of the Senate coming to any decision; for the inconsistency of aiding the Messenians appeared to them to be evenly balanced by the advantages to be gained by doing so. The people, however, had suffered much from the previous wars, and wanted some means of repairing the losses which they had sustained in every department. Besides these national advantages to be gained by the war, the military commanders suggested that individually they would get manifest and important benefits from it. They accordingly voted in favour of giving the aid.

Southern Italy and Sicily Le Glay, Voisin and Le Bohec – 1.3

1st Punic War 264-241 263 – Syracusans change sides 262 – Romans capture Agrigentum 260 – Battle of Mylae 255 – Regulus in Africa 240s – Roman setbacks in Sicily (against Hamilcar Barca,

father of Hannibal) and expansion of the Carthaginian empire 241 – Battle of Aegates

2nd Punic War 219-216 237 – Expansion into southern Spain under Hamilcar Barca 226 – New treaty 221 – Hannibal new commander in southern Spain 219 – Saguntum and the crossing of the Ebro 218 – March north from Carthagenna 217 – Trebia and Lake Trasimene 216 – Cannae

Hannibal’s Campaign

Fig. 4.2 LG, V, LB

Hills

Lake Trasimene

Thursday 7th February14.00 Bryony14.30 Victoria Price15.00 Jack15.30 Nicole

Lake Trasimene

Cannae 1

Anfidus fl.

Roman InfantryRoman Cavalry

Latin Cavalry

Heavy Infantry

Gallic and Spanish Infantry

Numidian light cavalry

Celtic and Spanish heavy cavalry

Cannae 2

Anfidus fl.

Roman Infantry

Celtic and Spanish heavy cavalry

Numidian light cavalry

Gallic and Spanish Infantry

Latin Cavalry

2nd Punic War 209-201

Following Cannae – Roman policy of not engaging in battle 209 – Latin colonies failure to send troops However:

Carthaginian armies defeated Roman forces re-conquer northern Italy Romans take Carthaginian territory in Spain. Rebellions in North Africa

202 – Zama (Scipio Africanus defeats Hannibal)

Treaty Carthage’s navy limited to five warships Not allowed to go to war without Roman permission Carthage limited to territory in modern Tunisia Carthage to pay Rome 10,000 talents over 50 years Carthaginian possessions in Spain to go to Rome (provinces of

Hispania Ulterior and Citerior)

3rd Punic War 149-146

149 – Rome demands: All of Carthage’s weaponryThe abandonment of the city

Why do this? Utica, Hadrumetum and other Punic cities abandon Carthage 146 – Carthage destroyed

Roman territory in 30 BC. Le Glay, Voisin and Le Bohec – Fig. 5.1

Conclusions

Defensive or aggressive imperialism? Roman success due to:

Manpower reserves Military experience Flexibility of military ideology

Greece as a comparator 1st Macedonian War 212-206

Carthaginian and Macedonian alliance during second Punic war leads to Roman desire to punish Philip V.

Rome mainly uses the Greek leagues to check Macedon rather than doing much direct fighting itself.

Why might Rome take this approach? 2nd Macedonian War 200-196

Macedonian belligerence in the Aegean leads to other states such as Rhodes, Athens and the Pergamene kingdom in Asia Minor asking for Roman help and renewed war.

Greece as a comparator 3rd Macedonian War 171-168

Romans suspicious of Philip’s successor Perseus. Clearly willing to believe the worst of him – desire for war or product of fear?

150-148 Macedon directly annexed Rome falls out with the Achaean league 146 Achaean league crushed and destruction of Corinth