Remove ads

Rome was not Exceptional: Interstate Anarchy of the Classical Mediterranean

Having discussed this on IRC with @Cetashwayo, I thought I'd lay out my thoughts on the matter in here.
I don't particularly disagree with Cetashwayo's thesis that Rome was much like many of it's neighbours and rivals in its societal attitude to violence, but I contend that they did differ in their society's structural incentives for violence.

For a Diadochi ruler, or a Gallic chieftain, they could obtain success in war, then rest on their laurels somewhat. Having made a respectable reputation for violence, they could then pick and choose when and where to best exercise violence for benefit, avoiding war or seeking it as was most advantageous over time.

In contrast, Rome had a reasonably broad-based oligarchy, and one structured around rather short term offices at that. A Roman Consul essentially had a couple of years to make their personal mark as a warleader, to gain the valuable prestige associated with that kind of success, prestige that was vital to a prospective statesman in gaining support amongst that broad-based oligarchy, before it was someone else's turn. Carthage, also a oligarchy, possessed a taller and narrower structure, with fewer "Great Families" competing, over more generational timescales, and therefore less need to gain wider popularity via military success now.

This led to a situation where the Roman ruling class was a many-headed hydra, each head seeking to find something tasty-looking to bite and drag back to the body politic. If, opposed to Rome, you chopped off one of these heads, you merely raised your profile and more hydra-heads would come seeking you. Notice how often Rome interposed itself into a situation as a defender, for example, not necessarily starting a war, but making one very likely.

The Roman leadership represented a large factor pulling Roman society into military activity, beyond the high "background" level of violence that existed in the Mediterranean. There was great incentive to turn every situation into a nail, so that the prestige of being the hammer could be obtained.
 
Last edited:
Ironanvil1 said:
Having discussed this on IRC with @Cetashwayo, I thought I'd lay out my thoughts on the matter in here.
I don't particularly disagree with Cetashwayo's thesis that Rome was much like many of it's neighbours and rivals in its societal attitude to violence, but I contend that they did differ in their society's structural incentives for violence.

For a Diadochi ruler, or a Gallic chieftain, they could obtain success in war, then rest on their laurels somewhat. Having made a respectable reputation for violence, they could then pick and choose when and where to best exercise violence for benefit, avoiding war or seeking it as was most advantageous over time.

In contrast, Rome had a reasonable broad-based oligarchy, and one structured around rather short term offices at that. A Roman Consul essentially had a couple of years to make their personal mark as a warleader, to gain the valuable prestige associated with that kind of success, prestige that was vital to a prospective statesman in gaining support amongst that broad-based oligarchy, before it was someone else's turn. Carthage, also a oligarchy, possessed a taller and narrower structure, with fewer "Great Families" competing, over more generational timescales, and therefore less need to gain wider popularity via military success now.

This led to a situation where the Roman ruling class was a many-headed hydra, each head seeking to find something tasty-looking to bite and drag back to the body politic. If, opposed to Rome, you chopped off one of these heads, you merely raised your profile and more hydra-heads would come seeking you. Notice how often Rome interposed itself into a situation as a defender, for example, not necessarily starting a war, but making one very likely.

The Roman leadership represented a large factor pulling Roman society into military activity, beyond the high "background" level of violence that existed in the Mediterranean. There was great incentive to turn every situation into a nail, so that the prestige of being the hammer could be obtained.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I sorta... mentioned this up thread. >.>
 
Reading the general trend which posts about Rome in this subforum are moving towards, I expect that by sometime next year we'll have reached a broad consensus that "Rome" was a minor principality somewhere in Italy that lasted around a century before quietly dying, with no greater historical effects or consequences to speak of.
 
Last edited:
Omicron said:
Reading the general trend towards which posts about Rome in this subforum are moving towards, I expect that by sometime next year we'll have reached a broad consensus that "Rome" was a minor principality somewhere in Italy that lasted around a century before quietly dying, with no greater historical effects or consequences to speak of.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Rome wasn't magic. It is important to note what differences they did and did not have with their neighbors. On a grand scale, attacking Roman exceptionalism can obliquely be applied to the modern idea of American Exceptionalism. Rome was, in many, perhaps even most, ways similar to its neighbors. It did not do everything better then the Samnites, the Carthaginians, the Greeks, or the Gauls. It did most thing the same as those other peoples, but had a few key differences that propelled it to world dominance. The same that the modern USA is not somehow unique amongst the modern world in the way it acts, thinks, or how economics/politics/culture affects it.
 
stratigo said:
Rome wasn't magic. It is important to note what differences they did and did not have with their neighbors. On a grand scale, attacking Roman exceptionalism can obliquely be applied to the modern idea of American Exceptionalism. Rome was, in many, perhaps even most, ways similar to its neighbors. It did not do everything better then the Samnites, the Carthaginians, the Greeks, or the Gauls. It did most thing the same as those other peoples, but had a few key differences that propelled it to world dominance. The same that the modern USA is not somehow unique amongst the modern world in the way it acts, thinks, or how economics/politics/culture affects it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Unlike their Greek/Macedonian neighbors, who were magic, gave Rome everything, and had the best combat tactics ever designed that the foolish barbarians of latter ages would stupidly abandon (and which could have won everything from Agincourt to the Thirty Years War), and who were presumably defeated by either pure, relentless zerg rushing or the will of God.

This thread is a laudable and well-documented attempt at disproving the "psychotic" part of "psychopathic swamp hicks," but we're still left with "swamp hicks;" in a sense, because it disproves the one feature of effectiveness commonly attributed to the Romans on this forum (their relentless brutality), it brings them down even further. Rome, this forum is intent on proving and this thread further argues, was an insignificant and unremarkable backwater; its achievements are owed less to its own features and rather to random happenstance and every single one of their more interesting, more virtous, more powerful opponents being struck by stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Omicron said:
Unlike their Greek/Macedonian neighbors, who were magic, gave Rome everything, and had the best combat tactics ever designed that the foolish barbarians of latter ages would stupidly abandon (and which could have won everything from Agincourt to the Thirty Years War), and who were presumably defeated by either pure, relentless zerg rushing or the will of God.

This thread is a laudable and well-documented attempt at disproving the "psychotic" part of "psychopathic swamp hicks," but we're still left with "swamp hicks;" in a sense, because it disproves the one feature of effectiveness commonly attributed to the Romans on this forum (their relentless brutality), it brings them down even further. Rome, this forum is intent on proving and this thread further argues, was an insignificant and unremarkable backwater; its achievements are owed less to its own features and rather to random happenstance and every single one of their more interesting, more virtous, more powerful opponents being struck by stupidity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Rome excelled at war and killing. I don't know how laudable you want to find that. Otherwise.... a lot of glories attributed to Rome were shared by other states in the region.
 
Omicron said:
Unlike their Greek/Macedonian neighbors, who were magic, gave Rome everything, and had the best combat tactics ever designed that the foolish barbarians of latter ages would stupidly abandon (and which could have won everything from Agincourt to the Thirty Years War), and who were presumably defeated by either pure, relentless zerg rushing or the will of God.

This thread is a laudable and well-documented attempt at disproving the "psychotic" part of "psychopathic swamp hicks," but we're still left with "swamp hicks;" in a sense, because it disproves the one feature of effectiveness commonly attributed to the Romans on this forum (their relentless brutality), it brings them down even further. Rome, this forum is intent on proving and this thread further argues, was an insignificant and unremarkable backwater; its achievements are owed less to its own features and rather to random happenstance and every single one of their more interesting, more virtous, more powerful opponents being struck by stupidity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do we argue that the British were pathologically inclined to be good at fighting naval battles? Or that the Americans are pathologically inclined to FREEDOM and to be a world hyperpower? Then why is it acceptable to use pathological, behavioral explanations to explain Rome?

Ultimately, yes, this is a "devaluation" of Rome away from a specter of death to a sometime-unique, sometime-typical power of its day that through grit, resilience, and manpower managed to rise to the top. I don't see that as a negative devaluation, though. I see that as applying the scrutiny that we do to modern international relations backwards to demolish cultural explanations of success once and for all.
 
Omicron said:
Unlike their Greek/Macedonian neighbors, who were magic, gave Rome everything, and had the best combat tactics ever designed that the foolish barbarians of latter ages would stupidly abandon (and which could have won everything from Agincourt to the Thirty Years War), and who were presumably defeated by either pure, relentless zerg rushing or the will of God.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What Rome tended to be quite good at was systems, particularly those of the KISS variety. The Phillipo-Alexandrian array was an amazing instrument, if you could maintain it, and if you had someone who could utilise it to its best advantage.
In contrast, the Roman system was basically "barbarian" warfare with an element of discipline added to it, making for a fairly simple to sustain military system that could still achieve very impressive results in the hands of a virtuoso, but could still generally get by even with a bumbler in command.
 
horngeek said:
IIRC, it was much reduced in wars between Christian nations because, well, if you did so to fellow Christians that was a good way to get the Pope pissed off at you and excommunicated. The major sacking of a Christian city by Christians I can think of was Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, which did result in all involved being excommunicated IIRC.

Against Heretics and Infidels, there was, uh, less restraint.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends on the war. Edward I was pretty brutal to the Scots.
 
Gaius Marius said:
That was twenty years later. Edward I killed 8k civilians in Berwick and got nothing, Bruce murders one guy in a church and is excommunicated. Another example of the rampant pro-Englishness of the papacy!

#Scotchlivesmatter!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know, the English invade your country for years and the Pope does nothing, then you spend only a few decades idly raiding Northern England for shinies and his Popeness interdicts you!:rage:
 
Do you happen to have any sources for further (reasonably contemporary) reading into this theory/viewpoint, or was this simply something entirely dredged up from your own mind and research?
 
vel10 said:
Do you happen to have any sources for further (reasonably contemporary) reading into this theory/viewpoint, or was this simply something entirely dredged up from your own mind and research?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Almost all of the arguments have been taken out of Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of War by Arthur Eckstein. My main contribution has been to simply his arguments and add stuff I've researched myself from other sources.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top