The Destruction of Greece (fact or myth?)

In a recent holiday I took to Malta, I took the liberty of buying a book dealing with the history of the mediterranean and, of course, with the history of whatever nations have held maritime supremacy in that area at one point or another. I read in a chapter relating to ancient maritime powers (EB's time period) and one section deals with the conquest and subsequent destruction of Greece by the Romans. The book is called 'Mediterranean: Portrait of a Sea' By Ernle Bradford (1971). I quote the section:

"After the (Mithradatic) war was over, Sulla's exactations throughout Greece and Asia Minor was such that the ancient 'glory that was Greece' was almost entirely extinguished. Little was left in the land but ruined towns and a war-torn and depressed people. (During the Roman Civil Wars) Greece suffered as not even Sicily had formally suffered (During the 1st Punic War and any other struggle that took place): so much so that, in 45 B.C, a friend of Cicero's would write to the great Roman orator, 'As I was returning from Asia, I looked at the coastlines round about me. The island of Aegina lay astern, and Megara before me. On my right was Piraeus, and on my left was Corinth. These were all once prosperous, highly populated cities - but now they lay before my eyes ruined and devastated...'"

"At no time in her subsequent history Greece recovered from that century (130-30 BC) (...) The cities and temples that appear to be ruined through the inexorable action of time were indeed ruined when the Romans passed through them nineteen hundred years ago. Many of the statues and buildings whose losses we deplore had been broken or looted before the birth of Christ. Columns may have fallen in earthquakes, but many more were overturned by marauding armies"

"(Quoting William Tarn) 'Whole districts were half depopulated. Thebes became a village, Megalopolis a desert, Megara, Aegina, Piraeus heaps of stones; in Laconia and Euboea individuals owned large tracts, perhaps worked by only a few herdsmen; Aetolia, like Epirus, was ruined forever'"

"The Roman Empire was founded upon a desert of bones, and nowhere was this truer than in Greece"

That section has, obviously, stuck with me so now I'm curious. Was the conquest of Greece by Rome truly as devestating as is related in the book? Was Greece damaged and ruined beyond any possible repair, or is this section being sensationalistic about it all? The book was written, after all, in '71, more than 30 years ago, and as the EB team knows well new evidence is regularly popping up and changing what we previously thought about history. Has that been the case here? Or is the author right in saying that Greece was reduced, essentially, to rubble under the Romans?

Recent research revealed that Greece was quite prosperous and populous at Roman times....

The question with those literary sources you mention seems to be this: "How often is genuine depopulation actually intended in these sources? Or how often is it merely a rhetorical device, highlighting a moral point or accentuating perceived military and political decline?"

The most important work on this is Susan Alcock's Graecia Capta (just type Graecia Capta in google and the first hit will be the book - you can read the first chapter for free online). What does she say? Well, in rural areas there was a marked decline, sometimes severe, in habitation of sites. This wasn't just in a few areas either. The starting point however for this was the second half of the third century. There was a lot of movement from countryside to town during this period. This inevitably led to the buying up of numerous tracts of land for large estates and that is the main shift that then took place in the countryside. It started in the Hellenistic era but really took off in the Roman. Literary and archaeological evidence points towards increased nucleation in residences (e.g., villages or other larger rural settlements) where people who did stay and farm "commuted" each day to their land instead of living on it. They did it for various reasons - ease of defending yourself was one of the biggest ones, but also a desire to supplement their income in a particularly difficult time (when more demands through taxation were being placed on them) by living near others and providing other services in addition to farming. All of this led to a decrease in agricultural production though, where some poleis just didn't survive. But when some smaller ones were in trouble, people often left for the bigger towns. Strabo calls Patrai "exceptionally populous", Roman Corinth was a huge and bustling center of the region in terms of political power, population, trade, etc.

So, increased nucleation of population and resources is the biggest single change, but there was clearly population decline too. Greece did become a backwater and museum in the eyes of the Romans, who were focused elsewhere after its capture. For the people in Greece there was change, but they (most inhabitants) would have probably been aware of the nucleation change but wouldn't of thought of themselves as living in a backwater or museum. It didn't start under the Romans though - Hellenistic monarchs represented the same thing to them too: very powerful individuals who pulled together resources from large regions under their control and worked their will upon smaller collections of cities and individuals. They did the same sort of things that the Romans did: bolstered oligarchic regimes, accumulated landed property, realigned territories, and hastened the growth of league institutions.

The Greeks had destroyed each other long before the Romans came. Romans annexed a lot of Greece without even a battle. Macedon allied themselves with Carthage with pretty much basically sealed their fate.

The battles are mainly forgotten due to the size of the battle and the outdated battle tactics of the Greeks.


Under Philip V of Macedon (221–179 BC) and his son Perseus of Macedon (179–168 BC), the kingdom clashed with the rising power of the Roman Republic. During the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, Macedon fought a series of wars with Rome. Two major losses that led to their inevitable defeat were in 197 BC when Rome defeated Philip V, and 168 BC when Rome defeated Perseus. The overall losses resulted in the defeat of Macedon, the deposition of the Antigonid dynasty and the dismantling of the Macedonian kingdom. Andriscus' brief success at reestablishing the monarchy in 149 BC was quickly followed by his defeat the following year and the establishment of direct Roman rule and the organization of Macedon as the Roman province of Macedonia.



The Greek peninsula came under Roman rule in 146 BC, Macedonia being a Roman province, while southern Greece came under the surveillance of Macedonia's praefect. However, some Greek poleis managed to maintain a partial independence and avoid taxation. The Aegean islands were added to this territory in 133 BC. Athens and other Greek cities revolted in 88 BC, and the peninsula was crushed by the Roman general Sulla. The Roman civil wars devastated the land even further, until Augustus organized the peninsula as the province of Achaea in 27 BC.

Greece was the key eastern province of the Roman Empire, as the Roman culture had long been in fact Greco-Roman. The Greek language served as a lingua franca in the East and in Italy, and many Greek intellectuals such as Galen would perform most of their work in Rome.

Several emperors contributed new buildings to Greek cities, especially in the Athenian agora, where the Agrippeia of Marcus Agrippa, the Library of Pantaenus, and the Tower of the Winds, among others, were built. Life in Greece continued under the Roman Empire much the same as it had previously. Roman culture was highly influenced by the Greeks; as Horace said, Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit. (Translation: Captive Greece took captive her uncouth conqueror.) The epics of Homer inspired the Aeneid of Virgil, and authors such as Seneca the younger wrote using Greek styles. The Roman nobles who regarded the Greeks as backwards and petty, were the main political opponents of Roman heroes such as Scipio Africanus, who tended to study philosophy and regard Greek culture and science as an example to be followed. Similarly, most Roman emperors tended to be philhellenic. The emperor Nero visited Greece in 66 AD, and performed at the Olympic Games, despite the rules against non-Greek participation. He was, of course, honoured with a victory in every contest, and in 67 AD he proclaimed the freedom of the Greeks at the Isthmian Games in Corinth, just as Flamininus had over 200 years previously. Hadrian was also particularly fond of the Greeks; before he became emperor he served as an eponymous archon of Athens. He also built his namesake arch there, and had a Greek lover, Antinous.

At the same time Greece and much of the rest of the Roman east came under the influence of Christianity. The apostle Paul of Tarsus had preached in Corinth and Athens, and Greece soon became one of the most highly Christianized areas of the empire.

As tls mentions, some cities in Greece proper were indeed destroyed in Hellenistic era wars, and of course one in particular, Corinth, was destroyed by the Romans and then rebuilt as a Roman colony, in addition to some very serious damage being done to Athens by Sulla. It's a really interesting topic I think, but my MA thesis was on early Roman era construction in the Athenian Agora so I'm a little biased. :grin: It's good to see the question asked here though - it's something most folks don't know much about.

If I might add a question, wasn`t Greece and Anatolia bled white from resources from generals that tried to build their power in that region? And afterwards, wasn`t it devastated during the civil war, from Dyrrachium to Philippi?

I`m asking because that`s the idea I had, but it seems it didn`t happen that way.

Ah, well, it was milked for a lot during the Roman civil wars for sure, but the worst examples tended to just be that, examples. Caesar might make an example out of one city who shut its doors to him (for example when he left Epeiros and started into Thessaly after the siege at Dyrrachium), but then other cities would rarely face that sort of retribution later. They often would try to woo some cities also - Caesar and Pompey both made gifts and dedications in Athens in order to win them over. A lot of cities were coerced into supplying men, food, money, supplies, but some were able to stay out of the fray too. Athens was really unlucky: they supported Mithridates VI vs. Romans (lost), Pompey vs. Caesar (lost), Brutus and Cassius vs. Octavian/Anthony (lost), and Anthony vs. Octavian (lost), but didn't pay too much of a penalty because of their status and history.

The Athenians had also offered their entire army's help to the Romans to fight against Philip V, but they turned them down, asking for grain instead (estimated at 27,500 bushels of grain). No extreme fluctuations in prices in the Temple accounts of Delos are noted during these periods and very low interest rates there point to ready capital. Although some of the Hellenistic squabbling hurt mainland Greece, J.A.O. Larsen points out that there are many reasons to think Roman confiscations were not crippling to the Greeks (examples include Chalcis petitioning the senate in 169 to stop with heavy exactions and they agreed, putting an end to any arbitrary demands the senate itself had not approved of).

is it just me or is the hilly, mountainous terrain of Greece terrible for their own phalanx tactics. for a tactic so dependant on flat terrain to come from such a rough, hilly countryside it seems kind of... strange?
*scratches noggin*

actually thats probably why rome paved over them, their checkerboard formation is exellent in dealing with bad terrain, plus you can deal with attacks on all flanks and the phalanx can only hold off one side (unless you put your men in a circle)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

is it just me or is the hilly, mountainous terrain of Greece terrible for their own phalanx tactics. for a tactic so dependant on flat terrain to come from such a rough, hilly countryside it seems kind of... strange?
*scratches noggin*

actually thats probably why rome paved over them, their checkerboard formation is exellent in dealing with bad terrain, plus you can deal with attacks on all flanks and the phalanx can only hold off one side (unless you put your men in a circle)

---

The dense phalanx formations you see in EB are the Macedonian ones that wield the sarissa. Macedonia and everything east of the Aegean isn't as mountainous as Hellas proper. In classical Greece, the mainstay of the battles continued to be the hoplite formation, even in the Hellenistic era. They're a lot more mobile and suited for the circumstances of southern Greece. At least, that's how I think it was.

EDIT: I'm talking about the time period before that of EB. Of course, starting from the 3rd century we've got Roman tactics showing up as being superior to the phalangite formations of the successors.

Most of the traditional hoplite fighting would take place in or near fields - an army that would cross over a mountain range, descend on the enemy territory, and just stand there would have no one come and fight them. If they started tromping down and burning crops, cutting down olive tree orchards, etc., then people would show up with shields and pointed sticks and fight them. It's nice to stop folks in a mountain pass, but a high percentage of these battles take place when the enemy is in sight of the village or town on relatively level ground.

Of course on the topic of burning crops, there were only certain times of the year when they were actually flammable enough to catch light.

Don't forget that many battles occured on the same ground over and over again, so rough terrain wasn't so much of a problem since you only have to find a few flat fields and you're set. So there were several battles of Chaeronea, Mantinea etc. because those places had good, flat terrain. Armies naturally gravitated to those places.

Chairman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Of course on the topic of burning crops, there were only certain times of the year when they were actually flammable enough to catch light.

---

It's Greece we are talking about. Everything is dry 9 months a year. Some times 10 months.


As for battlefields, early Greek warfare was ritualised. You attacked your neighbor (attacking far away cities was very rare until the rise of Sparta), he either faced you or retreated to his city.
Then since there were no siege weapons, you burnt his fields and waited to see if he will come out to fight. If he did, both would face its other with a few psiloi throwing javelins and fight until one phalanx broke and run. Then you made peace, collected the dead and depending on the result signed a treaty only to fight again in a few years.

In fact one of the things that really surprised the Greeks and the Carthaginians was the fact that Romans fought total wars, refusing to surrender. Civilized people were supposed to sign treaties after one or two major defeats not keep making new armies!

Alco this is a very complex subject, yet in a nutshell Bradford is very simply incorrect, for all the wrong reasons.



later

CmacQ

Isn't that what we have been trying to explain?

Right,
I must have lost that from all the background, sorry.

There also was the general decrease in the rate of Mediterranean population growth in the 1st century BC, pop stabalization in the 1st century AD, followed by a slow pop decline thereafter.


CmacQ