The Destruction of Greece (fact or myth?)

[-Praetor-]

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.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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).

[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)

[Swordmaster]

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.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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.

[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.

[Vorian]

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!

[chairman]

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