What does everyone have against Rome?

[delablake]

For the same reason people prefer Pirates to the British Navy: puerile romanticism...

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

What does everyone have against Rome?

This!



They looked for it! Out of the blue they blockaded my ports. I kindly asked them not to but they muttered about mock philosophies and war not waiting etcetera. Then I took a few towns, crashed a few columns, slaughtered and raped a few thousand citizens and most graciously got them under my protection. But would they behave themselves? Worst of all, you know what? They had WMD!
.

[Kikosemmek]

Also, claiming Hannibal would have ended Rome there and then is misjudging his intentions. He meant to reverse the situation created by the First Punic War, and (as he declared to Italic prisoners) restore his city's dignitas and imperium--her prestige and her power. Carthage was not the expansionistic, imperialistic power Rome was; even the most aggressive of the Barcids and their supporters simply wanted Carthage to hold the first place among the states of the Mediterranean. Hannibal didn't set out with the intention of conquering Rome, but of humbling her and removing her as a threat to Carthage. His political project appears to have been the creation of an Italic federation in Southern Italy, as a check to Roman power and expansion; Capua was probably meant to be the chief city of this confederation, or at least Hannibal accepted that this would have to be the case when he was there. Ultimately, Hannibal desired to safeguard Carthaginian interests by treaty, a policy Carthage had successfully followed for almost three centuries when Roman perjury had first imperiled this system. Hannibal may have regreted not attempting to force destiny after Cannae, when he led a raid to the foot of Rome's walls in 211BCE; but by then it was to late.

I don't know if I believe that. What evidence have we that Hannibal did not intend to simply put Rome out completely? I am aware that Carthage solved its problems more civilly than the Romans did for quite a while, but I don't think they'd have taken Rome as just any other threat they've faced. Were I a senator during that time I'd probably have been the most disgusting war-monger in the Carthaginian government, because Rome has by far and large trumped and outdone any other enemy that Carthage had ever faced. I'd have regarded them as medical practicioners regard cancer today, and would have tried my best to make sure they are never heard from again.

However, I did do once during my olde vanilla days what you described to be Hannibal's true intentions, and I found it amusing that I ran into this picture randomly today.



Cheers!

[Rottweiler]

Everytime i see someone post that they're playing as Rome i see people boo'ing and whatnot. What gives?

1. Some people are jealous as Romans accomplished more than their "favorite faction".

2. Some people are still bitter that their probable ancestors were conquered by the Romans.

3. Some people think that Romans are overrepresented over the other late ancient peoples in the mainstream history. (I kind of suspect that most EB modders belongs to that category...)

4. Some people are snobbish and hate anything popular.

add:

5. Some people always side strongly with the underdogs as a matter of principle. Thus they also likely more or less hate Romans. (But they should remember that Romans were underdogs too...)

[CirdanDharix]

I don't know if I believe that. What evidence have we that Hannibal did not intend to simply put Rome out completely? I am aware that Carthage solved its problems more civilly than the Romans did for quite a while, but I don't think they'd have taken Rome as just any other threat they've faced. Were I a senator during that time I'd probably have been the most disgusting war-monger in the Carthaginian government, because Rome has by far and large trumped and outdone any other enemy that Carthage had ever faced. I'd have regarded them as medical practicioners regard cancer today, and would have tried my best to make sure they are never heard from again.

The problem with piecing together Hannibal's intentions is that most of what we have on him is third-hand and from a Roman or, at best, Greek viewpoint. He had an official historian with him, Silenos, whose works must have told an official Carthaginian (or, perhaps more accurately, Barcid) version of the campaign, but his works are lost, as are those of historians who used Silenos as a primary source, e.g. Coelius Antipater, of whom only some rare fragments survive. Livy drew extensively on Coelius Antipater (among other sources such as Fabius Pictor), but that means that he gives, at best, a third-hand account distorted by the interpretation of two different Romans, not to mention Livy's habitual embroidery and his lack of general knowledge, especially geography, which makes his work at times incoherent and almost incomprehensible (for instance his chronology of the events leading up to the Second Punic War). Hannibal also left a bronze stele at Cape Taenarion (IIRC), but this was destroyed and we only know of the details he gives of his army's size and composition, thanks to Polybius. We also have copies of some of the treaties he signed, notably the one with Philip V of Macedon; and the sometimes awkward phrase construction in Polybius tends to indicate that he was translating from the Punic version of this treaty, rather than copying down the Greek one, IIRC.

So, there must always be some doubts as to Hannibal's intentions, his character and even some of his actions. I must say I rather agree with you when you say that, had you been a contemporary of Hannibal, you would of stood for the utter destruction of Rome. But we have the benefit of hindsight, and it's difficult, if not impossible, for us to make abstraction of later events, especially the "Third Punic War"--or should we be saying the Punic Genocide?

However, from what we know, the most likely conclusion is that Hannibal had not intention of destorying Rome. He left his heavy siege materiel in Iberia; perhaps he was intending to have it brought to him later, but at any rate, he did not anticipate having to capture important cities as soon as he reached Italy. He didn't attack Rome until it was to late, and when he did, only with the intention of drawing Roman forces away from Capua and preventing that city's fall (in which he failed). Now, there were valid military objections to a march on Rome, and they are the same at the time of Cannae and at the time of Trasimene, namely that Hannibal lacked heavy siege equipment and the manpower to seize Rome, which was already a huge and well-fortified city; and that, if a prolonged siege was allowed to turn the war into one of positions and fortifications, then all of Hannibal's advantages would be negated and he would certainly succumb to superior Roman numbers. However, a bold attack on Rome, relying on surprise to storm the city, might have succeeded, especially after Cannae. It would have been a risky enterprise, effectively betting the outcome of the war on a single action. But the capture of Rome and her Senators, the liberation of most the allied hostages would have allowed Hannibal to achieve a total victory. This he did not seek to do, perhaps out of caution. The famous Maharbal quote is probably apocryphal, as are so many of the speeches in Livy; but nevertheless, after Cannae Hannibal had his best chance to take Rome.

The main obstacle to assuming that only prudence prevented a Punic attack on Rome, is that there is no evidence for Hannibal to have planned to besiege the city in the future. In fact, from what we know of Mago Barca's report to the Carthaginian senate, the requests he put in for reinforcements are consistent only with a continuation of the mobile warfare, in the open country, which Hannibal had practised so far. The first shipment was to consist only of elephants and cavalry; the second of infantry, cavalry and more elephants, but not (as far as we know) siege weapons. Moreover, rather than concentrating on a single theater, the Carthaginian policy was to open new fronts (in Sardinia and in Sicily), their goal being apparently to defeat the Romans in all their overseas possessions rather than striking at the heart.

Then, there is Hannibal's policy in Southern Italy. He reportedly told the Capuans he would make their city the capital of Italy; he worked to detach cities from the Roman alliance, even though many of them probably stayed loyal to Rome on account of their hostages more than any other factor, at least at the start when Hannibal appeared invincible. He strove to build a strong, anti-Roman, alliance in Southern Italy, and he never mentioned join operations in Italy during his dealings with the Macedonians. He behaved generally more as a liberator than as a conqueror.

Finally, there are the speeches of Hannibal to his prisoners, claiming that he waged, not a war of extermination, but one to restore his homeland's prestige; and his offer to sell his prisoners back to the Romans. This is told by non-Punic and non-contemporary historians, so the usual grain of salt applies; but it at least tells us what the ancient tradition was.

However, I did do once during my olde vanilla days what you described to be Hannibal's true intentions, and I found it amusing that I ran into this picture randomly today.



Cheers!

[L.C.Cinna]

especially the "Third Punic War"--or should we be saying the Punic Genocide?

I'm sorry but there was no such thing like a "Punic Genocide". Only the few people who stayed in Carthage fell victim to the Roman massacre. Carthage was refounded with still major punic population and the other punic towns on the northern african coast weren't even touched. they even kept their autonomie, a switch to roman names only occurs during the 1st century BC to AD, inscriptionas are in punic and latin throughout most of Roman history. Septimius of Lepcis became emperor and his ancestors were senators and they all spoke punic (actually the family only changed their punic name around the time of Augustus as Birley suggests)

So there was hardly a punic genocide

just on a sidenote

[Digby Tatham Warter]

As far as gameplay is concerned Rome bothers me. They have it to easy, take to much and spam out armies like there's no tomorrow. By the time I get near central Europe they have nicked more than their fare share, leaving me with a lack of cultural diversity to war against. So I have taken the extreme measure of becoming Romes jailers, by blocking one of the bridges at the north end of Italy.

I have done this in a Seleukid and Mak campaign, and have to fight a large bridge battle every 2 turns or so for my trouble, using a modest blocking force. But at least Rome can exsist to train my troops and Generals. I'm so generous to regale them with the honour.

And yes I'm aware that the situation could easily be reversed for the Roman player, to go east, and find the Grey death in charge of some major real estate. But it's not a dead cert, whereas Romes greed in my experience seems to be a matter of course.

[Tiberius Nero]

For the same reason people prefer Pirates to the British Navy: puerile romanticism...

Word.

[CirdanDharix]

I'm sorry but there was no such thing like a "Punic Genocide". Only the few people who stayed in Carthage fell victim to the Roman massacre. Carthage was refounded with still major punic population and the other punic towns on the northern african coast weren't even touched. they even kept their autonomie, a switch to roman names only occurs during the 1st century BC to AD, inscriptionas are in punic and latin throughout most of Roman history. Septimius of Lepcis became emperor and his ancestors were senators and they all spoke punic (actually the family only changed their punic name around the time of Augustus as Birley suggests)

So there was hardly a punic genocide

just on a sidenote

I never said they succeeded. Jews still exist, Armenians still exist, hell, there's even a residual population of indigenous American tribes. Cato's party in the Roman Senate did try to erase all traces of Carthage (the city was refounded by Augustus more than a century and half later, which has no relevance to actions in the time of Scipio Aemilianus). Despite the tradition of the libri punicihaving been given to the sons of Massinissa, the only traces of Punic scholarship that have survived are fragments of Mago's treaty on agronomy, which proved to be so useful the Romans just had to translate it; in all likelyhood the Romans probably destroyed most of Carthage's libraries. As to the Punic language surviving into the times of Saint Augustine, that's largely due to its entrenchment among the native 'Libyan' population. The letters of the Tiffinagh script, still occasionally used today, are derived from Punic letters, a testimony to the resilience of Punic culture.

[Moosemanmoo]

because their settlements never revolt when they're the AI

and im still bitter about a battle where 2 urban cohorts slaughtered 90% of my army, and how they were immune to missile fire
(all in the unmodded version ofcourse)

[blank]

and im still bitter about a battle where 2 urban cohorts slaughtered 90% of my army, and how they were immune to missile fire
(all in the unmodded version ofcourse)

Ah, good old vanilla

As Rome i used armies with urban cohorts, praetorians, wardogs, ninjas and gladiators. Gladiators were pretty cool

[LuciusCorneliusSulla]

5. Some people always side strongly with the underdogs as a matter of principle. Thus they also likely more or less hate Romans. (But they should remember that Romans were underdogs too...)

And here we have the most perfect explanation for our irrational hatred of the Roman Faction (not me, I'm a roman buff and have been recently tattooed with Latin inscriptions)

Underdog syndrome - the love of that which strives to excel under harsh conditions, and a disdain for an agent of the exact opposite, the 'overdog'

And just to set the record straight - luck? Come off it sunshine, they survived and thrived because of one simple fact - they learned and adapted.

Ovid - it is right to learn, even from the enemy

If you fight one losing battle in EB that you dont learn from, you truly have lost the battle