Empires: Rome -The Background History Part Five

Slowly, Rome brought herself back from the edge of destruction. They held on to Sicily and eventually took over Carthage's empire in Spain. 15 years after Cannae, Hannibal fought another Roman army on North African soil. This time Hannibal was finally defeated. Hannibal urged his compatriots to accept Rome's terms of surrender. Hannibal had no wish to see Carthage destroyed utterly. Rome never forgot Hannibal or Carthage. Even after Rome had taken her naval fleet, her provinces and her much immortalized war-elephants, Rome still feared a Carthaginian revival. Centuries later statues of Hannibal were still standing in Rome. Hatred and fear such as this, was in a strange way, the highest compliment Rome could pay to a foreign competitor. Romans saw a lot of themselves in the strength and fighting spirit of their greatest foe.

Rome would never again let another power rise that could threaten her survival. Competition was not welcome and Rome felt perfectly within its rights taking offensive measures against other city-states and kingdoms. Before the war with Hannibal, Rome had started to project its influence in places where it could show who was the 'boss' so to speak. The occasional clashes between the Greek city-states seemed to be one area of the world that confused the Republic. This confusion was understandable considering the constant infighting between the Greeks. Rome did not act like a typical imperial power in its dealings with the Greek states. It would spring like a deadly cobra at times with its legions. For all the force of these unpredictable interventions, there were times when Rome seemed to have lost interest in its Hellenic neighbors completely. When Rome did interfere in Greek affairs, her interventions were represented as peacekeeping missions. The result was not the subjugation of the Greek states and the addition of territory, but the confirmation of Rome's preeminence and the prevention of any of the Greek states and kingdoms becoming too powerful in the region.

Macedon was the kingdom that had to deal most with Rome with Roman intervention in the Balkans. The country's king was heir to the throne of Alexander the Great and Macedon had dominated the peninsula for two hundred years. Macedon continued to try to assert herself in spite of bruising encounters with the Republic's armies. In 168 BC, Rome had enough of what it viewed as Macedonian provocations. At first Rome abolished the monarchy in Macedon and dissected the country into four client republics. Rome transformed itself from a 'peacekeeper' to an occupying power in Macedon in 146 BC, when it made Macedonia a Roman province. This happened after the Fourth Macedonian War or revolt. This revolt was led by a man who pretended to be the son of the last king, and was smashed by the Roman praetor Mettelus Macedonius. The Republic destroyed the city of Corinth, one of the leading cities of the revolt and put an end to the Greek resistance. With the destruction of Corinth, Rome could no longer be pretending it was on peacekeeping missions or subjugating the world in self-defense.

During the civil wars of the late Republic, Macedonian rule was thrown into doubt again. In this time period, while the Greek world was still under the control of the Romans, control of Macedon would see-saw between Pompey and then Caesar, and later Antonius and Cleopatra. It was only at the famous Battle of Actium in 31 BC, off the shores of Epirus, that Octavian, later to be known as Augustus Caesar, would return Rome's dominance of the Greek world under a single Roman leader. For anyone reading this blog I hope to return soon with more posts-I was able to get more work done on the history part of my work than I thought-here my lousy typing skills really have an effect. If I were a better typist I could have gone on in this post at least one if not two more paragraphs-although perhaps it is for the best as there was another change of nations Rome was dealing with. I am also continually trying to think up topics that do not involve Rome-but I think are very interesting and crucial to the discussion of empires and their rise and fall. One area among many that I would like to talk about is the competition between the Soviet and American empires after World War II-so if I can ever get this information together I hope to post it in between the posts about Rome. I tend to always come back to Rome -because-and I know it is cliche to say this-of its comparisons to modern day America. I am really shocked at some of the similarities and synchronicities. Well I have rambled quite enough-as I say I hope to post again very soon-in all likelihood it will be a continuation of Rome-but as I say I am trying to build information to talk about other nations and eras of history. Thanks for the wonderful comments and peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Empires: Rome -The Background History Part Four

In order to do just this, Hannibal in 218 BC led a Carthaginian army from Spain, through southern Gaul and over the Alps. This in itself was an incredible feat and perhaps worth a post or two in this blog later on. Hannibal demonstrated a brilliance in military tactics and strategy that was far greater than his opponents. He brought three Roman armies to a stunning and horrific defeat. In the third of his victories, at Cannae, Hannibal completely wiped out eight Roman legions. This was the worst military defeat, by far, in the Republic's history. In the world of the time, by every expectation and custom of contemporary warfare, Rome at this point should have accepted Hannibal's victory and attempted to sue for peace. However, showing true Roman grit and absolute refusal to lose face with an enemy-even in the face of this utter catastrophe, the Republic refused to surrender or accept defeat.

In times of great crises, the Romans always looked for guidance in the prophecies of the Sibyl. The story of the Sybilline prophecies goes back in time before the Republic when Rome was ruled by kings. The story begins with the visit by an old woman to the tyrannical Tarquin, the last king of Rome. The great polymath of the late Republic, Varro, stated that the Tarquin visited by the Sibyl was Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of Rome, instead of the Tarquin mentioned here, who would be the seventh king of Rome and also the last. I thought this should be mentioned although it is not a crucial detail to the story here. The woman carried nine books with her. When she offered to sell these to Tarquin, he laughed in her face, as the price she was asking for them was so high. Making no attempt to offer a lesser price, the old woman simply left without a word. She burned three of the volumes and returned to the king, offering the rest at the same price as before. The king refused her offer once again, although this time with less assurance than before, and once again the old woman left without a word. The legend has it that by this time Tarquin was becoming anxious, as to what might be in the books. When the mysterious old woman came back a third time with only three books, the king bought them, even though he had to pay the same price she had asked for the original nine books. The old woman took her money and disappeared, never to be seen again.

Who was this woman? We will never know. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies in the three books, Romans thought she could have been only one person-the Sibyl. The legends of the Sibyl are not very helpful. Going by the belief that the Sibyl had foretold the Trojan War people thought that maybe she was made up of ten prophetesses, immortal and some doubted she existed at all. One thing we do know is that her books, inscribed with an antique Greek style of writing definitely existed. We also know that the Romans felt that the prophecies in them were so accurate that they consulted them in times of great distress and with the utmost respect. The prophecies of the Sibyl, at least the way the Romans read them, described a very curious 'solution' to the problem of Hannibal and Carthage. Two Gauls and two Greeks were to be buried alive in the cities marketplace. This act of barbarism affirmed that there was no length the Romans would not go to, to preserved Rome's freedom. To the Romans of this era the only alternative to liberty was indeed death.

I hope to have the next post for this blog here pretty soon-the next couple of days are going to be tough schedule wise and I am not feeling so great, but I am determined, as long as I have a net connection to never get so behind with this blog again-although I am not making any promises. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!