Fighting Rome

[DesertFox]

I was watching a PBS documentary about the history of Judaism.

One item that hits me is how many groups decided to try and fight the Romans.

One item I do not understand was if it was clear of how powerful Rome was and how they would react to being attacked at that stage?

[Sardaukar]

I was watching a PBS documentary about the history of Judaism.

One item that hits me is how many groups decided to try and fight the Romans.

One item I do not understand was if it was clear of how powerful Rome was and how they would react to being attacked at that stage?

 

Are they referring to 69-73 CE or 132-135 CE rebellions ? Neither went very well...former was even very fragmented because many groups basicly hated each other almost as much as Rome. But I'd say those were some of the most serious uprisings Romans had to face since Gallic War.

 

I think that few had any idea how vast resources and manpower Rome could use if deemed necessary apart from senior Roman civilian and military figures.

 

I'm currently trying to read stuff about Roman military economy and logistics. What I have so far deducted was that one legion could be easily compared with cost of forming and upkeep of modern AF fighter squadron...very xpensive business. No wonder Crassus said that "man should not deem himself rich unless he can raise and equip a legion".

[DesertFox]

The PBS special covered both Rebellions...with the first one, one item was that they were suppose to have years of grain stored up but that in the infighting, the groups were suppose to have destroyed their rivals grain. This seems to have gone on until there were almost no food stocks left.

[Archie Pellagio]

I was watching a PBS documentary about the history of Judaism.

One item that hits me is how many groups decided to try and fight the Romans.

One item I do not understand was if it was clear of how powerful Rome was and how they would react to being attacked at that stage?

 

 

To be honest the thing that surprised me most when I started reading into Roman history was how not dominant the romans were, especially pre-civil war.

 

The number of times a Legion would be sent to put down some uprising of sorts and then massacred was something the you just don't get in the childhood notion of the Roman Legions.

 

Sure, after that there will be another legion or three to brutally massacre the unruly rabble, but the relative weakness of the empire is something people tend to gloss over a fair bit I think.

[smith]

Has anyone else read Sarte's The Middle East Under Rome? It presents new data on the rebellions e.g. Masada fell in 74 not 73, and the rebels may not have taken Jerusalem in 132-35. One legion, Deotariana, seems to have been lost in a first attempt to put down the bar Kochba rebellion.

[smith]

I think that few had any idea how vast resources and manpower Rome could use if deemed necessary apart from senior Roman civilian and military figures.

 

Ever read Josephus? There was an interesting speech, allegedly by Agrippa, nominally king of the Jews in 64 CE, warning them and pleading with them not to rebel against the Romans. Seems like one of the most powerful orations to come down to us from the ancient world. But the commentary notes that the speech was probably an invention as most of it would've meant nothing to the average Jew i.e. there wasn't any public education back then to enable the masses to understand the references to history and geography in it.

[Mikel2]

I think that few had any idea how vast resources and manpower Rome could use if deemed necessary apart from senior Roman civilian and military figures.

 

I'm currently trying to read stuff about Roman military economy and logistics. What I have so far deducted was that one legion could be easily compared with cost of forming and upkeep of modern AF fighter squadron...very xpensive business. No wonder Crassus said that "man should not deem himself rich unless he can raise and equip a legion".

 

 

I find the management of ancient empires to be a fascinating subject. Even in much more modern times, things can get tricky. You have Phillip II of Spain sharing resources in simultaneous campaigns in Flanders, Italy, against the Turks, the Brits, the French... And trying to micromanage everything from El Escorial. It is amazing how ancient rulers suffered from the same information overload, inability to analyze it effectively, and the desire to micromanage everything from home, as today's rulers do. With the same results...

[DesertFox]

In many cases, orders would take months to get to the troops and twice as long to get feedback

[swerve]

To be honest the thing that surprised me most when I started reading into Roman history was how not dominant the romans were, especially pre-civil war.

 

The number of times a Legion would be sent to put down some uprising of sorts and then massacred was something the you just don't get in the childhood notion of the Roman Legions.

 

Sure, after that there will be another legion or three to brutally massacre the unruly rabble, but the relative weakness of the empire is something people tend to gloss over a fair bit I think.

 

Situation normal, up until radios, motorised transport & air support changed things. A legion could be cut off, a few miles from help, & die before anyone knew.

 

Think of Isandhlwana, Maiwand*, Anual, & a host of other relatively recent battles in which imperial forces were badly beaten, & in some cases wiped out.

 

*our local memorial - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5...MaiwandLion.JPG

[Jim Martin]

Situation normal, up until radios, motorised transport & air support changed things. A legion could be cut off, a few miles from help, & die before anyone knew.

 

Think of Isandhlwana, Maiwand*, Anual, & a host of other relatively recent battles in which imperial forces were badly beaten, & in some cases wiped out.

 

*our local memorial - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5...MaiwandLion.JPG

 

 

That lion's still got his nuts, somebody call the Swedes!

[Maj Kong]

ROMANI ITE DOMUM!

 

[Yama]

Defeating Romans in single battle was not a problem. Plenty of people managed that. Romans were good, but not great, on tactical level. Quality of their leadership was always mixed. In my opinion, Romans produced surprisingly few truly great military leaders given their overall military prowess and long time the (Western) Empire stood. So as such, it is not in my opinion surprising that local rebels would notice real or perceived weaknesses (hey, these guys aren't so tough after all!) and perhaps even get some early success. Many would-be rebels perhaps did not fully realize how incredibly powerful the Empire in fact was. After all, Wikipedia did not exist yet.

 

But defeating Rome in prolonged campaign or war was another thing altogether. Hannibal inflicted Romans disaster after disaster, each worse than previous one, he destroyed Roman army something like eight times over yet ultimately he lost. IMHO, it's difficult to pinpoint singular reason why Romans were so successful. It seems to be sort of synergy between Roman culture, society and economy. Roman legions were usually fairly well equipped and trained. Romans put lots of attention to logistics, organization and military infrastructure, whilst at the same time some other powerful nations were spending their resources on elephants (both white and actual kind). It has been said that spade was more important for legions than spear. Romans were innovative and adaptive and above all, they were resilient. They were not likely to give up. Romans had strong nationalistic spirit. One interesting feature in Roman culture is that they reminisced their great defeats just as much as some other nations celebrate legendary victories, in sort of "Remember Pearl Harbor!" attitude.

[Sardaukar]

Defeating Romans in single battle was not a problem. Plenty of people managed that. Romans were good, but not great, on tactical level. Quality of their leadership was always mixed. In my opinion, Romans produced surprisingly few truly great military leaders given their overall military prowess and long time the (Western) Empire stood. So as such, it is not in my opinion surprising that local rebels would notice real or perceived weaknesses (hey, these guys aren't so tough after all!) and perhaps even get some early success. Many would-be rebels perhaps did not fully realize how incredibly powerful the Empire in fact was. After all, Wikipedia did not exist yet.

 

But defeating Rome in prolonged campaign or war was another thing altogether. Hannibal inflicted Romans disaster after disaster, each worse than previous one, he destroyed Roman army something like eight times over yet ultimately he lost. IMHO, it's difficult to pinpoint singular reason why Romans were so successful. It seems to be sort of synergy between Roman culture, society and economy. Roman legions were usually fairly well equipped and trained. Romans put lots of attention to logistics, organization and military infrastructure, whilst at the same time some other powerful nations were spending their resources on elephants (both white and actual kind). It has been said that spade was more important for legions than spear. Romans were innovative and adaptive and above all, they were resilient. They were not likely to give up. Romans had strong nationalistic spirit. One interesting feature in Roman culture is that they reminisced their great defeats just as much as some other nations celebrate legendary victories, in sort of "Remember Pearl Harbor!" attitude.

 

Problem with Roman armies in Republican times (and also in Imperial times, but less so) was that they often matched the saying "Lions led by Donkeys"... While the legion was very sound and amazingly professional organization (even during Republic times), there was always tendency of appoint politically acceptable commander. Senators were politicians and rarely had military talent or experience needed. And commanders were usually appointed from senatorial rank..and there you go. It's good explanation why Rome had relatively few (well, there were lot more very good senatorial military men than are commonly know..but) really accomplished military commanders.

 

"In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire" by Adrian Goldsworthy is very good book about that.

[smith]

Senators were politicians and rarely had military talent or experience needed. And commanders were usually appointed from senatorial rank..and there you go.

 

By mid third century, the Empire could no longer afford such a luxury if it was to survive so Gallienus excluded senators from military command.

[DougRichards]

I have also read that Roman Legions were always poor at scouting - ie light cavalry - which was one reason why Hannibal was able to defeat Roman armies so often - they just walked into traps or didn't have the light cavalry to deal with enemy light cavalry.

 

In later times think of Carrhae.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I was reading a book about the American War of Independence. The three things that struck me most were:

 

1. That the primacy of logistics in warfare remains unchanged.

2. How undeveloped and sparsely populated the United States was in the 18th Century.

3. How much in the modern age we take it for granted that communications is more timely than transportation of physical items, and how many things change when that is not the case.

 

In many cases, orders would take months to get to the troops and twice as long to get feedback

[Jim Martin]

I was reading a book about the American War of Independence. The three things that struck me most were:

 

1. That the primacy of logistics in warfare remains unchanged.

2. How undeveloped and sparsely populated the United States was in the 18th Century.

3. How much in the modern age we take it for granted that communications is more timely than transportation of physical items, and how many things change when that is not the case.

 

 

I played a really interesting series of computer wargames back in the late '80s. One of the games was Napoleon's Leipzig campaign, the other was the Gettysburg campaign. In other words, this was not just the set-piece battle of Gettysburg, the map displayed pretty much all of SW Pennsylvania. While they were computer games, they came with a cardboard map and counters. This is because as the commanding general, you were limited by the same problems that generals of the time faced--you only knew the *last reported* position of your units...and if your HQ was hours away from them, you're getting reports hours old....track on your cardboard map where you THINK the units are, the puter map showed their last REPORTED position and REPORTED status, at the time the report was made (not read). You would give default orders to your Corps/Div commanders, and assign movement priorities to them (so that in the event of a "traffic jam" the unit with higher priority got right-of-way), give your units default posture orders (defend, retreat, hasty attack, prepared attack, etc), and really, hope for the best. Weather conditions could slow transmission of orders and intel. Muddy roads really slow a horseman down. Of course, if you managed to get your HQ to the battlefield, you could exert more control yourself. But in both games, as both Lee and Napoleon, your forces are scattered all to hell 'n' gone, foraging. You start getting intel reports of enemy contacts, (Leipzig is a nightmare, Napoleon is surrounded) and attempt to concentrate your forces, but of course your contact reports are hours old, then you start getting reports of battles, or some numbnuts general sends, "am outnumbered 3 to 1, I will attack in half an hour", or variations on the theme. Generalship before realtime comms was truly an artform, given that you must truly be able to anticipate enemy actions, and what your actions should be hours in advance, in order to send timely orders. Of course, selection of truly competent subordinates is critical as well. Any orders you send to them will be hours late in arriving should they make contact.

[smith]

I have also read that Roman Legions were always poor at scouting - ie light cavalry - which was one reason why Hannibal was able to defeat Roman armies so often - they just walked into traps or didn't have the light cavalry to deal with enemy light cavalry.

 

In later times think of Carrhae.

 

I don't know if they were always poor at scouting. They learned from defeats and Vegetius mentioned the need for scouting. Still, faulty intelligence was occasionally a problem down to the time of Adrianople at least.

[swerve]

Jim,

 

it took me some time to understand why Napoleon, Wellington et al were so often near the front line, riding around looking at what was going on, despite the personal risk. I got it in the end.

 

Maps are another issue. We tend to take for granted a good knowledge of where everything is. What a luxury!

[Rod]

The Jews under the Macabees defeated the more powerful Syrian-Greeks and liberated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (and today we celebrate the victory in the Chanukah festival). Jews at the time of the Roman revolt would not be afraid of going after the Romans as they would have faith in "Divine Intervention". Their zealotry also made the Romans bleed in their campaign. No wonder the Romans were so pissed that they tried to erase all remnants of the Jews from the Holy Land. (Going as far as renaming the land Syria-Palaestina, which became just Palestine until the re-establishment of a Jewish State in 1948 CE).

[KingSargent]

Ever read Josephus? There was an interesting speech, allegedly by Agrippa, nominally king of the Jews in 64 CE, warning them and pleading with them not to rebel against the Romans. Seems like one of the most powerful orations to come down to us from the ancient world. But the commentary notes that the speech was probably an invention as most of it would've meant nothing to the average Jew i.e. there wasn't any public education back then to enable the masses to understand the references to history and geography in it.

Public speaking at the time, especially in Rome, was full of classical, historical, and mythological references, the more obscure the better. Someone who spoke plainly and understandably was considered a clod. 'The masses' were not supposed to be able to understand it.

[pikachu]

Going as far as renaming the land Syria-Palaestina, which became just Palestine until the re-establishment of a Jewish State in 1948 CE

I thought only the Jews ever called the area Israel. IIRC the Greeks called the general area Coele-Syria, and the Achaemenids before them had another name - province across the river?

 

I suppose it depends on which side you're viewing events from.

 

Public speaking at the time, especially in Rome, was full of classical, historical, and mythological references, the more obscure the better. Someone who spoke plainly and understandably was considered a clod. 'The masses' were not supposed to be able to understand it.

 

Agrippa was different, though. Since he was a provincial subject king whose main purpose was to keep the locals happy, he had to be able to communicate with his subjects. Actually, the assumption that the Jews would have been unable to understand him is not entirely correct. The upper- and middle-class Jews on whom Agrippa's rule depended were by this time heavily Hellenized, educated, and had better understanding of their own history and culture than most of the populace. They would have understood most if not all of his references. Agrippa's mistake was the same one Brutus had made during his funeral oration for Caesar: He did not expect the mob to be the ones he had to please instead.

[smith]

Jews at the time of the Roman revolt would not be afraid of going after the Romans as they would have faith in "Divine Intervention".

 

There had already been a few revolts prior to the 64 CE, none successful. Actually some Jews feared Rome from the start. When Pompey's legions came in 64 BCE, the Jewish king considered resistance but was dissauded by advisors who told him that Roman power was irresistable.

 

 

No wonder the Romans were so pissed that they tried to erase all remnants of the Jews from the Holy Land.

 

 

In part that could've been a reflection of the general popular will in the region. When Cestus marched against the revolt around 66, many people wanted to join his army. At first he was reluctant to accept untrained men but took them when he realized that "their enthusiastic hatred for the Jews made up for their lack of training."

[smith]

Agrippa was different, though. Since he was a provincial subject king whose main purpose was to keep the locals happy, he had to be able to communicate with his subjects.

 

And he sure had something urgent to say at the time.

 

 

 

Actually, the assumption that the Jews would have been unable to understand him is not entirely correct. The upper- and middle-class Jews on whom Agrippa's rule depended were by this time heavily Hellenized, educated, and had better understanding of their own history and culture than most of the populace. They would have understood most if not all of his references.

 

OK so the speech was real.

[smith]

Public speaking at the time, especially in Rome, was full of classical, historical, and mythological references, the more obscure the better. Someone who spoke plainly and understandably was considered a clod. 'The masses' were not supposed to be able to understand it.

 

 

Julius Caesar won great fame as an orator at the age of 22. Considering his influence over the city mob, I assume he mostly spoke to the masses and adapted his speaking accordingly. No use making speeches if most people don't understand; a real politician seeking support wouldn't waste his time or theirs like that.

Edited February 11, 2008 by smith