WE ARE OPEN - WEEK FIVE - SPQR - A HISTORY OF ANCIENT ROME - WEEK FIVE - May 15th - May 21st - Chapter Five: A Wider World - (pages 169 - 208) ~ No Spoilers, Please

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Hello Everyone,

For the week of May 15th - May 21st, we are reading chapter 5 of SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard.

The fifth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK FIVE - May 15th - May 21st -> 5. A Wider World (169-208)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off April 17th.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Vicki Cline will be moderating this selection.

Welcome,

~Vicki

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Mary Beard

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Also, the citation thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Introduction Thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author may have used in his research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc. with proper citations or other books either non-fiction or historical fiction that relate to the subject matter of the book itself. No self-promotion, please.

Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - Spoiler Thread

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Link:

by Mary Beard

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Everyone, for the week of May 15th - May 21st, we are reading Chapter 5.

The fifth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK FIVE - May 15th - May 21st -> 5. A Wider World (169-208)

Chapter Overview and Summary:

5. A Wider World


Rome and Carthage in 264 BCE

This chapter covers the beginnings of Rome’s empire, gaining control of territory in Spain, Greece and Anatolia (modern Turkey).

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Hannibal

Discussion Topics:

1. Why did Rome decide to take on Carthage? It was a famous naval power and the Romans didn’t do well fighting at sea.

2. What do you think of the generals Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator and Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus and their different ways of fighting?

3. Why wasn’t Hannibal able to defeat Rome after so many successful battles?

[Michele]

1. Why did Rome decide to take on Carthage?

Rome and Carthage were the two Mediterranean “superpowers” of their day. Both Rome and Carthage were expanding aggressively in the Mediterranean area.

The ruling classes in both Rome and Carthage wanted more land, more import-export trade, more slaves, more power, more influence. They each expanded within their own region.

Geographically, they were, close (and since the Carthaginians were a naval power) they eventually came in contact with one another. When that happened, each side felt the other could be a danger to it.

Essentially, it was all about power.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

I expect you are right about power as the motivator, Michele. Plus Sicily was so close the Romans may have felt it was really part of Italy, hence belonged to them.

[Michele]

3. Why wasn’t Hannibal able to defeat Rome after so many successful battles?

I think that in the ancient world battles are the means to a strategic end, not ends in themselves. Hannibal lost sight of that fact when he launched the Second Punic War (218–201 BC).

Victory in Italy was Hannibal’s sole objective. He approached his operations in Italy not as one campaign in a larger war but as the only campaign in the only war. He seemed to believe that if he won enough battles, he would win Italy, and if he won Italy, victory would be his. Ultimately, however, his confusion of tactics with strategy caused him to commit a number of operational failures that led to his defeat in Italy. And his loss there was to have dire consequences for Carthage.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Interesting, Michele. What would victory in Italy have been? Would capturing Rome have been enough, so that after that, Hannibal would have just gone home? After so many years of war, the government back in Carthage was getting pretty tired of him, I think. He did provide plenty of material for university classes on warfare.

[Michele]

LoL. Hannibal did provide a lot of interesting stuff to discuss!

In the ancient world, after a disastrous battle like Cannae, the loser would negotiate a settlement. What Rome did instead, was essentially was give Hannibal the middle finger. That left him scrambling around to try to find local allies.

While that was going on, Quintus Fabius was trying wear Hannibal down using what we call guerrilla warfare tactics. Scipio Africanus thought that the best way to get Hannibal out of Italy was to attack Carthage. I thought it was interesting that he went to Sicily and recruited the disgraced survivors of Battles like Cannae, who would have a powerful motivation to fight in order to re-establish their lost honor. Anyways, it worked. Scipio's army became enough of a problem that Carthage re-called Hannibal.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

The determination of the Romans not to give in must have bothered Hannibal. Couldn't they see that they had been beaten?

[Michele]

15 years worth of determination! That's how long Hannibal was stuck in southern Italy.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

I am fascinated by Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator's long name. I don't recall having seen 3 cognomens before, although his father, grandfather and great-grandfather all had 4 names (according to Wikipedia), so perhaps "Fabius Maximus" served as sort of a nomen or family name.

Roman names are very interesting. Men normally had 3 names - praenomen, nomen and cognomen - eg. Gaius Julius Caesar. A few famous Romans had only 2 - Marcus Antonius, Gaius Marius. The praenomens tended to run in the family - Gaius and Lucius for the gens Julia. Women's names were the feminine form of the nomen, and if there were multiple daughters, they all had the same name, with an addition to distinguish them - Antonia major, Antonia minor, Antonia tertia, etc.

Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_n...

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Next week we will be discussing Chapter 6. New Politics (pp. 209-252).

[Michele]

And I hope more people comment besides you and me, Vicki.

[Michele]

Roman names are interesting. Publius Cornelius Scipio only received the Africanus after he had defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. So part of his name was related to what he did. Sicipio was the family name.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

They did like adding place names at the end of a name when you won an important battle. However, Marc Antony's father Marcus Antonius Creticus got his cognomen apparently as a joke after being totally defeated by the Cretans when he attempted to clear the Mediterranean of pirates.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_...

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

It's interesting that consuls were often the generals in whatever war Rome was involved in. Some of them were very good (Fabius and Scipio) but some were pretty bad. I wonder if they campaigned for office on their war records. As the wars became farther from Rome and perhaps lasted beyond the consul's one-year term, I wonder how that was handled, especially since it was frowned on to seek a second consulship immediately after your first term.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Vicki - you are doing a wonderful job on this book discussion.

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

The week 6 thread is open. Chapter 6 covers the Gracchi brothers, Sulla and Spartacus.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Marianne]

Vickie, you are doing a great job. You are challenging us to work to understand the history, even though some of us are really unfamiliar with Ancient history. I can't always keep up with the reading, though.

About the question of why all war all the time in Ancient Rome. What else did people have to do? Didn't war mobilize the citizenry to grow crops? Make weapons? Fashion armor? Manage and grow livestock?

How is this any different than the mobilization and rapid growth of the economies of the warring nations in World War II, for example? World War enabled recovery from the Great Depression. Admittedly, a high price is paid in loss of human life and destruction of property, armies and navies. Ancient Rome didn't have industries creating goods and services to grow the economy, so they conquered nations and annexed land instead.
Is this an appropriate assessment and conclusion?

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Thanks for the comments, Marianne. As for what else there was to do, I imagine most folks would have been happy just to take care of their farm and family. But with the population growing, new land was always needed, and probably the politicians in the Senate liked the idea of being victorious in battle. I read somewhere that Rome pretty much always justified any war by claiming it was defensive - i.e. "they started it."

[Taylor Burrows]

1. The Romans had the gods on their side. They had just recently in the scope of time won over Italy and had some successful conquests. Also, the Romans had some advantages over other cultures that most didn't: adaptability. Sure they weren't good sailors... at first. But throughout all Roman history, they borrowed the brightest minds or cultural strengths for the benefit of the whole empire.

2. Fabius conducted a war that held the wolf at bay. His tactics were what kept Rome alive just long enough to be able to conduct a war in Spain and eventually drown out the numbers of Hannibal's army. He absolutely knew from Cannae and every battle his predecessor leaders took part in that Hannibal was a crazy dude willing to do crazy stuff to win. The young Scipio, on the other hand, displayed those traits of adaptability. For starters, he was the only Roman that hated Carthage about as much as Hannibal hated Rome. However, Scipio was around for all of Hannibal's tricks: the first of which when his father was in command and he fought at the first major Roman loss at the battle at Trebia (at one point coming to rescue his father). He learned the strengths of Hannibal's army and eventually used them against him in Africa.

3. There were three major reasons Hannibal couldn't defeat Rome. 1) Siege warfare - Prior to the second punic war, war was conducted with two armies meeting out on open ground and generally whoever lost the ensuing battles knew their time was up and ran to the wind while their kingdom got swept up. Hannibal didn't have an army capable of siege warfare. This leads us to 2) Resolve - Even though the Romans experienced some pretty crushing defeats at the hands of Hannibal, they refused to give in. Despite the worry and the despair, the senate kept the nation-state (empire isn't exactly appropriate at this time) going. Lastly, 3) Carthage's infrastructure - After Rome had taken Sicily from Carthage in the first punic war, a significant amount of their seafaring infrastructure was reduced. They attempted to recover their trade supremacy by establishing New Carthage in Spain but never to great effect. When Rome opened up the fronts in Spain and Macedonia, the Carthaginians didn't have the means to support the armies, much less to send support to Hannibal in Italy. Eventually he had to return to Carthage when Scipio Africanus had been given an army to roll down to Africa (leaving his seasoned troops in Italy, mind you).

[Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History]

Thanks for the interesting comments, Taylor ("crazy dude" indeed). I really have to hand it to the Cunctator, he must have driven Hannibal to distraction.

[Taylor Burrows]

Well, the other part of it too is that within the first several campaigning seasons, Hannibal had lost a substantial amount of his most useful troops. The second half of the decade he spent in Italy was really just spent with the Romans afraid to engage him (justifiably so). But he had to constantly recruit the auxiliaries who had turned over to him to keep up his numbers and his most prized units, the Numidian cavalry, were but shadows of the units that had crossed the Alps.